CDC: Study Confirms Natural Immunity Stronger Than Vaccines

[taniwha]

16 hours ago, toast said:

Vaxxination putsch? What?

Robert Malone does not play any kind of role here. In the covidiot scene, a little, yes, but who care?

I dont know in which country you are living in but in Germany nothing was/is censored, thats BS. From the early beginning of C19 on our key scientsts published their opinions about the possible level of spread and about possible upcomming waves on TV, on radio, in the press and in podcasts. One of them is Prof. Dr. Christian Drosten, developer of the first covid test ever, and the other one is Prof. Karl Lauterbach, politican, professor of epidemiology + health economics, now secretary of health Germany.

Oh, and before them one of them was Robert Malone but of course you would know that as he isn't censored or  buried so far under a mountain of ridicule that... Oh hang about you just mentioned 'covidiot', I rest my case. 

[taniwha]

10 hours ago, stereologist said:

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/967852?uac=200437SJ&faf=1&sso=true&impID=3994642&src=mkm_covid_update_220203_MSCPEDIT

 

I don't believe it

[taniwha]

'Expert' govt modellers in NZ and overseas predicted omicron case numbers to hit 50,000 or more by tomorrow, and under threat of severe illness, death or *worse ( i.e.* infecting your neighbours new born or killing your nanna) people have been jumping over each other to recieve a fear booster. Truer to the reality though only 247 positive cases today.  These scaremongrels need the boot.

To think it is justified to ramp up fear without any consequence to people's health and relationship is crazy gone crazy.  

No doubt double down on mask and segregation mandates while the rest of the world relaxes lol 

 

Quote

New Zealand could be facing 50,000 daily Omicron infections by Waitangi weekend, according to modelling by a highly respected, overseas health research organisation, peaking at about 80,000 each day just a few weeks later.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2022/01/covid-19-omicron-outbreak-modelling-suggests-nz-could-face-peak-of-80-000-cases-a-day.html

Edited February 5, 2022 by taniwha
Link added

[Arbenol]

22 minutes ago, taniwha said:

'Expert' govt modellers in NZ and overseas predicted omicron case numbers to hit 50,000 or more by tomorrow, and under threat of severe illness, death or *worse ( i.e.* infecting your neighbours new born or killing your nanna) people have been jumping over each other to recieve a fear booster. Truer to the reality though only 247 positive cases today.  These scaremongrels need the boot.

To think it is justified to ramp up fear without any consequence to people's health and relationship is crazy gone crazy.  

No doubt double down on mask and segregation mandates while the rest of the world relaxes lol 

 

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2022/01/covid-19-omicron-outbreak-modelling-suggests-nz-could-face-peak-of-80-000-cases-a-day.html

This is misinformation. The modelling was done overseas. it has been cited by some "experts" in NZ but none of them are "expert govt modellers".

When asked about the model the minister pretty much rejected it

Quote

Covid Response Minister Chris Hipkins has admitted being dubious about infection-rate modelling in light of international projections that tens of thousands of new community cases would be surging across New Zealand by this long Waitangi Day holiday weekend.

"I've always been pretty sceptical about the models," 

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2022/01/covid-19-omicron-outbreak-modelling-suggests-nz-could-face-peak-of-80-000-cases-a-day.html

As it goes, my opinion of our governments response is probably closer to yours than many on here, but lying and misrepresenting facts does nothing but weaken your argument. Stick to facts and construct your arguments from that.

 

[taniwha]

46 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

This is misinformation. The modelling was done overseas. it has been cited by some "experts" in NZ but none of them are "expert govt modellers".

When asked about the model the minister pretty much rejected it

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2022/01/covid-19-omicron-outbreak-modelling-suggests-nz-could-face-peak-of-80-000-cases-a-day.html

As it goes, my opinion of our governments response is probably closer to yours than many on here, but lying and misrepresenting facts does nothing but weaken your argument. Stick to facts and construct your arguments from that.

 

Who's lying?  Newshub or me?  It isn't the first time these tactics were used by the NZ govt.  Remember the 80,000 fatalities forecast by the 'whomever the govt listened to' modellers during episode 1?  

