Social GoldenWolf's COVID Vaccine/Lockdown Protest megathread Vol. 2

[Bald1]

It was 1918 fueled by social media. Bad decisions all around.

Terrible in many cases.

I don't much care about how the average Joe handled it as we all could have done better. But those in charge? Yeah, they don't deserve an inch of charitable interpretation or a benefit of a doubt. I screw up at my job and I'm held accountable. Same for you and most of the rest of us. An oopsie and Mia culpa just doesn't cut it.

 

[maximus__]

So, If the parents had what they wanted, an adequate supply of unvaccinated blood, you’d disapprove of them not being allowed that option?

I asked for more context didn't I? Can you actually give me any? or do you just want to try and catch me saying I support the court making medical decisions opposed to parents wishes and get a gotcha moment with no context. Just post a source with the parents showing they had an legit option.
If they can set up 24 hour access to a suitable donor that doesn't continue to delay the child's welfare it might be doable, but it still has massive issues.
They look at parents and family members before other blood sources anyway so that makes me think this wasn't an option.

 

[maximus__]

I can't find anything either. Maybe they weren't suitable donors because of..., reasons that are best kept out of the news?

I seriously don't know and I'm only spitballing here.

No one has provided anything yet so I am guessing it's not the case. Usually when people claim something they can chuck at least some source up if it's true in anyway.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I asked for more context didn't I? Can you actually give me any? or do you just want to try and catch me saying I support the court making medical decisions opposed to parents wishes and get a gotcha moment with no context. Just post a source with the parents showing they had an legit option.
If they can set up 24 hour access to a suitable donor that doesn't continue to delay the child's welfare it might be doable, but it still has massive issues.
They look at parents and family members before other blood sources anyway so that makes me think this wasn't an option.

I was asking a hypothetical question specifically to understand your position of how the states role in healthcare decisions should be made.

 

[aerius]

One guess who threw out the playbook when COVID hit?

Wrong. The correct answer is Fauci. As the head of the NIH and the chief medical advisor to the president, the buck stops with him.

 

[Bald1]

Wrong. The correct answer is Fauci. As the head of the NIH and the chief medical advisor to the president, the buck stops with him.

But that doesn't even begin to tell the whole story.

We put all our eggs in one basket. And that basket was handled by the most risk averse people in the planet. And, in Faucis case a ghoul with a history of shilling for profit at the expense of people.

I think it goes further than politics and those in power. We're willing to make compromises that were unthinkable prior to 9/11. And more recently we're willing to demonize those who disagree with us. It's one thing for power to request we rat out neighbors, friends and family for daring to celebrate lifes milestones. It's a completely different thing to agree to do so.

And that's why I'd prefer to overlook all our Covid fuck ups. Because if we don't we'll keep repeating this same sort of a pattern.

 

[Natural Order]

Pretty simple logic surrounding the parents/baby/vaccine blood story as far as I can tell.

If the situation presents where vaccinated and non-vaccinated donors are indeed separated and identifiable in quick fashion and the immediacy of the situation was not dire then I don't see why the wishes of the parents could not be acquiesced. If however the situation was immediate and dire and there was no reservoir to "choose" from then the parents would be clinically retarded for not accepting the available option.

If there was time to REQUEST blood (any) to a system that identified vaccinated/non-vaccinated donors then the parents wishes should have be fulfilled. If this was an ER situation, no time for requests and only what is on hand, then it's a different story.

So which one is it?

 

[maximus__]

I was asking a hypothetical question specifically to understand your position of how the states role in healthcare decisions should be made.

Parents should decide the medical care for their child until their decisions are the reason that the child isn't getting adequate healthcare that is available to them.
In this case the parents decision to delay heart surgery because they want a particular kind of blood was leading to the child suffering long term health implications and ultimately death.
They may have potentially caused a heart valve surgery to become more serious in the future by delaying this operation. This decision may have long term health implications.

