Only
four days after Austria imposed a discriminatory limited lockdown on
the unvaccinated scapegoats, the Austrian government has realised its
folly and announced a Full National Covid-19 Lockdown starting from
Thursday 19 November 2021, for 20 days.
Chancellor Alexander
Schallenberg stressed that from 1 February 2022 onwards there would be a
legal requirement for all Austrians to get vaccinated. In other words,
vaccination would become compulsory. On the other hand, Singapore is so
afraid of declaring vaccination compulsory that it makes use of
unprecedented measures to compel, coerce and intimidate the unvaccinated
to take their vaccination.
Austria was one of the gangho
countries that attempted to achieve herd immunity very early during the
Covid-19 pandemic, before Covid-19 vaccines were available, allowing the
people to have big gatherings and move about without wearing masks. So
when it started its National Vaccination Program, there haven't been
much takers. As a result, up to date, Austria has only about 30%
vaccinated, one of the lowest in Europe.
So, despite the unvaccinated being locked down, in the last four days record numbers of cases have been experienced.
Many
other European countries are now experiencing a surge in Covid-19
infections and deaths, despite having a high vaccination rate of Pfizer
and Moderna vaccines. They are also imposing more restrictions on
business, trade, travel, movement and assembly.
This is another
big lesson for Singapore and Singaporeans. It is not just the
unvaccinated to be blamed. Even the vaccinated are getting infected and
die, and spread the viruses among themselves. It is a matter of time
even people hiding in their ivory towers and protected by personal body
guards will also be infected and die.
So, for goodness sake, wake up before more unnecessary and preventable deaths are made
Young, middle-age or old, every single life is precious.
Please
don't take other people's lives lightly and treat them as mere digits
and statistics to back up any stupid excuse or unjustifiable
justification for own selfish political or financial motives.
Let's
face the facts. No country can live with a deadly and highly contagious
virus that can mutate rapidly and become more and more resilient than
humans by the day.
Make Singapore more resilient? Covid-19 coronavirus must be laughing at your stupidity. If the Truth hurts, I am very sorry.
It is a very risky and huge gamble, and a folly, to try to live with the Angel Of Death!
Get this very clear in our head:
Covid-19 is NOT common flu.
It
is in a different league. The common flu is like a common soldier.
Covid-19 Delta is like the Delta Force, a highly trained and skilled
special operations commando or seal team. It strikes when you let your
guards down, either because of fatigue, strain, impatience or
over-confidence.
Covid-19 is probably the Angel of Death sent by
God to cleanse the highly corrupted Earth! The more corrupted your
country or your leadership's brain is, the more you will make "harakiri"
decisions. Does it ring a bell?
Think about it.
Queen of Hearts.
PS. There are several articles on the virus and the lies spread in the US to boost its sales, and the opposition by experts in the call for a booster shot that is unnecessary at this point of time. Will put them up next week one at a time.
17 comments:
Protests are happening everywhere by the unvaccinated against their governments' victimisation and discrimination, making use of them as scapegoats to cover up the respective country's leaders own failures and incompetence in the management of the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Yet in Singapore, there is not even a squeak made by a mouse to call a spade a spade.
Ruling Singapore is such a piece of cake. Any programmed robot could have done it much better and at a greatly much lower cost than the happy-go-lucky self-enriched multi-millionaires ministers.
Covid-19 Vaccination: What Is The Real Motive To Vaccinate The Children Age 5-11?
The dictum “follow the money” fits in well here. A recent US News headline can give you a good idea of what is involved here:
“Pfizer Expects 2021, 2022 COVID-19 Vaccine Sales to Total at Least $65 Billion.”
Pfizer’s Covid vaccine stands to become the most profitable pharmaceutical product in the history of men-unkind.
You can easily see through their hidden game strategy when you know who are sitting at the Advisory Panel that issued the recommendation to vaccinate our children age 5 to 11:
1. The meeting roster shows that numerous members of the Committee and temporary Voting Members have worked for Pfizer,
2. Have major connections with Pfizer.
3. Including a former Vice President of Pfizer Vaccines,
4. A recent Pfizer Consultant,
5. A recent Pfizer Research Grant recipient,
6. A man who mentored a current Top Pfizer Vaccine Executive,
7. A man who runs the Center that gives out Pfizer Vaccines,
8. The Chairperson of a Pfizer Data Group,
9. A guy who was proudly photographed taking a Pfizer vaccine,
10. And numerous people who are already on the record supporting Coronavirus vaccines for Children.
11. Most significantly, the recent FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb is on Pfizer’s Board of Directors.
