As it stands, is there a single SHRED of evidence that the vaccine significantly lowers transmission?

Biggles53

New member
It is people like these who affect social change. NOT people like you. It is these whining complaining people, who ended slavery and segregation. It is these socially conscious people who forced equality in education, employment, housing, and the criminal justice system. It is people like these, that addressed racial and sexual harassment in the workplace. It is people like these, who gave women, Black Americans(and other minorities), the right to vote.
I had overlooked this piece of drivel in the midst of all your other gibberish…

You couldn’t have picked a WORSE set of analogies….!!

The people who fought to abolish slavery did so from a desire to IMPROVE THE LIVES OF OTHERS IN THEIR COMMUNITY…! Ditto for the Suffragettes; ditto for those fighting to end the Stolen Generation; ditto for those championing land rights legislation. These people battled for the benefits of OTHERS, regardless of what it might cost them as individuals.

YOUR position is exactly the reverse…! Yours is about “My rights, MY choices…and to hell with what anyone else thinks!”

As I said…save your fake gestures of heroism and sacrifice…
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
No, it’s evidence that, as I plainly stated, that there are fringe-dwellers in any profession…those who, because of their own tightly held belief structures, are prepared to ignore the evidence before them.
Readers can determine if all of the objective scientific evidence, quotes, articles, logic, and website information that I have posited, is nothing but a conspiracy theory or not. Closed minded, misanthropic government toadies like you, have lost their objectivity a long time ago. All they can do is speak in the narrative, avoid questions, and insulate themselves behind insinuations and unsupported editorials. You are a total front, full of nothing but huff and bluff. You wouldn't know the difference between a T-cell antibody and a B-cell antibody.

It is these same fringe-dwellers that have brought about the social changes we see today in society. It was these fringe-dwellers that wanted a Constitution different than the Magna Carta. Or, wanted an end to slavery. Or, believed that every citizen should have the same rights as every other citizens. Definitely NOT selfish people like you.

I haven't heard one question answered by you. Not one piece of evidence offered. And, not one logical opinion backed up by you. All I've heard so far, are fallacies, denials, ignorance, dismissals, deflections, confirmation biases, and silly posturing.

My choices and beliefs are based only on science and objective evidence. NOT on community compliancy, ignorance, popular consensus, and blind toady loyalty. Everything you've posted seems to be some comments that you have cut copied and pasted out of context. I personally don't think you have an original thought in your head. IMHO

So, as I suspected, all you have is yet another worthless conspiracy theory…

You have ZERO evidence for mandates extending beyond particular occupational categories. All you have is hyperbolic blather….what a surprise…!
More huff and bluff, to hide your shallow depth of knowledge. And to avoid answering any questions, or even to defend your own claims. Is there any substance to anything out of your mouth? Here's a quote for you to deny,

"Will the rules change in the future?

Andrews would not say if the rules on vaccination would relax when vaccination rates get higher, stating he didn’t want people to have an incentive to hold out on getting vaccinated.

We’re going to have a vaccinated economy, and we’re going to lock some people out, because that is far better than locking everybody down. That’s the decision we’ve made.
”.

Is the Airline Industry also a related healthcare industry occupation, that works with Covid-19 victims? Maybe you should read MORE about MANDATORY VACCINATIONS IN THE WORK PLACE. The government has NOW incentivized employers(financially) who wish to mandate vaccinations or to collect information about the vaccination status of their employees. What you see as only hyperbolic blather, rational people will see as a real threat/intrusion to their privacy.


We started out with voluntary distancing, masks, and self-quarantines. We have now evolved into the use of tracking apps, forced quarantines, mandatory masks and distancing. First there was voluntary vaccinations, then it became mandatory in the healthcare industries. We started with mandatory vaccination of those working in the medical, hospital, and health professional industries, and will eventually move to those working in the hospitality, airline, and the service industries. This NOT a stretch, or a conspiracy theory. This is A NATURAL PROGRESSION!! Based entirely on the facts. Facts, that you have chosen to ignore/dismiss


I had overlooked this piece of drivel in the midst of all your other gibberish…

You couldn’t have picked a WORSE set of analogies….!!

The people who fought to abolish slavery did so from a desire to IMPROVE THE LIVES OF OTHERS IN THEIR COMMUNITY…! Ditto for the Suffragettes; ditto for those fighting to end the Stolen Generation; ditto for those championing land rights legislation. These people battled for the benefits of OTHERS, regardless of what it might cost them as individuals.

YOUR position is exactly the reverse…! Yours is about “My rights, MY choices…and to hell with what anyone else thinks!”

