|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
If people were not utterly stupid and idiotic, we would need far fewer lockdowns and restrictions. For every person that refuses to wear a mask or get vaccinated because of insane reasons, we need more lockdowns and restrictions for longer periods of time.
For every time a bunch of idiots simply have to have that gigantic corona party or religious congretation with lots of singing and without any, we need more restrictions to counteract their idiotic willful spreading of a pandemic.
In an ideal world, people would simply be sane and responsible. And if most people actually acted responsible, we could probably life pretty normally. But sadly the group of egoistic dickbags who can not be responsible force us into this stupid continuous yoyo bullshit.
|
On August 01 2021 21:49 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2021 21:44 maybenexttime wrote:
Should we also not regulate people to drive responsibly? how is asking people to stick to a speed limit comparable to cutting off 20 million people from the rest of the world for 2 years?or how is asking people to not drink and drive comparable to demanding that people close their businesses for months with peanuts as government support? got any more stupid questions?
The Australian government dropped the ball with the vaccination program and people being stupid and not getting the jab compounded that. But that doesn't change the fact that you are far more likely to kill someone by acting recklessly during this pandemic than by drunk driving.
I was merely commenting on the statement that we cannot regulate people to act responsibly. We can and we do that pretty much in every facet of life. Whether it's better to introduce vaccine passports a la France, make vaccines mandatory or keep having lockdowns, that's a different matter. I'd definitely say that lockdowns are the worst option of the three.
|
On August 01 2021 21:56 Simberto wrote:
If people were not utterly stupid and idiotic, we would need far fewer lockdowns and restrictions. For every person that refuses to wear a mask or get vaccinated because of insane reasons, we need more lockdowns and restrictions for longer periods of time.
For every time a bunch of idiots simply have to have that gigantic corona party or religious congretation with lots of singing and without any, we need more restrictions to counteract their idiotic willful spreading of a pandemic.
In an ideal world, people would simply be sane and responsible. And if most people actually acted responsible, we could probably life pretty normally. But sadly the group of egoistic dickbags who can not be responsible force us into this stupid continuous yoyo bullshit.
Exactly. Also to add to my point about people unable to be vaccinated - the idiots are a breeding ground for vaccine resistant variants.
|
On August 01 2021 21:56 Simberto wrote:
If people were not utterly stupid and idiotic, we would need far fewer lockdowns and restrictions. For every person that refuses to wear a mask or get vaccinated because of insane reasons, we need more lockdowns and restrictions for longer periods of time.
For every time a bunch of idiots simply have to have that gigantic corona party or religious congretation with lots of singing and without any, we need more restrictions to counteract their idiotic willful spreading of a pandemic.
In an ideal world, people would simply be sane and responsible. And if most people actually acted responsible, we could probably life pretty normally. But sadly the group of egoistic dickbags who can not be responsible force us into this stupid continuous yoyo bullshit.
why should you care if youve been vaccinated already?
the only people you do a service to by imposing restrictions are the very small percentage of people that genuinely cannot be vaccinated, and of those people an even smaller percentage actually die. everyone else has had their chance. vaccines have been available in germany for a while now and judging by recent news your country is seeing dropping stats for daily jabs despite only hovering around 50%. that just means a good portion of them have either made their decision to live their lives at high risk or decided to procrastinate. either way, theyve made their decisions and if they got sick now that would be the consequences of their own choices. yes they might die and people dying sucks, but they knew the risks and they did what they did.
to be fair, im not familiar with restriction policy in every country or city and therefore to be clear when im referring to "restrictions" in the loose term, im referring to restrictions at a level similar to what im experiencing in australia. keep in mind that pretty much no country around the world still has restrictions as totalitarian as ours.
|
The big problem is that these assholes don't only make the decisions for themselves.
As has been iterated multiple times over the last pages, people not getting vaccinated and being irresponsible keeps the pandemic around for longer. This has three major disadvantages even for the vaccinated.
Firstly, it keeps the pandemic around. This breeds more variants. The longer we breed more variants, the more likely it is for one which is more resistant to the vaccinations to arise. This is especially true if you keep the pandemic around in a mixed population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people.
Secondly, it keeps our hospitals busy with idiots who get corona which could have easily been avoided. This means that when i need a hospital for a valid reason, i get worse care because the hospital is more busy.
