COVID-19 ... how we cope :)

[Peter McKillop]

I wrote:

This is from the Daily Exposé article you linked to:

The Exposé is now heavily censored by Google, Facebook, Twitter and PayPal. Let’s not lose touch, subscribe today to receive the latest news from The Exposé in your inbox…

People can draw their own conclusions.

You replied:

All of the above sites are Fascists that censor science. Why don't you use your G-d given brains and attack the data for once? You pathetically attack the messenger but never the message. If you don't have technical skills or knowledge to do so then do as you previously promised, butt out.

https://rescue.substack.com/p/portra...wzOTWrinIJfqlg

Sid, you're a verbally abusive bully. It must have been a real treat working for you back in the day. You post a link to 'The Exposé', an online news source which by its own admission is "heavily censored" by some of the world's most heavily-scrutinized social media organizations, and then act offended that anyone would dare to question your choice of source.

So let's have a look at the table from the 'The Exposé'; the table you think has important information. For those who didn't look at the article, this table is supposed to reflect new covid cases in New South Wales, Australia, during the week of January 2 to January 8, 2022. Here it is:



I can eyeball the first three lines and see that the people who are unvaccinated represent about 0.5% of the sum of the first three lines. That mental calculation seems to support your claim that vaccinated people represented 99.5% of the new cases during the week under review. But when I look at the rest of the table some problems come up, namely:
1. The total number of cases is incorrect. In fact it's out by over 140,000. Seems like some pretty sloppy writing and editing at The Exposé, doesn't it? Anyone can make a mistake but a mistake like that from an organization that's supposedly under attack by "Fascists" (- S. Belzberg) doesn't do much for their credibility.
2. The vaccination staus of 46,697 people is unknown. How does a scientist or a mathematician draw conclusions like the one you're supporting (99.5%) when roughly 20% of the available data is a wild card?
3. And then there's the children. The table does say they're unvaccinated. Where do they fit into your calculations, Sid?

To the eye of a lay person, like me, it looks like you've been cherry-picking the data, Sid. Do you have a plausible explanation for the above?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Erik:

My son-in-law just came to Canada from Cuba.

He did not get the Cuban vaccine because it would not have been recognized by the Canadian government (Whether it is effective or not). He now has the Canadian approved shots.

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Sid Belzberg]

I wrote:


You replied:


Sid, you're a verbally abusive bully. It must have been a real treat working for you back in the day. You post a link to 'The Exposé', an online news source which by its own admission is "heavily censored" by some of the world's most heavily-scrutinized social media organizations, and then act offended that anyone would dare to question your choice of source.

So let's have a look at the table from the 'The Exposé'; the table you think has important information. For those who didn't look at the article, this table is supposed to reflect new covid cases in New South Wales, Australia, during the week of January 2 to January 8, 2022. Here it is:



I can eyeball the first three lines and see that the people who are unvaccinated represent about 0.5% of the sum of the first three lines. That mental calculation seems to support your claim that vaccinated people represented 99.5% of the new cases during the week under review. But when I look at the rest of the table some problems come up, namely:
1. The total number of cases is incorrect. In fact it's out by over 140,000. Seems like some pretty sloppy writing and editing at The Exposé, doesn't it? Anyone can make a mistake but a mistake like that from an organization that's supposedly under attack by "Fascists" (- S. Belzberg) doesn't do much for their credibility.
2. The vaccination staus of 46,697 people is unknown. How does a scientist or a mathematician draw conclusions like the one you're supporting (99.5%) when roughly 20% of the available data is a wild card?
3. And then there's the children. The table does say they're unvaccinated. Where do they fit into your calculations, Sid?

To the eye of a lay person, like me, it looks like you've been cherry-picking the data, Sid. Do you have a plausible explanation for the above?

Sid, you're a verbally abusive bully. It must have been a real treat working for you back in the day.

Call me whatever you want but the fact remains that Dr's and scientists are being silenced, censored, and de-platformed by all the big tech entities you cited. They are the true "bullies". I co-founded and ran a software company for 17 years that for its first ten years had virtually zero turnover which was unheard of for a publicly listed software company.

