|
Butler99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 0
|
The sort of things that need to be said in Australia too. People can make decisions for their own health needs. Most Mandates are unnecessary.
"We will trust the judgement of the British people" says PM Boris Johnson "And no longer criminalise anyone who chooses not to wear one"The wearing of face masks will no longer be mandatory starting in schools from tomorrow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 648,
Visits: 0
|
Countries around the world have had over 2 years of restriction waves so they have it down pat. Restrictions tightened during an outbreak, and then eased when the situation becomes manageable (not eliminated). This is important to manage fatigue and a life balance, particularly given rules can be rolled out in a matter of minutes when "required"
Australia thrives on restrictions (particularly face masks) and seems to be trying to standardise them. Will be interesting to see if any response team reaches the same decision as England at any point this year. I sincerely doubt it
|
|
|
|
cesspit
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 357,
Visits: 0
|
+xCountries around the world have had over 2 years of restriction waves so they have it down pat. Restrictions tightened during an outbreak, and then eased when the situation becomes manageable (not eliminated). This is important to manage fatigue and a life balance, particularly given rules can be rolled out in a matter of minutes when "required" Australia thrives on restrictions (particularly face masks) and seems to be trying to standardise them. Will be interesting to see if any response team reaches the same decision as England at any point this year. I sincerely doubt it Australia's COVID response is the envy of the world look at the numbers
|
|
|
|
|
Butler99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 0
|
Excellent article for the critical thinkers out there. (Not tsf or cesspool) In December, 2020, the new mRNA vaccines were rolled out, and were, according to the randomized clinical trials, 95 per cent (Pfizer) and 94.5 per cent (Moderna) efficacious in stopping infection. Physician-scientist Eric Topol, head of Scripps Labs, said these vaccines “will go down in history as one of science and medical research’s greatest achievements.”But by the time summer 2021 arrived, real world experience contradicted Mr. Bourla’s and Dr. Sahin’s claims of potency at six months, no transmission by the vaccinated, and imminent herd immunity. Pfizer’s Mr. Bourla, in his February interview, had called Israel “the world’s lab,” because it was vaccinated with the Pfizer extensively and several months ahead of other countries, giving the world a glimpse of its future. But when Israeli public health released its six-month data, they showed that vaccine effectiveness had dropped to 39 per cent, and Delta was surging. (The FDA had originally said it would not approve a vaccine less than 50-per-cent effective.) A Mayo clinic study showed that after six months, protection granted by the two Pfizer doses dropped from the original 95 per cent to 42 per cent. Another Israeli study showed it had dropped to 16 per cent. That huge discrepancy couldn’t be attributed just to the new variant, Delta, because protection was already fading at five months for the earlier variants too.
So why such a discrepancy? The original studies were clinical trials. The Pfizer study followed about 38,000 people without COVID who were divided in two groups – half got the vaccine, and half a placebo. The investigators asked the question: could the vaccines prevent symptomatic cases of COVID-19? But, as Peter Doshi, senior editor at the British Medical Journal, warned, “None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths.” He explained that, “Because most people with symptomatic COVID-19 experience only mild symptoms, even trials involving 30,000 or more patients would turn up relatively few cases of severe disease.” Susanne Hodgson of the University of Oxford agreed: “The current [randomized control trials] that are ongoing are … not powered to assess efficacy against hospital admission and death.”
|
|
|
|
|
Butler99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 0
|
Further in the article.
The Moderna report to the FDA on Dec. 17, 2020, confirmed “there were no deaths due to COVID-19 at the time of the interim analysis to enable an assessment of vaccine efficacy against death due to COVID-19.” Moderna followed about 30,000 people. When asked by the British Medical Journal, why the trial had not been designed to assess if the vaccine could prevent hospitalization and death, Moderna answered: “You would need a trial that is either 5 or 10 times larger or you’d need a trial that is 5-10 times longer to collect those events.” In the Pfizer study of 38,000 people, not a single person in the placebo or the vaccine group died of COVID. By publication date, only one person had died of COVID in the Moderna study. To state it clearly: One person out of about 70,000 in the combined studies of Pfizer and Moderna actually died of COVID. In the real world, at the time, about 60 per cent of COVID deaths were in people over 75 years of age. But only 4.4 per cent of that age group were in the Pfizer study. The sample chosen was not appropriate to answer the public’s most pressing question: Could the vaccines save lives?
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+xFurther in the article. The Moderna report to the FDA on Dec. 17, 2020, confirmed “there were no deaths due to COVID-19 at the time of the interim analysis to enable an assessment of vaccine efficacy against death due to COVID-19.” Moderna followed about 30,000 people. When asked by the British Medical Journal, why the trial had not been designed to assess if the vaccine could prevent hospitalization and death, Moderna answered: “You would need a trial that is either 5 or 10 times larger or you’d need a trial that is 5-10 times longer to collect those events.” In the Pfizer study of 38,000 people, not a single person in the placebo or the vaccine group died of COVID. By publication date, only one person had died of COVID in the Moderna study. To state it clearly: One person out of about 70,000 in the combined studies of Pfizer and Moderna actually died of COVID. In the real world, at the time, about 60 per cent of COVID deaths were in people over 75 years of age. But only 4.4 per cent of that age group were in the Pfizer study. The sample chosen was not appropriate to answer the public’s most pressing question: Could the vaccines save lives? Cracking article, below was really interesting in light of vaccine mandates being pushed here: The second finding was more dramatic:, “We also observed negative VE against Omicron among those who had received 2 doses compared to unvaccinated individuals.” Translation: Negative VE means that the vaccinated got more infections than the unvaccinated. That “negative finding” they noted, had already been observed elsewhere. “In the Danish study, there was no significant protection against Omicron infection beyond 31 days” after the second dose of the Pfizer. The Danes also found significant negative VE estimates 91-150 days after the second dose.” The Danish study showed those vaccinated with the Pfizer had a 76.5 per cent greater chance of getting infected than unvaccinated people. With the Moderna, the vaccinated had a 36.7 per cent greater chance of getting infected than the unvaccinated after 90 days.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xIt would be good if we could go into social contracts. Considering that unvaccinated people are disproportionally taking up all the medical resources at the moment and depriving many others of medical care, besides making them get vaccinated maybe they could forgo running to the same doctors that told them to get vaccinated in the first place once they ultimately get sick.
