|
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. |
On August 02 2021 02:25 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2021 02:12 JimmiC wrote: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. Show nested quote +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. I point to the Netherlands, we had a lockdown and things were fine. We opened up to soon, before the youth was vaccinated, and your infections went through the fucking roof. Restrictions were quickly put back in place and infections came down again.
You can't go around shouting that restrictions do not work when there is constant proof that they do work and clear situations where we can show what happens when you lift them to soon.
Restrictions are there to keep Covid in check until enough people have been vaccinated. Some countries are going harder against non-vaccinated people to attempt to persuade them to vaccinate because mass vaccination is the only way we can return so something resembling normal.
I haven't kept up to much with the rest of the EU. Are there countries with a vaccine shortage? I thought most/all of them are jabbing people as fast as they can and the problem is getting more people to take the vaccine. And forcing them is often not constitutionally allowed or a grey area.
You talk of containment not being worth the cost but no where are you talking about the cost of mass infections, hospitalization and the impact of long Covid that would happen in a situation where you simply let a virus more contagious then the chickenpox run rampant.
And that is before we consider how more likely that is to lead to yet more dangerous variants.
|
On August 02 2021 02:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2021 02:25 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 02 2021 02:12 JimmiC wrote: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. I point to the Netherlands, we had a lockdown and things were fine. We opened up to soon, before the youth was vaccinated, and your infections went through the fucking roof. Restrictions were quickly put back in place and infections came down again.
You can't go around shouting that restrictions do not work when there is constant proof that they do work and clear situations where we can show what happens when you lift them to soon.Restrictions are there to keep Covid in check until enough people have been vaccinated. Some countries are going harder against non-vaccinated people to attempt to persuade them to vaccinate because mass vaccination is the only way we can return so something resembling normal. I haven't kept up to much with the rest of the EU. Are there countries with a vaccine shortage? I thought most/all of them are jabbing people as fast as they can and the problem is getting more people to take the vaccine. And forcing them is often not constitutionally allowed or a grey area. You talk of containment not being worth the cost but no where are you talking about the cost of mass infections, hospitalization and the impact of long Covid that would happen in a situation where you simply let a virus more contagious then the chickenpox run rampant. And that is before we consider how more likely that is to lead to yet more dangerous variants.
not sure what youre referring to because i dont follow news from the netherlands, but is this before or after delta and before or after vaccinations?
because if its after vaccinations then im going to assume the death toll was very small and although im unaware of how severe the restrictions were, it would be hard to argue that the restrictions were absolutely necessary. infection numbers arent that important after vaccination because the death toll is even tinier.
if youre referring to before vaccinations, well im not arguing about the effectiveness of restrictions in that case.
|
On August 02 2021 02:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2021 02:46 Gorsameth wrote:On August 02 2021 02:25 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 02 2021 02:12 JimmiC wrote: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. I point to the Netherlands, we had a lockdown and things were fine. We opened up to soon, before the youth was vaccinated, and your infections went through the fucking roof. Restrictions were quickly put back in place and infections came down again.
You can't go around shouting that restrictions do not work when there is constant proof that they do work and clear situations where we can show what happens when you lift them to soon.Restrictions are there to keep Covid in check until enough people have been vaccinated. Some countries are going harder against non-vaccinated people to attempt to persuade them to vaccinate because mass vaccination is the only way we can return so something resembling normal. I haven't kept up to much with the rest of the EU. Are there countries with a vaccine shortage? I thought most/all of them are jabbing people as fast as they can and the problem is getting more people to take the vaccine. And forcing them is often not constitutionally allowed or a grey area. You talk of containment not being worth the cost but no where are you talking about the cost of mass infections, hospitalization and the impact of long Covid that would happen in a situation where you simply let a virus more contagious then the chickenpox run rampant. And that is before we consider how more likely that is to lead to yet more dangerous variants. not sure what youre referring to because i dont follow news from the netherlands, but is this before or after delta and before or after vaccinations? because if its after vaccinations then im going to assume the death toll was very small and although im unaware of how severe the restrictions were, it would be hard to argue that the restrictions were absolutely necessary. infection numbers arent that important after vaccination because the death toll is even tinier. if youre referring to before vaccinations, well im not arguing about the effectiveness of restrictions in that case. Delta and those under 30y old were only ~50% having had their first shot when the outbreak started, with some 10% being fully vaccinated. No bars, restaurants, clubs or events was working. Cases were way down, deaths were close to 0. All that went away and boom 2 weeks later we were closing in on the highest daily new cases since the start of the pandemic.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/netherlands/#graph-deaths-daily
yes deaths have stayed low because the most vulnerable have been vaccinated. No that doesn't mean that simply letting it run around unrestricted is in any way shape or form a good idea.