Michael Baker is a very well regarded expert 'govt' expert by the NZ public and if he is no mathematical whizz then the use of him as an appeal to authority is where the misinformation evolves and is given breath, not by me but by Newshub....from my link...

 

Quote

These are of course predictions and should be viewed as such, however they have been given credence by New Zealand's leading experts, including University of Otago professors Nick Wilson and Michael Baker: "Our impression is that this work is of high quality and should be considered by NZ policy-makers ... [it's] an organisation with a very strong track record for analysing health data (with some of the best epidemiologists, health data scientists and computer scientists in the world)."

Now you can read further into it all you like, it's there in black n white.  I reject your claim I am lying or spreading misinformation.  If it's perceived as such then I apologise

[toast]

5 hours ago, taniwha said:

Oh, and before them one of them was Robert Malone ..

Elvis as well. Irelevant as well.

Quote

but of course you would know that as he isn't censored or  buried so far under a mountain of ridicule that...

As >10B vaccinations have been administered so far Malone`s claims have been debunked by statistical and empirical data.

Quote

Oh hang about you just mentioned 'covidiot', I rest my case. 

Yeah, because only covidiots back him, they are what they are.

[toast]

5 hours ago, taniwha said:

Well it is an omicron issue, you just misunderstood or I didn't spelll it out s-l-o-w-l-y enough for you to keep pace.  My bad.  Doesn't change the fact the vax putsch is a next level f up start to end

My pace has no speed limit and your claim given has been debunked as always.

[toast]

5 hours ago, taniwha said:

I don't believe it

Sure.

[taniwha]

16 hours ago, stereologist said:

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/967852?uac=200437SJ&faf=1&sso=true&impID=3994642&src=mkm_covid_update_220203_MSCPEDIT

 

By unvaccinated do you mean the double jabbed?

[taniwha]

16 hours ago, stereologist said:

 

You either made this up or you got this from a source that lied to you. There are two choices. One is you are the source or you are not the source of this. Did you tell another fib or did you buy into a fib?

Report

[Arbenol]

16 hours ago, taniwha said:

Who's lying?  Newshub or me?  It isn't the first time these tactics were used by the NZ govt.  Remember the 80,000 fatalities forecast by the 'whomever the govt listened to' modellers during episode 1?  

Michael Baker is a very well regarded expert 'govt' expert by the NZ public and if he is no mathematical whizz then the use of him as an appeal to authority is where the misinformation evolves and is given breath, not by me but by Newshub....from my link...

 

Now you can read further into it all you like, it's there in black n white.  I reject your claim I am lying or spreading misinformation.  If it's perceived as such then I apologise

I'm sure there were a lot different models that gave predictions of varying levels of doom. But what is not in doubt is that if covid had got a foothold here as it did in Europe during the initial phase of the pandemic then the death toll would have been in the thousands. I also have little doubt that the government's strategy was effective. To date the death toll is counted in the dozens, not the thousands. Now I'm not going to give them all the credit here. New Zealand's isolation and low population density made the job much easier for them. And I'm not going to claim that their strategy was the right one. The effect on our economy, freedoms and knock-on health effects (eg, delayed cancer diagnoses) should be considered when deciding whether we can pat ourselves on the back. But that's a different discussion.

The government set out a clear strategy and everything they did was consistent with that,

That all changed in August when Delta arrived. Once the government abandoned their elimination strategy it became clear very quickly that they had no plan B. They floundered in their uncertainty. And the result of this has been mass disobediency. I'm not talking about those whining alongside bishop Brian. I'm talking about those that simply ignored government restrictions and just got on as best they could. I know many that just decided they'd had enough and started hanging out with their mates again. I even encouraged my teenage kids to do the same (as long as that was ok with their friends' parents). 

And what was interesting at that time was that the government responded. They realised they were losing the people's support and had to respond. This is why I reject any ideas of nefarious intent by our government to use this pandemic as an excuse to bring in more permanent restrictions. 

I apologise for using the word 'lying' when describing what you wrote. I don't think you're deliberately trying to mislead but I do believe there's a lot of confirmation bias in how you've interpreted things.

Don't attribute to evil what can easily be explained by incompetence.