Or maybe they could agree to seek the help of the medical experts like Craig Kelly or Clive Palmer instead of clogging our hospitals.
As long as people pay taxes, medicare levies and private health insurance then everyone is doing their bit. Besides the selfishness of this statement and the obvious flaws in it, like the burden these unvaccinated people are placing on resources and diverting attention, do you know the costs it takes to care for all these people in hospital. It can range into the hundreds of thousands for each patient. So as a community we will have to pay hundreds of millions more....but hey they pay their taxes, or does it get deducted from their centrelink first? Maybe we should all call an ambulance if we have a headache, waste their time...I mean like who cares, I pay my taxes so I own them. Where does one start... Smokers? Drinkers? Kids experimenting with "recreational drugs". Thrill seekers doing extreme sports? People engaging in contact sports? The Obese? Diabetics? Fuck them all. No pay no treatment.
|
|
|
|
|
Butler99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xFurther in the article. The Moderna report to the FDA on Dec. 17, 2020, confirmed “there were no deaths due to COVID-19 at the time of the interim analysis to enable an assessment of vaccine efficacy against death due to COVID-19.” Moderna followed about 30,000 people. When asked by the British Medical Journal, why the trial had not been designed to assess if the vaccine could prevent hospitalization and death, Moderna answered: “You would need a trial that is either 5 or 10 times larger or you’d need a trial that is 5-10 times longer to collect those events.” In the Pfizer study of 38,000 people, not a single person in the placebo or the vaccine group died of COVID. By publication date, only one person had died of COVID in the Moderna study. To state it clearly: One person out of about 70,000 in the combined studies of Pfizer and Moderna actually died of COVID. In the real world, at the time, about 60 per cent of COVID deaths were in people over 75 years of age. But only 4.4 per cent of that age group were in the Pfizer study. The sample chosen was not appropriate to answer the public’s most pressing question: Could the vaccines save lives? Cracking article, below was really interesting in light of vaccine mandates being pushed here: The second finding was more dramatic:, “We also observed negative VE against Omicron among those who had received 2 doses compared to unvaccinated individuals.” Translation: Negative VE means that the vaccinated got more infections than the unvaccinated. That “negative finding” they noted, had already been observed elsewhere. “In the Danish study, there was no significant protection against Omicron infection beyond 31 days” after the second dose of the Pfizer. The Danes also found significant negative VE estimates 91-150 days after the second dose.” The Danish study showed those vaccinated with the Pfizer had a 76.5 per cent greater chance of getting infected than unvaccinated people. With the Moderna, the vaccinated had a 36.7 per cent greater chance of getting infected than the unvaccinated after 90 days. There is no justification for vaccine mandates. No justification for vaccine passports. No justification for people to be scared of the unvaccinated. Totally irrational fears that parts of the population has fallen for.
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xIt would be good if we could go into social contracts. Considering that unvaccinated people are disproportionally taking up all the medical resources at the moment and depriving many others of medical care, besides making them get vaccinated maybe they could forgo running to the same doctors that told them to get vaccinated in the first place once they ultimately get sick.
Or maybe they could agree to seek the help of the medical experts like Craig Kelly or Clive Palmer instead of clogging our hospitals.
As long as people pay taxes, medicare levies and private health insurance then everyone is doing their bit. Besides the selfishness of this statement and the obvious flaws in it, like the burden these unvaccinated people are placing on resources and diverting attention, do you know the costs it takes to care for all these people in hospital. It can range into the hundreds of thousands for each patient. So as a community we will have to pay hundreds of millions more....but hey they pay their taxes, or does it get deducted from their centrelink first? Maybe we should all call an ambulance if we have a headache, waste their time...I mean like who cares, I pay my taxes so I own them. Where does one start... Smokers? Drinkers? Kids experimenting with "recreational drugs". Thrill seekers doing extreme sports? People engaging in contact sports? The Obese? Diabetics? Fuck them all. No pay no treatment. Where does one start - Smoking is taxed at close to 2 billion a year to put back into the system - you want to throw that into the pool? It is also illegal anywhere inside through the entire country, and most places outdoors too. It's against the law for minors, one of the most heavily regulated things to help the hospital system. You want the same restrictions on the unvaccinated? For the rest see previous posts that have addressed these. Weird you said thrill seekers as well though. These must be cut and paste from something.
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x+x+x+x+xIt would be good if we could go into social contracts. Considering that unvaccinated people are disproportionally taking up all the medical resources at the moment and depriving many others of medical care, besides making them get vaccinated maybe they could forgo running to the same doctors that told them to get vaccinated in the first place once they ultimately get sick.