IThe total number of cases is incorrect. In fact it's out by over 140,000. Seems like some pretty sloppy writing and editing at The Exposé, doesn't it? Anyone can make a mistake but a mistake like that from an organization that's supposedly under attack by "Fascists" (- S. Belzberg) doesn't do much for their credibility.

These tables are directly from the Australian Governments records and the totals appear to be correct. The first two tables are for two different time periods.
https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infect...t-20220113.pdf
https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infect...t-20220120.pdf

The vaccination status of 46,697 people is unknown. How does a scientist or a mathematician draw conclusions like the one you're supporting (99.5%) when roughly 20% of the available data is a wild card?

Perhaps you should read definitions before you think you have "discovered America". Here is what the govt website https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infect...t-20220113.pdf defines as "under investigation"
"For cases reported as under investigation, vaccination status could not be determined through searching the Australian Immunisation Register (AIR). Based on self-reported data at interview, for cases to September 2021, those with an unknown status are likely to be un-vaccinated. Cases between October and mid-December with an unknown status are likely to have received at least one dose, but their record could not be matched in AIR."

"Those with an unknown status are likely to be un-vaccinated."

Adding this group as unvaccinated only makes the percentage of cases from this group even smaller.

And then there's the children. The table does say they're unvaccinated. Where do they fit into your calculations, Sid?

As stated above that makes the percentage of cases that are unvaccinated again even smaller if you include children.

At least you are now making an attempt to analyze the data rather than simply attacking the messenger. Good on you!

[Vlad Drkulec]

Those are good links you cited. I'll share one too - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8541492/
This study says that the risk of death from coronavirus is inversely proportional to the amount of vitamin D in the body.
Drink your vitamins :)

And yet we have at least one Canadian politician lying about and downplaying the importance of this. If some of these people could stop you from taking Vitamin D, they would. I get most of my information from medical doctors on both sides of the Canada-US border. The information that they share is different from what the governments of Canada and the U.S. are sharing. If you do nothing else take Vitamin D and zinc.

I knew that they were seriously lying to us about the efficacy of vaccines in the aftermath of those runaway Texas legislators who were all vaccinated and became a super-spreader of Covid. My sources say that in all likelihood we will all get Omicron. For most vaccinated or unvaccinated it will be a mild infection about as serious as a mild shortened duration cold.

Most of my family has had Covid. The high risk individuals had the mildest cases because they were taking Vitamin D and Zinc (and Quercetin and K2 and Vitamin C in a couple of cases). The healthy young athletic types had worse cases because they weren't as careful about taking Vitamin D and the other drugs.

[Erik Malmsten]

Hi Erik:

My son-in-law just came to Canada from Cuba.

He did not get the Cuban vaccine because it would not have been recognized by the Canadian government (Whether it is effective or not). He now has the Canadian approved shots.

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

I imagine that he's going to hide indoors from the cold. But he'll get to eat and drink a variety of food again, starting with a hot coffee, Ahhhh.

[Frank Dixon]