Thirdly, treating all those idiots is actually pretty expensive. And since healthcare as a cost is a cost that the whole of society carries as a group, this means that i have to pay for the idiots treatment.
|
On August 01 2021 22:03 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2021 21:49 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 01 2021 21:44 maybenexttime wrote:
Should we also not regulate people to drive responsibly? how is asking people to stick to a speed limit comparable to cutting off 20 million people from the rest of the world for 2 years?or how is asking people to not drink and drive comparable to demanding that people close their businesses for months with peanuts as government support? got any more stupid questions? The Australian government dropped the ball with the vaccination program and people being stupid and not getting the jab compounded that. But that doesn't change the fact that you are far more likely to kill someone by acting recklessly during this pandemic than by drunk driving. I was merely commenting on the statement that we cannot regulate people to act responsibly. We can and we do that pretty much in every facet of life. Whether it's better to introduce vaccine passports a la France, make vaccines mandatory or keep having lockdowns is preferable, that's a different matter. I'd definitely say that lockdowns are the worst option of the three.
this statement is probably difficult to prove but im going to have to disagree with you heavily on that.
i dont disagree with regulating society, but as with my previous post, the level of restrictions we are experiencing here is nowhere near comparable to the level of inconvenience we see in a normally regulated society.
|
On August 01 2021 22:14 Simberto wrote:
The big problem is that these assholes don't only make the decisions for themselves.
As has been iterated multiple times over the last pages, people not getting vaccinated and being irresponsible keeps the pandemic around for longer. This has three major disadvantages even for the vaccinated.
Firstly, it keeps the pandemic around. This breeds more variants. The longer we breed more variants, the more likely it is for one which is more resistant to the vaccinations to arise. This is especially true if you keep the pandemic around in a mixed population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people.
Secondly, it keeps our hospitals busy with idiots who get corona which could have easily been avoided. This means that when i need a hospital for a valid reason, i get worse care because the hospital is more busy.
Thirdly, treating all those idiots is actually pretty expensive. And since healthcare as a cost is a cost that the whole of society carries as a group, this means that i have to pay for the idiots treatment.
your entire post seems to be made under the assumption that if every single person on the planet perfectly complied with their governments' directions, we could eradicate covid.
the likelihood of that scenario occuring is less than zero. covid will always be around, period.
and if covid is always going to be around, with its multiple variants just like the cold or flu, then your 2nd and 3rd point are going to be issues that society will have to adapt to and accept. youre not solving any one of your 3 points by imposing restrictions repeatedly.
|
covid will always be around, period for emphasis.
anything that comes from an animal or can use an animal as host, can not be eradicated.
|
On August 01 2021 22:24 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2021 22:14 Simberto wrote:
The big problem is that these assholes don't only make the decisions for themselves.
As has been iterated multiple times over the last pages, people not getting vaccinated and being irresponsible keeps the pandemic around for longer. This has three major disadvantages even for the vaccinated.
Firstly, it keeps the pandemic around. This breeds more variants. The longer we breed more variants, the more likely it is for one which is more resistant to the vaccinations to arise. This is especially true if you keep the pandemic around in a mixed population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people.
Secondly, it keeps our hospitals busy with idiots who get corona which could have easily been avoided. This means that when i need a hospital for a valid reason, i get worse care because the hospital is more busy.
Thirdly, treating all those idiots is actually pretty expensive. And since healthcare as a cost is a cost that the whole of society carries as a group, this means that i have to pay for the idiots treatment. your entire post seems to be made under the assumption that if every single person on the planet perfectly complied with their governments' directions, we could eradicate covid. the likelihood of that scenario occuring is less than zero. covid will always be around, period. and if covid is always going to be around, with its multiple variants just like the cold or flu, then your 2nd and 3rd point are going to be issues that society will have to adapt to and accept. youre not solving any one of your 3 points by imposing restrictions repeatedly.
Except at this rate the virus will continue to mutate because enough people refuse to get vaccinated, and vaccines will no longer be effective, putting us back at square one, because COVID is not just a cold or flu.
|
On August 01 2021 22:20 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2021 22:03 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2021 21:49 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 01 2021 21:44 maybenexttime wrote:
Should we also not regulate people to drive responsibly? how is asking people to stick to a speed limit comparable to cutting off 20 million people from the rest of the world for 2 years?or how is asking people to not drink and drive comparable to demanding that people close their businesses for months with peanuts as government support? got any more stupid questions? The Australian government dropped the ball with the vaccination program and people being stupid and not getting the jab compounded that. But that doesn't change the fact that you are far more likely to kill someone by acting recklessly during this pandemic than by drunk driving. I was merely commenting on the statement that we cannot regulate people to act responsibly. We can and we do that pretty much in every facet of life. Whether it's better to introduce vaccine passports a la France, make vaccines mandatory or keep having lockdowns is preferable, that's a different matter. I'd definitely say that lockdowns are the worst option of the three. this statement is probably difficult to prove but im going to have to disagree with you heavily on that. i dont disagree with regulating society, but as with my previous post, the level of restrictions we are experiencing here is nowhere near comparable to the level of inconvenience we see in a normally regulated society.