[taniwha]

40 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

I'm sure there were a lot different models that gave predictions of varying levels of doom. But what is not in doubt is that if covid had got a foothold here as it did in Europe during the initial phase of the pandemic then the death toll would have been in the thousands. I also have little doubt that the government's strategy was effective. To date the death toll is counted in the dozens, not the thousands. Now I'm not going to give them all the credit here. New Zealand's isolation and low population density made the job much easier for them. And I'm not going to claim that their strategy was the right one. The effect on our economy, freedoms and knock-on health effects (eg, delayed cancer diagnoses) should be considered when deciding whether we can pat ourselves on the back. But that's a different discussion.

The government set out a clear strategy and everything they did was consistent with that,

That all changed in August when Delta arrived. Once the government abandoned their elimination strategy it became clear very quickly that they had no plan B. They floundered in their uncertainty. And the result of this has been mass disobediency. I'm not talking about those whining alongside bishop Brian. I'm talking about those that simply ignored government restrictions and just got on as best they could. I know many that just decided they'd had enough and started hanging out with their mates again. I even encouraged my teenage kids to do the same (as long as that was ok with their friends' parents). 

And what was interesting at that time was that the government responded. They realised they were losing the people's support and had to respond. This is why I reject any ideas of nefarious intent by our government to use this pandemic as an excuse to bring in more permanent restrictions. 

I apologise for using the word 'lying' when describing what you wrote. I don't think you're deliberately trying to mislead but I do believe there's a lot of confirmation bias in how you've interpreted things.

Don't attribute to evil what can easily be explained by incompetence.

The doom model our govt initially chose (episode 1) was internally calculated in Auckland I believe, and was itself doomed to fail under closer scrutiny.  Nowhere on Earth, even when comparing ill-prepared countries with vastly denser populations and poverty than here, was there any justification to forge ahead with the claim of 80,000 dead.  Just a quick glance on the worldmeters site at that point in time was enough to cause cynicism. Similar sized populations up to them had only hundreds die, some even less.

So undoubtedly it was flawed.  Extremely flawed. But that didn't stop the govt self-back-patting and even claiming to have saved 80,000 NZ lives in the eventual non-event. 

Delta was modelled at 1400 a day so we locked down the whole country.

Or did we?  Remember the Auckland border being sealed?

Not all highways with checkpoints were required to check essential cargo truckies.

Why not?  No idea, man hours?  It wasn't as high profile as highway 1? Or my favourite, the virus wasn't as transmissable as public was lead to believe but the 'idea' of it being contained solely in Auckland helped force Aucklanders to concede to the vaxxine target mandates under threat of permanent lockdown or worse.

Trucks freely flowed in and out of Auckland, back and forth daily to the South Island, without being checked for health status or passengers, yet in all those months not a single South Island case. Strange but true.

This type of manipulation you might not see as evil, the list goes on, maybe in the wider picture of things it's an agenda of necessary evil.

But if it were left to the govt alone to seemlessly carry out evil deeds, I agree with you that their incompetence would betray them miserably.

 

[Arbenol]

36 minutes ago, taniwha said:

The doom model our govt initially chose (episode 1) was internally calculated in Auckland I believe, and was itself doomed to fail under closer scrutiny.  Nowhere on Earth, even when comparing ill-prepared countries with vastly denser populations and poverty than here, was there any justification to forge ahead with the claim of 80,000 dead.  Just a quick glance on the worldmeters site at that point in time was enough to cause cynicism. Similar sized populations up to them had only hundreds die, some even less.

So undoubtedly it was flawed.  Extremely flawed. But that didn't stop the govt self-back-patting and even claiming to have saved 80,000 NZ lives in the eventual non-event. 

Delta was modelled at 1400 a day so we locked down the whole country.

Or did we?  Remember the Auckland border being sealed?

Not all highways with checkpoints were required to check essential cargo truckies.

Why not?  No idea, man hours?  It wasn't as high profile as highway 1? Or my favourite, the virus wasn't as transmissable as public was lead to believe but the 'idea' of it being contained solely in Auckland helped force Aucklanders to concede to the vaxxine target mandates under threat of permanent lockdown or worse.

Trucks freely flowed in and out of Auckland, back and forth daily to the South Island, without being checked for health status or passengers, yet in all those months not a single South Island case. Strange but true.