Sid: Thanks for the Australian data you provided url's for; I do believe this particular example is very important, as it may represent a significant aberration or anomaly:
1) My preliminary examination of Australian vaccine data, by brand, in just the last half-hour, after having seen your post, from a thorough Australian site, showed a very heavy usage of Astra-Zeneca, on a national basis there, up until about late November 2021; their website for the brands has NO DATA beyond late November, 2021, while they had regular updates before that. This push from very late 2020 and early 2021, when the first vaccines became available, may have been due to an early contract with the U.K., originators of that vaccine, and Commonwealth ties between the nations; it was one of the first vaccines made available.
2) There was a minor problem with this Astra-Zeneca; Canada stopped using it summer 2021, due to this; it had had quite heavy use in Canada until then, as we were having trouble getting our signed contracts for Pfizer and Moderna fulfilled. European and American manufacturers were preferring their own nations instead of Canada at this juncture, for those vaccines. Governments in Canada then started allowing a second / third shot, of Pfizer or Moderna, for people who had had one or more Astra-Zeneca shots. I have friends in Kingston who had had two Astra-Zeneca shots by June, and they then got a Pfizer shot in early August, to cover for the problem with Astra-Zeneca.
3) Then, in recent weeks, it seems the Australians have stopped using Astra-Zeneca, in preference to both Pfizer and Moderna, which they had also used earlier. They still have plenty of Astra-Zeneca available, but they are not using, it, and have switched brands. That was right around the time when the Omicron variant started getting worldwide spread -- late November, 2021. A few weeks later, a published report, originally in the New York Times, then reprinted in the Toronto Star, stated that the Astra-Zeneca vaccine did NOT WORK on Omicron. I read that when it appeared, and am searching my desk for the clipping; will post here when I find it.
4) Now, this is my SUPPOSITION, at this stage, I wish to emphasize, PRELIMINARY:
To explain the data you have cited, with very heavy recent Australian hospitalization levels for people who had had one or more vaccine shots, and much lower levels for people who had had no shots: IF the vaccines taken by most of these people were Astra-Zeneca, and we know that Omicron is NOT stopped by Astra-Zeneca, then that would explain it virtually completely, I believe. Without detailed information as to which vaccine brands these stricken people had used, further explanation is impossible to ascertain, in my view. Also, this was just one region, correct? That would have had probably only one vaccine brand distributed there. One would have to look at a wider range of examples, from different regions, to see if the pattern repeated, or varied.
It is possible the Australian media have coverage of this; I just haven't had the chance to check on that yet.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Omicron is not currently stopped by any vaccine except perhaps temporarily. All my family members who caught Covid (some for the second time) had Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. Astra-Zeneca fell out of favour due to some adverse reactions in a small number of people. I had two doses of Astra-Zeneca. Eventually everyone will catch the Omicron variant though perhaps many won't even notice they have it.

[Frank Dixon]

But the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, when taken, render Omicron MUCH LESS DANGEROUS to those who contract the variant, compared to other vaccines, and compared to having taken NO VACCINES. This much seems to be established so far, in the two months scientists and medical professionals have been studying and encountering it.

[Vlad Drkulec]

But the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, when taken, render Omicron MUCH LESS DANGEROUS to those who contract the variant, compared to other vaccines, and compared to having taken NO VACCINES. This much seems to be established so far, in the two months scientists and medical professionals have been studying and encountering it.

Not correct. Omicron is not dangerous to most people vaccinated or not or even vaccinated and recovered from Covid. You want mild symptoms take your vitamin D and zinc.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

"Or putting it another way 787 cases of Omicron cases in NSW in the first week of this year were in unvaxxed and 160,793 were in the singly or doubly or triply vaccinated.
This means that less than half a percent of the cases were in the unvaxxed and more than 99.5% of the cases were in the vaxxed. Now there is a pandemic of the vaccinated for you. Effective dose? Right. Well effective."

I just wonder where that info comes that the vaccine will prevent catching the virus...

The same document writes:

"but the protective effects of vaccination remain apparent for every age group"

"However, the proportion of cases with two effective doses who experience severe outcomes is still lower than that for cases with no effective dose in every age group, demonstrating the effectiveness of vaccines to protect against severe outcomes"

[Sid Belzberg]

I just wonder where that info comes that the vaccine will prevent catching the virus...

The same document writes:

"but the protective effects of vaccination remain apparent for every age group"

"However, the proportion of cases with two effective doses who experience severe outcomes is still lower than that for cases with no effective dose in every age group, demonstrating the effectiveness of vaccines to protect against severe outcomes"

So if the vaccine does not prevent catching or transmitting the virus (non-sterilziing) then you are saying that it is not really a vaccine but simply another therapy for COVID. Why is it anyone's business what therapy I chose especially if I prefer therapies that involve combos of repurposed drugs that have proven safety profiles that span decades and have much better outcomes than these experimental genetic injections?

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Not correct. Omicron is not dangerous to most people vaccinated or not or even vaccinated and recovered from Covid. You want mild symptoms take your vitamin D and zinc.

