Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 03:39:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyOnce more you have to be nasty, no woinder people dislike you intensely.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yes that was from the original link - it was just a little further
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 19:40:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe question was "if true". You have posted nothing that shows it was or was >>>not true and the original link fails to do that.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 02:58:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Your post doed not address the subjecty, at all. There is no data that is >>>>>pertinent. You really are a silly little boy.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Clearly you totally missed the message from that thread - the answers >>>>>>were there but clearly you missed the data - either through your usual >>>>>>shallow following of links or deliberately we will never know, but you >>>>>>have been unable to identify anywhere that my post was wrong.
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 08:44:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It's obvious to all but you. What you posted did not address the >>>>>>>question.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 15:56:40 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:What absolute nonsense. You can twist it any way you like but it is >>>>>>>>>still
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 14:08:42 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:15:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Incorrect Rich - that cite is for something else.
thinkinghttps://x.com/MattKingNorth/status/1853504373881778435 >>>>>>>>>>>>>I would love to see some data but if true it would not surprise >>>>>>>>>>>>>most
folk.
Data was given; it just needed looking for. See: >>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/oia-responses/Covid-19-vaccination-claims-refresh-july-2024.pdf
I used this resource:
https://www.acc.co.nz/resources#/
to search for all (ACC) OIA responses (use a Category of OIS >>>>>>>>>>>responses, a subcategory of ALL and click on GO). None of the (621) >>>>>>>>>>>results referenced the number in Matt King's X post (035284). >>>>>>>>>>>Interesting that the most recent OIA response was (IIRC) September >>>>>>>>>>>2024 so the response King listed may not have been published by the >>>>>>>>>>>ACC yet.
The chart showing the number of accepted claims based on primary >>>>>>>>>>>>injury is interesting - the treatment injuries listed are : Allergic
Reaction, Sprain, Cardiac Injury, Contusion, Adverse Drug Reaction /
Anaphylactic Reaction / Infection / Shoulder Damage/Injury, >>>>>>>>>>>>Cellulitis
/ Bursitis, Inflammation / Nerve Damage / Other.
More claims were declined than accepted - the most common reason >>>>>>>>>>>>being
"No Injury"
The proportion likely to relate to the actual vaccine is not clear, >>>>>>>>>>>>but from the descriptions, appears to be low. (Adverse drug reaction
is fairly clear, but cardiac injury, Anaphylactic reaction less clear
- most appear to be related to having an injection . . . >>>>>>>>>>>>
Five claims have been lodged with ACC which have related to a fatal >>>>>>>>>>>>injury - the report does not say how many of those claims were >>>>>>>>>>>>accepted or declined.
I did not see the OIA that purportedly gives a figure of $11.5 >>>>>>>>>>>>million, but in working out financial equivalence for the purposes of
policies, calculations usually impute a value for lives saved or >>>>>>>>>>>>somewhere between $1m and $2million.
The comparisons of Covid related mortality based on actual vs >>>>>>>>>>>>expected
deaths indicate that had we experienced the same results as the USA,
we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths during the peak >>>>>>>>>>>>Covid period - at a life value of even $1 million, our Covid response
saved around $22 billion - a cost for vaccination related injuries of
only $11 million is in relative terms insignificant.
I doubt that even a National-led Government would have totally >>>>>>>>>>>>followed the stupidity of various USA governments, but we can be >>>>>>>>>>>>proud
that our government, faced with the uncertainty relating to the >>>>>>>>>>>>appearance of Covid, acted conservatively and followed expert advice;
it is clear that at least some in the current government would act >>>>>>>>>>>>similarly in the face of a similar threat now, but regrettably some >>>>>>>>>>>>would still on principle seek policies that resulted in more deaths >>>>>>>>>>>>than necessary.
Thanks Crash. The data I used was given as a reference in the >>>>>>>>>>X-thread. I see no reason to doubt ACC statistics, and the statistics >>>>>>>>>>do demonstrate that the assertions in the initial link given are >>>>>>>>>>almost certainly true, and that they demonstrate a relatively low >>>>>>>>>>level of adverse effects (and at that mostly relating to the >>>>>>>>>>injections), and the extremely good results New Zealand experienced in
keeping deaths from Covid a lot lower than other countries in relation
to normal death rates. The answer to the "If true..." Subject heading >>>>>>>>>>is yes - the conclusions are true, and show New Zealand as having made
very good decisions.
twisted.
You are wrong.
In what way is what I said above wrong, Tony?
Got
it now? (I doubt it).
Data was given; it just needed looking for. See: >>>>https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/oia-responses/Covid-19-vaccination-claims-refresh-july-2024.pdf
Now show why you think that was not pertinent, Tony . . .
down than you probably looked. And of course it is relevant, and true
- it is an OIA report.
I saw it; it does not answer the question, just as you have not answered it. >Try again.
On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 06:43:15 -0000 (UTC), TonyOnce more you are abusive. It is a medical condition I believe.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 03:39:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyOnce more you have to be nasty, no woinder people dislike you intensely.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yes that was from the original link - it was just a little further
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 19:40:20 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The question was "if true". You have posted nothing that shows it was or >>>>was
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 02:58:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Your post doed not address the subjecty, at all. There is no data that is >>>>>>pertinent. You really are a silly little boy.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Clearly you totally missed the message from that thread - the answers >>>>>>>were there but clearly you missed the data - either through your usual >>>>>>>shallow following of links or deliberately we will never know, but you >>>>>>>have been unable to identify anywhere that my post was wrong.
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 08:44:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It's obvious to all but you. What you posted did not address the >>>>>>>>question.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 15:56:40 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>What absolute nonsense. You can twist it any way you like but it is >>>>>>>>>>still
wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 14:08:42 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:15:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Incorrect Rich - that cite is for something else.
thinkinghttps://x.com/MattKingNorth/status/1853504373881778435 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I would love to see some data but if true it would not surprise >>>>>>>>>>>>>>most
folk.
Data was given; it just needed looking for. See: >>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/oia-responses/Covid-19-vaccination-claims-refresh-july-2024.pdf
I used this resource:
https://www.acc.co.nz/resources#/
to search for all (ACC) OIA responses (use a Category of OIS >>>>>>>>>>>>responses, a subcategory of ALL and click on GO). None of the (621)
results referenced the number in Matt King's X post (035284). >>>>>>>>>>>>Interesting that the most recent OIA response was (IIRC) September >>>>>>>>>>>>2024 so the response King listed may not have been published by the >>>>>>>>>>>>ACC yet.
The chart showing the number of accepted claims based on primary >>>>>>>>>>>>>injury is interesting - the treatment injuries listed are : >>>>>>>>>>>>>Allergic
Reaction, Sprain, Cardiac Injury, Contusion, Adverse Drug Reaction >>>>>>>>>>>>>/
Anaphylactic Reaction / Infection / Shoulder Damage/Injury, >>>>>>>>>>>>>Cellulitis
/ Bursitis, Inflammation / Nerve Damage / Other.
More claims were declined than accepted - the most common reason >>>>>>>>>>>>>being
"No Injury"
The proportion likely to relate to the actual vaccine is not clear,
but from the descriptions, appears to be low. (Adverse drug >>>>>>>>>>>>>reaction
is fairly clear, but cardiac injury, Anaphylactic reaction less >>>>>>>>>>>>>clear
- most appear to be related to having an injection . . . >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Five claims have been lodged with ACC which have related to a fatal
injury - the report does not say how many of those claims were >>>>>>>>>>>>>accepted or declined.
I did not see the OIA that purportedly gives a figure of $11.5 >>>>>>>>>>>>>million, but in working out financial equivalence for the purposes >>>>>>>>>>>>>of
policies, calculations usually impute a value for lives saved or >>>>>>>>>>>>>somewhere between $1m and $2million.
The comparisons of Covid related mortality based on actual vs >>>>>>>>>>>>>expected
deaths indicate that had we experienced the same results as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>USA,
we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths during the peak >>>>>>>>>>>>>Covid period - at a life value of even $1 million, our Covid >>>>>>>>>>>>>response
saved around $22 billion - a cost for vaccination related injuries >>>>>>>>>>>>>of
only $11 million is in relative terms insignificant.
I doubt that even a National-led Government would have totally >>>>>>>>>>>>>followed the stupidity of various USA governments, but we can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>proud
that our government, faced with the uncertainty relating to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>appearance of Covid, acted conservatively and followed expert >>>>>>>>>>>>>advice;
it is clear that at least some in the current government would act >>>>>>>>>>>>>similarly in the face of a similar threat now, but regrettably some
would still on principle seek policies that resulted in more deaths
than necessary.
Thanks Crash. The data I used was given as a reference in the >>>>>>>>>>>X-thread. I see no reason to doubt ACC statistics, and the statistics
do demonstrate that the assertions in the initial link given are >>>>>>>>>>>almost certainly true, and that they demonstrate a relatively low >>>>>>>>>>>level of adverse effects (and at that mostly relating to the >>>>>>>>>>>injections), and the extremely good results New Zealand experienced >>>>>>>>>>>in
keeping deaths from Covid a lot lower than other countries in >>>>>>>>>>>relation
to normal death rates. The answer to the "If true..." Subject heading
is yes - the conclusions are true, and show New Zealand as having >>>>>>>>>>>made
very good decisions.
twisted.
You are wrong.
In what way is what I said above wrong, Tony?
Got
it now? (I doubt it).
Data was given; it just needed looking for. See: >>>>>https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/oia-responses/Covid-19-vaccination-claims-refresh-july-2024.pdf
Now show why you think that was not pertinent, Tony . . .
not true and the original link fails to do that.
down than you probably looked. And of course it is relevant, and true
- it is an OIA report.
I saw it; it does not answer the question, just as you have not answered it. >>Try again.
I am not responsible for your lack of understanding - the costs of the
claims for injury due to covid-related injections was very small,
largely related to needle injuries, and was insignificant in relation
to the cost that would have been incurred had we experienced the poor
results of the USA - we saved billions.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yes it is true that by November 2024: NZ ACC had paid out $11,429,594
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 02:58:12 -0000 (UTC), TonyYour post doed not address the subjecty, at all. There is no data that is >pertinent. You really are a silly little boy.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Clearly you totally missed the message from that thread - the answers
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 08:44:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt's obvious to all but you. What you posted did not address the question. >>>Got
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 15:56:40 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:What absolute nonsense. You can twist it any way you like but it is still >>>>>twisted.
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 14:08:42 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:15:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Incorrect Rich - that cite is for something else.
https://x.com/MattKingNorth/status/1853504373881778435
I would love to see some data but if true it would not surprise most >>>>>>>>>thinking
folk.
Data was given; it just needed looking for. See: >>>>>>>>https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/oia-responses/Covid-19-vaccination-claims-refresh-july-2024.pdf
I used this resource:
https://www.acc.co.nz/resources#/
to search for all (ACC) OIA responses (use a Category of OIS >>>>>>>responses, a subcategory of ALL and click on GO). None of the (621) >>>>>>>results referenced the number in Matt King's X post (035284). >>>>>>>Interesting that the most recent OIA response was (IIRC) September >>>>>>>2024 so the response King listed may not have been published by the >>>>>>>ACC yet.