Or maybe they could agree to seek the help of the medical experts like Craig Kelly or Clive Palmer instead of clogging our hospitals.
As long as people pay taxes, medicare levies and private health insurance then everyone is doing their bit. Besides the selfishness of this statement and the obvious flaws in it, like the burden these unvaccinated people are placing on resources and diverting attention, do you know the costs it takes to care for all these people in hospital. It can range into the hundreds of thousands for each patient. So as a community we will have to pay hundreds of millions more....but hey they pay their taxes, or does it get deducted from their centrelink first? Maybe we should all call an ambulance if we have a headache, waste their time...I mean like who cares, I pay my taxes so I own them. Where does one start... Smokers? Drinkers? Kids experimenting with "recreational drugs". Thrill seekers doing extreme sports? People engaging in contact sports? The Obese? Diabetics? Fuck them all. No pay no treatment. Where does one start - Smoking is taxed at close to 2 billion a year to put back into the system - you want to throw that into the pool? It is also illegal anywhere inside through the entire country, and most places outdoors too. It's against the law for minors, one of the most heavily regulated things to help the hospital system. You want the same restrictions on the unvaccinated? For the rest see previous posts that have addressed these. Weird you said thrill seekers as well though. These must be cut and paste from something. Of the $2B raised from taxing smokers, how much goes to covering the costs? Smoking costs Australia close to $137 billion That is up from $31.5 billion in 2004–05. Intangible costs of smoking – including lost quality of life from living with a serious illness – are estimated to be almost $118 billion per year.
The report, from the National Drug Research Institute (NDRI) at Curtin University, provides the first update on smoking costs in Australia in 15 years, while detailing that tangible and intangible costs associated with smoking now sit at $136.9 billion annually, up from an estimated $31.5 billion in 2004–05.
Current tangible costs of smoking include:
- $5 billion in lost productivity and worker absences
- $2 billion for family members caring for someone with a smoking-related disease
- $6.8 billion in healthcare costs, including the cost of 1.7 million hospital admissions to treat smoking-related conditions.
Intangible costs, on the other hand, include years of life lost from premature deaths or lost quality of life from living with a serious illness, and were estimated at almost $118 billion per year. https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/smoking-costs-australia-close-to-137-billion
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
lucky it's illegal everywhere!
|
|
|
|
cesspit
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 357,
Visits: 0
|
it makes perfect sense to heavily tax the unvaccinated, but I would say they're even worse than smokers because they have the potential to harm more than just the people they come in contact with, as viruses spread
the Austrian solution seems the best, a 3600 euro fine.
this sort of incentive may encourage some of them to rethink their life choices, at least until we have all the centres of national resilience operational
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
I don't see the issue, if the unvaccinated think they are not a danger, covid isn't an issue and they're are not wasting critical resources then why wouldnt they agree to cover hospital treatment if they have to go? What would they have to lose? They can go about their business with no worries if they're right with what they are saying.
Win win for them.
Unless deep down....
|
|
|
|
cesspit
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 357,
Visits: 0
|
deep down they're a bunch of i'm alright mate science deniers who are afraid of needles until one day they're laying in hospital begging for their lives and wishing they had taken the damn vaccine
|
|
|
|
|
Butler99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 0
|
Guys The reappraisal of what is going around the world is slowly dribbling out. The political narrative is changing. The media is finally asking the right questions. It's not as bad as it has been made to be. Time to get out of the Branch Covidian cult. Don't be the last ones out and stuck with the likes of tsf and cesspool. 😉 ‘ Covid should now be treated like an endemic virus similar to flu’ Sajid Javid - British Health SecretaryFormer chair of U.K.s vaccine task force ‘To keep mass vaccinating people is a WASTE OF TIME’
|
|
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xIt would be good if we could go into social contracts. Considering that unvaccinated people are disproportionally taking up all the medical resources at the moment and depriving many others of medical care, besides making them get vaccinated maybe they could forgo running to the same doctors that told them to get vaccinated in the first place once they ultimately get sick.
Or maybe they could agree to seek the help of the medical experts like Craig Kelly or Clive Palmer instead of clogging our hospitals.
As long as people pay taxes, medicare levies and private health insurance then everyone is doing their bit. Besides the selfishness of this statement and the obvious flaws in it, like the burden these unvaccinated people are placing on resources and diverting attention, do you know the costs it takes to care for all these people in hospital. It can range into the hundreds of thousands for each patient. So as a community we will have to pay hundreds of millions more....but hey they pay their taxes, or does it get deducted from their centrelink first? Maybe we should all call an ambulance if we have a headache, waste their time...I mean like who cares, I pay my taxes so I own them. Where does one start... Smokers? Drinkers? Kids experimenting with "recreational drugs". Thrill seekers doing extreme sports? People engaging in contact sports? The Obese? Diabetics? Fuck them all. No pay no treatment. Where does one start - Smoking is taxed at close to 2 billion a year to put back into the system - you want to throw that into the pool? It is also illegal anywhere inside through the entire country, and most places outdoors too. It's against the law for minors, one of the most heavily regulated things to help the hospital system. You want the same restrictions on the unvaccinated? For the rest see previous posts that have addressed these. Weird you said thrill seekers as well though. These must be cut and paste from something. Of the $2B raised from taxing smokers, how much goes to covering the costs? Smoking costs Australia close to $137 billion That is up from $31.5 billion in 2004–05. Intangible costs of smoking – including lost quality of life from living with a serious illness – are estimated to be almost $118 billion per year.