This type of manipulation you might not see as evil, the list goes on, maybe in the wider picture of things it's an agenda of necessary evil.

But if it were left to the govt alone to seemlessly carry out evil deeds, I agree with you that their incompetence would betray them miserably.

 

I won't argue the figures with you here. I don't recall 80,000 deaths ever being mentioned but I'll accept what you say on that. I can't be bothered looking that up. But I don't think it's that relevant. I agree that from day one the threat has been overstated, but that gets balanced out by those voices that have consistently minimised the threat. As always, the actual truth is somewhere in the middle. But we would have had between 10,000 and 15,000 deaths if it had been allowed to spread. That's based on others nations' experiences.

I understand why people have picked a side in this. It's much more comforting to have a level of certainty in times likes these. Spare a thought for people like myself (and I think there's a lot of us) who don't pick a side; who don't politicise it and have to cope with the endless crap and vitriol. The lies and hyperbole spew forth from both sides in this. But, on balance, I'd have to say that the anti-restriction and ant-vax crowd have been significantly worse.

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2022 by Arbenol

[taniwha]

3 hours ago, Arbenol said:

I won't argue the figures with you here. I don't recall 80,000 deaths ever being mentioned but I'll accept what you say on that. I can't be bothered looking that up. But I don't think it's that relevant. I agree that from day one the threat has been overstated, but that gets balanced out by those voices that have consistently minimised the threat. As always, the actual truth is somewhere in the middle. But we would have had between 10,000 and 15,000 deaths if it had been allowed to spread. That's based on others nations' experiences.

I understand why people have picked a side in this. It's much more comforting to have a level of certainty in times likes these. Spare a thought for people like myself (and I think there's a lot of us) who don't pick a side; who don't politicise it and have to cope with the endless crap and vitriol. The lies and hyperbole spew forth from both sides in this. But, on balance, I'd have to say that the anti-restriction and ant-vax crowd have been significantly worse.

 

 

 

Its interesting what you consider not relevant.

The relevance of a predicted 80,000 deaths cannot be underestimated, it certainly isn't irrelevant.

These type of grossly inaccurate mis/calculations are what the govt use to qualify their decision making and lever mandates into action with the least questions and the least resistance. Confuse and scare people, cause concern for alarm and strike while  compliance is red hot.

The reason I think it is important to remember the 80,000 deaths speech (do yourself a favour and look it up if it's not already censored) is so that we don't forget how the govt got such a stronghold to begin with.  This is as much a psychological battlefield as it is physical and it's not a level playing board either.

C'mon now, you don't play chess?  You consider this a strategy without motive?

If you do play chess then you will soon change your defence because the opposition has no need to change tact if you just sit there and fall for the same old tricks time after time.

The sacrifices we are asked to obey, or forced to carry out in the name of health and safety might be based on fudged numbers or bumbling of the scientific data. Don't you think we deserve better?

Because it will continue. And so it goes on.  As with the vaxxination targets etc.

I challenge your comment, "...we would have had between 10,000 and 15,000 deaths if it had been allowed to spread. That's based on others nations' experiences."

No country just 'allowed it to spread' and at the very least neither would have we .

As the saying goes it's not the truth that people want, all they want i's the assurance that what they believe is the truth.

 

[Arbenol]

9 minutes ago, taniwha said:

Its interesting what you consider not relevant.

The relevance of a predicted 80,000 deaths cannot be underestimated, it certainly isn't irrelevant.

These type of grossly inaccurate mis/calculations are what the govt use to qualify their decision making and lever mandates into action with the least questions and the least resistance. Confuse and scare people, cause concern for alarm and strike while  compliance is red hot.

The reason I think it is important to remember the 80,000 deaths speech (do yourself a favour and look it up if it's not already censored) is so that we don't forget how the govt got such a stronghold to begin with.  This is as much a psychological battlefield as it is physical and it's not a level playing board either.

C'mon now, you don't play chess?  You consider this a strategy without motive?

If you do play chess then you will soon change your defence because the opposition has no need to change tact if you just sit there and fall for the same old tricks time after time.

The sacrifices we are asked to obey, or forced to carry out in the name of health and safety might be based on fudged numbers or bumbling of the scientific data. Don't you think we deserve better?

