Coronavirus (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) outbreak discussion

[sptrawler]

Your problem continues to be that you assume many things, while it is you who is without facts.

Some facts:

• as @Belli points out you need an acceptable reason to obtain the relevant court transcripts
  • assuming they could be obtained, copyright prevents them being reproduced here
• I immediately knew the viral tweet contained fabrications:
  • neither questions posed nor answers given were consistent with proceedings
  • the purported first question from the barrister about double vaccinated people being more likely to get and spread covid lacked relevance
    • that is, what cohort/s were being compared?
    • I was aware of this study which made a "13 times more" claim, but it related to people vaccinated versus people who previously caught covid, so it was obvious the tweeted question was bogus
  • Macartney would never have contradicted the information publicly available at her organisation's website
  • The question on vaccine safety and effectiveness has been regularly addressed across the world and for Macartney not to know this would have been absurd.

It's a bit of a shame that people like you are unable or unwilling to work out what constitutes fake news, and then indulge in petty obfuscations to reiterate your ignorance.

Nothing like being inclusive and accepting Rob, great show of empathy and understanding.
That's how you bring people into the fold, debate and discussion at its best. ?

 

[noirua]

Russia has reported more than 1,000 daily COVID-related deaths for the first time since the start of the pandemic, with the country’s vaccination drive at a standstill and no restrictions in place.
16 October 2021

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[sptrawler]

Russia has reported more than 1,000 daily COVID-related deaths for the first time since the start of the pandemic, with the country’s vaccination drive at a standstill and no restrictions in place.
16 October 2021

MSN

www.msn.com

Maybe they don't see a problem with it?

 

[cynic]

Your problem continues to be that you assume many things, while it is you who is without facts.

Some facts:

• as @Belli points out you need an acceptable reason to obtain the relevant court transcripts
  • assuming they could be obtained, copyright prevents them being reproduced here
• I immediately knew the viral tweet contained fabrications:
  • neither questions posed nor answers given were consistent with proceedings
  • the purported first question from the barrister about double vaccinated people being more likely to get and spread covid lacked relevance
    • that is, what cohort/s were being compared?
    • I was aware of this study which made a "13 times more" claim, but it related to people vaccinated versus people who previously caught covid, so it was obvious the tweeted question was bogus
  • Macartney would never have contradicted the information publicly available at her organisation's website
  • The question on vaccine safety and effectiveness has been regularly addressed across the world and for Macartney not to know this would have been absurd.

It's a bit of a shame that people like you are unable or unwilling to work out what constitutes fake news, and then indulge in petty obfuscations to reiterate your ignorance.

Macartney was under oath when answering the 25 questions!!!
That is why I consider that information to be more dependable than her website and media appearances.

So please stop tarnishing me with your own failings.

If neither of us can view the actual transcript, we may never get to the bottom of this.

For all we know, the issue of what is, or is not, fake, could just as easily be the exact reverse of what you're claiming.

 

[Belli]

It would not surprise me if there is some investigation into what has been shown to be false reporting of what takes place in Court.

Contempt generally

www.judcom.nsw.gov.au

I acknowledge some may have a view what has been published after the Court's decision raises a doubt. However, as previously stated, even one of the plaintiff's lawyers said the published transcript was false.

To go further beyond that is nothing but a dead end. Leave it be and accept the Court, and the plaintiff's lawyers, have integrity.

 

[cynic]

It would not surprise me if there is some investigation into what has been shown to be false reporting of what takes place in Court.

Contempt generally

www.judcom.nsw.gov.au

I acknowledge some may have a view what has been published after the Court's decision raises a doubt. However, as previously stated, even one of the plaintiff's lawyers said the published transcript was false.

To go further beyond that is nothing but a dead end. Leave it be and accept the Court, and the plaintiff's lawyers, have integrity.

If that were so, then why not make the transcript publicly available so that the public can see for themselves?

The whole thing looks to me, suspiciously like, somebody is making a concerted effort to conceal some inconvenient facts brought to light during those court proceedings.

 

[Belli]

I did wonder when you were going to raise that issue. No way will transcripts be released just because. It would set a precedent and potentially impact other transcripts, which may contain sensitive or personal information not relevant to the public.

It's contorted logic but I can extend it and say you shouldn't trust the Australian Constitution as published as you weren't there when it was originally drafted despite that being before you were born - just guessing there.