As I said…save your fake gestures of heroism and sacrifice…
Bullshit!! Don't back-peddle your way out of your conflated misrepresentation of these true social heroes! Do you really think that the Civil Rights Movements was intended to IMPROVE THE LIVES OF OTHERS(Whites) IN THE COMMUNITY? Do you think that the Suffragette Movement was intended to fight for equal voting rights for THE WHITE MALE DOMINATED MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY? So, do you think that the heroes who were opposed to slavery, were only trying to IMPROVE THE LIFES OF EVERYONE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY? EVEN THOSE WHO CONDONED SLAVERY? You are delusional and parasitic. Do you really think that the Black leaders during the 60's, came together for the purpose of improving their entire community?? Or were they just looking to even the playing field?

I won't bother asking why my position of supporting these heroes, is the reverse of my position of supporting these heroes? Or, what my comments about these "fringe-dwellers" is suppose to be analogous to? Because you'll just bullshit your way out of answering me again. So unless you can provide some objective evidence to support any of your claims, other than trying to baffle people with more obfuscating and misleading gibberish. These people ARE still the real social heroes, whose sacrifices have provided the changes that we see today. You should be thanking them for the sacrifices they've made. Considering that people like you are still part of the problem they've always had to overcome. How dare these people complain about not having the same rights as the rest of their community!! They must all be just selfish, right??? How dare they go against the majority consensus belief of their community!! Everyone knows that the majority is always right, Right??

It is absolutely true, that because of the actions of these few selfless "fringe-dwellers" that society is now a BETTER PLACE TO LIVE FOR ALL PEOPLE!! Not this bullshit reasoning of implying motive before cause. Did you even think that these were NOT the popular beliefs of the community at the time? So lets see the evidence supporting this bullshit line of reasoning? I won't hold my breath!! And while you're at it, try answering at least one of my questions. Otherwise, join the ranks of more people who don't have a clue.

"Gestures"??? What the fuck does that even mean in a post??

YOUR position is exactly the reverse…! Yours is about “My rights, MY choices…and to hell with what anyone else thinks!”
Exactly the reverse of what?? My position IS THE RIGHT OF CHOICE!! Just as you have the right to choose to be vaccinated, I also have the right to choose NOT to be vaccinated. So what is your point? Are you saying that I should NOT have the right to choose NOT to be vaccinated, because others in the community have chosen differently? That I should only care what everyone else thinks?? Are your insane?? Do we live in a democracy or not?? Who even thinks like this?? How old are you?? This is not whether I like Rugby League, or the Cowboys. This is about sticking a monkey vector into my arms, to make my cells produce spikes, and weaken my immune system. So unless you want to focus your attention on my rationale for trusting my own natural immune system, or answering any of my questions, then go peddle your scientific ignorance to the choir. We're done here!

Sit. Stay. Good Boy.
 
Last edited:

chris155au

Active member
The ‘point’ is that, finally after 7 pages you have answered your own question…! You have been brought to the determination that, yes, being vaccinated reduces the likelihood of transmitting the virus…well done…!
I have not been brought to the determination that being vaccinated SIGNIFICANTLY reduces the likelihood of transmitting the virus.
 

chris155au

Active member
Alright. Well in answer to your question, I would MARGINALLY rather be around the vaccinated person. But what is your point?
Why…? Why would you prefer that…?
Because SOME evidence supports that an unvaccinated person is MARGINALLY more likely to spread Delta. However, I would rather take that risk to be around an unvaccinated person than for that person to be forced to get vaccinated. That's because I believe in a
little thing called FREEDOM. You do not.
 

Biggles53

New member
I have not been brought to the determination that being vaccinated SIGNIFICANTLY reduces the likelihood of transmitting the virus.
Ah yes, I thought that it might come down to weasel words…your argument is now reduced to debating what “significant” should mean. Just slide right by the fact that vaccinations do indeed reduce the rate of transmission…and concentrate on a trivial semantic point instead…

The simple, undeniable conclusion is this…if you are standing next to an infected person and they have not been vaccinated, you are more likely to have them spread the virus to you than if they had been…
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Are you for real? People are cut off benefits every single day and left with nothing, kids or not.

Responsible government my arse. You've no idea.
Evidence please!! The government is essentially an employer. If you expect to receive benefits from your employer, then you are expected follow your mutual obligations. As with any other job. If any person or family receives ZERO BENEFITS from the government, and is left to starve, steal, or beg to survive, then it will be because of a long history of mutual obligation violations. Even then it will take months of appeals, assessments, and investigation results, before this final decision is made. In other words, you would need to be the dumbest/unluckiest person on the planet to get zero benefits from the government, IF YOU ARE UNEMPLOYED.

An irresponsible government would have fewer hurdles(or none at all) to cut all your benefits. So, in that respect alone, this government IS responsible to its unemployed!!

 

Biggles53

New member
So, do you think that the heroes who were opposed to slavery, were only trying to IMPROVE THE LIFES OF EVERYONE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY? EVEN THOSE WHO CONDONED SLAVERY?
Why are you so dishonest…? You’ve made passing reference to you being a god-botherer…doesn’t one of your commandments have something to say about ‘bearing false witness’…?