Does it not ring a bell loud and clear?
12. As if the above list is not good enough, the Acting Chairman of the Board that made the recommendation was one Arnold S. Monto who was a paid Pfizer Consultant up until 2018.
All these show us how brazen and outrageous these people are, since they did this in open view without fear of public scrutiny.
This is only part of a larger pattern whereby nearly all regulatory agencies of the US government, and some other governments close to our heart, have been "captured" by those they are supposed to oversee.
The Federal Aviation Authority that is supposed to regulate Boeing aircraft's safety and air worthiness 737-Max is another example.
The name for this game is called "Regulatory Capture" or "Trojan Horse Invasion", similar to CECA. As a result, we can no longer trust any government body tasked with protecting the safety and well-being of the population.
To endanger the health of children in the absence of a medical justification and for the sake of profit is a travesty of unspeakable proportions.
Since it has been proven that the mRNA vaccines neither protect us from infections nor transmissions, there is no good reasons to take unnecessary risks to inject our children with useless vaccines that may cause long-term serious health problems.
Why allow the unscrupulous profiteers to benefit while our children shoulder the potential risks of long-term health problems or deaths? This is absolutely unnecessary and unwise.
What is the KK Hospital trying to prove?
Please think wisely for the sake of our future generations.
SSO - 21 November 2021.
ReplyDelete
›
Home
View web version
Contributors
Chua Chin Leng aka redbean
Mikospace
Unknown
southernglory1
Powered by Blogger.
Steve Harker, CEO of Reuters is also on the board of Pfizer. Any wonder why Reuters, more than any other western news media has more articles smearing the Chinese inactivated vaccines.
Today we are all witnesses to the most horrifying crimes against humanity perpetuated by the governments of the world in this pandemic.
How many would live to see the death and destruction of humanity in the near future?
Ho Ching:
From a Code Blue report of a Chilean study presented to WHO on prevention of infection, serious illness or death
“The 71 per cent efficacy rate for a third Sinovac jab, 14 days after the third shot, was lower than 81 per cent efficacy with two Pfizer-BioNTech doses, 14 days after the second dose. Two Sinovac doses only yielded 50 per cent effectiveness against coronavirus infection, 14 days after the second shot.”
So in stacking order for effectiveness or efficacy for prevention of getting infected, starting 14 days after 2nd or 3rd shot:
2 x Sinovac : 50%
3 x Sinovac : 71%
2 Pfizer-BioNTech : 81%
Therefore, 3 shots of Sinovac should be the primary regime - to bring it closer to the 2 shots of Pfizer, albeit with a 10% gap instead of a 31% gap.
This should apply to SinoPharm too, though SinoPharm should be a tad better than Sinovac.
Furthermore,
“In terms of symptomatic Covid-19 disease, efficacy in people fully vaccinated with Sinovac increased to about 95 per cent for a third shot with Pfizer, 94 per cent for AstraZeneca-Oxford, and 74 per cent for a third Sinovac dose.
Again, three Sinovac doses was less effective in preventing Covid-19 disease at 74 per cent than two Pfizer doses with 84 per cent efficacy. Sinovac was only 54 per cent effective in preventing symptomatic Covid-19 with two doses, 14 days after the second shot.”
So in stacking order for preventing symptomatic infection, ie getting ill with symptoms of all levels of severity - all based on counting from 2 weeks after the 2nd or 3rd shot:
2 x Sinovac : 54%
3 x Sinovac : 74%
2 x Pfizer-BNT : 84%
2 x Sinovac + 1 x AstraZ : 94%
2 x Sinovac + 1 x Pfizer-BNT : 95%
Hence, folks with 2 shots of Sinovac (or SinoPharm) are better off taking either Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, or AstraZeneca as their booster.
The Chilean study did not account for longevity or waning effect and the increased risk over time.
The Chilean study did cover a very large population, but is not necessarily translatable to the response vis a vis the Delta.
Worth keeping in mind.
Also worth keeping in mind, that we should not mix and compare across studies when the studies have different set ups or criteria.
For instance, the MOH data would be largely driven by the response to the Delta, several months after vaccination started.
However, MOH data would be more based on the older folks who have had their boosters ealier.
The Chilean data could be used as a reference to determine the atacking or ranking order of effectiveness, but we may need a doscount factor to account for effectivness vs Delta.
Also data on 2 shots were influenced by response to older variants, whereas data on boosters could be affected by the rise and dominance of Delta more recently?
Kudos to the Chileans for the study, nonetheless.
In terms of vaccination, the Chileans started off with the Sinovac, with Pfizer coming in later.