You either trust the Court process, that it has considered the evidence presented to it (knowing that false evidence is perjury and the Court has means of discovering that) and has made a decision based on that evidence or you don't trust it.

Your choice.

 

[rederob]

It would not surprise me if there is some investigation into what has been shown to be false reporting of what takes place in Court.

Contempt generally

www.judcom.nsw.gov.au

I acknowledge some may have a view what has been published after the Court's decision raises a doubt. However, as previously stated, even one of the plaintiff's lawyers said the published transcript was false.

To go further beyond that is nothing but a dead end. Leave it be and accept the Court, and the plaintiff's lawyers, have integrity.

Macartney was under oath when answering the 25 questions!!!
That is why I consider that information to be more dependable than her website and media appearances.

So please stop tarnishing me with your own failings.

If neither of us can view the actual transcript, we may never get to the bottom of this.

For all we know, the issue of what is, or is not, fake, could just as easily be the exact reverse of what you're claiming.

Everyone giving court testimony is under oath!
What you contend however is that there may be truth to a viral tweet that has been many times debunked and refuted. As @Belli noted above, not even the plaintiffs' lawyers give the tweet credibility.
Despite this all you have done is obfuscate.
Had you read @SirRumpole's tweet which linked the debunking you would have noted the ABC sighted the court transcript but did not post it. The reason for this, which has also been explained to you, is that such publication would breach copyright.
If you were competent you would have provided a defence for your position beyond wilful ignorance. I do not say that lightly, as you have chosen to ignore all the parties who were in a position to know what was said, and they confirm the content of the viral tweet was fabricated.
Peddlers and supporters of fake news are truly harmful. The benefits of vaccination have been continuously proven for over 200 years. Despite this you believe, without any justification beyond a continuing ignorance, that we should seriously think that one of Australia's foremost health experts actually agreed with this:

Thank you for showing us why reasonable people need to be vigilant. When it comes to fake news there are very special people involved.

 

[Belli]

Just to add I noted what the false publication said in regard to the Judge's remarks. That is sailing very close to the wind and one reason why it would not surprise me if aspects concerning publication of this particular document could be being looked at.

And by the way merely claiming something is in the public interest doesn't mean it is. It has to be demonstrated that it is. Judicial officers, who may be in a position to release court transcripts, are not the arbiters on that.

 

[cynic]

Everyone giving court testimony is under oath!
What you contend however is that there may be truth to a viral tweet that has been many times debunked and refuted. As @Belli noted above, not even the plaintiffs' lawyers give the tweet credibility.
Despite this all you have done is obfuscate.
Had you read @SirRumpole's tweet which linked the debunking you would have noted the ABC sighted the court transcript but did not post it. The reason for this, which has also been explained to you, is that such publication would breach copyright.
If you were competent you would have provided a defence for your position beyond wilful ignorance. I do not say that lightly, as you have chosen to ignore all the parties who were in a position to know what was said, and they confirm the content of the viral tweet was fabricated.
Peddlers and supporters of fake news are truly harmful. The benefits of vaccination have been continuously proven for over 200 years. Despite this you believe, without any justification beyond a continuing ignorance, that we should seriously think that one of Australia's foremost health experts actually agreed with this:

View attachment 131602
Thank you for showing us why reasonable people need to be vigilant. When it comes to fake news there are very special people involved.

I take it from your various responses, that you haven't seen the court transcripts either.

Purely out of curiosity, Your Omniscience, would you, perchance, happen to know, from whence, the information conveyed via the contested facebook post/s, originated?

 

[cynic]

Just to add I noted what the false publication said in regard to the Judge's remarks. That is sailing very close to the wind and one reason why it would not surprise me if aspects concerning publication of this particular document could be being looked at.

View attachment 131603

And by the way merely claiming something is in the public interest doesn't mean it is. It has to be demonstrated that it is. Judicial officers, who may be in a position to release court transcripts, are not the arbiters on that.

The actual ruling itself,is an entirely separate issue, and I would thoroughly recommend that nobody make the mistake of carelessly conflating it with the issue I have raised.

In the event, that, solid evidence, whether in the form of court transcripts or perhaps audio footage, of the actual responses by Professor Macartney, to questions put to her, whilst under oath, becomes available to the general public, the result, just might, perchance, prove embarassing, to those whom rushed to judgment, prior to gaining a more comprehensive understanding of the situation.