In 2019, about 280 people in the UK were killed by drunk drivers. 85k people were convicted for drunk driving. Assuming that those 85k people accounts for all such incidents (unlikely), if you drink drive you have a 0.3% chance that you'll kill someone. Less than 1 in 10 drunk drivers are actually caught, so the real number is probably closer to 0.03%.
COVID-19 kills 1% of the infected or so in the UK (of unvaccinated). With no restrictions/vaccines, an infected person spreads the Delta variant to about 5-8 people on average. Statistically, the chance that you'll kill at least one person if you just act like normal is 1 - (chance of surviving)^R. The chance of surviving is 1 - IFR. Based on that, assuming people mix with people of all ages randomly, the chance that you kill someone is around 4.9-7.7% if no measures are taken.
On August 01 2021 22:24 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2021 22:14 Simberto wrote:
The big problem is that these assholes don't only make the decisions for themselves.
As has been iterated multiple times over the last pages, people not getting vaccinated and being irresponsible keeps the pandemic around for longer. This has three major disadvantages even for the vaccinated.
Firstly, it keeps the pandemic around. This breeds more variants. The longer we breed more variants, the more likely it is for one which is more resistant to the vaccinations to arise. This is especially true if you keep the pandemic around in a mixed population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people.
Secondly, it keeps our hospitals busy with idiots who get corona which could have easily been avoided. This means that when i need a hospital for a valid reason, i get worse care because the hospital is more busy.
Thirdly, treating all those idiots is actually pretty expensive. And since healthcare as a cost is a cost that the whole of society carries as a group, this means that i have to pay for the idiots treatment. your entire post seems to be made under the assumption that if every single person on the planet perfectly complied with their governments' directions, we could eradicate covid. the likelihood of that scenario occuring is less than zero. covid will always be around, period. and if covid is always going to be around, with its multiple variants just like the cold or flu, then your 2nd and 3rd point are going to be issues that society will have to adapt to and accept. youre not solving any one of your 3 points by imposing restrictions repeatedly.
That's not necessarily true, at least for developed countries. All we need to do is maintain the R value below 1 (ideally considerably so). We can do that with the vaccines. The current ones are less effective against the Delta variant, but they still help a ton. Clinical trials of vaccines tailored to the new variants are scheduled for this month. There is no reason why we shouldn't be able to keep up with the new variants of concern and keep R below 1.
|
On August 01 2021 23:35 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2021 22:24 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 01 2021 22:14 Simberto wrote:
The big problem is that these assholes don't only make the decisions for themselves.
As has been iterated multiple times over the last pages, people not getting vaccinated and being irresponsible keeps the pandemic around for longer. This has three major disadvantages even for the vaccinated.
Firstly, it keeps the pandemic around. This breeds more variants. The longer we breed more variants, the more likely it is for one which is more resistant to the vaccinations to arise. This is especially true if you keep the pandemic around in a mixed population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people.
Secondly, it keeps our hospitals busy with idiots who get corona which could have easily been avoided. This means that when i need a hospital for a valid reason, i get worse care because the hospital is more busy.
Thirdly, treating all those idiots is actually pretty expensive. And since healthcare as a cost is a cost that the whole of society carries as a group, this means that i have to pay for the idiots treatment. your entire post seems to be made under the assumption that if every single person on the planet perfectly complied with their governments' directions, we could eradicate covid. the likelihood of that scenario occuring is less than zero. covid will always be around, period. and if covid is always going to be around, with its multiple variants just like the cold or flu, then your 2nd and 3rd point are going to be issues that society will have to adapt to and accept. youre not solving any one of your 3 points by imposing restrictions repeatedly. Except at this rate the virus will continue to mutate because enough people refuse to get vaccinated, and vaccines will no longer be effective, putting us back at square one, because COVID is not just a cold or flu.
the virus will continue to mutate anyway? vaccines will constantly require development, be that through boosters or some other breakthrough technology, if our current understanding of the virus strain is anything to go by. you have the same problem as simberto. youre living under some delusion that this virus can be eradicated
your entire post seems to be made under the assumption that if every single person on the planet perfectly complied with their governments' directions, we could eradicate covid.
the likelihood of that scenario occuring is less than zero. covid will always be around, period.