The chart showing the number of accepted claims based on primary >>>>>>>>injury is interesting - the treatment injuries listed are : Allergic >>>>>>>>Reaction, Sprain, Cardiac Injury, Contusion, Adverse Drug Reaction / >>>>>>>>Anaphylactic Reaction / Infection / Shoulder Damage/Injury, Cellulitis >>>>>>>>/ Bursitis, Inflammation / Nerve Damage / Other.
More claims were declined than accepted - the most common reason being >>>>>>>>"No Injury"
The proportion likely to relate to the actual vaccine is not clear, >>>>>>>>but from the descriptions, appears to be low. (Adverse drug reaction >>>>>>>>is fairly clear, but cardiac injury, Anaphylactic reaction less clear >>>>>>>>- most appear to be related to having an injection . . .
Five claims have been lodged with ACC which have related to a fatal >>>>>>>>injury - the report does not say how many of those claims were >>>>>>>>accepted or declined.
I did not see the OIA that purportedly gives a figure of $11.5 >>>>>>>>million, but in working out financial equivalence for the purposes of >>>>>>>>policies, calculations usually impute a value for lives saved or >>>>>>>>somewhere between $1m and $2million.
The comparisons of Covid related mortality based on actual vs expected >>>>>>>>deaths indicate that had we experienced the same results as the USA, >>>>>>>>we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths during the peak >>>>>>>>Covid period - at a life value of even $1 million, our Covid response >>>>>>>>saved around $22 billion - a cost for vaccination related injuries of >>>>>>>>only $11 million is in relative terms insignificant.
I doubt that even a National-led Government would have totally >>>>>>>>followed the stupidity of various USA governments, but we can be proud >>>>>>>>that our government, faced with the uncertainty relating to the >>>>>>>>appearance of Covid, acted conservatively and followed expert advice; >>>>>>>>it is clear that at least some in the current government would act >>>>>>>>similarly in the face of a similar threat now, but regrettably some >>>>>>>>would still on principle seek policies that resulted in more deaths >>>>>>>>than necessary.
Thanks Crash. The data I used was given as a reference in the >>>>>>X-thread. I see no reason to doubt ACC statistics, and the statistics >>>>>>do demonstrate that the assertions in the initial link given are >>>>>>almost certainly true, and that they demonstrate a relatively low >>>>>>level of adverse effects (and at that mostly relating to the >>>>>>injections), and the extremely good results New Zealand experienced in >>>>>>keeping deaths from Covid a lot lower than other countries in relation >>>>>>to normal death rates. The answer to the "If true..." Subject heading >>>>>>is yes - the conclusions are true, and show New Zealand as having made >>>>>>very good decisions.
You are wrong.
In what way is what I said above wrong, Tony?
it now? (I doubt it).
were there but clearly you missed the data - either through your usual >>shallow following of links or deliberately we will never know, but you
have been unable to identify anywhere that my post was wrong.
I am happy to leave the abuse to you Tony - it must be debilitatingAbuse gone for now, but there will be more from Rich - sociopaths cannot help >it.
Or are you just making aNo, that's what you do. Not me.
wild assertion as a random attack?
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 19:40:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo, you have still not addressed the subject and yuou never will.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yes it is true that by November 2024: NZ ACC had paid out $11,429,594
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 02:58:12 -0000 (UTC), TonyYour post doed not address the subjecty, at all. There is no data that is >>pertinent. You really are a silly little boy.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Clearly you totally missed the message from that thread - the answers >>>were there but clearly you missed the data - either through your usual >>>shallow following of links or deliberately we will never know, but you >>>have been unable to identify anywhere that my post was wrong.
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 08:44:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It's obvious to all but you. What you posted did not address the question. >>>>Got
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 15:56:40 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:What absolute nonsense. You can twist it any way you like but it is still >>>>>>twisted.
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 14:08:42 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:15:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Incorrect Rich - that cite is for something else.
https://x.com/MattKingNorth/status/1853504373881778435
I would love to see some data but if true it would not surprise most >>>>>>>>>>thinking
folk.
Data was given; it just needed looking for. See: >>>>>>>>>https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/oia-responses/Covid-19-vaccination-claims-refresh-july-2024.pdf
I used this resource:
https://www.acc.co.nz/resources#/
to search for all (ACC) OIA responses (use a Category of OIS >>>>>>>>responses, a subcategory of ALL and click on GO). None of the (621) >>>>>>>>results referenced the number in Matt King's X post (035284). >>>>>>>>Interesting that the most recent OIA response was (IIRC) September >>>>>>>>2024 so the response King listed may not have been published by the >>>>>>>>ACC yet.
The chart showing the number of accepted claims based on primary >>>>>>>>>injury is interesting - the treatment injuries listed are : Allergic >>>>>>>>>Reaction, Sprain, Cardiac Injury, Contusion, Adverse Drug Reaction / >>>>>>>>>Anaphylactic Reaction / Infection / Shoulder Damage/Injury, Cellulitis >>>>>>>>>/ Bursitis, Inflammation / Nerve Damage / Other.
More claims were declined than accepted - the most common reason being >>>>>>>>>"No Injury"
The proportion likely to relate to the actual vaccine is not clear, >>>>>>>>>but from the descriptions, appears to be low. (Adverse drug reaction >>>>>>>>>is fairly clear, but cardiac injury, Anaphylactic reaction less clear >>>>>>>>>- most appear to be related to having an injection . . .
Five claims have been lodged with ACC which have related to a fatal >>>>>>>>>injury - the report does not say how many of those claims were >>>>>>>>>accepted or declined.
I did not see the OIA that purportedly gives a figure of $11.5 >>>>>>>>>million, but in working out financial equivalence for the purposes of >>>>>>>>>policies, calculations usually impute a value for lives saved or >>>>>>>>>somewhere between $1m and $2million.
The comparisons of Covid related mortality based on actual vs expected >>>>>>>>>deaths indicate that had we experienced the same results as the USA, >>>>>>>>>we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths during the peak >>>>>>>>>Covid period - at a life value of even $1 million, our Covid response >>>>>>>>>saved around $22 billion - a cost for vaccination related injuries of >>>>>>>>>only $11 million is in relative terms insignificant.
I doubt that even a National-led Government would have totally >>>>>>>>>followed the stupidity of various USA governments, but we can be proud >>>>>>>>>that our government, faced with the uncertainty relating to the >>>>>>>>>appearance of Covid, acted conservatively and followed expert advice; >>>>>>>>>it is clear that at least some in the current government would act >>>>>>>>>similarly in the face of a similar threat now, but regrettably some >>>>>>>>>would still on principle seek policies that resulted in more deaths >>>>>>>>>than necessary.
Thanks Crash. The data I used was given as a reference in the >>>>>>>X-thread. I see no reason to doubt ACC statistics, and the statistics >>>>>>>do demonstrate that the assertions in the initial link given are >>>>>>>almost certainly true, and that they demonstrate a relatively low >>>>>>>level of adverse effects (and at that mostly relating to the >>>>>>>injections), and the extremely good results New Zealand experienced in >>>>>>>keeping deaths from Covid a lot lower than other countries in relation >>>>>>>to normal death rates. The answer to the "If true..." Subject heading >>>>>>>is yes - the conclusions are true, and show New Zealand as having made >>>>>>>very good decisions.
You are wrong.
In what way is what I said above wrong, Tony?
it now? (I doubt it).
for Covid vaccine injury.
It is also true that this is a very low proportion of the total cost
of the Covid response
It is also true that our total deaths to which Covid was deemed to
contribute was very low in proportion to our population - if we had >experienced the same Covid related death rates as the USA we would
have had about 22,000 more deaths - which valued at say $1m each is
about $22 billion.
Yes it is true that the both the previous and the current government
have continued encouraging regular Covid vaccination, with subsidies
to those likely to be worst affected.
It is also true that anti-science and anti-vax nutters will try to use
good statistics to make the policies followed by both the previous and >current governments look bad . . .
Happy now Tony?
More abuse - you cannot help it. You don't know you are doing it. You are sociopathic.I am happy to leave the abuse to you Tony - it must be debilitatingAbuse gone for now, but there will be more from Rich - sociopaths cannot help >>it.
Or are you just making aNo, that's what you do. Not me.
wild assertion as a random attack?
for you to be wrong so consistently often.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 19:40:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo, you have still not addressed the subject and yuou never will.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yes it is true that by November 2024: NZ ACC had paid out $11,429,594
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 02:58:12 -0000 (UTC), TonyYour post doed not address the subjecty, at all. There is no data that is >>>pertinent. You really are a silly little boy.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Clearly you totally missed the message from that thread - the answers >>>>were there but clearly you missed the data - either through your usual >>>>shallow following of links or deliberately we will never know, but you >>>>have been unable to identify anywhere that my post was wrong.
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 08:44:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It's obvious to all but you. What you posted did not address the question. >>>>>Got
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 15:56:40 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:What absolute nonsense. You can twist it any way you like but it is still
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 14:08:42 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:15:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Incorrect Rich - that cite is for something else.
https://x.com/MattKingNorth/status/1853504373881778435
I would love to see some data but if true it would not surprise most >>>>>>>>>>>thinking
folk.
Data was given; it just needed looking for. See: >>>>>>>>>>https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/oia-responses/Covid-19-vaccination-claims-refresh-july-2024.pdf
I used this resource:
https://www.acc.co.nz/resources#/
to search for all (ACC) OIA responses (use a Category of OIS >>>>>>>>>responses, a subcategory of ALL and click on GO). None of the (621) >>>>>>>>>results referenced the number in Matt King's X post (035284). >>>>>>>>>Interesting that the most recent OIA response was (IIRC) September >>>>>>>>>2024 so the response King listed may not have been published by the >>>>>>>>>ACC yet.
The chart showing the number of accepted claims based on primary >>>>>>>>>>injury is interesting - the treatment injuries listed are : Allergic >>>>>>>>>>Reaction, Sprain, Cardiac Injury, Contusion, Adverse Drug Reaction / >>>>>>>>>>Anaphylactic Reaction / Infection / Shoulder Damage/Injury, Cellulitis
/ Bursitis, Inflammation / Nerve Damage / Other.
More claims were declined than accepted - the most common reason being
"No Injury"
The proportion likely to relate to the actual vaccine is not clear, >>>>>>>>>>but from the descriptions, appears to be low. (Adverse drug reaction >>>>>>>>>>is fairly clear, but cardiac injury, Anaphylactic reaction less clear >>>>>>>>>>- most appear to be related to having an injection . . .
Five claims have been lodged with ACC which have related to a fatal >>>>>>>>>>injury - the report does not say how many of those claims were >>>>>>>>>>accepted or declined.
I did not see the OIA that purportedly gives a figure of $11.5 >>>>>>>>>>million, but in working out financial equivalence for the purposes of >>>>>>>>>>policies, calculations usually impute a value for lives saved or >>>>>>>>>>somewhere between $1m and $2million.