The report, from the National Drug Research Institute (NDRI) at Curtin University, provides the first update on smoking costs in Australia in 15 years, while detailing that tangible and intangible costs associated with smoking now sit at $136.9 billion annually, up from an estimated $31.5 billion in 2004–05.
Current tangible costs of smoking include:
- $5 billion in lost productivity and worker absences
- $2 billion for family members caring for someone with a smoking-related disease
- $6.8 billion in healthcare costs, including the cost of 1.7 million hospital admissions to treat smoking-related conditions.
Intangible costs, on the other hand, include years of life lost from premature deaths or lost quality of life from living with a serious illness, and were estimated at almost $118 billion per year. https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/smoking-costs-australia-close-to-137-billion Pretty shit example. The only reason smoking isn't completely illegal is it would probably cost more to enforce it's prohibition than the current healthcare burden. Despite this countries are looking to phase it out, starting with New Zealand banning people14 and under from ever being able to purchase tobacco products. You can bet your bottom dollar we'll follow suit sooner or later.
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xIt would be good if we could go into social contracts. Considering that unvaccinated people are disproportionally taking up all the medical resources at the moment and depriving many others of medical care, besides making them get vaccinated maybe they could forgo running to the same doctors that told them to get vaccinated in the first place once they ultimately get sick.
Or maybe they could agree to seek the help of the medical experts like Craig Kelly or Clive Palmer instead of clogging our hospitals.
As long as people pay taxes, medicare levies and private health insurance then everyone is doing their bit. Besides the selfishness of this statement and the obvious flaws in it, like the burden these unvaccinated people are placing on resources and diverting attention, do you know the costs it takes to care for all these people in hospital. It can range into the hundreds of thousands for each patient. So as a community we will have to pay hundreds of millions more....but hey they pay their taxes, or does it get deducted from their centrelink first? Maybe we should all call an ambulance if we have a headache, waste their time...I mean like who cares, I pay my taxes so I own them. Where does one start... Smokers? Drinkers? Kids experimenting with "recreational drugs". Thrill seekers doing extreme sports? People engaging in contact sports? The Obese? Diabetics? Fuck them all. No pay no treatment. Where does one start - Smoking is taxed at close to 2 billion a year to put back into the system - you want to throw that into the pool? It is also illegal anywhere inside through the entire country, and most places outdoors too. It's against the law for minors, one of the most heavily regulated things to help the hospital system. You want the same restrictions on the unvaccinated? For the rest see previous posts that have addressed these. Weird you said thrill seekers as well though. These must be cut and paste from something. PFFFT.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIt would be good if we could go into social contracts. Considering that unvaccinated people are disproportionally taking up all the medical resources at the moment and depriving many others of medical care, besides making them get vaccinated maybe they could forgo running to the same doctors that told them to get vaccinated in the first place once they ultimately get sick.
Or maybe they could agree to seek the help of the medical experts like Craig Kelly or Clive Palmer instead of clogging our hospitals.
As long as people pay taxes, medicare levies and private health insurance then everyone is doing their bit. Besides the selfishness of this statement and the obvious flaws in it, like the burden these unvaccinated people are placing on resources and diverting attention, do you know the costs it takes to care for all these people in hospital. It can range into the hundreds of thousands for each patient. So as a community we will have to pay hundreds of millions more....but hey they pay their taxes, or does it get deducted from their centrelink first? Maybe we should all call an ambulance if we have a headache, waste their time...I mean like who cares, I pay my taxes so I own them. Where does one start... Smokers? Drinkers? Kids experimenting with "recreational drugs". Thrill seekers doing extreme sports? People engaging in contact sports? The Obese? Diabetics? Fuck them all. No pay no treatment. Where does one start - Smoking is taxed at close to 2 billion a year to put back into the system - you want to throw that into the pool? It is also illegal anywhere inside through the entire country, and most places outdoors too. It's against the law for minors, one of the most heavily regulated things to help the hospital system. You want the same restrictions on the unvaccinated? For the rest see previous posts that have addressed these. Weird you said thrill seekers as well though. These must be cut and paste from something. Of the $2B raised from taxing smokers, how much goes to covering the costs? Smoking costs Australia close to $137 billion That is up from $31.5 billion in 2004–05. Intangible costs of smoking – including lost quality of life from living with a serious illness – are estimated to be almost $118 billion per year.
The report, from the National Drug Research Institute (NDRI) at Curtin University, provides the first update on smoking costs in Australia in 15 years, while detailing that tangible and intangible costs associated with smoking now sit at $136.9 billion annually, up from an estimated $31.5 billion in 2004–05.
Current tangible costs of smoking include:
- $5 billion in lost productivity and worker absences
- $2 billion for family members caring for someone with a smoking-related disease
- $6.8 billion in healthcare costs, including the cost of 1.7 million hospital admissions to treat smoking-related conditions.
Intangible costs, on the other hand, include years of life lost from premature deaths or lost quality of life from living with a serious illness, and were estimated at almost $118 billion per year. https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/smoking-costs-australia-close-to-137-billion Pretty shit example. The only reason smoking isn't completely illegal is it would probably cost more to enforce it's prohibition than the current healthcare burden. Despite this countries are looking to phase it out, starting with New Zealand banning people14 and under from ever being able to purchase tobacco products. You can bet your bottom dollar we'll follow suit sooner or later. Thumbs up to the Kiwis. Smart move really. No point taking it up if you can't buy them legally. (Yes people buy illegal drugs all the time.) Still baffled by any of the young blokes (and it usually is young blokes) that take up the durries. At least back in my day you could smoke in pubs and restaurants. Now you're treated like a leper. Also just on 'intangible costs' that boof that total up by a $100 billion. If there's ever a dodgy calculation it's when they quote 'intangible costs'.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIt would be good if we could go into social contracts. Considering that unvaccinated people are disproportionally taking up all the medical resources at the moment and depriving many others of medical care, besides making them get vaccinated maybe they could forgo running to the same doctors that told them to get vaccinated in the first place once they ultimately get sick.