and if covid is always going to be around, with its multiple variants just like the cold or flu, then your 2nd and 3rd point are going to be issues that society will have to adapt to and accept. youre not solving any one of your 3 points by imposing restrictions repeatedly.[/QUOTE]
That's not necessarily true, at least for developed countries. All we need to do is maintain the R value below 1 (ideally considerably so). We can do that with the vaccines. The current ones are less effective against the Delta variant, but they still help a ton. Clinical trials of vaccines tailored to the new variants are scheduled for this month. There is no reason why we shouldn't be able to keep up with the new variants of concern and keep R below 1.
if youre suggesting that we maintain the R value below 1 by doing what weve been doing the last 1.5 years, which is to implement restrictions and lockdown every time a new variant comes out, then no. im not against vaccinations and vaccine development. they will be imperative against covid for a long time and regardless of what the governments policies are in relation to vaccination mandates or vaccine passports, big pharma will continue to profit.
what i am against is the attempt from government to forcefully control the virus by infringing on the basic rights and privileges of the public on a frequent basis. so if your suggestion that we maintain the R value below 1 is by implementing restrictions every time a new variant is discovered in society, then a big fk that for me. find a way to do that without locking borders and closing businesses.
|
On August 02 2021 00:14 evilfatsh1t wrote:
if youre suggesting that we maintain the R value below 1 by doing what weve been doing the last 1.5 years, which is to implement restrictions and lockdown every time a new variant comes out, then no. im not against vaccinations and vaccine development. they will be imperative against covid for a long time and regardless of what the governments policies are in relation to vaccination mandates or vaccine passports, big pharma will continue to profit.
what i am against is the attempt from government to forcefully control the virus by infringing on the basic rights and privileges of the public on a frequent basis. so if your suggestion that we maintain the R value below 1 is by implementing restrictions every time a new variant is discovered in society, then a big fk that for me. find a way to do that without locking borders and closing businesses.
We could be doing what Korea, Vietnam or Thailand are doing, if it weren't for people complaining about their privacy or liberties. Keep track of the spread, isolate infected people, apply restrictions locally. There is also no reason why we shouldn't be able to keep track of the mutations and have the vaccines ready. According to the people who made the mRNA vaccines, it takes a couple of weeks to update the vaccines + a couple of months of clinical trials (we do such quick trials for the seasonal flu jab, AFAIK).
What's the alternative? Let the pandemic run wild, have people die, paralyze the healthcare system and take an economic hit on top of that? Countries that did not control the spread and refused to impose a lockdown suffered economically too.
Also what's your problem with big pharma continuing to profit? Are you saying there's some conspiracy there? They provide a product for which there is a very high demand and help us avoid much higher costs.
|
|
|
On August 01 2021 17:52 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2021 05:27 Lmui wrote:On July 31 2021 01:52 JimmiC wrote:On July 31 2021 01:28 Lmui wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/07/29/cdc-mask-guidance/Washington post article about a leaked CDC document, starting on page 14 for info about delta. https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/cdc-breakthrough-infections/94390e3a-5e45-44a5-ac40-2744e4e25f2e/?_=1Pretty much, Delta is as transmissible as a respiratory disease gets, in the realm of chickenpox, and higher than smallpox/polio and the common cold. It's also likely to be transmissible even from infected vaccinated individuals, with marginally lower viral loads than unvaccinated. The CDC estimate for mask protectiveness (although no mention of what type) is 40-60% on source (infected), and 20-30% on personal protectiveness. Given higher transmissibility and current vaccine coverage, universal masking is essential
to reduce transmission of the Delta variant There's a couple charts in there that are good to look over, but gist of it is without masking, spread is guaranteed, and it will quickly find any unvaccinated individual. With universal masking, you still need 60-75% vaccine coverage to see decreases in transmission (~50% in environments with high natural immunity, 35%). Alberta is proving that right now as we are starting to climb now that mask rules and every other one has removed. They have even talked about stopping quarantining close contacts who are unvaccinated. We should be pretty good for a capacity standpoint but with kids heading back to school and them still not being able to it is concerning heading into fall. Maybe as the news of the 4th wave spreads we can get our vaccinations rolling faster again. There has been a big increase in the the southern states I hope we can do that by watching what's going on and not need to experience it ourselves. Yeah... Alberta's going to demonstrate for the rest of Canada what not to do. Sorry that you live there  The chart in particular from the report which should be scary. This is assuming Delta has a R0 of 5 (estimated R between 5-9.5), so this is the best case scenario. ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/PnMJNmZ.png) Without very high natural immunity + masks + higher vaccination rates than can be achieved right now without vaccinating kids, you can't stop it without other interventions. Masks alone can bring it down to a manageable point, but it needs to be universal. NO! Masks alone make next to no difference. Please post sources for statements like that. There have been massive outbreaks despite your precious "universal masks" and the virus has been kept under control without them. They are overrated, and only have any statistical effect at all in combination with hand hygiene and distancing. Between the 3 things, masks are in a solid last place. What should be debated now is how the UK wave has hit its peak already without any changes in the measures. Have we been too quick to credit the measures for tendencies which would happen anyway? I mean, if we oblige red socks 2-3 weeks before a wave peak, it doesn't mean they are effective... This will likely be heavily researched for a long time, and we are probably too emotionally entangled in both promoting and hating covid-19 measures to see things clearly right now.