|
|
|
To the people wishing that lockdowns be lifted right now: what percentage of people in various countries do you expect will be left unvaccinated in 2021 (due to lack of access, refusal, etc.), and what will that percentage be in 2022, 2023, 2024, etc.?
Also, do you expect every future vaccine to have >90% efficacy and to turn vaccinated people into non-spreaders?
|
On August 02 2021 02:45 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2021 02:29 maybenexttime wrote: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. 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.
You effectively are. You've said that "Australia is probably the country that was best at applying what I've stated". As if whether your population being 15% or 90+% vaccinated was irrelevant to how effective my preferred approach would be.
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? I highly doubt that this is Australia's long-term strategy. Probably just a temporary position until something resembling herd immunity is reached.
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
This isn't about the vaccines being widely available. It's about whether there is a risk of the healthcare system collapsing or not. I don't think anyone's against restrictions applying only to people refusing to get vaccinated. No need for lockdowns affecting everyone. I just don't think Australia's at that stage yet.
And I'm still waiting for any example of countries refusing to curb the transmission and not suffering economic damage regardless of the lack of lockdowns. This isn't a choice between many COVID cases and no economic damage vs. low COVID cases and economic damage. Both scenarios lead to economic damage. One of them also guarantees massive medical costs.
|
On August 02 2021 03:20 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2021 02:45 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 02 2021 02:29 maybenexttime wrote: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. 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. You effectively are. You've said that "Australia is probably the country that was best at applying what I've stated". As if whether your population being 15% or 90+% vaccinated was irrelevant to how effective my preferred approach would be. Show nested quote +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? I highly doubt that this is Australia's long-term strategy. Probably just a temporary position until something resembling herd immunity is reached. Show nested quote +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 This isn't about the vaccines being widely available. It's about whether there is a risk of the healthcare system collapsing or not. I don't think anyone's against restrictions applying only to people refusing to get vaccinated. No need for lockdowns affecting everyone. I just don't think Australia's at that stage yet. And I'm still waiting for any example of countries refusing to curb the transmission and not suffering economic damage regardless of the lack of lockdowns. This isn't a choice between many COVID cases and no economic damage vs. low COVID cases and economic damage. Both scenarios lead to economic damage. One of them also guarantees massive medical costs.
whether or not australia's vaccination percentage is 15% or 90% could may well be irrelevant. you dont know. the next variant after delta could be even worse and a 90% vaccination could be ineffective at curbing the spread as quickly as you want. your arguments are all based on the assumption that a highly vaccinated population guarantees protection and will effectively limit spread against all future variants despite there being no evidence to suggest that this will be the case. youve also made the assumption that people will just take seasonal boosters preemptively, which they wont.
only future will tell what really happens. perhaps its possible that future variants arent as destructive and that current vaccinations are truly sufficient in combating spread. if thats the case then yay humanity. however i think it is far more likely that just as delta surprised everyone, future variants will be the same. we may not see cases in the tens of thousands but we will still see enough cases that make governments consider lockdowns. in australia, it only takes around 5 cases before cities like melbourne, brisbane or adelaide go into lockdown. do you really think that a 90% vaccinated population will prevent an outbreak of a new variant so successfully that you dont even get 10 cases in a city? i dont. and if australia's management policy is anything to go by, then those cities will likely lockdown again and again. thats just fked up. and i want to emphasise cases, not deaths. i dont think that it is likely with a highly vaccinated population we will see many deaths from any future variant, but like with the netherlands in gorsameth's example, governments have shown that they are willing to impose restrictions or lockdowns by looking at case figures. they were right to do so in the past, but they would be wrong to continue to do so in future unless our vaccines turn out to be completely ineffective against a new variant and we see 2020 levels of death.