Or maybe they could agree to seek the help of the medical experts like Craig Kelly or Clive Palmer instead of clogging our hospitals.
As long as people pay taxes, medicare levies and private health insurance then everyone is doing their bit. Besides the selfishness of this statement and the obvious flaws in it, like the burden these unvaccinated people are placing on resources and diverting attention, do you know the costs it takes to care for all these people in hospital. It can range into the hundreds of thousands for each patient. So as a community we will have to pay hundreds of millions more....but hey they pay their taxes, or does it get deducted from their centrelink first? Maybe we should all call an ambulance if we have a headache, waste their time...I mean like who cares, I pay my taxes so I own them. Where does one start... Smokers? Drinkers? Kids experimenting with "recreational drugs". Thrill seekers doing extreme sports? People engaging in contact sports? The Obese? Diabetics? Fuck them all. No pay no treatment. Where does one start - Smoking is taxed at close to 2 billion a year to put back into the system - you want to throw that into the pool? It is also illegal anywhere inside through the entire country, and most places outdoors too. It's against the law for minors, one of the most heavily regulated things to help the hospital system. You want the same restrictions on the unvaccinated? For the rest see previous posts that have addressed these. Weird you said thrill seekers as well though. These must be cut and paste from something. Of the $2B raised from taxing smokers, how much goes to covering the costs? Smoking costs Australia close to $137 billion That is up from $31.5 billion in 2004–05. Intangible costs of smoking – including lost quality of life from living with a serious illness – are estimated to be almost $118 billion per year.
The report, from the National Drug Research Institute (NDRI) at Curtin University, provides the first update on smoking costs in Australia in 15 years, while detailing that tangible and intangible costs associated with smoking now sit at $136.9 billion annually, up from an estimated $31.5 billion in 2004–05.
Current tangible costs of smoking include:
- $5 billion in lost productivity and worker absences
- $2 billion for family members caring for someone with a smoking-related disease
- $6.8 billion in healthcare costs, including the cost of 1.7 million hospital admissions to treat smoking-related conditions.
Intangible costs, on the other hand, include years of life lost from premature deaths or lost quality of life from living with a serious illness, and were estimated at almost $118 billion per year. https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/smoking-costs-australia-close-to-137-billion Pretty shit example. The only reason smoking isn't completely illegal is it would probably cost more to enforce it's prohibition than the current healthcare burden. Despite this countries are looking to phase it out, starting with New Zealand banning people14 and under from ever being able to purchase tobacco products. You can bet your bottom dollar we'll follow suit sooner or later. Whether illegal or not is completely irrelevant. Its not illegal to not get vaccinated either. Why should the government spend its health dollars on a smoker? Why should employers pay a smoker for days off work for smoking-related illness? Or the government pay pensions prematurely for those who move out of the workforce prematurely due to smoking-related illness? Ok another example: Sports injuries. Look up the costs of that. Oh and one in 10 football-related injuries are life-threatening....
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xlucky it's illegal everywhere! what is? smoking? i'll tell my local safeway...
|
|
|
|
|
Butler99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 0
|
This whole discussion is fast becoming moot.
Unvaccinated or vaccinated the people most at risk are chronically ill, immunocompromised, old and frail, or other serious underlying health issues.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThis whole discussion is fast becoming moot. Agreed.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThis whole discussion is fast becoming moot. Unvaccinated or vaccinated the people most at risk are chronically ill, immunocompromised, old and frail, or other serious underlying health issues. And if you extend that further, you need to take in to account the risk of vaccination in not at risk people. Djokovic has been infected twice by presumably two different variants with no discernible negative effects. He now has a stronger immunity than vaccinated people: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/prior-covid-infection-more-protective-than-vaccination-during-delta-surge-us-2022-01-19/ Why would an elite of the elite athlete risk all the side effects of getting vaccinated, given the above (and by extension his lower risk of transmission)? What we now have is those who got vaccinated demanding that others get vaccinated because, well, they did, so why should you get away with not? Yet the main risk of spreading is behavioural risk eg group gathering, no social distancing, no mask wearing. And who is more likely to take that risk? Why of course the 40 year olds and unders, precisely the group who now make up the bulk of the infected in the current wave.
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xlucky it's illegal everywhere! what is? smoking? i'll tell my local safeway... You can smoke in your local Safeway?
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xlucky it's illegal everywhere! what is? smoking? i'll tell my local safeway... You can smoke in your local Safeway? You can enter it without wearing a mask?
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIt would be good if we could go into social contracts. Considering that unvaccinated people are disproportionally taking up all the medical resources at the moment and depriving many others of medical care, besides making them get vaccinated maybe they could forgo running to the same doctors that told them to get vaccinated in the first place once they ultimately get sick.
Or maybe they could agree to seek the help of the medical experts like Craig Kelly or Clive Palmer instead of clogging our hospitals.