I said NOTHING about “EVERYONE” in the community benefiting from the efforts of Wilberforce and likeminded people. No, I said “OTHERS” in the community had their lives improved due to his and others efforts. And I also said that they took those actions even if it cost them personally…which for many it did. And it was the same in this country for those who fought to overturn the discrimination practised towards Aboriginal people…many of those campaigners, black and white, suffered for their work.

The central point here is that, unlike you and your ilk only focusing on YOUR wishes and desires, like a child throwing a tantrum in a supermarket aisle, those people lifted their sights up to see what they could do to improve the lives of OTHERS…
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
Evidence please!! The government is essentially an employer. If you expect to receive benefits from your employer, then you are expected follow your mutual obligations. As with any other job. If any person or family receives ZERO BENEFITS from the government, and is left to starve, steal, or beg to survive, then it will be because of a long history of mutual obligation violations. Even then it will take months of appeals, assessments, and investigation results, before this final decision is made. In other words, you would need to be the dumbest/unluckiest person on the planet to get zero benefits from the government, IF YOU ARE UNEMPLOYED.

An irresponsible government would have fewer hurdles(or none at all) to cut all your benefits. So, in that respect alone, this government IS responsible to its unemployed!!

You've just made it obvious that you have no idea. You can have your payment suspended without warning for not attending an interview. Not receiving notice of that interview is not an excuse although Centrelink themselves admit their communication system is full of flaws.

The only think you got right is that there is mutual obligation. Failure on the claimants part to meet any obligation will see immediate suspension of their payment. Immediate. And the first people often learn they're not being paid is on the day they don't get paid ... which is the day many of them have their rent scheduled. So, there's no rent that fortnight either. And too bad if you're paid on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday. You've got a long, painful weekend ahead of you. Kids. pets, other dependants ... needing medication or not ... suspended. No money.

Wher you get this farcical idea that it takes months and litiigation to suspend a payment is anyone's guess. Claimants can appeal decisions ... but they're not paid while waiting for an outcome. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. They are reliant 100% on charities.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Why are you so dishonest…? You’ve made passing reference to you being a god-botherer…doesn’t one of your commandments have something to say about ‘bearing false witness’…?
More empty accusations. But this time with a Biblical twist added. Oh, and it is NOT ONE OF MY COMMANDMENTS EITHER!! Don't know the reference, and don't know what the dishonesty is. But then again, you are only good at accusations, not explanations. You must be getting pretty desperate to use make-believe Bible passages, to prop-up your already weak and pathetic narrative?

I said NOTHING about “EVERYONE” in the community benefiting from the efforts of Wilberforce and likeminded people.
You simply said that the whole community would benefit, right? Does the whole community, or just the community, also include "OTHERS" and "everyone" within the community? Or, are you playing the same semantic games, that you accuse others of playing?

And I also said that they took those actions even if it cost them personally…which for many it did.
And here-in lies the contradiction. You first claimed that the motive of these heroes was not driven by their belief in their personal cause. But by only their sense of community(without evidence). And, that it is their sense of community, that is the reason why the entire community will benefit from their sacrifices/actions. Yet you are now claiming, that it is the actions that these heroes have taken, because of the belief in their cause, and IN SPITE OF THEIR COMMUNITY, that this is the reason why the community will benefit from their sacrifices. Which is it? Another blatant and misleading contradiction.

And it was the same in this country for those who fought to overturn the discrimination practised towards Aboriginal people…many of those campaigners, black and white, suffered for their work.
Are you now saying that these were NOT just selfish people WHINGING and WHINING about "me, me, me? Or, about usurping their rights over the conventional wisdom of their community at the time? I'm starting to get whiplash from all the changing goal posts.

The central point here is that, unlike you and your ilk only focusing on YOUR wishes and desires, like a child throwing a tantrum in a supermarket aisle, those people lifted their sights up to see what they could do to improve the lives of OTHERS…
Please don't put words in my mouth. And although simplicity seems to be your only forté, the tantrum that I'm throwing, is the desire to be allowed to voluntarily decide what I want to put inside my body. It's kind of a big thing, right? So lets not trivialize, or mischaracterize this real threat to my freedom of choice, as simply a child chucking a tantrum in the supermarket. And, if those very special people who are lifting their sights up to improve the lives of others, then they should start with LETTING OTHERS DECIDE HOW TO BEST IMPROVE THEIR OWN LIVES!!!

I'm still waiting for you to address at least some of my questions. Surely you must have some credibility left? Surely!!