Source is cdc, inside the nested quotes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/cdc-breakthrough-infections/94390e3a-5e45-44a5-ac40-2744e4e25f2e/?_=1
|
On August 02 2021 00:51 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2021 00:14 evilfatsh1t wrote:
if youre suggesting that we maintain the R value below 1 by doing what weve been doing the last 1.5 years, which is to implement restrictions and lockdown every time a new variant comes out, then no. im not against vaccinations and vaccine development. they will be imperative against covid for a long time and regardless of what the governments policies are in relation to vaccination mandates or vaccine passports, big pharma will continue to profit.
what i am against is the attempt from government to forcefully control the virus by infringing on the basic rights and privileges of the public on a frequent basis. so if your suggestion that we maintain the R value below 1 is by implementing restrictions every time a new variant is discovered in society, then a big fk that for me. find a way to do that without locking borders and closing businesses. We could be doing what Korea, Vietnam or Thailand are doing, if it weren't for people complaining about their privacy or liberties. Keep track of the spread, isolate infected people, apply restrictions locally. There is also no reason why we shouldn't be able to keep track of the mutations and have the vaccines ready. According to the people who made the mRNA vaccines, it takes a couple of weeks to update the vaccines + a couple of months of clinical trials (we do such quick trials for the seasonal flu jab, AFAIK). What's the alternative? Let the pandemic run wild, have people die, paralyze the healthcare system and take an economic hit on top of that? Countries that did control the spread and refused to impose a lockdown suffered economically too. Also what's your problem with big pharma continuing to profit? Are you saying there's some conspiracy there? They provide a product for which there is a very high demand and help us avoid much higher costs.
see this is just wishful thinking. its already been proven in pretty much every country that this cant be reliably done each time theres an outbreak. korea is seeing daily cases that is triple what the stats were this time last year, and they have pretty strong restrictions in place in seoul currently also.
australia in fact is probably the country that was best at applying what youve stated, until eventually we slipped up and now our entire city is in lockdown for potentially 3 months+. youre never going to get any city or country that perfectly tracks, isolates and contains an outbreak, especially if its a new variant.
im glad you brought up how much time it takes to update vaccines to each variant. what is your proposal for a city that is now seeing an outbreak of a new variant and needs to wait a few months for an updated vaccine? even worse, what about the cities like sydney where we have to wait additional months due to logistics? you expect every city across the world to just repeat the process over and over? restrictions -> failed containment -> lockdown -> boosters -> lift restrictions -> new variant -> restrictions?
my point is i would rather take the path of no alternative than that path. even without restrictions, youre not just "letting the pandemic run wild". sensible people will still vaccinate. those who are particularly wary will wear masks anyway. people will mind personal hygiene better. hospitals and other medical infrastructure will be invested in to cope with the now expected increase in demand. yes people will die; someone dying to covid around you might become as common as someone dying from cancer, heart attack, stroke or any other "common" disease. thats just how life is.
people will do what we have done throughout the entirety of our history. learn, adapt, evolve. the important thing is civilisation moves on with their lives instead of cowering in fear at every single new variant or outbreak and having to shut down society for weeks or months at a time. we complain about idiots now, but theyre not going to continue to be idiots when theyre the only ones who havent been vaccinated and they end up dying left and right. so why get governments to force the issue, piss everyone off and do a shit ton of economical damage (kpmg estimated $220m per day for sydneys current lockdown) when you can just let time handle things.
i dont have a problem with big pharma. like you said, they are reaping the rewards of having the knowledge and skill to create something valuable and in high demand. the point i was trying to make is that im not against vaccinations and im not against people and governments doing everything they can to combat the virus within their respective roles in society. its, in the governments case, abusing their role to exercise greater than required power over the public that is my problem.
|
|
|
Korea is seeing high daily cases because Delta is a bitch and they have a bad vaccination %. A quick google gives me a 20 day old article mentioning they have 11% fully vaccinated and 30% with 1 dose. www.reuters.com
This isn't a signifier that restrictions do not work, but that vaccination is the single most important thing against Delta. Its so super infectious that restrictions alone can't contain it.