As long as people pay taxes, medicare levies and private health insurance then everyone is doing their bit. Besides the selfishness of this statement and the obvious flaws in it, like the burden these unvaccinated people are placing on resources and diverting attention, do you know the costs it takes to care for all these people in hospital. It can range into the hundreds of thousands for each patient. So as a community we will have to pay hundreds of millions more....but hey they pay their taxes, or does it get deducted from their centrelink first? Maybe we should all call an ambulance if we have a headache, waste their time...I mean like who cares, I pay my taxes so I own them. Where does one start... Smokers? Drinkers? Kids experimenting with "recreational drugs". Thrill seekers doing extreme sports? People engaging in contact sports? The Obese? Diabetics? Fuck them all. No pay no treatment. Where does one start - Smoking is taxed at close to 2 billion a year to put back into the system - you want to throw that into the pool? It is also illegal anywhere inside through the entire country, and most places outdoors too. It's against the law for minors, one of the most heavily regulated things to help the hospital system. You want the same restrictions on the unvaccinated? For the rest see previous posts that have addressed these. Weird you said thrill seekers as well though. These must be cut and paste from something. Of the $2B raised from taxing smokers, how much goes to covering the costs? Smoking costs Australia close to $137 billion That is up from $31.5 billion in 2004–05. Intangible costs of smoking – including lost quality of life from living with a serious illness – are estimated to be almost $118 billion per year.
The report, from the National Drug Research Institute (NDRI) at Curtin University, provides the first update on smoking costs in Australia in 15 years, while detailing that tangible and intangible costs associated with smoking now sit at $136.9 billion annually, up from an estimated $31.5 billion in 2004–05.
Current tangible costs of smoking include:
- $5 billion in lost productivity and worker absences
- $2 billion for family members caring for someone with a smoking-related disease
- $6.8 billion in healthcare costs, including the cost of 1.7 million hospital admissions to treat smoking-related conditions.
Intangible costs, on the other hand, include years of life lost from premature deaths or lost quality of life from living with a serious illness, and were estimated at almost $118 billion per year. https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/smoking-costs-australia-close-to-137-billion Pretty shit example. The only reason smoking isn't completely illegal is it would probably cost more to enforce it's prohibition than the current healthcare burden. Despite this countries are looking to phase it out, starting with New Zealand banning people14 and under from ever being able to purchase tobacco products. You can bet your bottom dollar we'll follow suit sooner or later. Whether illegal or not is completely irrelevant. Its not illegal to not get vaccinated either. Why should the government spend its health dollars on a smoker? Why should employers pay a smoker for days off work for smoking-related illness? Or the government pay pensions prematurely for those who move out of the workforce prematurely due to smoking-related illness? Ok another example: Sports injuries. Look up the costs of that. Oh and one in 10 football-related injuries are life-threatening.... From this I getting that the unvaccinated are comparable to smokers - since you guys are doing the comparing.
And you advocate for a socialist style of medical care.
|
|
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIt would be good if we could go into social contracts. Considering that unvaccinated people are disproportionally taking up all the medical resources at the moment and depriving many others of medical care, besides making them get vaccinated maybe they could forgo running to the same doctors that told them to get vaccinated in the first place once they ultimately get sick.
Or maybe they could agree to seek the help of the medical experts like Craig Kelly or Clive Palmer instead of clogging our hospitals.
As long as people pay taxes, medicare levies and private health insurance then everyone is doing their bit. Besides the selfishness of this statement and the obvious flaws in it, like the burden these unvaccinated people are placing on resources and diverting attention, do you know the costs it takes to care for all these people in hospital. It can range into the hundreds of thousands for each patient. So as a community we will have to pay hundreds of millions more....but hey they pay their taxes, or does it get deducted from their centrelink first? Maybe we should all call an ambulance if we have a headache, waste their time...I mean like who cares, I pay my taxes so I own them. Where does one start... Smokers? Drinkers? Kids experimenting with "recreational drugs". Thrill seekers doing extreme sports? People engaging in contact sports? The Obese? Diabetics? Fuck them all. No pay no treatment. Where does one start - Smoking is taxed at close to 2 billion a year to put back into the system - you want to throw that into the pool? It is also illegal anywhere inside through the entire country, and most places outdoors too. It's against the law for minors, one of the most heavily regulated things to help the hospital system. You want the same restrictions on the unvaccinated? For the rest see previous posts that have addressed these. Weird you said thrill seekers as well though. These must be cut and paste from something. Of the $2B raised from taxing smokers, how much goes to covering the costs? Smoking costs Australia close to $137 billion That is up from $31.5 billion in 2004–05. Intangible costs of smoking – including lost quality of life from living with a serious illness – are estimated to be almost $118 billion per year.
The report, from the National Drug Research Institute (NDRI) at Curtin University, provides the first update on smoking costs in Australia in 15 years, while detailing that tangible and intangible costs associated with smoking now sit at $136.9 billion annually, up from an estimated $31.5 billion in 2004–05.
Current tangible costs of smoking include:
- $5 billion in lost productivity and worker absences
- $2 billion for family members caring for someone with a smoking-related disease
- $6.8 billion in healthcare costs, including the cost of 1.7 million hospital admissions to treat smoking-related conditions.
