The Australian totalitarian megathread - She won't be right mate.

[SuperDeeDuper]

people love to compare data from different countries but without knowing CT values for everyone's PCR testing, what their exact definition of a "case" or "death" is, etc, these are all meaningless comparisons.

new talking point from covid nutters is that "Florida has a smaller population than Australia, but more cases and deaths." they just assume that everyone is using the same methods and definitions. do we really believe that Australia has a positive rate under 1% while also using the same definitions as the US is using? does anyone even know what their testing methods are?

 

[Return of the Freaker]

If we're being honest, it all goes back to the Port Arthur Massacre, one of the big 90s school shootings that lead to restriction or abolition of gun rights. Don't know if the Aussies did anything extra funny, like give a copy of their report to the UN. I know the UK did after the Dunblaine Massacre.

 

[borsabil]

people love to compare data from different countries but without knowing CT values for everyone's PCR testing, what their exact definition of a "case" or "death" is, etc, these are all meaningless comparisons.

new talking point from covid nutters is that "Florida has a smaller population than Australia, but more cases and deaths." they just assume that everyone is using the same methods and definitions. do we really believe that Australia has a positive rate under 1% while also using the same definitions as the US is using? does anyone even know what their testing methods are?

The TGA and state based guidance refer back to the manufacturer's instructions on use as they can't mandate due to the variability of the tests. The manufacturer's data sheets do not mention any recommended cycle threshold. So it's a black box. The labs run as many or as little cycles as they like. Depending on the prevalence of Covid in the community the chances of detecting trace amounts of incidental virus in the naso-pharyngeal swabs increases dramatically when the tests are run with higher cycle thresholds.

 

[Gimmick Account]

So as far as I am concerned, keep them locked down. It’s clearly what they want.

I don't blame the people. Their media is wall-to-wall hypnotic propaganda. I've spent time in Australia periodically over the last decade or so, and hopping in and out of the country like that gives me the luxury of not being in the pot while the frogs get boiled. So I'm struck by how much it's been ratcheted up every time I visit every couple of years.
It always seems cartoonish until I point it out to people and get blank stares.

Australia's a test market for the rest of the world. Just like how McDonalds rolls out new menu shit there a year ahead as a demo, they're guinea pigs for conditioning a population of compliant boot-lickers.

I still fucking hate Australians, I just don't think they're individually responsible for how much they fucking suck.

 

[Smash That Kike Button]

I heard about the dog story today so I’ve come to announce that Australia is absolutely cucked and Australians are no longer allowed to shitpost.

 

[Pimpleking55]

 

[Jones McCann]

I can't believe these people are locking down an entire country, causing unknown amount of psychological harm to all people and especially children over 938 deaths out of 25 million people. These people gave up their right to resist authoritarianism when they willingly gave away their guns. I'm just glad it's Austrialia and not my country.

I'm confused, I thought this was a troll post. Is that actually a real person that just looks exactly like Null?

 

[Iron Jaguar]

does anyone even know what their testing methods are?

PCR.

 

[Banana Cat]

I can't believe these people are locking down an entire country, causing unknown amount of psychological harm to all people and especially children over 938 deaths out of 25 million people. These people gave up their right to resist authoritarianism when they willingly gave away their guns. I'm just glad it's Austrialia and not my country.

I'm confused, I thought this was a troll post. Is that actually a real person that just looks exactly like Null?

A real person who looks just like Null. Our media isn't allowed to report on suicide incase it makes people copy so you need to hear about that from families. At this point more people know someone who's killed themselves then have actually caught covid.

 

[Pop pop fizz fizz]

PCR.

you know, I distinctly remember from the beginning of the pandemic that the inventor of the PCR test was trying to get word out that said test shouldn't be used for WuFlu testing, then he was banned off all social media and un-personned into oblivion and then how random objects like cans of soda were testing positive for WuFlu as the test pops a positive far too easily or somesuch.

 

[Stoneheart]

you know, I distinctly remember from the beginning of the pandemic that the inventor of the PCR test was trying to get word out that said test shouldn't be used for WuFlu testing, then he was banned off all social media and un-personned into oblivion and then how random objects like cans of soda were testing positive for WuFlu as the test pops a positive far too easily or somesuch.

Thats not correct. racoonman said that a positive PCR test only means that viral RNA is in the body/nose. it doesnt mean that you are ill or infectiouse or will get ill.
the false-positive wave comes from bad guidelines, they use to many circles and get bad data(something everybody who ever done PCRs knows).
The test itself works well if done right.

 

[Iron Jaguar]

The test itself works well if done right.

...with that being the crux of the issue. - They are deliberately misusing the test, in a way that guarantees a huge number of false positives. Basically, if you've even had the common cold in the last two years, they'll determine it was Kung Flu.

 

[Sanshain]

Thats not correct. racoonman said that a positive PCR test only means that viral RNA is in the body/nose. it doesnt mean that you are ill or infectiouse or will get ill.
the false-positive wave comes from bad guidelines, they use to many circles and get bad data(something everybody who ever done PCRs knows).
The test itself works well if done right.