Because it will continue. And so it goes on.  As with the vaxxination targets etc.

I challenge your comment, "...we would have had between 10,000 and 15,000 deaths if it had been allowed to spread. That's based on others nations' experiences."

No country just 'allowed it to spread' and at the very least neither would have we .

As the saying goes it's not the truth that people want, all they want i's the assurance that what they believe is the truth.

 

If you want to convince me you're going to have to provide that evidence for yourself. Show me where the government used the figure of 80,000 deaths to scare the population. I don't recall. Just like I don't recall a previous claim you made when you said that the government deliberately used ambiguous definitions when giving hospitilisation stats. You didn't back that claim up either. I'm open to changing my opinion (I do it all the time as I learn new things) but I'm not just going to take your word for it.

And plenty of other nations did allow it to spread by not acting quick enough. Once that genie was out of the bottle it wasn't going back in. Of course we had the advantage of learning from their mistakes and kept that genie in it's bottle for a while. 

[taniwha]

1 minute ago, Arbenol said:

If you want to convince me you're going to have to provide that evidence for yourself. Show me where the government used the figure of 80,000 deaths to scare the population. I don't recall. Just like I don't recall a previous claim you made when you said that the government deliberately used ambiguous definitions when giving hospitilisation stats. You didn't back that claim up either. I'm open to changing my opinion (I do it all the time as I learn new things) but I'm not just going to take your word for it.

And plenty of other nations did allow it to spread by not acting quick enough. Once that genie was out of the bottle it wasn't going back in. Of course we had the advantage of learning from their mistakes and kept that genie in it's bottle for a while. 

Both times previously you said you would accept my word so what's changed?

Are you feeling uncomfortable that things are not as they seem?

[Arbenol]

4 minutes ago, taniwha said:

Both times previously you said you would accept my word so what's changed?

Are you feeling uncomfortable that things are not as they seem?

I wouldn't ask you to back up your claims if I were uncomfortable. I'm not here to win arguments. I don't see this as a competition. I use these boards to read different perspectives and am always happy to learn new things.

I'm allowed to change my mind. I took your word because I didn't think the figure was relevant. I know the risk was overstated and just assumed you'd either recalled that figure being used or maybe just pulled it out of the air. But as you seem to think it is very relevant, I'd now like you to back it up.

Or not. Makes no difference to me.

[Arbenol]

12 minutes ago, taniwha said:

Both times previously you said you would accept my word so what's changed?

Are you feeling uncomfortable that things are not as they seem?

Just to add to the above post. Our exchange began with my objection to you misrepresenting a particular point. You've since tried to drag the discussion onto a different (albeit related topic) without actually addressing the original objection. A more cynical mind than mine might think it was you who is uncomfortable. 

[taniwha]

6 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

I wouldn't ask you to back up your claims if I were uncomfortable. I'm not here to win arguments. I don't see this as a competition. I use these boards to read different perspectives and am always happy to learn new things.

I'm allowed to change my mind. I took your word because I didn't think the figure was relevant. I know the risk was overstated and just assumed you'd either recalled that figure being used or maybe just pulled it out of the air. But as you seem to think it is very relevant, I'd now like you to back it up.

Or not. Makes no difference to me.

We're you lucky enough to hear the emergency breaking news broadcast of the decision to close our airports, and lockdown the country 'live as it happened' by PM Jacinda?  I'm unsure howany times after that the 80,000 figure was cast around, if at all.

I ask because your not the first to not hear it or not remember it who I have talked to. I can't put this down to a Mandela Effect though.

I put it down to the govt deliberately back peddaling or being vague.  To what ends?  For our own health and safety.  Like all the people out of work or not allowed at a gym, restaurant or movie theatre, not because they have covid, but because they don't have a double vaccine, which as we all know ... Isn't science.

I will see what I can find

 

[taniwha]

On 2/6/2022 at 6:54 PM, Arbenol said:

If you want to convince me you're going to have to provide that evidence for yourself. Show me where the government used the figure of 80,000 deaths to scare the population. I don't recall. Just like I don't recall a previous claim you made when you said that the government deliberately used ambiguous definitions when giving hospitilisation stats. You didn't back that up either.