i dont know what our governments long term policy is. it surely cannot be zero transmission forever, however there has been no evidence of our government exercising common sense in their management of covid so far and their latest announcement is further evidence of that. rather than setting a date they have set a vaccination target for restrictions to be lifted and its a totalitarian policy. like i said before, the government is pretty much willing to hold its entire citizenry prisoner on an island country if they dont reach the magical number theyre hoping for.
also i never said there was no economic damage if you dont place restrictions? i said the damage isnt worth it when you continue to place restrictions from now. its not just the $ figure that matters anymore. a serious impediment to quality of life for the majority of people who suffer from restrictions also has lasting impacts. as for healthcare, if we take the scenario that future variants will continue to produce cases, then healthcare will always be burdened. the only solution is to invest into healthcare systems to cope with the increased demand, much like how we expect our governments now to invest into clean energy. you cant expect most people to stop living their normal lives because our hospitals are too burdened just like how you dont ask people to stop using electricity at home.
and some posters seem to be confused about my stance on restrictions in general. ive never said in my posts that countries around the world were wrong to place restrictions or lockdowns on cities in the past. ive already stated that they were necessary when vaccines were not available or not sufficiently administered to the population to allow for easing of restrictions.
my point is that government policy after ample time has been given to administer vaccines should be drastically different to what has been done in the past. with specific reference to australia, decisions to continuously implement restrictions or lockdowns on society even when vaccines have been readily available and substantial amounts of people have taken it, is totalitarianism. to tell australians that we cannot travel internationally until 80% of the population has been vaccinated, with no clear date for when that will happen, if ever, is totalitarianism.
|
|
|
On August 02 2021 14:59 JimmiC wrote:This is the definition of totalitarianism Show nested quote +a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state. That you can come on here and talk shit about your goverment alone says it's not. That you can emigrate, that you could vote a diff government that can change the rules and 1000 other reasons. It's over dramatic hogwash, it's a rule you don't like.
im not going to debate with you to what degree the term totalitarianism applies to us. despite my use of the word i thought it was fairly obvious that i wasnt suggesting that australia is literally like north korea.
however its also fairly obvious that there is a disproportionate government reaction taking place in australia and the abuse of power is not expected to stop any time soon.
if you want to disagree about whether continued restrictions or lockdowns is a disproportionate measure and an abuse of power then fine. however its pretty condescending to suggest that its over dramatic hogwash when cities like melbourne had spent over 110 days in consecutive lockdown due to the incompetence of their government, or when sydney is also due to spend at least 5 months in lockdown throughout the entirety of the pandemic. these arent simple "please wear masks" level restrictions, its mandated closure of businesses and limited freedom of movement on top of the preexisting ban on international travel.
and what can australians do about this? how do we emigrate with a travel ban in place? how do you vote a diff government when the incumbent government can decide on the election date and doesnt plan on holding one until next year? all we can do is talk shit on an online forum like this about how the government lacks competency and accountability and just take the hits. last week to discourage protests over 1300 police and army officers were deployed in the cbd and were told to arrest any protesters. what a beautiful democratic country we live in
|
The difference is, in totalitarian country noone would ask anyone if they want to be vaccinted.
Honstely, if i was forced to pick one thing that was good about living in communist country i would pick this. Freedom to be idiot ends, when Your idiocy is hurting others.
|
I am also very worried about Australia's path out of the pandemic, but I think your assessment of the situation is really not consistent with reality.
This is the key point, absolutely:
On August 02 2021 14:42 evilfatsh1t wrote:
my point is that government policy after ample time has been given to administer vaccines should be drastically different to what has been done in the past.