Edit: Apologies. I accidentally quoted the wrong post. This reply was intended for post #4,527

 

[Belli]

In the event, that, solid evidence, whether in the form of court transcripts or perhaps audio footage, of the actual responses by Professor Macartney, to questions put to her, whilst under oath, becomes available to the general public, the result, just might, perchance, prove embarassing, to those whom rushed to judgment, prior to gaining a more comprehensive understanding of the situation.

The alternative way of dealing with it, which is what I think will happen, is to let it wither to obscurity. No need to give them more oxygen.

And it could well be they will be rolled due to this which is at 16 October. And vaccinations are still being administered so these numbers will grow.

https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/covid-19-vaccine-rollout-update-17-october-2021

It's from the Department of Health web-site. I've only taken a screen shot of one portion of the publication. Just under the table I've posted is State by State by age group details.

 

[cynic]

Just to add I noted what the false publication said in regard to the Judge's remarks. That is sailing very close to the wind and one reason why it would not surprise me if aspects concerning publication of this particular document could be being looked at.

View attachment 131603

And by the way merely claiming something is in the public interest doesn't mean it is. It has to be demonstrated that it is. Judicial officers, who may be in a position to release court transcripts, are not the arbiters on that.

Whilst I'd certainly agree it wouldn't be likely to qualify as a verbatim quote, there does appear to be content, within the summation, supportive of that, purportedly, debunked assertion.

Based upon the content of your post, I am confident you are already well aware, of the paragraph, upon which I have based my response.

 

[cynic]

The alternative way of dealing with it, which is what I think will happen, is to let it wither to obscurity. No need to give them more oxygen.

And it could well be they will be rolled due to this which is at 16 October. And vaccinations are still being administered so these numbers will grow.

https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/covid-19-vaccine-rollout-update-17-october-2021

View attachment 131611


It's from the Department of Health web-site. I've only taken a screen shot of one portion of the publication. Just under the table I've posted is State by State by age group details.

Interesting info, but please bear in mind, the legitimacy of the court's ruling, is a totally separate issue, to the questions I am raising, in respect to the trustworthiness(or lack thereof) of mainstream media reporting on the findings of their associated "fact checking" entities.
(Now that I think about it, perhaps my postings are better suited to a different thread.)

 

[rederob]

Interesting info, but please bear in mind, the legitimacy of the court's ruling, is a totally separate issue, to the questions I am raising, in respect to the trustworthiness(or lack thereof) of mainstream media reporting on the findings of their associated "fact checking" entities.

That is completely false.
First, the findings required that vaccinations were proven safe and effective, while points in the viral tweet suggested the opposite.
Secondly, your concerns about the transcript were addressed and if you were able to see a copy the answer to the "is it true that double vaccinated people are 13 times more likely..." question would be found at page 58. Aside from the fact that this was not the actual question asked, and without infringing copyright, Macartney's answer in part was that it is “somewhat out of keeping with a number of the other studies that have come out of Israel”. Cleary her response was not "yes" as stated in the fabricated viral tweet. Furthermore, if the viral tween was true it would have been impossible for the judge to make this finding:

192 (vi) The weight of proper scientific opinion as reflected by Professor Macartney’s evidence and, to an extent, Professor Bhattacharya’s evidence, suggests that the COVID-19 vaccines reduce the risk of acquiring an infection and then transmitting the disease once infected, although the vaccines are less effective against the Delta variant.​

@cynic has shown no skills in reasoning, poor comprehension and wilful ignorance in furthering fake news at ASF. I would not normally have bothered to be as detailed as I have as his track record is predictable. However, his tactic is akin to what climate change deniers use wherein they have no capacity to address what the data shows so instead obfuscate with irrelevances. Peddlers of fake news are a special breed.