Quote

 

Quote

      New Zealand                  Herald

       26/03/2020

Covid 19 coronavirus: 80,000 Kiwis could die from coronavirus if no lockdown: research

Modelling showed that, left unchecked, the virus would infect 89 percent of the population and up to 80,000 people would die.

80,000 New Zealanders Forecast To Die 

The original TV footage is conveniently unfindable, the question is why is it unfindable?  If you find it please link it for me. It's an historical occassion, unprecedented, yet you have to be an internet sleuth and delve deep into underground web sites to view such hidden content.  It is there, out of sight and out of mind.  It's due to censorship like this why you have never heard what I and many more heard be said.

Do you also call censorship irrelevant I wonder?

Is this simply a case of political self-censorship that was removed as misinformation perhaps? Or is it political perversion?

More to the point it served it's purpose to scare people quickly and  push through the sudden barrage of health legislations and controls while the opposition party was still frantically busy bailing water from their own sinking ship and so it slipped by unnoticed, almost.

However I'm sure you will be able to read between the lines (it is not a script from our PMs speech by the way) and correctly deduce that on the balance of what is written with what I claim was said by her was in fact said by her  And the way it was said, was alarming.

Even so you might still find after all is said and done it remains in your mind irrelevant, but it does help you at least I hope to understand further why there are so many frustrated anti-this and anti-thats calling for more transperancy, accountability and freedoms from our elected officials.

What else that's worthy of note is our lockdown happened on 19/03/2020

Less than 1 month before that,

worldwide coronavirus cases

Spoiler

80,000

worldwide coronavirus deaths

Spoiler

2700

Quote

Coronavirus cases top 80,000 as markets plunge on pandemic fears

CNN World

[taniwha]

Further to my post above, this type of statistical bumbling is a worldwide phenomenon and we in no way need to feel singled out. We are included.

In answer to the hospital statistics and ambiguitous announcements it continues in NZ even though they said there was more transperancy.

Tune in to the news, hear the latest figures for NZ hospitalisation rates and let me know the breakdown of those who are in hospital initially for unrelated issues v those who are in hospital initially for covid sickness. Good luck with that.

Is it relevant to know? 

If you want to assess the magnitude of danger/fear and don't want to be lead by the nose with blinkers on of course it is!

How else can it be helpful to know?

If you want to make vaccine decisions for you or your kids all information/data is helpful, of course it is!

Do we have the right to know?

Absolutely!

Do you want to know?

I do!

For your ingestion...

Quote

‘Died from’ or ‘died with’ COVID-19? We need a transparent approach to counting coronavirus deaths

September 2020

That (or similar) was posted earlier in this thread.

It's the same type of statistical bumbling worldwide phenomenan mentioned previously, and we in no way need to feel  singled out. We are included.

[Arbenol]

2 hours ago, taniwha said:

80,000 New Zealanders Forecast To Die 

The original TV footage is conveniently unfindable, the question is why is it unfindable?  If you find it please link it for me. It's an historical occassion, unprecedented, yet you have to be an internet sleuth and delve deep into underground web sites to view such hidden content.  It is there, out of sight and out of mind.  It's due to censorship like this why you have never heard what I and many more heard be said.

Do you also call censorship irrelevant I wonder?

Is this simply a case of political self-censorship that was removed as misinformation perhaps? Or is it political perversion?

More to the point it served it's purpose to scare people quickly and  push through the sudden barrage of health legislations and controls while the opposition party was still frantically busy bailing water from their own sinking ship and so it slipped by unnoticed, almost.

However I'm sure you will be able to read between the lines (it is not a script from our PMs speech by the way) and correctly deduce that on the balance of what is written with what I claim was said by her was in fact said by her  And the way it was said, was alarming.

Even so you might still find after all is said and done it remains in your mind irrelevant, but it does help you at least I hope to understand further why there are so many frustrated anti-this and anti-thats calling for more transperancy, accountability and freedoms from our elected officials.

What else that's worthy of note is our lockdown happened on 19/03/2020

Less than 1 month before that,

 

'Conveniently unfindable' or just not there? And you'd have to show me that censorship has actually occurred rather than assuming it because you can't find what you think you remember.