I agree. Everyone agrees. But I can't see how you can possibly think this applies to Australia as things stand. We are at 15% fully vaccinated as of last week. There's no universe where that can be considered "readily available". Under 30s still can't even get the vaccine in many states, and kids can't get it anywhere.
The blame for this abysmal showing lies squarely at the feet of the federal government, and to a lesser extent at the feet of the CHOs/ATAGI for poisoning the AZ well beyond repair. However, you seem to be arguing that because they cocked it up they might as well go ahead and totally cock it up by letting go.
You are also talking a lot about democracy while ignoring the fact that nearly all the things you are complaining about have solid public support. Restrictions and border closures tend to poll very well across the board. If there was a referendum on these issues we would probably end up with the same, if not stronger, restrictions than we have.
- 80%+ people in NSW are opposed to the protesters you are defending. Chant also scores 70% in the same poll.
- A majority of Sydneysiders think the city was too slow to go into lockdown
- Andrews polled over 70% even towards the tail of the long Melbourne lockdowns
- I cba finding sources for each state, but WA/QLD/SA etc border closures poll extremely well. All the state parties that ran on re-opening state borders got absolutely slapped.
- The international border is more contentious, but the number against has consistently been sub 30% (eg. Dec '20, Feb '21). The 70-80% in favour is now splitting 40/40 on whether vaccines should give exemptions, which is a conversation we should certainly be having.
If in Feb next year we have plateaued at 60% vaccination with no plan to get this higher, no movement on borders and no vaccine passes, I think your position will be justified. I do not think it is justified right now at all.
|
you dont see any problem with the governments latest "4 phase plan?"
a 70% vaccination requirement to essentially allow domestic life to return to normal and 80% to allow interntional travel?
despite them shitting up the vaccination rollout and australia also having worrying levels of anti vax sentiment, the public is being extorted to vaccination and vaccinated people are at the mercy of both the government and anti vaxxers? theyre not interested in how much time has passed since vaccines have become available or how well it has been supplied and administered. so far its their benchmark or no dice.
and no offense but none of the polls you linked mean shit to me. did you vote in any of those polls? i sure didnt. wasnt even aware of them. any time any news source cites some random unknown poll the results are always skewed because the only people participating in the polls are the demographics to which they were targeted.
as a fellow australian are you satisfied that the government has announced international travel on the condition that 80% of australians must be vaccinated? if not how well do you feel you are being represented in parliament and how much, if at all, do you think your opinion is being heard?
|
On August 02 2021 03:20 maybenexttime wrote:
This isn't about the vaccines being widely available. It's about whether there is a risk of the healthcare system collapsing or not. I don't think anyone's against restrictions applying only to people refusing to get vaccinated. No need for lockdowns affecting everyone. I just don't think Australia's at that stage yet.
I asked in the past of this thread, what the "goal" should be, because ZeroCovid is just a wet dream. This is basically the first time I read something like a goal!
So we are back to March 2020!? Ok! Let's go!
...
Problem: People are still crazy!
UK "proudly" shows, that high infection numbers don't collapse their health system, even with most restictions lifted! So, why do people still want them back?
And I read similar from Canadians. Canada seems to be the best country in the world(!) in terms of vaccinations!
(https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations)
But they still get fits if they see a person without a mask!
So, what's going on?
-----------
About mandatory vaccinations:
I think the main question would be, where it is ending! If you can't get to theaters and stuff, because you are not vaccinated ... is bad! And yes, I think: Wrong! But there could be a point to do that! ... but "how long"?
What I mean: I'm getting my second shot in a few weeks. Am I good? And I mean good "forever"? Or in half a year they go "sorry, you need a third shot, or no theaters for you!" ... and a year later "fourth time! or no theaters!" and so on and so on! Where does it end? Does it end? Would you ok with such a thing? Because I'm not! So, if people are telling governments, that it is not ok _now_ they are absolutely correct in doing so!
|
The information we have so far is that our current "good" vaccines (even AZ tbh) are very effective, despite the emergence of Delta. If you have the full course of vaccinations, you're well protected, and unlikely to burden society, even if you are ill. Canada has one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, but that doesn't stop covid from spreading amongst those who aren't vaccinated. My province has something like 800k/5m people who are eligible, but have chosen to not get the vaccine yet, despite drop-in first doses being available for over a month now. We cannot sustain 8000 extra people in the hospital at once, so we need them to get infected slowly as the alternative.