He also said that it was too sensitive, and the criteria for a 'positive' test could be defined in basically whatever way the user wanted. If you were patient or obsessive enough, you could get a PCR test to return positive on such a pathetically minute quantity of the virus that anyone who hadn't been in isolation since day #1 of the pandemic could hypothetically test as a COVID-carrier. I also believe it doesn't discriminate based on the status of the virus, I.E whether it's alive or dead, (but don't quote me on that) so whether or not you're actually infectious and a carrier is completely disconnected from your ability to test positive or not.

It's a test for something with no set criteria, basically. It's the same as how everyone has different standards of hygiene. To one person, dirt on their shoes doesn't make it wrong for them to eat food with their hands. To another, any speck of dirt equals contamination. What counts as a COVID case ultimately depends on a variety of ever-changing factors. Even the idea of vaccine immunity as a percentage is a gross oversimplification. If a vaccine is '80% effective', what does that even mean? Does it mean that if you were exposed 100 times to an infectious viral load, only 20 out of those 100 infection events would stick in your system? Does it mean in a year you're 80% less likely to get Covid in any scenario? Does it mean each individual virus is 80% likely to die inside your body before replication, leaving 20% alive? It depends entirely on who you ask.

 

[Sanshain]

Doubleposting but fuck it I'm drunk I won't do what you tell me.

What I really want to know about this whole fucking mess is why. Surely Australian politicians know they've absolutely fucked public trust in the gub'mint. Surely they know nobody will vote for them anymore. Why the fuck do they keep on and keep on doubling down like this? It's completely retarded on every level. Not even fucking China held on this hard and fast to lockdown mandates. What's this all in aid of? What do they hope to gain from it? Who is the man behind the curtain?

 

[Banana Cat]

Doubleposting but fuck it I'm drunk I won't do what you tell me.

What I really want to know about this whole fucking mess is why. Surely Australian politicians know they've absolutely fucked public trust in the gub'mint. Surely they know nobody will vote for them anymore. Why the fuck do they keep on and keep on doubling down like this? It's completely retarded on every level. Not even fucking China held on this hard and fast to lockdown mandates. What's this all in aid of? What do they hope to gain from it? Who is the man behind the curtain?

Because the two major parties in Australia Labor (left) and Liberal ("right") are both in bed with China and both agree with the lockdown rules (see each states lockdown rules, each state is a mix of both parties). Pollies here are all fucked left, right and centre.

Edit:
How much of Australia China actually owns

 

[El Gordo Ramsay Sex Dwarf]

Don't forget that they ratioed down the PCR cycles once Biden was in in January.

 

[SuperDeeDuper]

The TGA and state based guidance refer back to the manufacturer's instructions on use as they can't mandate due to the variability of the tests. The manufacturer's data sheets do not mention any recommended cycle threshold. So it's a black box. The labs run as many or as little cycles as they like. Depending on the prevalence of Covid in the community the chances of detecting trace amounts of incidental virus in the naso-pharyngeal swabs increases dramatically when the tests are run with higher cycle thresholds.

if this is true then there's pretty much no way to make any kind of worthwhile comparison between AUS and US data then. I know that the US has been using 35 to 40 CT for unvaxxed people since the beginning, which means that god knows how many nothing burgers were counted as "cases." then when the shots came out, they started testing the vaxxed at only 28 CT. I have even seen some studies using as low as 17 CT. so basically the CDC is openly cooking the numbers to get politically favorable data.

it doesn't discriminate based on the status of the virus, I.E whether it's alive or dead, (but don't quote me on that)

the test is looking for a reaction with viral RNA, not active virus. so getting a "positive" off of some leftover RNA fragments is simply a matter of turning the cycles up high enough.

If a vaccine is '80% effective', what does that even mean? Does it mean that if you were exposed 100 times to an infectious viral load, only 20 out of those 100 infection events would stick in your system?

all these big impressive sounding percentages are based on relative risk, not absolute risk. what you're imagining here is more like absolute risk, whereas relative risk is like the amount of change from that baseline risk.

for example, if you have a 2% chance of getting AIDS and I develop a treatment that reduces your chance to 1%, I can characterize that as a "50% reduction of the risk of AIDS" as a relative statement. in reality, your absolute risk was always low and has barely changed after my treatment. they are doing this exact same trickery with the vaccines:

COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the…

archived 6 Jun 2021 05:55:40 UTC

archive.is

Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech, 94% for the Moderna–NIH, 90% for the Gamaleya, 67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines. However, RRR should be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time. Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.

 

[Richardface]

Please save us truckies

Happy to contribute to a fund for youse to hire some prostitutes to murder as is your wont if you free us from the health stasi

 

[Banana Cat]

Please save us truckies

From what I hear even the pajeet truckies are on board with this

 

[Richardface]

From what I hear even the pajeet truckies are on board with this

Working class pajeets are very different from the computer janitor/substandard engineering degree pajeet class in my experience. Not surprised to hear it.