|
On August 02 2021 02:12 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2021 01:47 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 02 2021 00:51 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2021 00:14 evilfatsh1t wrote:
if youre suggesting that we maintain the R value below 1 by doing what weve been doing the last 1.5 years, which is to implement restrictions and lockdown every time a new variant comes out, then no. im not against vaccinations and vaccine development. they will be imperative against covid for a long time and regardless of what the governments policies are in relation to vaccination mandates or vaccine passports, big pharma will continue to profit.
what i am against is the attempt from government to forcefully control the virus by infringing on the basic rights and privileges of the public on a frequent basis. so if your suggestion that we maintain the R value below 1 is by implementing restrictions every time a new variant is discovered in society, then a big fk that for me. find a way to do that without locking borders and closing businesses. We could be doing what Korea, Vietnam or Thailand are doing, if it weren't for people complaining about their privacy or liberties. Keep track of the spread, isolate infected people, apply restrictions locally. There is also no reason why we shouldn't be able to keep track of the mutations and have the vaccines ready. According to the people who made the mRNA vaccines, it takes a couple of weeks to update the vaccines + a couple of months of clinical trials (we do such quick trials for the seasonal flu jab, AFAIK). What's the alternative? Let the pandemic run wild, have people die, paralyze the healthcare system and take an economic hit on top of that? Countries that did control the spread and refused to impose a lockdown suffered economically too. Also what's your problem with big pharma continuing to profit? Are you saying there's some conspiracy there? They provide a product for which there is a very high demand and help us avoid much higher costs. see this is just wishful thinking. its already been proven in pretty much every country that this cant be reliably done each time theres an outbreak. korea is seeing daily cases that is triple what the stats were this time last year, and they have pretty strong restrictions in place in seoul currently also. australia in fact is probably the country that was best at applying what youve stated, until eventually we slipped up and now our entire city is in lockdown for potentially 3 months+. youre never going to get any city or country that perfectly tracks, isolates and contains an outbreak, especially if its a new variant. im glad you brought up how much time it takes to update vaccines to each variant. what is your proposal for a city that is now seeing an outbreak of a new variant and needs to wait a few months for an updated vaccine? even worse, what about the cities like sydney where we have to wait additional months due to logistics? you expect every city across the world to just repeat the process over and over? restrictions -> failed containment -> lockdown -> boosters -> lift restrictions -> new variant -> restrictions? my point is i would rather take the path of no alternative than that path. even without restrictions, youre not just "letting the pandemic run wild". sensible people will still vaccinate. those who are particularly wary will wear masks anyway. people will mind personal hygiene better. hospitals and other medical infrastructure will be invested in to cope with the now expected increase in demand. yes people will die; someone dying to covid around you might become as common as someone dying from cancer, heart attack, stroke or any other "common" disease. thats just how life is. people will do what we have done throughout the entirety of our history. learn, adapt, evolve. the important thing is civilisation moves on with their lives instead of cowering in fear at every single new variant or outbreak and having to shut down society for weeks or months at a time. we complain about idiots now, but theyre not going to continue to be idiots when theyre the only ones who havent been vaccinated and they end up dying left and right. so why get governments to force the issue, piss everyone off and do a shit ton of economical damage (kpmg estimated $220m per day for sydneys current lockdown) when you can just let time handle things. i dont have a problem with big pharma. like you said, they are reaping the rewards of having the knowledge and skill to create something valuable and in high demand. the point i was trying to make is that im not against vaccinations and im not against people and governments doing everything they can to combat the virus within their respective roles in society. its, in the governments case, abusing their role to exercise greater than required power over the public that is my problem. New Zealand is the example of it working. But yes it is hard, but not because of the people who support and follow the measures, it is because of those who dont. Pro vaccination people are on board with you, they are getting angrier and angrier at those who don't. In an area with high enough uptake once children are getting their will not be a reason too. Then the question is just if the rest of society should pay for their care for their self inflicted wound or not? Sadly in low vaccination areas it effects everyone because they fill up the hospital beds causing vaccinated people to be in pain longer, perhaps die sooner if their issue is not detected and so on. This is not in theory it is happening right now in the southern US. If the anti-vaxxers were fine with accepting the responsibility that comes with their choice I'd have no problem with them, but you have Nettles here trying to claim that a Movie theater who makes him take a rapid test is government totalitarianism. He is so angry he can't even distinguish between the private sector (which is the one making most of the vaccine passport rules right now) and government. How do you think he would be if health care made him pay more for his choice? It would be fair because he is taking more risk and is more expensive. We do it with smoking for example. But he won't be ok, he will be so mad. These selfish, entitled people want to do what they want and the rest of us to pay for them. And before someone brings up overweight, I also support sugar taxes and tax breaks for being healthy. If you cost less to public services because of your behavior you should pay more. If you make good choices you should pay less. People that just get bad luck should be covered by all of us. That is equitable instead of equal and what society should strive for.