Intangible costs, on the other hand, include years of life lost from premature deaths or lost quality of life from living with a serious illness, and were estimated at almost $118 billion per year. https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/smoking-costs-australia-close-to-137-billion Pretty shit example. The only reason smoking isn't completely illegal is it would probably cost more to enforce it's prohibition than the current healthcare burden. Despite this countries are looking to phase it out, starting with New Zealand banning people14 and under from ever being able to purchase tobacco products. You can bet your bottom dollar we'll follow suit sooner or later. Whether illegal or not is completely irrelevant. Its not illegal to not get vaccinated either. Why should the government spend its health dollars on a smoker? Why should employers pay a smoker for days off work for smoking-related illness? Or the government pay pensions prematurely for those who move out of the workforce prematurely due to smoking-related illness? Ok another example: Sports injuries. Look up the costs of that. Oh and one in 10 football-related injuries are life-threatening.... And you advocate for a socialist style of medical care. Spot on
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xlucky it's illegal everywhere! what is? smoking? i'll tell my local safeway... You can smoke in your local Safeway? You can enter it without wearing a mask? +x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIt would be good if we could go into social contracts. Considering that unvaccinated people are disproportionally taking up all the medical resources at the moment and depriving many others of medical care, besides making them get vaccinated maybe they could forgo running to the same doctors that told them to get vaccinated in the first place once they ultimately get sick.
Or maybe they could agree to seek the help of the medical experts like Craig Kelly or Clive Palmer instead of clogging our hospitals.
As long as people pay taxes, medicare levies and private health insurance then everyone is doing their bit. Besides the selfishness of this statement and the obvious flaws in it, like the burden these unvaccinated people are placing on resources and diverting attention, do you know the costs it takes to care for all these people in hospital. It can range into the hundreds of thousands for each patient. So as a community we will have to pay hundreds of millions more....but hey they pay their taxes, or does it get deducted from their centrelink first? Maybe we should all call an ambulance if we have a headache, waste their time...I mean like who cares, I pay my taxes so I own them. Where does one start... Smokers? Drinkers? Kids experimenting with "recreational drugs". Thrill seekers doing extreme sports? People engaging in contact sports? The Obese? Diabetics? Fuck them all. No pay no treatment. Where does one start - Smoking is taxed at close to 2 billion a year to put back into the system - you want to throw that into the pool? It is also illegal anywhere inside through the entire country, and most places outdoors too. It's against the law for minors, one of the most heavily regulated things to help the hospital system. You want the same restrictions on the unvaccinated? For the rest see previous posts that have addressed these. Weird you said thrill seekers as well though. These must be cut and paste from something. Of the $2B raised from taxing smokers, how much goes to covering the costs? Smoking costs Australia close to $137 billion That is up from $31.5 billion in 2004–05. Intangible costs of smoking – including lost quality of life from living with a serious illness – are estimated to be almost $118 billion per year.
The report, from the National Drug Research Institute (NDRI) at Curtin University, provides the first update on smoking costs in Australia in 15 years, while detailing that tangible and intangible costs associated with smoking now sit at $136.9 billion annually, up from an estimated $31.5 billion in 2004–05.
Current tangible costs of smoking include:
- $5 billion in lost productivity and worker absences
- $2 billion for family members caring for someone with a smoking-related disease
- $6.8 billion in healthcare costs, including the cost of 1.7 million hospital admissions to treat smoking-related conditions.
Intangible costs, on the other hand, include years of life lost from premature deaths or lost quality of life from living with a serious illness, and were estimated at almost $118 billion per year. https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/smoking-costs-australia-close-to-137-billion Pretty shit example. The only reason smoking isn't completely illegal is it would probably cost more to enforce it's prohibition than the current healthcare burden. Despite this countries are looking to phase it out, starting with New Zealand banning people14 and under from ever being able to purchase tobacco products. You can bet your bottom dollar we'll follow suit sooner or later. Whether illegal or not is completely irrelevant. Its not illegal to not get vaccinated either. Why should the government spend its health dollars on a smoker? Why should employers pay a smoker for days off work for smoking-related illness? Or the government pay pensions prematurely for those who move out of the workforce prematurely due to smoking-related illness? Ok another example: Sports injuries. Look up the costs of that. Oh and one in 10 football-related injuries are life-threatening.... From this I getting that the unvaccinated are comparable to smokers - since you guys are doing the comparing.
And you advocate for a socialist style of medical care. From this I take it you are an advocate for user-pays style of medical care?
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xlucky it's illegal everywhere! what is? smoking? i'll tell my local safeway... You can smoke in your local Safeway? You can enter it without wearing a mask? +x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIt would be good if we could go into social contracts. Considering that unvaccinated people are disproportionally taking up all the medical resources at the moment and depriving many others of medical care, besides making them get vaccinated maybe they could forgo running to the same doctors that told them to get vaccinated in the first place once they ultimately get sick.
Or maybe they could agree to seek the help of the medical experts like Craig Kelly or Clive Palmer instead of clogging our hospitals.
As long as people pay taxes, medicare levies and private health insurance then everyone is doing their bit. Besides the selfishness of this statement and the obvious flaws in it, like the burden these unvaccinated people are placing on resources and diverting attention, do you know the costs it takes to care for all these people in hospital. It can range into the hundreds of thousands for each patient. So as a community we will have to pay hundreds of millions more....but hey they pay their taxes, or does it get deducted from their centrelink first? Maybe we should all call an ambulance if we have a headache, waste their time...I mean like who cares, I pay my taxes so I own them. Where does one start... Smokers? Drinkers? Kids experimenting with "recreational drugs". Thrill seekers doing extreme sports? People engaging in contact sports? The Obese? Diabetics? Fuck them all. No pay no treatment. Where does one start - Smoking is taxed at close to 2 billion a year to put back into the system - you want to throw that into the pool? It is also illegal anywhere inside through the entire country, and most places outdoors too. It's against the law for minors, one of the most heavily regulated things to help the hospital system. You want the same restrictions on the unvaccinated? For the rest see previous posts that have addressed these. Weird you said thrill seekers as well though. These must be cut and paste from something. Of the $2B raised from taxing smokers, how much goes to covering the costs? Smoking costs Australia close to $137 billion That is up from $31.5 billion in 2004–05. Intangible costs of smoking – including lost quality of life from living with a serious illness – are estimated to be almost $118 billion per year.