Among their vaccinated:
75% Sinovac
21% Pfizer-BioNTech
4% AstraZeneca & CanSino
CanSino in Chile was offered as a single shot instead of the usual 2 shots.
We may end up concluding that the Covid vaccination (and future coronavirus vaccinations) could be best done as a 3 dose regime, with a half dose primer.
Vaccines like Sinovac and SinoPharm may be regarded as 2-shot primers, goven the Chilean data showing that the 3-shot effectiveness for Sinovac is clearly less effedtive than a 2-shot Pfizer.
The CanSino data sinply confirms that a single shot is not as effective, but nonetheless useful if delivering 2-3 shots is difficult in certain situations. The same applies to the Johnson & Johnson single shot regime - ideally at least 2 shots, less effective than an mRNA single shot except for the advantage for fridge cold chain instead of deep freezer cold chain for transport/stroage.
I actually wanted to delete the above article as it is a truly stupid propaganda piece with lying statistics.
One year has passed and the western countries have practically all been injected with MRNA vaccines by Pfizer, Moderna and Astrazeneca. What happened to their infection and death rate? If their vaccines are so effective, why is their infection rate still so high and surging? What does it say?
The Chinese did not over claimed the efficacy of their vaccines. But the result of countries using Chinese vaccines are far better than those using Pfizer and Moderna and other western vaccines. China has nearly 0 cases of infections. What does it say/
Please use your head and think and look at what is real and not what the western countries are claiming. You have the right to choose to believe in truth and in lies.
It is your choice. If the western vaccines are so good as claimed, should not the infection rate and death rate be lowering or even halved at least?
Remember, stupidity has no cure.
COVID-19 Vaccinations Have Become Quasi-Mandatory
On 20 November 2021, one day short of the end of the "Stabilisation Phase", the Singapore Government has announced a new slew of measures as Singapore moves to a "Transition Phase".
Among the measures are the extension of Vaccination-Differentiated Safe Management Measures (VDS), for the stated reason "to protect the unvaccinated from getting infected and becoming severely ill".
While the increase of number of household visitors (from 2 to 5 per day) will apply to the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike, the unvaccinated will not be able to dine in at food and beverage establishments. This is on top of the earlier ban of unvaccinated individuals from shopping malls, attractions, as well as hawker centres and coffee shops.
VDS measures have also been extended to more settings and activities, including in all Libraries under the National Library Board (NLB), and selected activities in community clubs/centres under People’s Association (PA).
Additionally, there is the removal of the "VDS concession" for "voluntarily unvaccinated individuals". The Ministry of Health (MOH) press release states:
12. We will further strengthen efforts to protect unvaccinated individuals from getting infected, as they are subject to greater risks of severe illness. Under current rules, unvaccinated individuals can get a PET and show a negative test result to enter a VDS setting. We will remove this concession for unvaccinated individuals to perform PET in lieu of being fully vaccinated. Hence, only fully vaccinated, recovered, or medically ineligible individuals, or children aged 12 years and below (subject to venue/event-specific caps) will be allowed to enter settings where VDS is implemented . We will effect this on 1 January 2022, to allow time for more individuals to complete their primary series vaccination regime.
This appears to be the first time that pre-event testing (PET) as an alternative to vaccination for dining in has been described as a "concession". In a Facebook post on 11 August, Health Minister Ong Ye Kung had said in a Q&A:
1. If I cannot take the vaccine, how can I join my family for meals at restaurants?
Take a PET (pre-event test) at an MOH approved test provider . It costs about $20, valid for 24 hours. But that merely shows you are not likely to have the virus. It does not protect you from being infected. So please be careful.
On the other hand, the VDS measures do not apply to medically ineligible patients/residents and visitors, on the basis of a "concession" granted by the Government.
With the latest slew of measures, an eligible but unvaccinated person (or "voluntarily unvaccinated" person) is effectively subject to numerous restrictions, all for the ostensible reason of "protecting" him or her "from getting infected and becoming severely ill". Conversely, those who are medically ineligible for COVID-19 vaccinations are given a wide exemption. As such, COVID-19 vaccinations have become quasi-mandatory, even though there is no fine or jail term attached.
Protection or Pressure?
The Government has maintained that the purpose of the VDS measures is to "protect the unvaccinated", although this position has shifted over time. Dominic Chan has discerned four distinct reasons given by the Government in different statements over the course of time.
In a statement in Parliament on 14 September 2021, Health Minister Ong Ye Kung said:
We are now one of the most highly-vaccinated countries in the world, partly due to the various measures we have taken, including setting up mobile vaccination teams, home vaccination teams and enabling walk-in vaccinations.
