Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.

[Infidel144]

Was this because Sky News had a guest on discussing Ivermectin?

[Stario]

FYI for the thread...

Stario is referencing the Sky News TV network in Australia, which is a Murdoch owned Australian-centric news channel. Alan Jones is a former sports coach-turned-media-shock-personality who recently had a regular newspaper column very publicly dropped by the Daily Telegraph. He's also had Youtube on his back over some of his Sky News appearances.

So consider this an extension of Murdoch's global war on anything that doesn't further his profits, and it is an almost facsimile of the Fox vs anyone who threatens Murdoch's pockets battle in the US...

Much like Fox in the US, Sky News do accurate reporting, but their editorial content has a similar reputation to that of Fox. If you've drunk the cool aid, it's truth telling. If you haven't, it's toxic stuff.

I am not saying believe what the news outlets are reporting; in fact, none of the news channels should be believed/trusted. But instead, use them to do your own research and it will quickly become apparent which of the news outlets are pushing the leftist propaganda agenda. And sky News Australia (while not perfect), is definitely doing a better job than the other news outlets here in Australia when it comes to reporting facts at maintaining neutrality; examples of this I already provided in my previous post. Heck Alan Jones also urged people not to protest...

[PointOfViewGun]

Even if you look at two doses (50 deaths), it's is still more people dying as opposed to unvaccinated deaths I.E. 50 death (received two doses) v 44 unvaccinated.
This is irrelevant because they had two groups, and the unvaccinated group actually outnumbered the vaccinated group I.E. 53,822 (unvaccinated people) v 27,192 (vaccinated individuals). Yet despite outnumbering (by almost double), they (the unvaccinated group); still had less overall death.
So no matter how you want to 'spin-it' the fact is the unvaccinated group (although outnumbering by almost double the unvaccinated group), still had fewer deaths. While you'd expect exactly the opposite, that is if the vaccine was truly effective it wouldn't even be close in terms of deaths.

You seem to miss the point of proper statistics completely. People over the age of 50 have been highly vaccinated in UK. Hence, you see 976 unvaccinated cases against 3,689 vaccinated cases over the age of 50. Yet, 976 cases from the unvaccinated produced 38 deaths while 3,689 cases from the vaccinated produced 50 deaths. That shows us a ratio of 3.89% against 1.35%. Less deaths for the vaccinated. Thats one comparison you can make in that table without the need for external explanation. Even then, its likely that the vaccinated are more active people compared to unvaccinated people. Hence, even those ratios reflect that in reality its much better to get vaccinated. Morever, with vaccination you see that most deaths occur with people over the age of 50 overwhelmingly. These include people with severe conditions where vaccines are administered for the sake of trying everything. That you got there is selection bias. Get to know it well. What you're trying to do here is to lie using statistics without a parameter that you think is favorable to you.

[Heathen Hammer]

FYI for the thread...

Stario is referencing the Sky News TV network in Australia, which is a Murdoch owned Australian-centric news channel. Alan Jones is a former sports coach-turned-media-shock-personality who recently had a regular newspaper column very publicly dropped by the Daily Telegraph. He's also had Youtube on his back over some of his Sky News appearances.

So consider this an extension of Murdoch's global war on anything that doesn't further his profits, and it is an almost facsimile of the Fox vs anyone who threatens Murdoch's pockets battle in the US...

Much like Fox in the US, Sky News do accurate reporting, but their editorial content has a similar reputation to that of Fox. If you've drunk the cool aid, it's truth telling. If you haven't, it's toxic stuff.

So Sky news isn't different form any other major news network and the only reason they got censored was because they are conservative and not liberal.

[Gaidin]

So Sky news isn't different form any other major news network and the only reason they got censored was because they are conservative and not liberal.

Wow. That's what we call telling a lie.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...misinformation

[Heathen Hammer]

Wow. That's what we call telling a lie.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...misinformation

Did they ban CNN when they repeated WHO's lie about human transmission rates? Sounds like garden variety partisan censorship to me.

[Gaidin]

Where's the CNN youtube video?

[Stario]

You seem to miss the point of proper statistics completely. People over the age of 50 have been highly vaccinated in UK. Hence, you see 976 unvaccinated cases against 3,689 vaccinated cases over the age of 50. Yet, 976 cases from the unvaccinated produced 38 deaths while 3,689 cases from the vaccinated produced 50 deaths. That shows us a ratio of 3.89% against 1.35%. Less deaths for the vaccinated. Thats one comparison you can make in that table without the need for external explanation. Even then, its likely that the vaccinated are more active people compared to unvaccinated people. Hence, even those ratios reflect that in reality its much better to get vaccinated.