The report, from the National Drug Research Institute (NDRI) at Curtin University, provides the first update on smoking costs in Australia in 15 years, while detailing that tangible and intangible costs associated with smoking now sit at $136.9 billion annually, up from an estimated $31.5 billion in 2004–05.
Current tangible costs of smoking include:
- $5 billion in lost productivity and worker absences
- $2 billion for family members caring for someone with a smoking-related disease
- $6.8 billion in healthcare costs, including the cost of 1.7 million hospital admissions to treat smoking-related conditions.
Intangible costs, on the other hand, include years of life lost from premature deaths or lost quality of life from living with a serious illness, and were estimated at almost $118 billion per year. https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/smoking-costs-australia-close-to-137-billion Pretty shit example. The only reason smoking isn't completely illegal is it would probably cost more to enforce it's prohibition than the current healthcare burden. Despite this countries are looking to phase it out, starting with New Zealand banning people14 and under from ever being able to purchase tobacco products. You can bet your bottom dollar we'll follow suit sooner or later. Whether illegal or not is completely irrelevant. Its not illegal to not get vaccinated either. Why should the government spend its health dollars on a smoker? Why should employers pay a smoker for days off work for smoking-related illness? Or the government pay pensions prematurely for those who move out of the workforce prematurely due to smoking-related illness? Ok another example: Sports injuries. Look up the costs of that. Oh and one in 10 football-related injuries are life-threatening.... From this I getting that the unvaccinated are comparable to smokers - since you guys are doing the comparing.
And you advocate for a socialist style of medical care. From this I take it you are an advocate for user-pays style of medical care?
If it came down to it I’m with you. I too support the socialist system you are passionate about.
Having said that I can’t see why the unvaxxed wouldn’t agree to it though. They’d have nothing to lose if they’re right.
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIt would be good if we could go into social contracts. Considering that unvaccinated people are disproportionally taking up all the medical resources at the moment and depriving many others of medical care, besides making them get vaccinated maybe they could forgo running to the same doctors that told them to get vaccinated in the first place once they ultimately get sick.
Or maybe they could agree to seek the help of the medical experts like Craig Kelly or Clive Palmer instead of clogging our hospitals.
As long as people pay taxes, medicare levies and private health insurance then everyone is doing their bit. Besides the selfishness of this statement and the obvious flaws in it, like the burden these unvaccinated people are placing on resources and diverting attention, do you know the costs it takes to care for all these people in hospital. It can range into the hundreds of thousands for each patient. So as a community we will have to pay hundreds of millions more....but hey they pay their taxes, or does it get deducted from their centrelink first? Maybe we should all call an ambulance if we have a headache, waste their time...I mean like who cares, I pay my taxes so I own them. Where does one start... Smokers? Drinkers? Kids experimenting with "recreational drugs". Thrill seekers doing extreme sports? People engaging in contact sports? The Obese? Diabetics? Fuck them all. No pay no treatment. Where does one start - Smoking is taxed at close to 2 billion a year to put back into the system - you want to throw that into the pool? It is also illegal anywhere inside through the entire country, and most places outdoors too. It's against the law for minors, one of the most heavily regulated things to help the hospital system. You want the same restrictions on the unvaccinated? For the rest see previous posts that have addressed these. Weird you said thrill seekers as well though. These must be cut and paste from something. Of the $2B raised from taxing smokers, how much goes to covering the costs? Smoking costs Australia close to $137 billion That is up from $31.5 billion in 2004–05. Intangible costs of smoking – including lost quality of life from living with a serious illness – are estimated to be almost $118 billion per year.
The report, from the National Drug Research Institute (NDRI) at Curtin University, provides the first update on smoking costs in Australia in 15 years, while detailing that tangible and intangible costs associated with smoking now sit at $136.9 billion annually, up from an estimated $31.5 billion in 2004–05.
Current tangible costs of smoking include:
- $5 billion in lost productivity and worker absences
- $2 billion for family members caring for someone with a smoking-related disease
- $6.8 billion in healthcare costs, including the cost of 1.7 million hospital admissions to treat smoking-related conditions.
Intangible costs, on the other hand, include years of life lost from premature deaths or lost quality of life from living with a serious illness, and were estimated at almost $118 billion per year. https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/smoking-costs-australia-close-to-137-billion Pretty shit example. The only reason smoking isn't completely illegal is it would probably cost more to enforce it's prohibition than the current healthcare burden. Despite this countries are looking to phase it out, starting with New Zealand banning people14 and under from ever being able to purchase tobacco products. You can bet your bottom dollar we'll follow suit sooner or later. Ohhh Sydney69, maths and comprehension really aren't your strengths are they. Let me simplify the point for you: tax $2 billion cost $137 billion is bad Also logic seems to fail you as well as you managed to contradict yourself above. Again, knowing your mental capacity is limited, let me spell it out - Aus no ban smoking cost too much but Aus copy NZ and ban smoking soon = you dumb You can have a brown star sticker for the attempt, you may get a yellow star next time if you get your mum to proof read your work prior to submitting
|
|
|
|