The comparisons of Covid related mortality based on actual vs expected
deaths indicate that had we experienced the same results as the USA, >>>>>>>>>>we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths during the peak >>>>>>>>>>Covid period - at a life value of even $1 million, our Covid response >>>>>>>>>>saved around $22 billion - a cost for vaccination related injuries of >>>>>>>>>>only $11 million is in relative terms insignificant.
I doubt that even a National-led Government would have totally >>>>>>>>>>followed the stupidity of various USA governments, but we can be proud
that our government, faced with the uncertainty relating to the >>>>>>>>>>appearance of Covid, acted conservatively and followed expert advice; >>>>>>>>>>it is clear that at least some in the current government would act >>>>>>>>>>similarly in the face of a similar threat now, but regrettably some >>>>>>>>>>would still on principle seek policies that resulted in more deaths >>>>>>>>>>than necessary.
Thanks Crash. The data I used was given as a reference in the >>>>>>>>X-thread. I see no reason to doubt ACC statistics, and the statistics >>>>>>>>do demonstrate that the assertions in the initial link given are >>>>>>>>almost certainly true, and that they demonstrate a relatively low >>>>>>>>level of adverse effects (and at that mostly relating to the >>>>>>>>injections), and the extremely good results New Zealand experienced in >>>>>>>>keeping deaths from Covid a lot lower than other countries in relation >>>>>>>>to normal death rates. The answer to the "If true..." Subject heading >>>>>>>>is yes - the conclusions are true, and show New Zealand as having made >>>>>>>>very good decisions.
twisted.
You are wrong.
In what way is what I said above wrong, Tony?
it now? (I doubt it).
for Covid vaccine injury.
It is also true that this is a very low proportion of the total cost
of the Covid response
It is also true that our total deaths to which Covid was deemed to >>contribute was very low in proportion to our population - if we had >>experienced the same Covid related death rates as the USA we would
have had about 22,000 more deaths - which valued at say $1m each is
about $22 billion.
Yes it is true that the both the previous and the current government
have continued encouraging regular Covid vaccination, with subsidies
to those likely to be worst affected.
It is also true that anti-science and anti-vax nutters will try to use
good statistics to make the policies followed by both the previous and >>current governments look bad . . .
Happy now Tony?
Your childishness, sarcasm and abuse are legendary.
More abuse - you cannot help it. You don't know you are doing it. You are >sociopathic.I am happy to leave the abuse to you Tony - it must be debilitatingAbuse gone for now, but there will be more from Rich - sociopaths cannot help
Or are you just making aNo, that's what you do. Not me.
wild assertion as a random attack?
it.
for you to be wrong so consistently often.
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 18:48:31 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 19:40:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo, you have still not addressed the subject and yuou never will.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yes it is true that by November 2024: NZ ACC had paid out $11,429,594
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 02:58:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Your post doed not address the subjecty, at all. There is no data that is >>>>pertinent. You really are a silly little boy.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Clearly you totally missed the message from that thread - the answers >>>>>were there but clearly you missed the data - either through your usual >>>>>shallow following of links or deliberately we will never know, but you >>>>>have been unable to identify anywhere that my post was wrong.
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 08:44:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It's obvious to all but you. What you posted did not address the >>>>>>question.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 15:56:40 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:What absolute nonsense. You can twist it any way you like but it is >>>>>>>>still
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 14:08:42 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:15:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Incorrect Rich - that cite is for something else.
https://x.com/MattKingNorth/status/1853504373881778435 >>>>>>>>>>>>I would love to see some data but if true it would not surprise >>>>>>>>>>>>most
thinking
folk.
Data was given; it just needed looking for. See: >>>>>>>>>>>https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/oia-responses/Covid-19-vaccination-claims-refresh-july-2024.pdf
I used this resource:
https://www.acc.co.nz/resources#/
to search for all (ACC) OIA responses (use a Category of OIS >>>>>>>>>>responses, a subcategory of ALL and click on GO). None of the (621) >>>>>>>>>>results referenced the number in Matt King's X post (035284). >>>>>>>>>>Interesting that the most recent OIA response was (IIRC) September >>>>>>>>>>2024 so the response King listed may not have been published by the >>>>>>>>>>ACC yet.
The chart showing the number of accepted claims based on primary >>>>>>>>>>>injury is interesting - the treatment injuries listed are : Allergic >>>>>>>>>>>Reaction, Sprain, Cardiac Injury, Contusion, Adverse Drug Reaction / >>>>>>>>>>>Anaphylactic Reaction / Infection / Shoulder Damage/Injury, >>>>>>>>>>>Cellulitis
/ Bursitis, Inflammation / Nerve Damage / Other.
More claims were declined than accepted - the most common reason >>>>>>>>>>>being
"No Injury"
The proportion likely to relate to the actual vaccine is not clear, >>>>>>>>>>>but from the descriptions, appears to be low. (Adverse drug reaction >>>>>>>>>>>is fairly clear, but cardiac injury, Anaphylactic reaction less clear
- most appear to be related to having an injection . . .
Five claims have been lodged with ACC which have related to a fatal >>>>>>>>>>>injury - the report does not say how many of those claims were >>>>>>>>>>>accepted or declined.
I did not see the OIA that purportedly gives a figure of $11.5 >>>>>>>>>>>million, but in working out financial equivalence for the purposes of
policies, calculations usually impute a value for lives saved or >>>>>>>>>>>somewhere between $1m and $2million.
The comparisons of Covid related mortality based on actual vs >>>>>>>>>>>expected
deaths indicate that had we experienced the same results as the USA, >>>>>>>>>>>we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths during the peak >>>>>>>>>>>Covid period - at a life value of even $1 million, our Covid response
saved around $22 billion - a cost for vaccination related injuries of
only $11 million is in relative terms insignificant.
I doubt that even a National-led Government would have totally >>>>>>>>>>>followed the stupidity of various USA governments, but we can be >>>>>>>>>>>proud
that our government, faced with the uncertainty relating to the >>>>>>>>>>>appearance of Covid, acted conservatively and followed expert advice;
it is clear that at least some in the current government would act >>>>>>>>>>>similarly in the face of a similar threat now, but regrettably some >>>>>>>>>>>would still on principle seek policies that resulted in more deaths >>>>>>>>>>>than necessary.
Thanks Crash. The data I used was given as a reference in the >>>>>>>>>X-thread. I see no reason to doubt ACC statistics, and the statistics >>>>>>>>>do demonstrate that the assertions in the initial link given are >>>>>>>>>almost certainly true, and that they demonstrate a relatively low >>>>>>>>>level of adverse effects (and at that mostly relating to the >>>>>>>>>injections), and the extremely good results New Zealand experienced in >>>>>>>>>keeping deaths from Covid a lot lower than other countries in relation >>>>>>>>>to normal death rates. The answer to the "If true..." Subject heading >>>>>>>>>is yes - the conclusions are true, and show New Zealand as having made >>>>>>>>>very good decisions.
twisted.
You are wrong.
In what way is what I said above wrong, Tony?
Got
it now? (I doubt it).
for Covid vaccine injury.
It is also true that this is a very low proportion of the total cost
of the Covid response
It is also true that our total deaths to which Covid was deemed to >>>contribute was very low in proportion to our population - if we had >>>experienced the same Covid related death rates as the USA we would
have had about 22,000 more deaths - which valued at say $1m each is
about $22 billion.
Yes it is true that the both the previous and the current government
have continued encouraging regular Covid vaccination, with subsidies
to those likely to be worst affected.
It is also true that anti-science and anti-vax nutters will try to use >>>good statistics to make the policies followed by both the previous and >>>current governments look bad . . .
Happy now Tony?
Your childishness, sarcasm and abuse are legendary.
The Subject is clear : "If true..."There you are, more abuse.
You have not identified any aspect of that Subject that I have not
covered - I conclude that you are a coward as well as ignorant . . .
Your abuse instead of reasoned argument is getting tiresome . . .I did not abuse you at any time in this thread, so you are lying once more.
More abuse - you cannot help it. You don't know you are doing it. You are >>sociopathic.I am happy to leave the abuse to you Tony - it must be debilitatingAbuse gone for now, but there will be more from Rich - sociopaths cannot >>>>help
Or are you just making aNo, that's what you do. Not me.
wild assertion as a random attack?
it.
for you to be wrong so consistently often.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 18:48:31 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 19:40:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo, you have still not addressed the subject and yuou never will.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yes it is true that by November 2024: NZ ACC had paid out $11,429,594 >>>>for Covid vaccine injury.
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 02:58:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Your post doed not address the subjecty, at all. There is no data that is >>>>>pertinent. You really are a silly little boy.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Clearly you totally missed the message from that thread - the answers >>>>>>were there but clearly you missed the data - either through your usual >>>>>>shallow following of links or deliberately we will never know, but you >>>>>>have been unable to identify anywhere that my post was wrong.
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 08:44:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It's obvious to all but you. What you posted did not address the >>>>>>>question.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 15:56:40 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:What absolute nonsense. You can twist it any way you like but it is >>>>>>>>>still
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 14:08:42 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:15:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Incorrect Rich - that cite is for something else.
thinkinghttps://x.com/MattKingNorth/status/1853504373881778435 >>>>>>>>>>>>>I would love to see some data but if true it would not surprise >>>>>>>>>>>>>most
folk.
Data was given; it just needed looking for. See: >>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/oia-responses/Covid-19-vaccination-claims-refresh-july-2024.pdf
I used this resource:
https://www.acc.co.nz/resources#/
to search for all (ACC) OIA responses (use a Category of OIS >>>>>>>>>>>responses, a subcategory of ALL and click on GO). None of the (621) >>>>>>>>>>>results referenced the number in Matt King's X post (035284). >>>>>>>>>>>Interesting that the most recent OIA response was (IIRC) September >>>>>>>>>>>2024 so the response King listed may not have been published by the >>>>>>>>>>>ACC yet.
The chart showing the number of accepted claims based on primary >>>>>>>>>>>>injury is interesting - the treatment injuries listed are : Allergic
Reaction, Sprain, Cardiac Injury, Contusion, Adverse Drug Reaction /
Anaphylactic Reaction / Infection / Shoulder Damage/Injury, >>>>>>>>>>>>Cellulitis
/ Bursitis, Inflammation / Nerve Damage / Other.
More claims were declined than accepted - the most common reason >>>>>>>>>>>>being
"No Injury"
The proportion likely to relate to the actual vaccine is not clear, >>>>>>>>>>>>but from the descriptions, appears to be low. (Adverse drug reaction
is fairly clear, but cardiac injury, Anaphylactic reaction less clear
- most appear to be related to having an injection . . . >>>>>>>>>>>>
Five claims have been lodged with ACC which have related to a fatal >>>>>>>>>>>>injury - the report does not say how many of those claims were >>>>>>>>>>>>accepted or declined.
I did not see the OIA that purportedly gives a figure of $11.5 >>>>>>>>>>>>million, but in working out financial equivalence for the purposes of
policies, calculations usually impute a value for lives saved or >>>>>>>>>>>>somewhere between $1m and $2million.
The comparisons of Covid related mortality based on actual vs >>>>>>>>>>>>expected
deaths indicate that had we experienced the same results as the USA,
we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths during the peak >>>>>>>>>>>>Covid period - at a life value of even $1 million, our Covid response
saved around $22 billion - a cost for vaccination related injuries of
only $11 million is in relative terms insignificant.