new zealand is a bad example. its got restrictions just as bad as australia with no where near as much traffic. hardly a shining example of a country that lives "normally" and manages cases at the same time.
and whilst i agree with most of what you said you didnt really address my main point which is that once youve made available enough vaccines for everyone, its time for the government to step back. its perfectly fine to discuss how society should manage anti-vaxxers and make them live with the consequences of their choices (aside from them dying), but constantly asking the entire public, regardless of vaccination status, to take hit after hit due to severe restrictions or lockdown is totalitarianism.
On August 02 2021 02:12 Gorsameth wrote:Korea is seeing high daily cases because Delta is a bitch and they have a bad vaccination %. A quick google gives me a 20 day old article mentioning they have 11% fully vaccinated and 30% with 1 dose. www.reuters.comThis isn't a signifier that restrictions do not work, but that vaccination is the single most important thing against Delta. Its so super infectious that restrictions alone can't contain it.
actually it is a signifier that restrictions do not work. you just said so yourself, restrictions cant contain it. that just means moving forward vaccinations are the utmost priority and will be essential to management of covid and any future variant. so governments should focus on that instead of trying to impose restrictions on the public. the small amount of containment you get isnt worth the cost at that point, especially if in future most people have already received a vaccine for a previous variant.
|
On August 02 2021 01:47 evilfatsh1t wrote:see this is just wishful thinking. its already been proven in pretty much every country that this cant be reliably done each time theres an outbreak. korea is seeing daily cases that is triple what the stats were this time last year, and they have pretty strong restrictions in place in seoul currently also.
The countries I've mention have avoided a full-on lockdown for some 18 months. That's pretty successful as far as I'm concerned.
australia in fact is probably the country that was best at applying what youve stated, until eventually we slipped up and now our entire city is in lockdown for potentially 3 months+. youre never going to get any city or country that perfectly tracks, isolates and contains an outbreak, especially if its a new variant.
im glad you brought up how much time it takes to update vaccines to each variant. what is your proposal for a city that is now seeing an outbreak of a new variant and needs to wait a few months for an updated vaccine? even worse, what about the cities like sydney where we have to wait additional months due to logistics? you expect every city across the world to just repeat the process over and over? restrictions -> failed containment -> lockdown -> boosters -> lift restrictions -> new variant -> restrictions?
You are completely ignoring the most important piece of the puzzle - the vaccines. I'm talking about 90+% of the population being vaccinated and receiving boosters on a seasonal basis if needed. Right now the Australian population is largely susceptible to the virus. What makes you think lockdowns will be necessary when most of the population is vaccinated/have had COVID? Right now countries with high vaccination coverage seem to be handling the Delta wave just fine. It's very likely that lighter measures will suffice once we've reached herd immunity.
my point is i would rather take the path of no alternative than that path. even without restrictions, youre not just "letting the pandemic run wild". sensible people will still vaccinate. those who are particularly wary will wear masks anyway. people will mind personal hygiene better. hospitals and other medical infrastructure will be invested in to cope with the now expected increase in demand. yes people will die; someone dying to covid around you might become as common as someone dying from cancer, heart attack, stroke or any other "common" disease. thats just how life is.
people will do what we have done throughout the entirety of our history. learn, adapt, evolve. the important thing is civilisation moves on with their lives instead of cowering in fear at every single new variant or outbreak and having to shut down society for weeks or months at a time. we complain about idiots now, but theyre not going to continue to be idiots when theyre the only ones who havent been vaccinated and they end up dying left and right. so why get governments to force the issue, piss everyone off and do a shit ton of economical damage (kpmg estimated $220m a day for sydneys current lockdown) when you can just let time handle things.
i dont have a problem with big pharma. like you said, they are reaping the rewards of having the knowledge and skill to create something valuable and in high demand. the point i was trying to make is that im not against vaccinations and im not against people and governments doing everything they can to combat the virus within their respective roles in society.
Show me a country that didn't take measures to curb the spread and avoided economic damage. I can't think of any. Many countries fought tooth and nail to avoid locking down (Brazil, Mexico, the UK or Russia come to mind). They all suffered economic damage and the medical costs of the pandemic were exponentially higher than that for countries like South Korea or Vietnam.