Models are intrinsically flawed because they cannot take into account unknown variables, which there were plenty of early in this pandemic (and there are still many). If you're really interested here's the actual report - and not just the media spin on it: https://cpb-ap-se2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.auckland.ac.nz/dist/d/75/files/2017/01/Supression-and-Mitigation-Strategies-New-Zealand-TPM-1.pdf

If you recall my first post you might remember i said I broadly agree with you but that it was your misrepresenting of facts that weakened your argument. And you've carried on doing that. The government never used the figure 80,0000 (unless you can show me they did). But they did put the death toll in the "tens of thousands" if no action was taken. Now, if they really wanted to fear-monger they would have used that 80,000 figure. But the only people who did use it was the media. It was the upper figure in a range. The media do this with climate-change modelling. They don't explain that models produce a range, not absolutes. But they always quote the upper figure because that's scarier and sells more papers.

As it happens, I think their assumption that nearly 90% of the population would contract the virus is probably too high. But maybe not. Even with pretty tough restrictions a quarter of the population of the UK have had Covid. With no protective measures this number would be much higher. Basing the predicted deaths on that and the upper level of deaths doesn't sound too far off.

But to be honest, most of your posts seem to be trying to refute a case I haven't made. But you haven't refuted anything that I actually wrote. All you've achieved is to knock down some strawmen. Like I've said. I'm always willing to change my mind as I learn more. But you haven't managed to do that.....yet. 

Edited February 7, 2022 by Arbenol

[taniwha]

6 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

'Conveniently unfindable' or just not there? And you'd have to show me that censorship has actually occurred rather than assuming it because you can't find what you think you remember.

Models are intrinsically flawed because they cannot take into account unknown variables, which there were plenty of early in this pandemic (and there are still many). If you're really interested here's the actual report - and not just the media spin on it: https://cpb-ap-se2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.auckland.ac.nz/dist/d/75/files/2017/01/Supression-and-Mitigation-Strategies-New-Zealand-TPM-1.pdf

If you recall my first post you might remember i said I broadly agree with you but that it was your misrepresenting of facts that weakened your argument. And you've carried on doing that. The government never used the figure 80,0000 (unless you can show me they did). But they did put the death toll in the "tens of thousands" if no action was taken. Now, if they really wanted to fear-monger they would have used that 80,000 figure. But the only people who did use it was the media. It was the upper figure in a range. The media do this with climate-change modelling. They don't explain that models produce a range, not absolutes. But they always quote the upper figure because that's scarier and sells more papers.

As it happens, I think their assumption that nearly 90% of the population would contract the virus is probably too high. But maybe not. Even with pretty tough restrictions a quarter of the population of the UK have had Covid. With no protective measures this number would be much higher. Basing the predicted deaths on that and the upper level of deaths doesn't sound too far off.

But to be honest, most of your posts seem to be trying to refute a case I haven't made. But you haven't refuted anything that I actually wrote. All you've achieved is to knock down some strawmen. Like I've said. I'm always willing to change my mind as I learn more. More you haven't managed to do that.....yet. 

Lol. 80,000 not 80,0000 bit let's move on here....

Quote

The government never used the figure 80,0000 (unless you can show me they did).

The government did use the figure 80,000 as claimed (even if I can't show you that they did)

That fact won't change.

Quote

And you'd have to show me that censorship has actually occurred rather than assuming it because you can't find what you think you remember.

If it's not there to show, how do I show you? 

If by some miracle I find it, (I'm certain now it's hidden so well it might as well be censored) do you think its going to contain a disclaimer saying this perhaps.....

.'......due to fears that the  sensitive and hyperbolic claim of 80,000 deaths announced by PM Jacinda to fast track mandates and lockdowns will bring not only herself and her leadership but the entire NZ Labour Party into disrepute,  the Chief Censor following advise from the Governor General, has removed from public viewing the record of such on the grounds that the proof of this matter is not considered relevant by those who never heard it to begin with and nor is it considered in anyway reflective of Jacindas claims of her government being the sole source of truth... At my discretion I hereby consider this content officialy Censored...'

Talk about strawmans haha.

Have you tried ringing friends? Asked a neighbour? Tried the govt hotline?

How come you've become so reliant on me as your source of truth? 