It's actually 3.89% vs 1.41% (in >50 group). But that's only if you look at the over 50 age group. If you look at all ages-it's 0.69% vs 0.08%. SO for all ages Vaccinated people (those that received 2 doses), are 8.6-times more likely to die from Delta Variant than Unvaccinated.

Morever, with vaccination you see that most deaths occur with people over the age of 50 overwhelmingly. These include people with severe conditions where vaccines are administered for the sake of trying everything. That you got there is selection bias. Get to know it well. What you're trying to do here is to lie using statistics without a parameter that you think is favorable to you.

Ye tell me more about selection bias. Is this like when with CoV19 "you see that most deaths occur with people over the age of 50 overwhelmingly". Or is it when 94% of all CoV19 deaths have at least one or more serious medical condition(s) I.E. Cancer or other communicable diseases but are still counted as a CoV19 death. Or is it when a person testing positive a week prior dies in a motor vehicle accident but is still counted as covid death.
Or perhaps all of the above...

[PointOfViewGun]

It's actually 3.89% vs 1.41% (in >50 group). But that's only if you look at the over 50 age group. If you look at all ages-it's 0.69% vs 0.08%. SO for all ages Vaccinated people (those that received 2 doses), are 8.6-times more likely to die from Delta Variant than Unvaccinated.

Ye tell me more about selection bias. Is this like when with CoV19 "you see that most deaths occur with people over the age of 50 overwhelmingly". Or is it when 94% of all CoV19 deaths have at least one or more serious medical condition(s) I.E. Cancer or other communicable diseases but are still counted as a CoV19 death. Or is it when a person testing positive a week prior dies in a motor vehicle accident but is still counted as covid death.
Or perhaps all of the above...

That flew over your head faster than I could have expected. This kind of intelligently dishonest approach kills people. I hope one day we will find a just and proper way of retribution for it.

[B. W.]

Wow. That's what we call telling a lie.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...misinformation

Where's the CNN youtube video?

WHO and big media own this pandemic. As late as January 14, 2020 WHO was still telling governments around the world there was no evidence of human to human transmission and the media was repeating it. When Trump tried to close the border to air travel from certain countries the left called him a racist.

Why hasn't U-tube banned all the people that STILL echo WHO's pandemic reports? There is no greater LIE than that which was told by the WHO regarding early pandemic information and hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives because the WHO lied.

The irony is that the media that did not question what the WHO was saying is still viewing on U-tube without repercussions and the media that questions it is being blacklisted.

[antaeus]

WHO and big media own this pandemic.

As a representative international scientific body, WHO can only state what is the current consensus within their particular scientific community. It is media and politicians who then interpret what they say into ways that support what ever divisive narrative they require. With this in mind, it also means that the WHO will change their advice over time as the consensus changes. This isn't lying, or deliberately misleading, it is updating advice based on new information and it's up to us to make sure we're reading their most up to date advice. Because of the wide and competing scope of organisations that utilise their information an advice, they have to be conservative in what information they give - because again, what they say will be interpreted by media and politicians in different ways.

Because their advice is both conservative, and changing, they will offer advice that is contrary to previous advice. It is easy for people to misinterpret what they say as deliberate misinformation. But that would be a mistaken understanding of their role, and the role played by intermediary information providers between the WHO and individuals (I.E. media organisations and politicians), and the scientific process in general.

B.W. You are misinterpreting the role of the WHO based on editorialised information that comes to you through the above mentioned political and media channels. But you're not alone - this happens to conservatives and progressives because they're all competing at mobilising their bases. I'm guilty of this at times too - so don't get all defensive on me. After hundreds of posts in this thread, B.W, it's clear what your perspective on this post will be - so you don't need to trouble yourself with a reply either, unless it is to say "I never thought of it that way, let's lynch the politicians and multinational media heads"

[Pontifex Maximus]

Day 505 of 15 days to flatten the curve.

""Trust the experts""

Imagine...

[Gaidin]

WHO and big media own this pandemic. As late as January 14, 2020 WHO was still telling governments around the world there was no evidence of human to human transmission and the media was repeating it. When Trump tried to close the border to air travel from certain countries the left called him a racist.

Why hasn't U-tube banned all the people that STILL echo WHO's pandemic reports? There is no greater LIE than that which was told by the WHO regarding early pandemic information and hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives because the WHO lied.

The irony is that the media that did not question what the WHO was saying is still viewing on U-tube without repercussions and the media that questions it is being blacklisted.

Where's the CNN youtube video?

The initial complaint was about a CNN youtube video which wasn't provided. You can provide it. Or you can...pontificate.

[Cope]

Where's the CNN youtube video?