I doubt that even a National-led Government would have totally >>>>>>>>>>>>followed the stupidity of various USA governments, but we can be >>>>>>>>>>>>proud
that our government, faced with the uncertainty relating to the >>>>>>>>>>>>appearance of Covid, acted conservatively and followed expert advice;
it is clear that at least some in the current government would act >>>>>>>>>>>>similarly in the face of a similar threat now, but regrettably some >>>>>>>>>>>>would still on principle seek policies that resulted in more deaths >>>>>>>>>>>>than necessary.
Thanks Crash. The data I used was given as a reference in the >>>>>>>>>>X-thread. I see no reason to doubt ACC statistics, and the statistics >>>>>>>>>>do demonstrate that the assertions in the initial link given are >>>>>>>>>>almost certainly true, and that they demonstrate a relatively low >>>>>>>>>>level of adverse effects (and at that mostly relating to the >>>>>>>>>>injections), and the extremely good results New Zealand experienced in
keeping deaths from Covid a lot lower than other countries in relation
to normal death rates. The answer to the "If true..." Subject heading >>>>>>>>>>is yes - the conclusions are true, and show New Zealand as having made
very good decisions.
twisted.
You are wrong.
In what way is what I said above wrong, Tony?
Got
it now? (I doubt it).
It is also true that this is a very low proportion of the total cost
of the Covid response
It is also true that our total deaths to which Covid was deemed to >>>>contribute was very low in proportion to our population - if we had >>>>experienced the same Covid related death rates as the USA we would
have had about 22,000 more deaths - which valued at say $1m each is >>>>about $22 billion.
Yes it is true that the both the previous and the current government >>>>have continued encouraging regular Covid vaccination, with subsidies
to those likely to be worst affected.
It is also true that anti-science and anti-vax nutters will try to use >>>>good statistics to make the policies followed by both the previous and >>>>current governments look bad . . .
Happy now Tony?
Your childishness, sarcasm and abuse are legendary.
There you are, more abuse.
The Subject is clear : "If true..."
You have not identified any aspect of that Subject that I have not
covered - I conclude that you are a coward as well as ignorant . . .
The subject is "If true"
It refers to this -
"NZ ACC HAS NOW PAID OUT $11,429,594 FOR COVID VACCINE INJURY....
New OIA Gov: 035284
Compare this with the less than $150,000 paid out for ALL VACCINE INJURY >(excluding Covid) each year, in 2018 and 2019.
Pfizer has complete INDEMNITY
They told us it was safe and effective."
And you, pathetic little child have not provided any evidence to support or >deny that. As usual you just abuse, distract and lie.
The chart showing the number of accepted claims based on primary >>>>>>>>>>>>injury is interesting - the treatment injuries listed are : Allergic
Reaction, Sprain, Cardiac Injury, Contusion, Adverse Drug Reaction /
Anaphylactic Reaction / Infection / Shoulder Damage/Injury, >>>>>>>>>>>>Cellulitis
/ Bursitis, Inflammation / Nerve Damage / Other.
More claims were declined than accepted - the most common reason >>>>>>>>>>>>being
"No Injury"
The proportion likely to relate to the actual vaccine is not clear, >>>>>>>>>>>>but from the descriptions, appears to be low. (Adverse drug reaction
is fairly clear, but cardiac injury, Anaphylactic reaction less clear
- most appear to be related to having an injection . . . >>>>>>>>>>>>
Five claims have been lodged with ACC which have related to a fatal >>>>>>>>>>>>injury - the report does not say how many of those claims were >>>>>>>>>>>>accepted or declined.
I did not see the OIA that purportedly gives a figure of $11.5 >>>>>>>>>>>>million, but in working out financial equivalence for the purposes of
policies, calculations usually impute a value for lives saved or >>>>>>>>>>>>somewhere between $1m and $2million.
The comparisons of Covid related mortality based on actual vs >>>>>>>>>>>>expected
deaths indicate that had we experienced the same results as the USA,
we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths during the peak >>>>>>>>>>>>Covid period - at a life value of even $1 million, our Covid response
saved around $22 billion - a cost for vaccination related injuries of
only $11 million is in relative terms insignificant.
I doubt that even a National-led Government would have totally >>>>>>>>>>>>followed the stupidity of various USA governments, but we can be >>>>>>>>>>>>proud
that our government, faced with the uncertainty relating to the >>>>>>>>>>>>appearance of Covid, acted conservatively and followed expert advice;
it is clear that at least some in the current government would act >>>>>>>>>>>>similarly in the face of a similar threat now, but regrettably some >>>>>>>>>>>>would still on principle seek policies that resulted in more deaths >>>>>>>>>>>>than necessary. _____________________________________________________________________"
I did not abuse you at any time in this thread, so you are lying once more.
Your abuse instead of reasoned argument is getting tiresome . . .
If you are so tired then piss off, otherwise address the subject for the very >first time.
More abuse - you cannot help it. You don't know you are doing it. You are >>>sociopathic.I am happy to leave the abuse to you Tony - it must be debilitatingAbuse gone for now, but there will be more from Rich - sociopaths cannot >>>>>help
Or are you just making aNo, that's what you do. Not me.
wild assertion as a random attack?
it.
for you to be wrong so consistently often.
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 01:18:36 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou have not addressed the topic at all. Until you do, tough.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 18:48:31 -0000 (UTC), TonyThere you are, more abuse.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 19:40:20 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No, you have still not addressed the subject and yuou never will.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yes it is true that by November 2024: NZ ACC had paid out $11,429,594 >>>>>for Covid vaccine injury.
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 02:58:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Your post doed not address the subjecty, at all. There is no data that is >>>>>>pertinent. You really are a silly little boy.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Clearly you totally missed the message from that thread - the answers >>>>>>>were there but clearly you missed the data - either through your usual >>>>>>>shallow following of links or deliberately we will never know, but you >>>>>>>have been unable to identify anywhere that my post was wrong.
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 08:44:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It's obvious to all but you. What you posted did not address the >>>>>>>>question.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 15:56:40 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>What absolute nonsense. You can twist it any way you like but it is >>>>>>>>>>still
wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 14:08:42 +1300, Rich80105 >>>>>>>>>>>><Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:15:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Incorrect Rich - that cite is for something else.
thinkinghttps://x.com/MattKingNorth/status/1853504373881778435 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I would love to see some data but if true it would not surprise >>>>>>>>>>>>>>most
folk.
Data was given; it just needed looking for. See: >>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/oia-responses/Covid-19-vaccination-claims-refresh-july-2024.pdf
I used this resource:
https://www.acc.co.nz/resources#/
to search for all (ACC) OIA responses (use a Category of OIS >>>>>>>>>>>>responses, a subcategory of ALL and click on GO). None of the (621)
results referenced the number in Matt King's X post (035284). >>>>>>>>>>>>Interesting that the most recent OIA response was (IIRC) September >>>>>>>>>>>>2024 so the response King listed may not have been published by the >>>>>>>>>>>>ACC yet.
The chart showing the number of accepted claims based on primary >>>>>>>>>>>>>injury is interesting - the treatment injuries listed are : >>>>>>>>>>>>>Allergic
Reaction, Sprain, Cardiac Injury, Contusion, Adverse Drug Reaction >>>>>>>>>>>>>/
Anaphylactic Reaction / Infection / Shoulder Damage/Injury, >>>>>>>>>>>>>Cellulitis
/ Bursitis, Inflammation / Nerve Damage / Other.
More claims were declined than accepted - the most common reason >>>>>>>>>>>>>being
"No Injury"
The proportion likely to relate to the actual vaccine is not clear,
but from the descriptions, appears to be low. (Adverse drug >>>>>>>>>>>>>reaction
is fairly clear, but cardiac injury, Anaphylactic reaction less >>>>>>>>>>>>>clear
- most appear to be related to having an injection . . . >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Five claims have been lodged with ACC which have related to a fatal
injury - the report does not say how many of those claims were >>>>>>>>>>>>>accepted or declined.
I did not see the OIA that purportedly gives a figure of $11.5 >>>>>>>>>>>>>million, but in working out financial equivalence for the purposes >>>>>>>>>>>>>of
policies, calculations usually impute a value for lives saved or >>>>>>>>>>>>>somewhere between $1m and $2million.
The comparisons of Covid related mortality based on actual vs >>>>>>>>>>>>>expected
deaths indicate that had we experienced the same results as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>USA,
we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths during the peak >>>>>>>>>>>>>Covid period - at a life value of even $1 million, our Covid >>>>>>>>>>>>>response
saved around $22 billion - a cost for vaccination related injuries >>>>>>>>>>>>>of
only $11 million is in relative terms insignificant.
I doubt that even a National-led Government would have totally >>>>>>>>>>>>>followed the stupidity of various USA governments, but we can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>proud
that our government, faced with the uncertainty relating to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>appearance of Covid, acted conservatively and followed expert >>>>>>>>>>>>>advice;
it is clear that at least some in the current government would act >>>>>>>>>>>>>similarly in the face of a similar threat now, but regrettably some
would still on principle seek policies that resulted in more deaths
than necessary.
Thanks Crash. The data I used was given as a reference in the >>>>>>>>>>>X-thread. I see no reason to doubt ACC statistics, and the statistics
do demonstrate that the assertions in the initial link given are >>>>>>>>>>>almost certainly true, and that they demonstrate a relatively low >>>>>>>>>>>level of adverse effects (and at that mostly relating to the >>>>>>>>>>>injections), and the extremely good results New Zealand experienced >>>>>>>>>>>in
keeping deaths from Covid a lot lower than other countries in >>>>>>>>>>>relation
to normal death rates. The answer to the "If true..." Subject heading
is yes - the conclusions are true, and show New Zealand as having >>>>>>>>>>>made
very good decisions.
twisted.
You are wrong.
In what way is what I said above wrong, Tony?
Got
it now? (I doubt it).
It is also true that this is a very low proportion of the total cost >>>>>of the Covid response
It is also true that our total deaths to which Covid was deemed to >>>>>contribute was very low in proportion to our population - if we had >>>>>experienced the same Covid related death rates as the USA we would >>>>>have had about 22,000 more deaths - which valued at say $1m each is >>>>>about $22 billion.
Yes it is true that the both the previous and the current government >>>>>have continued encouraging regular Covid vaccination, with subsidies >>>>>to those likely to be worst affected.
It is also true that anti-science and anti-vax nutters will try to use >>>>>good statistics to make the policies followed by both the previous and >>>>>current governments look bad . . .
Happy now Tony?
Your childishness, sarcasm and abuse are legendary.
The Subject is clear : "If true..."
You have not identified any aspect of that Subject that I have not >>>covered - I conclude that you are a coward as well as ignorant . . .
The subject is "If true"
It refers to this -
"NZ ACC HAS NOW PAID OUT $11,429,594 FOR COVID VACCINE INJURY....
New OIA Gov: 035284
Compare this with the less than $150,000 paid out for ALL VACCINE INJURY >>(excluding Covid) each year, in 2018 and 2019.