However, for various reasons, there remains a minority of individuals who are unvaccinated. As we transit into a COVID-19-resilient nation, more economic and social activities will resume, which means these individuals are at higher risk of being exposed to the virus and falling severely ill. Hence, it will be more prudent for them not to take part in higher risk activities, such as big events and dining in restaurants in the company of other persons. However, if they really wish to, they can take a pre-event test before participating in these higher-risk activities.
For now, the differentiated measures are necessary to keep unvaccinated individuals and vulnerable people in our community safe. As we achieve a very high level of vaccination, reaching or approximating herd immunity, it is possible to remove the differentiated measures.
In the meantime, it is important to continue to explain that these are public health measures to protect unvaccinated individuals and not let the policy be mistaken or misrepresented as discriminatory.
If the goal of "protecting the unvaccinated" is true, the most puzzling aspect of VDS measures is the differential treatment given to these two groups of people: (1) those who are eligible but voluntarily unvaccinated, and (2) those who are medically ineligible for vaccinations.
Indeed, the medically ineligible are consistently exempted from VDS, whereas the voluntarily unvaccinated are consistently affected by VDS.
This apparent public health goal is even more puzzling once we consider the removal of PET as an option (including for both the voluntarily unvaccinated and medically ineligible persons). It would seem that the medically ineligible are unnecessarily exposed to exceptional risk as a result.
The goal of "protecting the unvaccinated" is also questionable in light of MOH's own statements. As MOH stated in its press release dated 8 November 2021: "We are taking a stronger stance against those who choose not to be vaccinated, be it through the VDS, or by requiring them to pay for their medical bills." [Emphasis added]
These statements, coupled with the very real consequences of VDS measures, leaves one with a strong sense that the real intention behind these measures is to exert pressure upon people to take the COVID-19 vaccine. However, it falls short of being directly mandatory, since there is no fine or jail term imposed for refusing to take the vaccine.
Government's Position on Mandatory Vaccination
The Government has thus far refrained from making COVID-19 vaccination mandatory, even though it has not ruled out the option. In December 2020, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced that the Government accepted the expert committee's recommendation to make vaccinations voluntary.
On 1 November 2021, Senior Minister of State for Health Dr Janil Puthucheary stated the Government's views on mandatory vaccination:
Sir, making COVID-19 vaccination compulsory is a significant move. It should be carefully considered. We would have to consider a number of factors: vaccination coverage, international practice and the availability or performance of fully registered COVID-19 vaccines.
The introduction of the vaccination-differentiated measures, in a way, is to try and get around some of that problem, to expose the different segments of the population to different risks. But in terms of making vaccination compulsory, it is also quite difficult in terms of the execution.
step too far.
You can imagine that for something like childhood vaccines, you may say that without it, you cannot have access to play groups or certain school. There is a specific thing that you want to do and for that, you are getting the vaccine. But here, we are talking about all the normal activities of life and so policing it, executing it, implementing it is not without challenges. And the question is, how much benefit will there be?
So, I think it is something to consider but there are a whole lot of complications associated with that.
Health Minister Ong Ye Kung reiterated this position on 3 November 2021.
These statements leave more questions than answers as to the true purpose of the VDS measures.
Going Too Far?
In an insightful article on vaccine mandates, Wesley J. Smith identified three distinct vaccine "tribes". The first is the pro-vaccine/pro-mandate "tribe", which has taken the jab and insists that everyone else be inoculated too. The second is the anti-vaccine/anti-mandate "tribe", which refuses to be inoculated and plans to resist all mandates.
Smith regards himself as falling into a third "tribe", the "the pro-vaccine/anti-mandate middle-grounders". This is my position on the matter.
I have received the COVID-19 vaccine (Moderna), and strongly encourage people to be vaccinated against COVID-19. COVID-19 is an unprecedented crisis and global pandemic. I agree with the public health authorities in Singapore that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the risks, and the vaccines are an important tool in fighting against the COVID-19 pandemic.
Nevertheless, in a previous post, I argued that COVID-19 vaccines should not be made mandatory, and that vaccination against COVID-19 should remain voluntary. The thrust of my reasoning is focused on a value judgment and a deeper concern about the damage to valuable trust and social capital in society. My arguments have been set out in the previous post, and I will not repeat them here.
As Smith wrote in his article:
Much like viruses, authoritarianism can spread. In free societies, significant interference with civil liberties is justified only by urgent need—and then should be done in the least intrusive way practicable. A COVID vaccine mandate simply does not pass that test—especially with COVID testing readily available. Indeed, a reasonable compromise to mandates would give people a choice: Either prove you are inoculated and/or have COVID antibodies from a prior infection, or receive regular tests. This would be a far less intrusive regulation, but would still offer significant public health benefits.