The initial complaint was about a CNN youtube video which wasn't provided. You can provide it. Or you can...pontificate.

An interesting demand given that the offending Sky Australia content has yet to be provided.

[Gaidin]

An interesting demand given that the offending Sky Australia content has yet to be provided.

I posted a well sourced news article. They have posted nothing.

Congressmembers have gotten banned for lying about COVID, so I'm certainly not digging up information that could get me banned, making a Youtube account, and getting banned as a strike 1 move for your benefit. If it's actually been posted, and if it's actually breaking youtube's rules, HH can find them, HH can report them, HH can get CNN banned for a few days or hours, and then HH can brag his conservative *** off here. It's his labor to work.

[antaeus]

Sky news has it's own streaming and on-demand services. They are not dependent on Youtube. Most people watch through Foxtel - Murdoch's local cable/streaming network, and any controversial segment can be found on-demand.

For the most part, the block on Youtube impacts on viewer sharing of articles and social media interaction, rather than the company's freedom to broadcast or it's ability to editorialise.

[Cope]

I posted a well sourced news article. They have posted nothing.

Congressmembers have gotten banned for lying about COVID, so I'm certainly not digging up information that could get me banned, making a Youtube account, and getting banned as a strike 1 move for your benefit. If it's actually been posted, and if it's actually breaking youtube's rules, HH can find them, HH can report them, HH can get CNN banned for a few days or hours, and then HH can brag his conservative *** off here. It's his labor to work.

That "well-sourced news article" neither included nor referenced the specific content from Sky News Australia which was deemed to violate YouTube's policies. This is because YouTube is refusing to release that information. We have no way of knowing whether the strike was justified or not.

[B. W.]

As a representative international scientific body, WHO can only state what is the current consensus within their particular scientific community. It is media and politicians who then interpret what they say into ways that support what ever divisive narrative they require. With this in mind, it also means that the WHO will change their advice over time as the consensus changes. This isn't lying, or deliberately misleading, it is updating advice based on new information and it's up to us to make sure we're reading their most up to date advice. Because of the wide and competing scope of organisations that utilise their information an advice, they have to be conservative in what information they give - because again, what they say will be interpreted by media and politicians in different ways.

Because their advice is both conservative, and changing, they will offer advice that is contrary to previous advice. It is easy for people to misinterpret what they say as deliberate misinformation. But that would be a mistaken understanding of their role, and the role played by intermediary information providers between the WHO and individuals (I.E. media organisations and politicians), and the scientific process in general.

B.W. You are misinterpreting the role of the WHO based on editorialised information that comes to you through the above mentioned political and media channels. But you're not alone - this happens to conservatives and progressives because they're all competing at mobilising their bases. I'm guilty of this at times too - so don't get all defensive on me. After hundreds of posts in this thread, B.W, it's clear what your perspective on this post will be - so you don't need to trouble yourself with a reply either, unless it is to say "I never thought of it that way, let's lynch the politicians and multinational media heads"

Ha, ha, ha! Tetros sets the WHO releases; not an internal consensus. WHO had to retract its release because numerous other sources were confirming human to human transmission. I wonder how all those experts at WHO whose job it is to tract such things missed it?

But hey, if you want to go there, why not. Let's take the mRNA vaccine for instance. Big Pharma has spent billions trying to develop these vaccines since 2001, but none have passed muster by the FDA...And yet we're supposed to believe there haven't been any long term studies done on their effects. Do you really believe that? It is known that these vaccines work there way into the organs, but it is not publically known what those effects are; that information is in internal studies done by the drug companies. Why do you think that the drugs were approved on an emergency basis with protection against lawsuits? Did it occur to you that suddenly the Social Security problem is no longer mentioned in politics?

Ten or twenty years from now when thousands of people are lying in their hospital beds dying of organ failure, the doctors will lean over them and tell them it's climate change that causing it and the bots will nod their heads in unison...because that's the consensus don't ya know.

Now the news is telling us that it's all the unvaccinated Americans that are causing the surge in the Delta variant, but they're not telling us that so many of the victims are double dosed. They're also not saying that millions of unvaccinated (and sick) illegals being sent across the country are part of the problem.

But hey, you go ahead and live in your bubble as long as you can.

I posted a well sourced news article. They have posted nothing.

If you want to see what a well sourced article looks like see the link in post 3355.

[Coughdrop addict]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...ays-after-anti

I don't know about you all, but I sure feel owned.

I wonder how many of his base listened to him, didn't get vaccinated or socially distance, and died from covid as well?

[Heathen Hammer]

The article clearly states that cause of death was never identified. Such intellectual dishonesty and constant attempts to manipulate facts and emotions is probably the reason why people trust your side less and less.