All available evidence is pointing to the state doing the right thing to ensure a 4 month old child's safety.The parents have had full access to the child and are with him post surgery from the article I posted earlier. The state could have taken the child, but all they did is seek guardianship for an emergency surgery and the recovery period after. Seems reasonable to me from all available information.

 

[mon]

If you're willing to watch your child die from something that can be fixed with a commonly done medical procedure but choose not to because of your own "research?"

Yeah, you're in a cult.

Lol, are you female or male?

Once again, the child was in no danger. None at all, the timing danger was introduced by the state when forcing this through court.

"But it's not a cult..."


I'm still waiting for how I insulted you, unless was that a proxy virtue signalling pity play.

"Come on man, you're better then this...."



This is one of the glaring faults of the cult antithinker side. Almost every attack is quite literally just a projection of their own internal state from being exactly what they attack.



This is another excellent video of Senator Gerard Rennick very clearly showing the depth of thought, experience and science behind yet another government health decision.



"The ABC employed fake health experts to inflict fear - Senate Estimates 29.11.22"


I'm very happy and tbh only getting happier with my choice of personal critical thought and reasoning. I've noticed the Antithinkers are thinning out some on here....

 

[mon]

Edit: wakey wakey, you might need an extra coffee--or valium--for this day.

Red Voice Media -- seems legit. Anti-thinker, indeed, you are.

Are you referring to this guy,
https://factcheck.afp.com/us-cardiologist-makes-false-claims-about-covid-19-vaccination

Or maybe you mean these guys,
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/06/dox...r-doctors-full-of-antivax-disinformation.html

No, I see you mean this guy,
"The Hawaii Medical Board filed complaints against Pang and Maui physician Dr. Kirk Milhoan on Thursday after reports that both supported COVID-19 treatments that federal agencies advise against."

"Milhoan, who runs the For Hearts and Souls free clinic and is also the senior pastor at Calvary Chapel South Maui, also said that he supports treatments like steroids and monoclonal antibodies but that he was looking for early treatments to keep people out of the hospital.

“I understand I’m going to be investigated. I thought this might happen,” Milhoan said Friday. “Usually people who suggest early treatment come under some type of scrutiny for what they’re doing. I’m not anti-vaxxer. I’m pro-vaccine. I’m not asking people not to get vaccinated. All I’m trying to do is, I see people who are infected, now what do I do? It’s too late (at that point) to say, ‘Go get vaccinated.’ “"

Lol really, what little credibility you have evaporated when using "factcheck" for your factchecking. The expose on the various factchecking sites you use has been done to death so if you want to check the accuracy of this statement use a non censored search engine and educate yourself on this tooic.

As for the other guy? He has absolutely no medical quals in vaccines or actual physical health yet the shear arrogance to state that uts worrying when actual doctors and experts in their fields say stuff that I don't believe....

Just lol @Mandy Capp

 

[maximus__]

Lol, are you female or male?

Once again, the child was in no danger. None at all, the timing danger was introduced by the state when forcing this through court.

"But it's not a cult..."


I'm still waiting for how I insulted you, unless was that a proxy virtue signalling pity play.

"Come on man, you're better then this...."



This is one of the glaring faults of the cult antithinker side. Almost every attack is quite literally just a projection of their own internal state from being exactly what they attack.



This is another excellent video of Senator Gerard Rennick very clearly showing the depth of thought, experience and science behind yet another government health decision.



"The ABC employed fake health experts to inflict fear - Senate Estimates 29.11.22"


I'm very happy and tbh only getting happier with my choice of personal critical thought and reasoning. I've noticed the Antithinkers are thinning out some on here....

So did the parents have a legitimate source that could provide the vaccine free blood they wanted in a timely and ongoing manner?
The only people not thinking are the ones that think this is as simple as rocking up with a bag of blood for a one off donation.

 

[mon]

Pretty simple logic surrounding the parents/baby/vaccine blood story as far as I can tell.