What's wrong with your internet search bar?

I am relying on free public WI Fi and a $99 cellphone.  

You don't know if they used that figure or not because I haven't found it...but have you tried finding it.  If you can't find it, likely it's censored, removed, hidden.  That does happen here right? 

And another thing there is no requirement that you I or anyone else be informed when it is.

Even if I am right(which I am) look what you state here...

Quote

Now, if they really wanted to fear-monger they would have used that 80,000 figure. But the only people who did use it was the media. It was the upper figure in a range

You admit or maybe concede? that a figure of 80,000 would mean the govt 'wanted to fear-monger'

Well that's progress, at least you have some sense of reality.

Unfortunately in your case it's one step forwards and two steps back.

You say the only people that used that figure was the media??

Really?  Why not share your source of information proving that claim?

Your roller roaster of accusations at me that I 'made it up' or am posting 'misinformation' or have 'confirmation bias' seems a bit shallow now doesn't it.

So stop doing a drunken waltz and prove it ... Or

 

[taniwha]

On a side note, the Trucking for Freedom Convoy passed through ChCh yesterday making inroads to their gathering spot, meeting up with North Island Freedom Fighters today in Wellingtons parliamentary centre.

Absolutely huge turn out for NZ.  10s of thousands of supporters vaxxed and not, up and down the length of the entire country turned out on the sidelines cheering on and supporting the much wanted anti-mandate, anti-discrimination agendas.

PM announced earlier, no govt official herself included would greet them as they are too busy. 

Another form of censorship/discrimination is the total disregard for the voices of the people.

[Arbenol]

5 minutes ago, taniwha said:

Lol. 80,000 not 80,0000 bit let's move on here....

The government did use the figure 80,000 as claimed (even if I can't show you that they did)

That fact won't change.

If it's not there to show, how do I show you? 

If by some miracle I find it, (I'm certain now it's hidden so well it might as well be censored) do you think its going to contain a disclaimer saying this perhaps.....

.'......due to fears that the  sensitive and hyperbolic claim of 80,000 deaths announced by PM Jacinda to fast track mandates and lockdowns will bring not only herself and her leadership but the entire NZ Labour Party into disrepute,  the Chief Censor following advise from the Governor General, has removed from public viewing the record of such on the grounds that the proof of this matter is not considered relevant by those who never heard it to begin with and nor is it considered in anyway reflective of Jacindas claims of her government being the sole source of truth... At my discretion I hereby consider this content officialy Censored...'

Talk about strawmans haha.

Have you tried ringing friends? Asked a neighbour? Tried the govt hotline?

How come you've become so reliant on me as your source of truth? 

What's wrong with your internet search bar?

I am relying on free public WI Fi and a $99 cellphone.  

You don't know if they used that figure or not because I haven't found it...but have you tried finding it.  If you can't find it, likely it's censored, removed, hidden.  That does happen here right? 

And another thing there is no requirement that you I or anyone else be informed when it is.

Even if I am right(which I am) look what you state here...

You admit or maybe concede? that a figure of 80,000 would mean the govt 'wanted to fear-monger'

Well that's progress, at least you have some sense of reality.

Unfortunately in your case it's one step forwards and two steps back.

You say the only people that used that figure was the media??

Really?  Why not share your source of information proving that claim?

Your roller roaster of accusations at me that I 'made it up' or am posting 'misinformation' or have 'confirmation bias' seems a bit shallow now doesn't it.

So stop doing a drunken waltz and prove it ... Or

 

Drunken waltz? You should read your last post again, it's a bit rambling. I've read it a few times and I still don't know what you're trying to say.

The bottom line is you've made claims that I've doubted. Don't assume I haven't tried to verify your claims. I have.....and can't. And, apparently, neither can you. But that's because people are creeping into the internet and moving things when you're not looking. That's fine. You can believe what you like. But you can't expect me to believe the same when you can't show it to be true.

It makes rational discussion very difficult if not impossible. For example, take this line you wrote: "

You say the only people that used that figure was the media??

Really?  Why not share your source of information proving that claim?

Now, how would I go about proving that someone didn't say something? Wouldn't it be easier to prove that they did (if they did)? If you can't understand that basic point we've really nothing more to say. So, over to you.