We're not going to covid zero, our health plan, and reopening plans have already laid that out. Our guidelines for whether or not measures are needed are based on fairly nebulous "steady low caserate, low hospitalization rate" metrics. We reimplemented a mask mandate in one of our health regions because vaccination rate was too low, resulting in a high rate of spread. The areas of the province with low spread, or high vaccination rates were left alone.
The mutation rate of covid in general is quite low. Over the course of a year, the vaccines are still very effective against new strains that didn't exist when the vaccine was created. It will take time, but the goal is to reduce severity of infections and rate of infections to a level similar to that of the flu. There will be deaths, infections, hospitalizations, but they should be at a level which lets life continue as normal.
|
On August 02 2021 02:25 evilfatsh1t wrote:
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.
I asked my colleague who's from New Zealand. They have no major restrictions. People can go to restaurants, bars, parties, skiing, etc. without needing tests or vaccination.
The only restriction they have is masking up in public transport (not in stores). And 2-week quarantine for those arriving across the border.
That's it.
I don't know what you're trying to do here, but you're not telling the truth.
Australia is in lockdown right now due to this new wave, which was imported from another country. Prior to this wave they were just as free as the New Zealanders, and they'll be free again when the wave is back under control.
|
|
|
On August 03 2021 05:50 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2021 02:25 evilfatsh1t wrote:
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. I asked my colleague who's from New Zealand. They have no major restrictions. People can go to restaurants, bars, parties, skiing, etc. without needing tests or vaccination. The only restriction they have is masking up in public transport (not in stores). And 2-week quarantine for those arriving across the border. That's it. I don't know what you're trying to do here, but you're not telling the truth. Australia is in lockdown right now due to this new wave, which was imported from another country. Prior to this wave they were just as free as the New Zealanders, and they'll be free again when the wave is back under control.
no shit when they have zero community transmission currently theyre not going to have lockdowns or major restrictions. yet they still have border closures restricting entry and exit to and from every country around the world with the exception of australia if australias cases arent that bad.
they are also a country that is extremely quick to go into lockdown each time they have an outbreak.
for a country already so isolated and has even less cases than australia it took them over a year before they opened borders to australia. "normal life" my ass. maybe for you europeans international travel isnt that significant to your life because its as easy as hopping on a fkin train but when you live on an island and youre banned from flying thats not what you call a normal life. 30% of australians are born overseas. a larger percentage has family overseas. 30% of nzers are born overseas. get some perspective
|
On August 03 2021 08:57 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2021 05:50 Magic Powers wrote:On August 02 2021 02:25 evilfatsh1t wrote:
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. I asked my colleague who's from New Zealand. They have no major restrictions. People can go to restaurants, bars, parties, skiing, etc. without needing tests or vaccination. The only restriction they have is masking up in public transport (not in stores). And 2-week quarantine for those arriving across the border. That's it. I don't know what you're trying to do here, but you're not telling the truth. Australia is in lockdown right now due to this new wave, which was imported from another country. Prior to this wave they were just as free as the New Zealanders, and they'll be free again when the wave is back under control. no shit when they have zero community transmission currently theyre not going to have lockdowns or major restrictions. yet they still have border closures restricting entry and exit to and from every country around the world with the exception of australia if australias cases arent that bad. they are also a country that is extremely quick to go into lockdown each time they have an outbreak. for a country already so isolated and has even less cases than australia it took them over a year before they opened borders to australia. "normal life" my ass. maybe for you europeans international travel isnt that significant to your life because its as easy as hopping on a fkin train but when you live on an island and youre banned from flying thats not what you call a normal life. 30% of australians are born overseas. a larger percentage has family overseas. 30% of nzers are born overseas. get some perspective
You're deflecting and making excuses. You said this:
"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."
>Restrictions just as bad as Australia => Completely false. NZ has almost no restrictions.