Pfizer has complete INDEMNITY
They told us it was safe and effective."
And you, pathetic little child have not provided any evidence to support or >>deny that. As usual you just abuse, distract and lie.
From above: >"__________________________________________________________________________________
The chart showing the number of accepted claims based on primary >>>>>>>>>>>>>injury is interesting - the treatment injuries listed are : >>>>>>>>>>>>>Allergic
Reaction, Sprain, Cardiac Injury, Contusion, Adverse Drug Reaction >>>>>>>>>>>>>/
Anaphylactic Reaction / Infection / Shoulder Damage/Injury, >>>>>>>>>>>>>Cellulitis
/ Bursitis, Inflammation / Nerve Damage / Other.
More claims were declined than accepted - the most common reason >>>>>>>>>>>>>being
"No Injury"
The proportion likely to relate to the actual vaccine is not clear,
but from the descriptions, appears to be low. (Adverse drug >>>>>>>>>>>>>reaction
is fairly clear, but cardiac injury, Anaphylactic reaction less >>>>>>>>>>>>>clear
- most appear to be related to having an injection . . . >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Five claims have been lodged with ACC which have related to a fatal
injury - the report does not say how many of those claims were >>>>>>>>>>>>>accepted or declined.
I did not see the OIA that purportedly gives a figure of $11.5 >>>>>>>>>>>>>million, but in working out financial equivalence for the purposes >>>>>>>>>>>>>of
policies, calculations usually impute a value for lives saved or >>>>>>>>>>>>>somewhere between $1m and $2million.
The comparisons of Covid related mortality based on actual vs >>>>>>>>>>>>>expected
deaths indicate that had we experienced the same results as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>USA,
we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths during the peak >>>>>>>>>>>>>Covid period - at a life value of even $1 million, our Covid >>>>>>>>>>>>>response
saved around $22 billion - a cost for vaccination related injuries >>>>>>>>>>>>>of
only $11 million is in relative terms insignificant.
I doubt that even a National-led Government would have totally >>>>>>>>>>>>>followed the stupidity of various USA governments, but we can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>proud
that our government, faced with the uncertainty relating to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>appearance of Covid, acted conservatively and followed expert >>>>>>>>>>>>>advice;
it is clear that at least some in the current government would act >>>>>>>>>>>>>similarly in the face of a similar threat now, but regrettably some
would still on principle seek policies that resulted in more deaths
than necessary. >_____________________________________________________________________"
The reason there were more claims for injury from injections was of
course because Covid meant there were much larger numbers of people
receiving injections!
As pointed out, the rates are still relatively low, and most claims
(likely to be nearly all), were related to injection injury not the
treatment injected.
Try actually reading material already given to you in this thread,
Tony - it is all there!, on topic, consistent with the Subject of the
thread, but you appear to not be prepared to actually read answers
given to you.
If you disagree with the comments above, tell us why - try actually
engaging with the Subject instead of ignoring it, Tony . . .
I did not abuse you at any time in this thread, so you are lying once more. >>
Your abuse instead of reasoned argument is getting tiresome . . .
If you are so tired then piss off, otherwise address the subject for the very >>first time.
More abuse - you cannot help it. You don't know you are doing it. You are >>>>sociopathic.I am happy to leave the abuse to you Tony - it must be debilitating >>>>>for you to be wrong so consistently often.Abuse gone for now, but there will be more from Rich - sociopaths cannot >>>>>>help
Or are you just making aNo, that's what you do. Not me.
wild assertion as a random attack?
it.
https://x.com/MattKingNorth/status/1853504373881778435
I would love to see some data but if true it would not surprise most thinking >folk.
On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:15:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://x.com/MattKingNorth/status/1853504373881778435
I would love to see some data but if true it would not surprise most thinking >>folk.
Data was given; it just needed looking for. See: >https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/oia-responses/Covid-19-vaccination-claims-refresh-july-2024.pdf
The chart showing the number of accepted claims based on primarySo you have nothing that suggest it is not true. How normal for you to waste your time answering a question that the OP did not post.
injury is interesting - the treatment injuries listed are : Allergic >Reaction, Sprain, Cardiac Injury, Contusion, Adverse Drug Reaction / >Anaphylactic Reaction / Infection / Shoulder Damage/Injury, Cellulitis
/ Bursitis, Inflammation / Nerve Damage / Other.
More claims were declined than accepted - the most common reason being
"No Injury"
The proportion likely to relate to the actual vaccine is not clear,
but from the descriptions, appears to be low. (Adverse drug reaction
is fairly clear, but cardiac injury, Anaphylactic reaction less clear
- most appear to be related to having an injection . . .
Five claims have been lodged with ACC which have related to a fatal
injury - the report does not say how many of those claims were
accepted or declined.
I did not see the OIA that purportedly gives a figure of $11.5
million, but in working out financial equivalence for the purposes of >policies, calculations usually impute a value for lives saved or
somewhere between $1m and $2million.
The comparisons of Covid related mortality based on actual vs expected
deaths indicate that had we experienced the same results as the USA,
we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths during the peak
Covid period - at a life value of even $1 million, our Covid response
saved around $22 billion - a cost for vaccination related injuries of
only $11 million is in relative terms insignificant.
I doubt that even a National-led Government would have totally
followed the stupidity of various USA governments, but we can be proud
that our government, faced with the uncertainty relating to the
appearance of Covid, acted conservatively and followed expert advice;
it is clear that at least some in the current government would act
similarly in the face of a similar threat now, but regrettably some
would still on principle seek policies that resulted in more deaths
than necessary.
On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:15:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://x.com/MattKingNorth/status/1853504373881778435
I would love to see some data but if true it would not surprise most thinking >>folk.
Data was given; it just needed looking for. See: >https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/oia-responses/Covid-19-vaccination-claims-refresh-july-2024.pdf
The chart showing the number of accepted claims based on primary
injury is interesting - the treatment injuries listed are : Allergic >Reaction, Sprain, Cardiac Injury, Contusion, Adverse Drug Reaction / >Anaphylactic Reaction / Infection / Shoulder Damage/Injury, Cellulitis
/ Bursitis, Inflammation / Nerve Damage / Other.
More claims were declined than accepted - the most common reason being
"No Injury"
The proportion likely to relate to the actual vaccine is not clear,
but from the descriptions, appears to be low. (Adverse drug reaction
is fairly clear, but cardiac injury, Anaphylactic reaction less clear
- most appear to be related to having an injection . . .
Five claims have been lodged with ACC which have related to a fatal
injury - the report does not say how many of those claims were
accepted or declined.
I did not see the OIA that purportedly gives a figure of $11.5
million, but in working out financial equivalence for the purposes of >policies, calculations usually impute a value for lives saved or
somewhere between $1m and $2million.
The comparisons of Covid related mortality based on actual vs expected
deaths indicate that had we experienced the same results as the USA,
we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths during the peak
Covid period - at a life value of even $1 million, our Covid response
saved around $22 billion - a cost for vaccination related injuries of
only $11 million is in relative terms insignificant.
I doubt that even a National-led Government would have totally
followed the stupidity of various USA governments, but we can be proud
that our government, faced with the uncertainty relating to the
appearance of Covid, acted conservatively and followed expert advice;
it is clear that at least some in the current government would act
similarly in the face of a similar threat now, but regrettably some
would still on principle seek policies that resulted in more deaths
than necessary.
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 14:08:42 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:15:50 -0000 (UTC), TonyIncorrect Rich - that cite is for something else.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://x.com/MattKingNorth/status/1853504373881778435
I would love to see some data but if true it would not surprise most thinking
folk.
Data was given; it just needed looking for. See: >>https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/oia-responses/Covid-19-vaccination-claims-refresh-july-2024.pdf
I used this resource:
https://www.acc.co.nz/resources#/
to search for all (ACC) OIA responses (use a Category of OIS
responses, a subcategory of ALL and click on GO). None of the (621)
results referenced the number in Matt King's X post (035284).
Interesting that the most recent OIA response was (IIRC) September
2024 so the response King listed may not have been published by the
ACC yet.
The chart showing the number of accepted claims based on primary
injury is interesting - the treatment injuries listed are : Allergic >>Reaction, Sprain, Cardiac Injury, Contusion, Adverse Drug Reaction / >>Anaphylactic Reaction / Infection / Shoulder Damage/Injury, Cellulitis
/ Bursitis, Inflammation / Nerve Damage / Other.
More claims were declined than accepted - the most common reason being
"No Injury"
The proportion likely to relate to the actual vaccine is not clear,
but from the descriptions, appears to be low. (Adverse drug reaction
is fairly clear, but cardiac injury, Anaphylactic reaction less clear
- most appear to be related to having an injection . . .
Five claims have been lodged with ACC which have related to a fatal
injury - the report does not say how many of those claims were
accepted or declined.
I did not see the OIA that purportedly gives a figure of $11.5
million, but in working out financial equivalence for the purposes of >>policies, calculations usually impute a value for lives saved or
somewhere between $1m and $2million.
The comparisons of Covid related mortality based on actual vs expected >>deaths indicate that had we experienced the same results as the USA,
we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths during the peak
Covid period - at a life value of even $1 million, our Covid response
saved around $22 billion - a cost for vaccination related injuries of
only $11 million is in relative terms insignificant.
I doubt that even a National-led Government would have totally
followed the stupidity of various USA governments, but we can be proud
that our government, faced with the uncertainty relating to the
appearance of Covid, acted conservatively and followed expert advice;
it is clear that at least some in the current government would act >>similarly in the face of a similar threat now, but regrettably some
would still on principle seek policies that resulted in more deaths
than necessary.
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 15:56:40 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>What absolute nonsense. You can twist it any way you like but it is still twisted.
wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 14:08:42 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:15:50 -0000 (UTC), TonyIncorrect Rich - that cite is for something else.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://x.com/MattKingNorth/status/1853504373881778435
I would love to see some data but if true it would not surprise most >>>>thinking
folk.
Data was given; it just needed looking for. See: >>>https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/oia-responses/Covid-19-vaccination-claims-refresh-july-2024.pdf
I used this resource:
https://www.acc.co.nz/resources#/
to search for all (ACC) OIA responses (use a Category of OIS
responses, a subcategory of ALL and click on GO). None of the (621) >>results referenced the number in Matt King's X post (035284).
Interesting that the most recent OIA response was (IIRC) September
2024 so the response King listed may not have been published by the
ACC yet.
The chart showing the number of accepted claims based on primary
injury is interesting - the treatment injuries listed are : Allergic >>>Reaction, Sprain, Cardiac Injury, Contusion, Adverse Drug Reaction / >>>Anaphylactic Reaction / Infection / Shoulder Damage/Injury, Cellulitis
/ Bursitis, Inflammation / Nerve Damage / Other.
More claims were declined than accepted - the most common reason being >>>"No Injury"
The proportion likely to relate to the actual vaccine is not clear,
but from the descriptions, appears to be low. (Adverse drug reaction
is fairly clear, but cardiac injury, Anaphylactic reaction less clear
- most appear to be related to having an injection . . .
Five claims have been lodged with ACC which have related to a fatal >>>injury - the report does not say how many of those claims were
accepted or declined.