I saw a camomile tea with zinc :)

D vitamin - considering that a lot of people don't get outside to produce naturally this vitamin or prevents exposure to the sun; a drop a day is a norm. Boosting more than that should be consulted with the family doctor and not a politician.

[Sid Belzberg]

Sid: Thanks for the Australian data you provided url's for; I do believe this particular example is very important, as it may represent a significant aberration or anomaly:
1) My preliminary examination of Australian vaccine data, by brand, in just the last half-hour, after having seen your post, from a thorough Australian site, showed a very heavy usage of Astra-Zeneca, on a national basis there, up until about late November 2021; their website for the brands has NO DATA beyond late November, 2021, while they had regular updates before that. This push from very late 2020 and early 2021, when the first vaccines became available, may have been due to an early contract with the U.K., originators of that vaccine, and Commonwealth ties between the nations; it was one of the first vaccines made available.
2) There was a minor problem with this Astra-Zeneca; Canada stopped using it summer 2021, due to this; it had had quite heavy use in Canada until then, as we were having trouble getting our signed contracts for Pfizer and Moderna fulfilled. European and American manufacturers were preferring their own nations instead of Canada at this juncture, for those vaccines. Governments in Canada then started allowing a second / third shot, of Pfizer or Moderna, for people who had had one or more Astra-Zeneca shots. I have friends in Kingston who had had two Astra-Zeneca shots by June, and they then got a Pfizer shot in early August, to cover for the problem with Astra-Zeneca.
3) Then, in recent weeks, it seems the Australians have stopped using Astra-Zeneca, in preference to both Pfizer and Moderna, which they had also used earlier. They still have plenty of Astra-Zeneca available, but they are not using, it, and have switched brands. That was right around the time when the Omicron variant started getting worldwide spread -- late November, 2021. A few weeks later, a published report, originally in the New York Times, then reprinted in the Toronto Star, stated that the Astra-Zeneca vaccine did NOT WORK on Omicron. I read that when it appeared, and am searching my desk for the clipping; will post here when I find it.
4) Now, this is my SUPPOSITION, at this stage, I wish to emphasize, PRELIMINARY:
To explain the data you have cited, with very heavy recent Australian hospitalization levels for people who had had one or more vaccine shots, and much lower levels for people who had had no shots: IF the vaccines taken by most of these people were Astra-Zeneca, and we know that Omicron is NOT stopped by Astra-Zeneca, then that would explain it virtually completely, I believe. Without detailed information as to which vaccine brands these stricken people had used, further explanation is impossible to ascertain, in my view. Also, this was just one region, correct? That would have had probably only one vaccine brand distributed there. One would have to look at a wider range of examples, from different regions, to see if the pattern repeated, or varied.
It is possible the Australian media have coverage of this; I just haven't had the chance to check on that yet.

Frank, you might find this article interesting about data from the Alberta Government.

https://metatron.substack.com/p/albe...ntly-confessed

For those of you that do not like the author for any reason, here is the source data from the Alberta Government

https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-1...ccine-outcomes

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...f=true&sd=true

Data the Alberta government deleted but restored at webarchive.org

https://web.archive.org/web/20220107...ccine-outcomes

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

So if the vaccine does not prevent catching or transmitting the virus (non-sterilziing) then you are saying that it is not really a vaccine but simply another therapy for COVID. Why is it anyone's business what therapy I chose especially if I prefer therapies that involve combos of repurposed drugs that have proven safety profiles that span decades and have much better outcomes than these experimental genetic injections?

Vaccines prevent diseases after catching viruses without waiting for the doctor's prescription.

regarding your question:

I don't think that anyone is interested what you eat or drink.

[Vlad Drkulec]

I saw a camomile tea with zinc :)

D vitamin - considering that a lot of people don't get outside to produce naturally this vitamin or prevents exposure to the sun; a drop a day is a norm. Boosting more than that should be consulted with the family doctor and not a politician.

The doctors I have talked to recommend 4,000 to 10,000 IU of Vitamin D daily. One is on the covid committee for two hospitals.