>Nowhere near as much traffic => Completely false. Traffic is almost entirely back to pre-pandemic rates.
>Not living normally while managing cases => Completely false. NZ way of life has returned to normal while having no local cases.
Please explain why you made up all of these claims, painting the opposite picture of actual reality? If you're not going to explain what you said and why you said it, I'll treat everything you say from this point forward as a potential lie.
Furthermore, NZ hasn't had an outbreak since over a year ago, so this claim of yours is also false:
they are also a country that is extremely quick to go into lockdown each time they have an outbreak.
Other countries that have not brought numbers under control have had to instate lockdowns numerous times. NZ is pretty much on the opposite end of that spectrum.
You're painting an incorrect and opposite picture of the reality in NZ, which leads me to question your motives. What are you trying to do here?
|
Northern Ireland25519 Posts
Well that seems to be an abject failure of international cooperation on facilitating travel while minimising spread.
On the one hand we have the ‘fuck it travel and we advise you quarantine but won’t check’ and on the other you basically can’t travel, neither of which seem at all optimal responses.
|
On August 03 2021 09:18 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2021 08:57 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 03 2021 05:50 Magic Powers wrote:On August 02 2021 02:25 evilfatsh1t wrote:
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. I asked my colleague who's from New Zealand. They have no major restrictions. People can go to restaurants, bars, parties, skiing, etc. without needing tests or vaccination. The only restriction they have is masking up in public transport (not in stores). And 2-week quarantine for those arriving across the border. That's it. I don't know what you're trying to do here, but you're not telling the truth. Australia is in lockdown right now due to this new wave, which was imported from another country. Prior to this wave they were just as free as the New Zealanders, and they'll be free again when the wave is back under control. no shit when they have zero community transmission currently theyre not going to have lockdowns or major restrictions. yet they still have border closures restricting entry and exit to and from every country around the world with the exception of australia if australias cases arent that bad. they are also a country that is extremely quick to go into lockdown each time they have an outbreak. for a country already so isolated and has even less cases than australia it took them over a year before they opened borders to australia. "normal life" my ass. maybe for you europeans international travel isnt that significant to your life because its as easy as hopping on a fkin train but when you live on an island and youre banned from flying thats not what you call a normal life. 30% of australians are born overseas. a larger percentage has family overseas. 30% of nzers are born overseas. get some perspective You're deflecting and making excuses. You said this: "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." >Restrictions just as bad as Australia => Completely false. NZ has almost no restrictions. >Nowhere near as much traffic => Completely false. Traffic is almost entirely back to pre-pandemic rates. >Not living normally while managing cases => Completely false. NZ way of life has returned to normal while having no local cases. Please explain why you made up all of these claims, painting the opposite picture of actual reality? If you're not going to explain what you said and why you said it, I'll treat everything you say from this point forward as a potential lie. Furthermore, NZ hasn't had an outbreak since over a year ago, so this claim of yours is also false: Show nested quote +they are also a country that is extremely quick to go into lockdown each time they have an outbreak. Other countries that have not brought numbers under control have had to instate lockdowns numerous times. NZ is pretty much on the opposite end of that spectrum. You're painting an incorrect and opposite picture of the reality in NZ, which leads me to question your motives. What are you trying to do here?
how are nz's restrictions any different to say sydneys when we had no transmission? hence the same level of restrictions as australia statement. i expected posters to exercise some common sense when reading and discern the fact that in the current situation with hundreds of cases in one country and zero in the other, restrictions are not going to be identical.
traffic is the same level as pre pandemic? not sure where you got this idea from but it seems my previous post didnt register. their borders are closed. no they do not have the same amount of traffic. also again about "normal life". its not normal to have no access to any other country for going on 2 years.
what does not having an outbreak for a while have anything to do with the speed in which jacinda ardern enforces lockdowns on her cities? my point is shes as trigger happy as our worst offenders in australia (vic and qld premiers).
believe what you want. sick of having to explain the situation to someone who struggles with reading comprehension let alone develop any sort of perspective outside his own experiences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