I agree. I had drawn attention to the concentration of power in the Government due to the COVID-19 pandemic in my 2020 article published in the Singapore Journal of Legal Studies. These recent steps reinforce that concern.
The differential treatment between those who are eligible but voluntarily unvaccinated, and those who are medically ineligible for vaccinations, is incomprehensible if the goal is truly "to protect the unvaccinated from getting infected and becoming severely ill". The removal of the PET option as an alternative to vaccination in VDS measures is also problematic; it does not serve the goal of protecting those who are medically ineligible for vaccinations. These are a step too far
Rb don't delete as u have excellent response
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02243-1/fulltext
In this fight against the Covid-19, Goh Meng Seng has been aggressively campaigning against vaccines. He had also aggressively promoted Ivermectin as a cure for Covid-19.
The Ministry of Health (MOH) says it is aware of a Facebook post by Mr Goh Meng Seng, who noted that MOH had sponsored a study on the efficacy of Lianhua Qingwen in treating mild COVID-19 infections, which was supposed to run from July 2020 to February 2021, and asked why the findings of that study have not been published yet.
MOH says:
Mr Goh Meng Seng’s post is incorrect. MOH had indeed offered to sponsor the study mentioned by Mr Goh Meng Seng, under a TCM research grant. However, the Principal Investigator for the study later withdrew her application. She cited inability to secure a suitable study site as the reason for the withdrawal.
To date, a few randomised control clinical trials (RCTs) on Lianhua Qingwen have been conducted, only in China. The numbers of patients in these RCTs were not large enough, as such there is no conclusive scientific evidence to show Lianhua Qingwen can be used to prevent or treat COVID-19 in Singapore.
Mr Goh Meng Seng has accused the Government of lying; this is a serious, baseless accusation. We reserve the right to take further action if Mr Goh Meng Seng persists with this unjustified claim.
We strongly advise members of the public to consult a doctor for management of COVID-19, and to avoid speculating and/or spreading misinformation, which may cause public alarm, and to refer to credible sources of information instead. Please visit www.moh.gov.sg for the latest information on COVID-19. For information regarding consumer safety, please visit www.hsa.gov.sg.
MOH's post here:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=267731942048903&id=100064362986604
For HSA’s full advisory on Lianhua Qingwen, please see:
http://www.hsa.gov.sg/.../news/advisorycovid-lianhuaqingwen
𝐎𝐮𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠.
The number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic stands at 250,518.
But we know that there are cryptic cases that go undetected, and mild cases where the infected recovered without seeing any doctors. These are people who recovered without knowing they were infected.
Assuming that for every reported case, 2 cases go undetected, and therefore not captured in statistics. This is a conservative 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, in my opinion, as the Delta variant is very infectious.
(The original virus was less infectious. While 54,505 migrant workers in the dorms were reported as infected through the PCR test, 98,289 of them tested positive for serology test showing that they were previously infected. Thus, in reality, 47% or 152,794 out of 323,000 migrant workers in the dorms were infected with the original virus. So my assumption for the Delta variant is a reasonable one.)
Based on this assumption, we could have more than 750,000 people in our population who are already infected once by the coronavirus.
It follows therefore that the natural immunity in our population has increased. This, coupled with a high vaccination rate, is a boost to our resilience against COVID-19.
In short, our resilience is growing.
Einstein said, if you keep doing the same thing, don't expect the result to be different.
In other words, if you keep using the same fake vaccines, don't expect the result to be different.
You don't bullshxt. How to have "Resilience" when you guys can't even achieve herd immunity.
All you guys have achieved is a hurt community and a victimised group of people called the voluntarily unvaccinated.
You guys said vaccination is voluntary.
Now you turned around to victimise those who do not volunteer according to your wish.
What kind of gentleman is that?
Not gentlemen but worse than crooks.
To achieve herd immunity, first of all the vaccines must work. The biggest problem is that the vaccines are not what the snake oil salesmen said they were. There is no 95% efficacy. They don't prevent infections. They are only 18% to 25% effective in reducing severe consequences. How to achieve herd immunity under such circumstances?
If herd immunity can't even be achieved, talking about Covid-19 Resilience is just a small kid's fantasy, not even a dream!
Reuters, AP and AFP are the only three main news distributors to all the other news outlets. These three are controlled by Western Governments and Billionaires, who are all belongingbto the Anglo-Saxon White Supramacists Group.
Post a Comment