 

[cynic]

That is completely false.
First, the findings required that vaccinations were proven safe and effective, while points in the viral tweet suggested the opposite.
Secondly, your concerns about the transcript were addressed and if you were able to see a copy the answer to the "is it true that double vaccinated people are 13 times more likely..." question would be found at page 58. Aside from the fact that this was not the actual question asked, and without infringing copyright, Macartney's answer in part was that it is “somewhat out of keeping with a number of the other studies that have come out of Israel”. Cleary her response was not "yes" as stated in the fabricated viral tweet. Furthermore, if the viral tween was true it would have been impossible for the judge to make this finding:

192 (vi) The weight of proper scientific opinion as reflected by Professor Macartney’s evidence and, to an extent, Professor Bhattacharya’s evidence, suggests that the COVID-19 vaccines reduce the risk of acquiring an infection and then transmitting the disease once infected, although the vaccines are less effective against the Delta variant.​

@cynic has shown no skills in reasoning, poor comprehension and wilful ignorance in furthering fake news at ASF. I would not normally have bothered to be as detailed as I have as his track record is predictable. However, his tactic is akin to what climate change deniers use wherein they have no capacity to address what the data shows so instead obfuscate with irrelevances. Peddlers of fake news are a special breed.

Again, I feel I must ask that you refrain from tainting me with your own personal failings.

If you weren't at the hearing, haven't read the transcript, nor viewed the livestreaming, of the court proceedings, then you are no better placed than I, to know, what was (or was not) said, by Professor Macartney, whilst under cross examination.

Edit:But I can agree that this discussion will probably prove to be better suited to the fake news thread.

 

[rederob]

Again, I feel I must ask that you refrain from tainting me with your own personal failings. If you weren't at the hearing, haven't read the transcript, nor viewed the livestreaming, of the court proceedings, then you are no better placed than I, to know, what was (or was not) said, by Professor Macartney, whilst under cross examination.

Concerns raised in the viral tweet have been addressed and it is clearly a fabrication.
The "25 questions" referred to were addressed in an affidavit and not in testimony. In that regard you apparent need for a transcript to prove something that does not exist is worrisome.
Whatever you may believe, this is not about anything I have seen or heard despite your attempts to make it personal. It's about peddling fake news. @Belli's posts suggest this could be taken much further. Your contributions have only served to show us the mindset of people who are unable to work out how or why something is a fabrication. Worse, persevering with ideas that have been disproven through court judgements is harmful.
For you not to come to grips with reality is a concern.
I won't be posting more replies to you as it does you no favours.

 

[cynic]

Concerns raised in the viral tweet have been addressed and it is clearly a fabrication.
The "25 questions" referred to were addressed in an affidavit and not in testimony. In that regard you apparent need for a transcript to prove something that does not exist is worrisome.
Whatever you may believe, this is not about anything I have seen or heard despite your attempts to make it personal. It's about peddling fake news. @Belli's posts suggest this could be taken much further. Your contributions have only served to show us the mindset of people who are unable to work out how or why something is a fabrication. Worse, persevering with ideas that have been disproven through court judgements is harmful.
For you not to come to grips with reality is a concern.
I won't be posting more replies to you as it does you no favours.

It does appear, I have made the error of misattributing the Judge's reference to the 25 questions, and I thank you for drawing that to my attention.

This however, does not detract, so much as a single iota, from my concern, about the possibility that a certain expert witness, may have been cornered into acknowledging, some inconvenient facts, whilst being cross examined under oath. (Please note that I am not explicitly saying that this has happened, only that I am inclined to suspect it as a possibility).

This is why I believe, nothing less than, a full, detailed account, of the Professor's actual testimony, whilst under oath (particularly during cross examination), should be considered, before gravitating to judgment.

Even if one does not happen to share my inclination towards such suspicion, surely, one is able to recognise, the possibility (if not the plausibility), of a scenario, such as the one described, occuring during those court proceedings.

 

[Belli]

I can only but suggest you upgrade the maps in your satnav because at present

 

[martaart077]

A recent "real life" verifiable example has got me questioning the transmissability of the covid virus.

I live in a regional city with a cross border community which has been largely untouched by the covid pandemic. In fact no cases for 18 months or more.

Recently a local resident contracted the virus after breaking covid restrictions and travelling to Melbourne.

The person has teenage children living at home, has verifiably broken home quarantine and has had more than a few visitors to their house due to their home based money making activities.

That person became sick enough that they sought testing, and they were confirmed positive and transferred to a medi hotel after a hospital stay.

Despite being active and not self isolating while infectious, it seems no other person has caught the virus.

So seems we dodged a bullet, or just maybe covid isn't quite as infectious as has been made out.