I did not see the OIA that purportedly gives a figure of $11.5
million, but in working out financial equivalence for the purposes of >>>policies, calculations usually impute a value for lives saved or >>>somewhere between $1m and $2million.
The comparisons of Covid related mortality based on actual vs expected >>>deaths indicate that had we experienced the same results as the USA,
we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths during the peak
Covid period - at a life value of even $1 million, our Covid response >>>saved around $22 billion - a cost for vaccination related injuries of >>>only $11 million is in relative terms insignificant.
I doubt that even a National-led Government would have totally
followed the stupidity of various USA governments, but we can be proud >>>that our government, faced with the uncertainty relating to the >>>appearance of Covid, acted conservatively and followed expert advice;
it is clear that at least some in the current government would act >>>similarly in the face of a similar threat now, but regrettably some
would still on principle seek policies that resulted in more deaths
than necessary.
Thanks Crash. The data I used was given as a reference in the
X-thread. I see no reason to doubt ACC statistics, and the statistics
do demonstrate that the assertions in the initial link given are
almost certainly true, and that they demonstrate a relatively low
level of adverse effects (and at that mostly relating to the
injections), and the extremely good results New Zealand experienced in >keeping deaths from Covid a lot lower than other countries in relation
to normal death rates. The answer to the "If true..." Subject heading
is yes - the conclusions are true, and show New Zealand as having made
very good decisions.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 15:56:40 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:What absolute nonsense. You can twist it any way you like but it is still >twisted.
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 14:08:42 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:15:50 -0000 (UTC), TonyIncorrect Rich - that cite is for something else.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://x.com/MattKingNorth/status/1853504373881778435
I would love to see some data but if true it would not surprise most >>>>>thinking
folk.
Data was given; it just needed looking for. See: >>>>https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/oia-responses/Covid-19-vaccination-claims-refresh-july-2024.pdf
I used this resource:
https://www.acc.co.nz/resources#/
to search for all (ACC) OIA responses (use a Category of OIS
responses, a subcategory of ALL and click on GO). None of the (621) >>>results referenced the number in Matt King's X post (035284).
Interesting that the most recent OIA response was (IIRC) September
2024 so the response King listed may not have been published by the
ACC yet.
The chart showing the number of accepted claims based on primary
injury is interesting - the treatment injuries listed are : Allergic >>>>Reaction, Sprain, Cardiac Injury, Contusion, Adverse Drug Reaction / >>>>Anaphylactic Reaction / Infection / Shoulder Damage/Injury, Cellulitis >>>>/ Bursitis, Inflammation / Nerve Damage / Other.
More claims were declined than accepted - the most common reason being >>>>"No Injury"
The proportion likely to relate to the actual vaccine is not clear,
but from the descriptions, appears to be low. (Adverse drug reaction
is fairly clear, but cardiac injury, Anaphylactic reaction less clear
- most appear to be related to having an injection . . .
Five claims have been lodged with ACC which have related to a fatal >>>>injury - the report does not say how many of those claims were
accepted or declined.
I did not see the OIA that purportedly gives a figure of $11.5
million, but in working out financial equivalence for the purposes of >>>>policies, calculations usually impute a value for lives saved or >>>>somewhere between $1m and $2million.
The comparisons of Covid related mortality based on actual vs expected >>>>deaths indicate that had we experienced the same results as the USA,
we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths during the peak
Covid period - at a life value of even $1 million, our Covid response >>>>saved around $22 billion - a cost for vaccination related injuries of >>>>only $11 million is in relative terms insignificant.
I doubt that even a National-led Government would have totally
followed the stupidity of various USA governments, but we can be proud >>>>that our government, faced with the uncertainty relating to the >>>>appearance of Covid, acted conservatively and followed expert advice; >>>>it is clear that at least some in the current government would act >>>>similarly in the face of a similar threat now, but regrettably some >>>>would still on principle seek policies that resulted in more deaths >>>>than necessary.
Thanks Crash. The data I used was given as a reference in the
X-thread. I see no reason to doubt ACC statistics, and the statistics
do demonstrate that the assertions in the initial link given are
almost certainly true, and that they demonstrate a relatively low
level of adverse effects (and at that mostly relating to the
injections), and the extremely good results New Zealand experienced in >>keeping deaths from Covid a lot lower than other countries in relation
to normal death rates. The answer to the "If true..." Subject heading
is yes - the conclusions are true, and show New Zealand as having made
very good decisions.
You are wrong.
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 08:44:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt's obvious to all but you. What you posted did not address the question. Got it now? (I doubt it).
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 15:56:40 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:What absolute nonsense. You can twist it any way you like but it is still >>twisted.
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 14:08:42 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:15:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Incorrect Rich - that cite is for something else.
https://x.com/MattKingNorth/status/1853504373881778435
I would love to see some data but if true it would not surprise most >>>>>>thinking
folk.
Data was given; it just needed looking for. See: >>>>>https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/oia-responses/Covid-19-vaccination-claims-refresh-july-2024.pdf
I used this resource:
https://www.acc.co.nz/resources#/
to search for all (ACC) OIA responses (use a Category of OIS
responses, a subcategory of ALL and click on GO). None of the (621) >>>>results referenced the number in Matt King's X post (035284). >>>>Interesting that the most recent OIA response was (IIRC) September
2024 so the response King listed may not have been published by the
ACC yet.
The chart showing the number of accepted claims based on primary >>>>>injury is interesting - the treatment injuries listed are : Allergic >>>>>Reaction, Sprain, Cardiac Injury, Contusion, Adverse Drug Reaction / >>>>>Anaphylactic Reaction / Infection / Shoulder Damage/Injury, Cellulitis >>>>>/ Bursitis, Inflammation / Nerve Damage / Other.
More claims were declined than accepted - the most common reason being >>>>>"No Injury"
The proportion likely to relate to the actual vaccine is not clear, >>>>>but from the descriptions, appears to be low. (Adverse drug reaction >>>>>is fairly clear, but cardiac injury, Anaphylactic reaction less clear >>>>>- most appear to be related to having an injection . . .
Five claims have been lodged with ACC which have related to a fatal >>>>>injury - the report does not say how many of those claims were >>>>>accepted or declined.
I did not see the OIA that purportedly gives a figure of $11.5 >>>>>million, but in working out financial equivalence for the purposes of >>>>>policies, calculations usually impute a value for lives saved or >>>>>somewhere between $1m and $2million.
The comparisons of Covid related mortality based on actual vs expected >>>>>deaths indicate that had we experienced the same results as the USA, >>>>>we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths during the peak >>>>>Covid period - at a life value of even $1 million, our Covid response >>>>>saved around $22 billion - a cost for vaccination related injuries of >>>>>only $11 million is in relative terms insignificant.
I doubt that even a National-led Government would have totally >>>>>followed the stupidity of various USA governments, but we can be proud >>>>>that our government, faced with the uncertainty relating to the >>>>>appearance of Covid, acted conservatively and followed expert advice; >>>>>it is clear that at least some in the current government would act >>>>>similarly in the face of a similar threat now, but regrettably some >>>>>would still on principle seek policies that resulted in more deaths >>>>>than necessary.
Thanks Crash. The data I used was given as a reference in the
X-thread. I see no reason to doubt ACC statistics, and the statistics
do demonstrate that the assertions in the initial link given are
almost certainly true, and that they demonstrate a relatively low
level of adverse effects (and at that mostly relating to the
injections), and the extremely good results New Zealand experienced in >>>keeping deaths from Covid a lot lower than other countries in relation
to normal death rates. The answer to the "If true..." Subject heading
is yes - the conclusions are true, and show New Zealand as having made >>>very good decisions.
You are wrong.
In what way is what I said above wrong, Tony?
Or are you just making aNo, that's what you do. Not me.
wild assertion as a random attack?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Clearly you totally missed the message from that thread - the answers
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 08:44:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt's obvious to all but you. What you posted did not address the question. Got >it now? (I doubt it).
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 15:56:40 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:What absolute nonsense. You can twist it any way you like but it is still >>>twisted.
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 14:08:42 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:15:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Incorrect Rich - that cite is for something else.
https://x.com/MattKingNorth/status/1853504373881778435
I would love to see some data but if true it would not surprise most >>>>>>>thinking
folk.
Data was given; it just needed looking for. See: >>>>>>https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/oia-responses/Covid-19-vaccination-claims-refresh-july-2024.pdf
I used this resource:
https://www.acc.co.nz/resources#/
to search for all (ACC) OIA responses (use a Category of OIS >>>>>responses, a subcategory of ALL and click on GO). None of the (621) >>>>>results referenced the number in Matt King's X post (035284). >>>>>Interesting that the most recent OIA response was (IIRC) September >>>>>2024 so the response King listed may not have been published by the >>>>>ACC yet.
The chart showing the number of accepted claims based on primary >>>>>>injury is interesting - the treatment injuries listed are : Allergic >>>>>>Reaction, Sprain, Cardiac Injury, Contusion, Adverse Drug Reaction / >>>>>>Anaphylactic Reaction / Infection / Shoulder Damage/Injury, Cellulitis >>>>>>/ Bursitis, Inflammation / Nerve Damage / Other.
More claims were declined than accepted - the most common reason being >>>>>>"No Injury"
The proportion likely to relate to the actual vaccine is not clear, >>>>>>but from the descriptions, appears to be low. (Adverse drug reaction >>>>>>is fairly clear, but cardiac injury, Anaphylactic reaction less clear >>>>>>- most appear to be related to having an injection . . .
Five claims have been lodged with ACC which have related to a fatal >>>>>>injury - the report does not say how many of those claims were >>>>>>accepted or declined.
I did not see the OIA that purportedly gives a figure of $11.5 >>>>>>million, but in working out financial equivalence for the purposes of >>>>>>policies, calculations usually impute a value for lives saved or >>>>>>somewhere between $1m and $2million.
The comparisons of Covid related mortality based on actual vs expected >>>>>>deaths indicate that had we experienced the same results as the USA, >>>>>>we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths during the peak >>>>>>Covid period - at a life value of even $1 million, our Covid response >>>>>>saved around $22 billion - a cost for vaccination related injuries of >>>>>>only $11 million is in relative terms insignificant.
I doubt that even a National-led Government would have totally >>>>>>followed the stupidity of various USA governments, but we can be proud >>>>>>that our government, faced with the uncertainty relating to the >>>>>>appearance of Covid, acted conservatively and followed expert advice; >>>>>>it is clear that at least some in the current government would act >>>>>>similarly in the face of a similar threat now, but regrettably some >>>>>>would still on principle seek policies that resulted in more deaths >>>>>>than necessary.
Thanks Crash. The data I used was given as a reference in the
X-thread. I see no reason to doubt ACC statistics, and the statistics >>>>do demonstrate that the assertions in the initial link given are
almost certainly true, and that they demonstrate a relatively low
level of adverse effects (and at that mostly relating to the >>>>injections), and the extremely good results New Zealand experienced in >>>>keeping deaths from Covid a lot lower than other countries in relation >>>>to normal death rates. The answer to the "If true..." Subject heading >>>>is yes - the conclusions are true, and show New Zealand as having made >>>>very good decisions.