If the situation presents where vaccinated and non-vaccinated donors are indeed separated and identifiable in quick fashion and the immediacy of the situation was not dire then I don't see why the wishes of the parents could not be acquiesced. If however the situation was immediate and dire and there was no reservoir to "choose" from then the parents would be clinically retarded for not accepting the available option.

If there was time to REQUEST blood (any) to a system that identified vaccinated/non-vaccinated donors then the parents wishes should have be fulfilled. If this was an ER situation, no time for requests and only what is on hand, then it's a different story.

So which one is it?

We had time for a court case so....

 

[maximus__]

Pretty simple logic surrounding the parents/baby/vaccine blood story as far as I can tell.

If the situation presents where vaccinated and non-vaccinated donors are indeed separated and identifiable in quick fashion and the immediacy of the situation was not dire then I don't see why the wishes of the parents could not be acquiesced. If however the situation was immediate and dire and there was no reservoir to "choose" from then the parents would be clinically retarded for not accepting the available option.

If there was time to REQUEST blood (any) to a system that identified vaccinated/non-vaccinated donors then the parents wishes should have be fulfilled. If this was an ER situation, no time for requests and only what is on hand, then it's a different story.

So which one is it?

It seems to be in the middle. Kid needed emergency surgery but parents wouldn't consent. The delay put the child at greater risk and it should have already had the surgery earlier.
They sort a court order to take guardianship of the child to give it the surgery it needed and follow up medical care. Family are the first place you look in relation to matching blood donors so mum,dad etc weren't suitable for whatever reason. People said there was other options but no one has shown that was the actual case yet. It's not a one off donation, it's an ongoing ability to provide that blood source for every follow up treatment only accessible for that child.

 

[Anewt]

So did the parents have a legitimate source that could provide the vaccine free blood they wanted in a timely and ongoing manner?
The only people not thinking are the ones that think this is as simple as rocking up with a bag of blood for a one off donation.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/07/asia...cine-donor-blood-baby-scn-intl-hnk/index.html

The parents had previously demanded the New Zealand Blood Service take a donation from a person chosen by the family, but the agency refused and said it does not make a distinction between vaccinated and unvaccinated donors.

( which makes the whole thing weird. Because they are making the distinction. ) because the selection of family or friends is valid in nz. So what does it matter?

 

[aerius]

But that doesn't even begin to tell the whole story.

We put all our eggs in one basket. And that basket was handled by the most risk averse people in the planet. And, in Faucis case a ghoul with a history of shilling for profit at the expense of people.

I think it goes further than politics and those in power. We're willing to make compromises that were unthinkable prior to 9/11. And more recently we're willing to demonize those who disagree with us. It's one thing for power to request we rat out neighbors, friends and family for daring to celebrate lifes milestones. It's a completely different thing to agree to do so.

And that's why I'd prefer to overlook all our Covid fuck ups. Because if we don't we'll keep repeating this same sort of a pattern.

It's true that we have a deeply flawed societal system along with many broken/corrupt institutions. However, it's our leadership in the political & other institutions which sets the tone for the rest of us. Are we more willing to make compromises and demonize others than ever before? Absolutely. But who enables and tacitly encourages it? If the rhetoric & hate which was directed at the the vaccine-hesitant were directed at say, blacks, gays, or some other protected group, a whole bunch of people would be getting shitcanned and there'd be a dozen federal & provincial special commissions formed to investigate the hate crimes.

Ultimately we all hold some level of responsibility for the shit show we're in. We allowed our society to devolve to where it is, and we voted in the cocksuckers who then appointed their best friends to various positions of influence. Which leaves a bunch of folks in a shitty position, there's not enough of us to make our voice heard and change the system, and the alternative which is "execute Case Nightmare Rainbow" isn't going to happen until a lot more lines are crossed.