Sit. Stay. Good Boy.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
You've just made it obvious that you have no idea. You can have your payment suspended without warning for not attending an interview. Not receiving notice of that interview is not an excuse although Centrelink themselves admit their communication system is full of flaws.
Spare me your silly straw man. Support your insults with the evidence. Since it happens everyday(as you claim), it shouldn't be hard to find ONE family whose Centrelink payments were 100% cut off permanently. Without any warnings, without any notifications, and without any redress for the claimant. Surely no one will permanently lose the Centrelink benefits for not attending a meeting, or an interview(sick, accident, death in family, etc.). I understand that there may be circumstances, where benefits may be terminated without warning(forgery, in prison, multiple wives and fake children, etc.), but I assume that these are only the exceptions and not the rule.

Now I have read and provided you with the Centrelink procedures that are in place, regarding complete and permanent suspension of benefits. From my readings, there seems to be a lot of notifications, warnings, and hearings, to always keep the claimant advised. This is basic due process.

Although I have never been on the dole, I know that if I fire someone, I better have a damn good reason for doing so. But you are saying that the government can suspend benefit payments to anyone indefinitely, for any reason, for any amount of time, and not even notifying the claimants of the reason why? And, that all of these procedural policies are just for perception only? I seriously doubt this to be the case. So lets see the evidence. Even personal anecdotes will do.
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
Spare me your silly straw man. Support your insults with the evidence. Since it happens everyday(as you claim), it shouldn't be hard to find ONE family whose Centrelink payments were 100% cut off permanently. Without any warnings, without any notifications, and without any redress for the claimant. Surely no one will permanently lose the Centrelink benefits for not attending a meeting, or an interview(sick, accident, death in family, etc.). I understand that there may be circumstances, where benefits may be terminated without warning(forgery, in prison, multiple wives and fake children, etc.), but I assume that these are only the exceptions and not the rule.

Now I have read and provided you with the Centrelink procedures that are in place, regarding complete and permanent suspension of benefits. From my readings, there seems to be a lot of notifications, warnings, and hearings, to always keep the claimant advised. This is basic due process.

Although I have never been on the dole, I know that if I fire someone, I better have a damn good reason for doing so. But you are saying that the government can suspend benefit payments to anyone indefinitely, for any reason, for any amount of time, and not even notifying the claimants of the reason why? And, that all of these procedural policies are just for perception only? I seriously doubt this to be the case. So lets see the evidence. Even personal anecdotes will do.

I never said permanently. In fact, to even a casual observor, my inclusion of the weekend factor and rent unpayable for a fortnight makes it quite clear i was talking immediate effects. Your simply moving the goalposts and trying to apply "permanent" to my comments because you were caught talking out of your arse.

It wouldn't be so annoying were you not so pompous and self-important.

And the web pages you linked to merely affirmed what i said, had you bothered to read them. That is, failure to meet mutual obligations may result in immediate payment cessation. And you bet that means to people on benefits that there's no food. Kids or not. Payment will remain forfeited uyntil Centrelink can be contacted ... although not everyone can access an office and they are perpetually engaged on the phone.

And your laughable equation of a paid employee to a Centrelink client. Are you for real? People on benefits are treated as supplicants. They are dehumanised and demoralised and generally treated like shit This is where i advise my clients (you wanted personal anecdotes?) to seek out the services of the in-house Social Workers. Then they've got a shot. Or they could luck out and meet with a worker who isn't completely jaded. That's if they can access an office or get through on the phones that is.

Meanwhile, the kids are hungry.
 

Biggles53

New member
Oh, and it is NOT ONE OF MY COMMANDMENTS EITHER!! Don't know the reference, and don't know what the dishonesty is
The one that forbids you from “bearing false witness”…! I believe it’s the 9th commandment (unless you’re Catholic, in which case they are numbered differently). You attributed words to me that were untrue. And you’ve done it again as I demonstrate below…
 

chris155au

Active member
Ah yes, I thought that it might come down to weasel words…your argument is now reduced to debating what “significant” should mean.
No reasonable person could consider 36% transmission prevention efficacy as significant.
36% being the transmission prevention efficacy of Astrazeneca, which pretty much every
person over 50 has had.

The simple, undeniable conclusion is this…if you are standing next to an infected person and they have not been vaccinated, you are more likely to have them spread the virus to you than if they had been…
No, I would rather be standing next to a vaccinated person, JUST IN CASE the VERY LIMITED study turns out to be accurate. However, I think that there is reason to question this very limited study. It certainly doesn't justify vaccine mandates, even if it was accurate.
 

Biggles53

New member
No, I would rather be standing next to a vaccinated person, JUST IN CASE the VERY LIMITED study turns out to be accurate. However, I think that there is reason to question this very limited study. It certainly doesn't justify vaccine mandates, even if it was accurate.
Bring those goalposts back…!

This thread was about questioning the SPREAD OF TRANSMISSION, not whether or not a mandate is appropriate…that’s a separate, if related, question.

So, it would seem you’re running away from your own thread…that says something…
 
Top