You are wrong.
In what way is what I said above wrong, Tony?
Again it is difficult to tell whether your stupidity is deliberate orOr are you just making aNo, that's what you do. Not me.
wild assertion as a random attack?
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 02:58:12 -0000 (UTC), TonyYour post doed not address the subjecty, at all. There is no data that is pertinent. You really are a silly little boy.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Clearly you totally missed the message from that thread - the answers
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 08:44:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt's obvious to all but you. What you posted did not address the question. >>Got
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 15:56:40 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:What absolute nonsense. You can twist it any way you like but it is still >>>>twisted.
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 14:08:42 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:15:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Incorrect Rich - that cite is for something else.
https://x.com/MattKingNorth/status/1853504373881778435
I would love to see some data but if true it would not surprise most >>>>>>>>thinking
folk.
Data was given; it just needed looking for. See: >>>>>>>https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/oia-responses/Covid-19-vaccination-claims-refresh-july-2024.pdf
I used this resource:
https://www.acc.co.nz/resources#/
to search for all (ACC) OIA responses (use a Category of OIS >>>>>>responses, a subcategory of ALL and click on GO). None of the (621) >>>>>>results referenced the number in Matt King's X post (035284). >>>>>>Interesting that the most recent OIA response was (IIRC) September >>>>>>2024 so the response King listed may not have been published by the >>>>>>ACC yet.
The chart showing the number of accepted claims based on primary >>>>>>>injury is interesting - the treatment injuries listed are : Allergic >>>>>>>Reaction, Sprain, Cardiac Injury, Contusion, Adverse Drug Reaction / >>>>>>>Anaphylactic Reaction / Infection / Shoulder Damage/Injury, Cellulitis >>>>>>>/ Bursitis, Inflammation / Nerve Damage / Other.
More claims were declined than accepted - the most common reason being >>>>>>>"No Injury"
The proportion likely to relate to the actual vaccine is not clear, >>>>>>>but from the descriptions, appears to be low. (Adverse drug reaction >>>>>>>is fairly clear, but cardiac injury, Anaphylactic reaction less clear >>>>>>>- most appear to be related to having an injection . . .
Five claims have been lodged with ACC which have related to a fatal >>>>>>>injury - the report does not say how many of those claims were >>>>>>>accepted or declined.
I did not see the OIA that purportedly gives a figure of $11.5 >>>>>>>million, but in working out financial equivalence for the purposes of >>>>>>>policies, calculations usually impute a value for lives saved or >>>>>>>somewhere between $1m and $2million.
The comparisons of Covid related mortality based on actual vs expected >>>>>>>deaths indicate that had we experienced the same results as the USA, >>>>>>>we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths during the peak >>>>>>>Covid period - at a life value of even $1 million, our Covid response >>>>>>>saved around $22 billion - a cost for vaccination related injuries of >>>>>>>only $11 million is in relative terms insignificant.
I doubt that even a National-led Government would have totally >>>>>>>followed the stupidity of various USA governments, but we can be proud >>>>>>>that our government, faced with the uncertainty relating to the >>>>>>>appearance of Covid, acted conservatively and followed expert advice; >>>>>>>it is clear that at least some in the current government would act >>>>>>>similarly in the face of a similar threat now, but regrettably some >>>>>>>would still on principle seek policies that resulted in more deaths >>>>>>>than necessary.
Thanks Crash. The data I used was given as a reference in the >>>>>X-thread. I see no reason to doubt ACC statistics, and the statistics >>>>>do demonstrate that the assertions in the initial link given are >>>>>almost certainly true, and that they demonstrate a relatively low >>>>>level of adverse effects (and at that mostly relating to the >>>>>injections), and the extremely good results New Zealand experienced in >>>>>keeping deaths from Covid a lot lower than other countries in relation >>>>>to normal death rates. The answer to the "If true..." Subject heading >>>>>is yes - the conclusions are true, and show New Zealand as having made >>>>>very good decisions.
You are wrong.
In what way is what I said above wrong, Tony?
it now? (I doubt it).
were there but clearly you missed the data - either through your usual >shallow following of links or deliberately we will never know, but you
have been unable to identify anywhere that my post was wrong.
Abuse gone for now, but there will be more from Rich - sociopaths cannot help it.
Or are you just making aNo, that's what you do. Not me.
wild assertion as a random attack?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 02:58:12 -0000 (UTC), TonyYour post doed not address the subjecty, at all. There is no data that is >pertinent. You really are a silly little boy.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Clearly you totally missed the message from that thread - the answers
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 08:44:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt's obvious to all but you. What you posted did not address the question. >>>Got
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 15:56:40 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:What absolute nonsense. You can twist it any way you like but it is still >>>>>twisted.
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 14:08:42 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:15:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Incorrect Rich - that cite is for something else.
https://x.com/MattKingNorth/status/1853504373881778435
I would love to see some data but if true it would not surprise most >>>>>>>>>thinking
folk.
Data was given; it just needed looking for. See: >>>>>>>>https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/oia-responses/Covid-19-vaccination-claims-refresh-july-2024.pdf
I used this resource:
https://www.acc.co.nz/resources#/
to search for all (ACC) OIA responses (use a Category of OIS >>>>>>>responses, a subcategory of ALL and click on GO). None of the (621) >>>>>>>results referenced the number in Matt King's X post (035284). >>>>>>>Interesting that the most recent OIA response was (IIRC) September >>>>>>>2024 so the response King listed may not have been published by the >>>>>>>ACC yet.
The chart showing the number of accepted claims based on primary >>>>>>>>injury is interesting - the treatment injuries listed are : Allergic >>>>>>>>Reaction, Sprain, Cardiac Injury, Contusion, Adverse Drug Reaction / >>>>>>>>Anaphylactic Reaction / Infection / Shoulder Damage/Injury, Cellulitis >>>>>>>>/ Bursitis, Inflammation / Nerve Damage / Other.
More claims were declined than accepted - the most common reason being >>>>>>>>"No Injury"
The proportion likely to relate to the actual vaccine is not clear, >>>>>>>>but from the descriptions, appears to be low. (Adverse drug reaction >>>>>>>>is fairly clear, but cardiac injury, Anaphylactic reaction less clear >>>>>>>>- most appear to be related to having an injection . . .
Five claims have been lodged with ACC which have related to a fatal >>>>>>>>injury - the report does not say how many of those claims were >>>>>>>>accepted or declined.
I did not see the OIA that purportedly gives a figure of $11.5 >>>>>>>>million, but in working out financial equivalence for the purposes of >>>>>>>>policies, calculations usually impute a value for lives saved or >>>>>>>>somewhere between $1m and $2million.
The comparisons of Covid related mortality based on actual vs expected >>>>>>>>deaths indicate that had we experienced the same results as the USA, >>>>>>>>we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths during the peak >>>>>>>>Covid period - at a life value of even $1 million, our Covid response >>>>>>>>saved around $22 billion - a cost for vaccination related injuries of >>>>>>>>only $11 million is in relative terms insignificant.
I doubt that even a National-led Government would have totally >>>>>>>>followed the stupidity of various USA governments, but we can be proud >>>>>>>>that our government, faced with the uncertainty relating to the >>>>>>>>appearance of Covid, acted conservatively and followed expert advice; >>>>>>>>it is clear that at least some in the current government would act >>>>>>>>similarly in the face of a similar threat now, but regrettably some >>>>>>>>would still on principle seek policies that resulted in more deaths >>>>>>>>than necessary.
Thanks Crash. The data I used was given as a reference in the >>>>>>X-thread. I see no reason to doubt ACC statistics, and the statistics >>>>>>do demonstrate that the assertions in the initial link given are >>>>>>almost certainly true, and that they demonstrate a relatively low >>>>>>level of adverse effects (and at that mostly relating to the >>>>>>injections), and the extremely good results New Zealand experienced in >>>>>>keeping deaths from Covid a lot lower than other countries in relation >>>>>>to normal death rates. The answer to the "If true..." Subject heading >>>>>>is yes - the conclusions are true, and show New Zealand as having made >>>>>>very good decisions.
You are wrong.
In what way is what I said above wrong, Tony?
it now? (I doubt it).
were there but clearly you missed the data - either through your usual >>shallow following of links or deliberately we will never know, but you
have been unable to identify anywhere that my post was wrong.
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 19:40:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe question was "if true". You have posted nothing that shows it was or was not true and the original link fails to do that.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 02:58:12 -0000 (UTC), TonyYour post doed not address the subjecty, at all. There is no data that is >>pertinent. You really are a silly little boy.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Clearly you totally missed the message from that thread - the answers >>>were there but clearly you missed the data - either through your usual >>>shallow following of links or deliberately we will never know, but you >>>have been unable to identify anywhere that my post was wrong.
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 08:44:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It's obvious to all but you. What you posted did not address the question. >>>>Got
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 15:56:40 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:What absolute nonsense. You can twist it any way you like but it is still >>>>>>twisted.
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 14:08:42 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:15:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Incorrect Rich - that cite is for something else.
https://x.com/MattKingNorth/status/1853504373881778435
I would love to see some data but if true it would not surprise most >>>>>>>>>>thinking
folk.
Data was given; it just needed looking for. See: >>>>>>>>>https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/oia-responses/Covid-19-vaccination-claims-refresh-july-2024.pdf
I used this resource:
https://www.acc.co.nz/resources#/
to search for all (ACC) OIA responses (use a Category of OIS >>>>>>>>responses, a subcategory of ALL and click on GO). None of the (621) >>>>>>>>results referenced the number in Matt King's X post (035284). >>>>>>>>Interesting that the most recent OIA response was (IIRC) September >>>>>>>>2024 so the response King listed may not have been published by the >>>>>>>>ACC yet.
The chart showing the number of accepted claims based on primary >>>>>>>>>injury is interesting - the treatment injuries listed are : Allergic >>>>>>>>>Reaction, Sprain, Cardiac Injury, Contusion, Adverse Drug Reaction / >>>>>>>>>Anaphylactic Reaction / Infection / Shoulder Damage/Injury, Cellulitis >>>>>>>>>/ Bursitis, Inflammation / Nerve Damage / Other.
More claims were declined than accepted - the most common reason being >>>>>>>>>"No Injury"
The proportion likely to relate to the actual vaccine is not clear, >>>>>>>>>but from the descriptions, appears to be low. (Adverse drug reaction >>>>>>>>>is fairly clear, but cardiac injury, Anaphylactic reaction less clear >>>>>>>>>- most appear to be related to having an injection . . .
Five claims have been lodged with ACC which have related to a fatal >>>>>>>>>injury - the report does not say how many of those claims were >>>>>>>>>accepted or declined.
I did not see the OIA that purportedly gives a figure of $11.5 >>>>>>>>>million, but in working out financial equivalence for the purposes of >>>>>>>>>policies, calculations usually impute a value for lives saved or >>>>>>>>>somewhere between $1m and $2million.