Also lol at expecting people to act sensibly. If there's one thing that the pandemic has shown us, it's that some 20-50% of the society (depending on the country) are dumb/delusional/reckless. Governments need sensible carrot and sticks, but they can't expect people to act responsibly.
|
On August 02 2021 02:29 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2021 01:47 evilfatsh1t wrote:see this is just wishful thinking. its already been proven in pretty much every country that this cant be reliably done each time theres an outbreak. korea is seeing daily cases that is triple what the stats were this time last year, and they have pretty strong restrictions in place in seoul currently also. The countries I've mention have avoided a full-on lockdown for some 18 months. That's pretty successful as far as I'm concerned. Show nested quote +australia in fact is probably the country that was best at applying what youve stated, until eventually we slipped up and now our entire city is in lockdown for potentially 3 months+. youre never going to get any city or country that perfectly tracks, isolates and contains an outbreak, especially if its a new variant.
im glad you brought up how much time it takes to update vaccines to each variant. what is your proposal for a city that is now seeing an outbreak of a new variant and needs to wait a few months for an updated vaccine? even worse, what about the cities like sydney where we have to wait additional months due to logistics? you expect every city across the world to just repeat the process over and over? restrictions -> failed containment -> lockdown -> boosters -> lift restrictions -> new variant -> restrictions? You are completely ignoring the most important piece of the puzzle - the vaccines. I'm talking about 90+% of the population being vaccinated and receiving boosters on a seasonal basis if needed. Right now the Australian population is largely susceptible to the virus. What makes you think lockdowns will be necessary when most of the population is vaccinated/have had COVID? Right now countries with high vaccination coverage seem to be handling the Delta wave just fine. It's very likely that lighter measures will suffice once we've reached herd immunity. Show nested quote +my point is i would rather take the path of no alternative than that path. even without restrictions, youre not just "letting the pandemic run wild". sensible people will still vaccinate. those who are particularly wary will wear masks anyway. people will mind personal hygiene better. hospitals and other medical infrastructure will be invested in to cope with the now expected increase in demand. yes people will die; someone dying to covid around you might become as common as someone dying from cancer, heart attack, stroke or any other "common" disease. thats just how life is.
people will do what we have done throughout the entirety of our history. learn, adapt, evolve. the important thing is civilisation moves on with their lives instead of cowering in fear at every single new variant or outbreak and having to shut down society for weeks or months at a time. we complain about idiots now, but theyre not going to continue to be idiots when theyre the only ones who havent been vaccinated and they end up dying left and right. so why get governments to force the issue, piss everyone off and do a shit ton of economical damage (kpmg estimated $220m a day for sydneys current lockdown) when you can just let time handle things.
i dont have a problem with big pharma. like you said, they are reaping the rewards of having the knowledge and skill to create something valuable and in high demand. the point i was trying to make is that im not against vaccinations and im not against people and governments doing everything they can to combat the virus within their respective roles in society. Show me a country that didn't take measures to curb the spread and avoided economic damage. I can't think of any. Many countries fought tooth and nail to avoid locking down (Brazil, Mexico, the UK or Russia come to mind). They all suffered economic damage and the medical costs of the pandemic were exponentially higher than that for countries like South Korea or Vietnam. Also lol at expecting people to act sensibly. If there's one thing that the pandemic has shown us, it's that some 20-50% of the society (depending on the country) are dumb/delusional/reckless. Governments need sensible carrot and sticks, but they can't expect people to act responsibly.
im not ignoring vaccines at all? youre just failing to understand that even with vaccines a new variant will still cause an increase in cases. australias policy thus far for the management of covid was restrictions until zero transmission. do you have any idea how deluded you have to be to think that we will live in a world where covid transmission is zero?
as for your point about brazil, mexico, uk etc. im not even sure if you know what youre arguing against. when did i say anything argumentative about restrictions being placed on countries when no one had vaccines available?
im talking about the continued placement of restrictions or lockdowns on countries which have vaccines available to the public. its totalitarian to continue to place restrictions on lives of citizens if theyve made their choice.
if australia continues to keep restrictions in place because transmission isnt zero, then protests will get worse and rightfully so. if australia continues to keep international borders closed because our vaccination number isnt 80%, then expect shit to hit the fan. there was also the issue of australia refusing to let its own citizens into the country due to fear of transmission. this wasnt a lack of seats on a plane issue, it was literally the government saying to australians in india that they arent allowed to come home. if thats not a fucked up totalitarian government i dont know what is
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