 

[Rob Battisti]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/07/asia...cine-donor-blood-baby-scn-intl-hnk/index.html

The parents had previously demanded the New Zealand Blood Service take a donation from a person chosen by the family, but the agency refused and said it does not make a distinction between vaccinated and unvaccinated donors.

( which makes the whole thing weird. Because they are making the distinction. ) because the selection of family or friends is valid in nz. So what does it matter?

Seems like the family was targeted by the state to be forced to take the blood of those who took the Covid shots.

 

[maximus__]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/07/asia...cine-donor-blood-baby-scn-intl-hnk/index.html

The parents had previously demanded the New Zealand Blood Service take a donation from a person chosen by the family, but the agency refused and said it does not make a distinction between vaccinated and unvaccinated donors.

( which makes the whole thing weird. Because they are making the distinction. ) because the selection of family or friends is valid in nz. So what does it matter?

So it seems to be a case of private vs public health care with the NZ system? My assumption would be the logistics of storing this particular blood for the use of one patient is outside the scope of the publicly available NZ health service. Can we confirm they actually had someone available at all that was suitable? The way that article reads makes me think they expected them to take store and effectively have a private blood supply accessible for this child ongoing. This type of surgery usually results in multiple surgeries and ongoing medical care, I read that more as the logistics of the whole thing weren't doable in regards to this operation because they haven't considered vaccinated vs unvaccinated blood as a thing medically.

 

[Anewt]

So it seems to be a case of private vs public health care with the NZ system? My assumption would be the logistics of storing this particular blood for the use of one patient is outside the scope of the publicly available NZ health service. Can we confirm they actually had someone available at all that was suitable? The way that article reads makes me think they expected them to take store and effectively have a private blood supply accessible for this child ongoing. This type of surgery usually results in multiple surgeries and ongoing medical care, I read that more as the logistics of the whole thing weren't doable in regards to this operation because they haven't considered vaccinated vs unvaccinated blood as a thing medically.

I obviously can't tell you if they were compatible or not. I personally haven’t donated blood. But I know without a doubt that there would be on the questionnaire what vaccinations have you had recently. Now the mrna vaccinations are apparently fine almost immediately apparently, but If you had the non mrna version you are unable to donate blood for a time period after said shot )

I would be extremely doubtful that information like that isn't collected with the donor blood. So realistically It seems a bit unlikely to me that they couldn't find " unvaccinated compatible blood " through their own system. But we'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they don't record those details while collecting the blood. ( which is a insane thought )

Then we add the fact this had time to go to court. And the fact that they outright refused to test the nominated people .

The New Zealand health service has denied the family’s request to use blood from unvaccinated volunteers and says that the vaccines pose no risk to donor supplies. On Tuesday, the High Court in Auckland will decide whether to grant the health service, Te Whatu Ora, temporary guardianship of the baby so it can remove the child from the family and perform the surgery.


It reeks of a example being made to me.

 

[Anewt]

Seems like the family was targeted by the state to be forced to take the blood of those who took the Covid shots.

Very much seems that way. There's some very angry people who are irate that people didn't get the shot.

Hell here in aus after restrictions were lifted we decided to dock teachers pay who didn't get vaccinated. ( this was after everything had opened back up ) and they were back at work teaching )

 

[Natural Order]

It seems to be in the middle. Kid needed emergency surgery but parents wouldn't consent. The delay put the child at greater risk and it should have already had the surgery earlier.
They sort a court order to take guardianship of the child to give it the surgery it needed and follow up medical care. Family are the first place you look in relation to matching blood donors so mum,dad etc weren't suitable for whatever reason. People said there was other options but no one has shown that was the actual case yet. It's not a one off donation, it's an ongoing ability to provide that blood source for every follow up treatment only accessible for that child.

Biggest thing I'm drawing from it though is that it wasn't an immediate, life or death thing. This would be a planned surgery ahead of time. So if there was a way to fulfill the wishes of the parents here I don't see the issue. Am I reading correctly that the family is saying they had specific member who would donate and was turned down by medical system?