The comparisons of Covid related mortality based on actual vs expected >>>>>>>>>deaths indicate that had we experienced the same results as the USA, >>>>>>>>>we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths during the peak >>>>>>>>>Covid period - at a life value of even $1 million, our Covid response >>>>>>>>>saved around $22 billion - a cost for vaccination related injuries of >>>>>>>>>only $11 million is in relative terms insignificant.
I doubt that even a National-led Government would have totally >>>>>>>>>followed the stupidity of various USA governments, but we can be proud >>>>>>>>>that our government, faced with the uncertainty relating to the >>>>>>>>>appearance of Covid, acted conservatively and followed expert advice; >>>>>>>>>it is clear that at least some in the current government would act >>>>>>>>>similarly in the face of a similar threat now, but regrettably some >>>>>>>>>would still on principle seek policies that resulted in more deaths >>>>>>>>>than necessary.
Thanks Crash. The data I used was given as a reference in the >>>>>>>X-thread. I see no reason to doubt ACC statistics, and the statistics >>>>>>>do demonstrate that the assertions in the initial link given are >>>>>>>almost certainly true, and that they demonstrate a relatively low >>>>>>>level of adverse effects (and at that mostly relating to the >>>>>>>injections), and the extremely good results New Zealand experienced in >>>>>>>keeping deaths from Covid a lot lower than other countries in relation >>>>>>>to normal death rates. The answer to the "If true..." Subject heading >>>>>>>is yes - the conclusions are true, and show New Zealand as having made >>>>>>>very good decisions.
You are wrong.
In what way is what I said above wrong, Tony?
it now? (I doubt it).
Data was given; it just needed looking for. See: >https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/oia-responses/Covid-19-vaccination-claims-refresh-july-2024.pdf
Now show why you think that was not pertinent, Tony . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yes that was from the original link - it was just a little further
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 19:40:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe question was "if true". You have posted nothing that shows it was or was >not true and the original link fails to do that.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 02:58:12 -0000 (UTC), TonyYour post doed not address the subjecty, at all. There is no data that is >>>pertinent. You really are a silly little boy.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Clearly you totally missed the message from that thread - the answers >>>>were there but clearly you missed the data - either through your usual >>>>shallow following of links or deliberately we will never know, but you >>>>have been unable to identify anywhere that my post was wrong.
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 08:44:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It's obvious to all but you. What you posted did not address the question. >>>>>Got
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 15:56:40 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>wrote:What absolute nonsense. You can twist it any way you like but it is still
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 14:08:42 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:15:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Incorrect Rich - that cite is for something else.
https://x.com/MattKingNorth/status/1853504373881778435
I would love to see some data but if true it would not surprise most >>>>>>>>>>>thinking
folk.
Data was given; it just needed looking for. See: >>>>>>>>>>https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/oia-responses/Covid-19-vaccination-claims-refresh-july-2024.pdf
I used this resource:
https://www.acc.co.nz/resources#/
to search for all (ACC) OIA responses (use a Category of OIS >>>>>>>>>responses, a subcategory of ALL and click on GO). None of the (621) >>>>>>>>>results referenced the number in Matt King's X post (035284). >>>>>>>>>Interesting that the most recent OIA response was (IIRC) September >>>>>>>>>2024 so the response King listed may not have been published by the >>>>>>>>>ACC yet.
The chart showing the number of accepted claims based on primary >>>>>>>>>>injury is interesting - the treatment injuries listed are : Allergic >>>>>>>>>>Reaction, Sprain, Cardiac Injury, Contusion, Adverse Drug Reaction / >>>>>>>>>>Anaphylactic Reaction / Infection / Shoulder Damage/Injury, Cellulitis
/ Bursitis, Inflammation / Nerve Damage / Other.
More claims were declined than accepted - the most common reason being
"No Injury"
The proportion likely to relate to the actual vaccine is not clear, >>>>>>>>>>but from the descriptions, appears to be low. (Adverse drug reaction >>>>>>>>>>is fairly clear, but cardiac injury, Anaphylactic reaction less clear >>>>>>>>>>- most appear to be related to having an injection . . .
Five claims have been lodged with ACC which have related to a fatal >>>>>>>>>>injury - the report does not say how many of those claims were >>>>>>>>>>accepted or declined.
I did not see the OIA that purportedly gives a figure of $11.5 >>>>>>>>>>million, but in working out financial equivalence for the purposes of >>>>>>>>>>policies, calculations usually impute a value for lives saved or >>>>>>>>>>somewhere between $1m and $2million.
The comparisons of Covid related mortality based on actual vs expected
deaths indicate that had we experienced the same results as the USA, >>>>>>>>>>we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths during the peak >>>>>>>>>>Covid period - at a life value of even $1 million, our Covid response >>>>>>>>>>saved around $22 billion - a cost for vaccination related injuries of >>>>>>>>>>only $11 million is in relative terms insignificant.
I doubt that even a National-led Government would have totally >>>>>>>>>>followed the stupidity of various USA governments, but we can be proud
that our government, faced with the uncertainty relating to the >>>>>>>>>>appearance of Covid, acted conservatively and followed expert advice; >>>>>>>>>>it is clear that at least some in the current government would act >>>>>>>>>>similarly in the face of a similar threat now, but regrettably some >>>>>>>>>>would still on principle seek policies that resulted in more deaths >>>>>>>>>>than necessary.
Thanks Crash. The data I used was given as a reference in the >>>>>>>>X-thread. I see no reason to doubt ACC statistics, and the statistics >>>>>>>>do demonstrate that the assertions in the initial link given are >>>>>>>>almost certainly true, and that they demonstrate a relatively low >>>>>>>>level of adverse effects (and at that mostly relating to the >>>>>>>>injections), and the extremely good results New Zealand experienced in >>>>>>>>keeping deaths from Covid a lot lower than other countries in relation >>>>>>>>to normal death rates. The answer to the "If true..." Subject heading >>>>>>>>is yes - the conclusions are true, and show New Zealand as having made >>>>>>>>very good decisions.
twisted.
You are wrong.
In what way is what I said above wrong, Tony?
it now? (I doubt it).
Data was given; it just needed looking for. See: >>https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/oia-responses/Covid-19-vaccination-claims-refresh-july-2024.pdf
Now show why you think that was not pertinent, Tony . . .
Just reposting your link is pointless but typically lazy of you. Unless you >have any facts you are just pissing into the wind.
On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 03:39:14 -0000 (UTC), TonyOnce more you have to be nasty, no woinder people dislike you intensely.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yes that was from the original link - it was just a little further
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 19:40:20 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe question was "if true". You have posted nothing that shows it was or was >>not true and the original link fails to do that.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 02:58:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Your post doed not address the subjecty, at all. There is no data that is >>>>pertinent. You really are a silly little boy.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Clearly you totally missed the message from that thread - the answers >>>>>were there but clearly you missed the data - either through your usual >>>>>shallow following of links or deliberately we will never know, but you >>>>>have been unable to identify anywhere that my post was wrong.
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 08:44:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:It's obvious to all but you. What you posted did not address the >>>>>>question.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 15:56:40 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>>>wrote:What absolute nonsense. You can twist it any way you like but it is >>>>>>>>still
On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 14:08:42 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:15:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Incorrect Rich - that cite is for something else.
https://x.com/MattKingNorth/status/1853504373881778435 >>>>>>>>>>>>I would love to see some data but if true it would not surprise >>>>>>>>>>>>most
thinking
folk.
Data was given; it just needed looking for. See: >>>>>>>>>>>https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/oia-responses/Covid-19-vaccination-claims-refresh-july-2024.pdf
I used this resource:
https://www.acc.co.nz/resources#/
to search for all (ACC) OIA responses (use a Category of OIS >>>>>>>>>>responses, a subcategory of ALL and click on GO). None of the (621) >>>>>>>>>>results referenced the number in Matt King's X post (035284). >>>>>>>>>>Interesting that the most recent OIA response was (IIRC) September >>>>>>>>>>2024 so the response King listed may not have been published by the >>>>>>>>>>ACC yet.
The chart showing the number of accepted claims based on primary >>>>>>>>>>>injury is interesting - the treatment injuries listed are : Allergic >>>>>>>>>>>Reaction, Sprain, Cardiac Injury, Contusion, Adverse Drug Reaction / >>>>>>>>>>>Anaphylactic Reaction / Infection / Shoulder Damage/Injury, >>>>>>>>>>>Cellulitis
/ Bursitis, Inflammation / Nerve Damage / Other.
More claims were declined than accepted - the most common reason >>>>>>>>>>>being
"No Injury"
The proportion likely to relate to the actual vaccine is not clear, >>>>>>>>>>>but from the descriptions, appears to be low. (Adverse drug reaction >>>>>>>>>>>is fairly clear, but cardiac injury, Anaphylactic reaction less clear
- most appear to be related to having an injection . . .
Five claims have been lodged with ACC which have related to a fatal >>>>>>>>>>>injury - the report does not say how many of those claims were >>>>>>>>>>>accepted or declined.
I did not see the OIA that purportedly gives a figure of $11.5 >>>>>>>>>>>million, but in working out financial equivalence for the purposes of
policies, calculations usually impute a value for lives saved or >>>>>>>>>>>somewhere between $1m and $2million.
The comparisons of Covid related mortality based on actual vs >>>>>>>>>>>expected
deaths indicate that had we experienced the same results as the USA, >>>>>>>>>>>we would have had around 22,000 additional deaths during the peak >>>>>>>>>>>Covid period - at a life value of even $1 million, our Covid response
saved around $22 billion - a cost for vaccination related injuries of
only $11 million is in relative terms insignificant.
I doubt that even a National-led Government would have totally >>>>>>>>>>>followed the stupidity of various USA governments, but we can be >>>>>>>>>>>proud
that our government, faced with the uncertainty relating to the >>>>>>>>>>>appearance of Covid, acted conservatively and followed expert advice;
it is clear that at least some in the current government would act >>>>>>>>>>>similarly in the face of a similar threat now, but regrettably some >>>>>>>>>>>would still on principle seek policies that resulted in more deaths >>>>>>>>>>>than necessary.
Thanks Crash. The data I used was given as a reference in the >>>>>>>>>X-thread. I see no reason to doubt ACC statistics, and the statistics >>>>>>>>>do demonstrate that the assertions in the initial link given are >>>>>>>>>almost certainly true, and that they demonstrate a relatively low >>>>>>>>>level of adverse effects (and at that mostly relating to the >>>>>>>>>injections), and the extremely good results New Zealand experienced in >>>>>>>>>keeping deaths from Covid a lot lower than other countries in relation >>>>>>>>>to normal death rates. The answer to the "If true..." Subject heading >>>>>>>>>is yes - the conclusions are true, and show New Zealand as having made >>>>>>>>>very good decisions.
twisted.
You are wrong.
In what way is what I said above wrong, Tony?
Got
it now? (I doubt it).
Data was given; it just needed looking for. See: >>>https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/oia-responses/Covid-19-vaccination-claims-refresh-july-2024.pdf
Now show why you think that was not pertinent, Tony . . .
down than you probably looked. And of course it is relevant, and true
- it is an OIA report.
Just reposting your link is pointless but typically lazy of you. Unless you >>have any facts you are just pissing into the wind.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 39:58:42 |
| Calls: | 10,392 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,198 |