|
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 06 2021 14:36 Mohdoo wrote:
We disagree on a lot of things, but as a chemical engineer, I have to fully endorse this perspective. I would never in a million years consider using any product made by JnJ. None of you should either. As someone in chemical manufacturing, it is hard to think of a company with a worse record than JnJ, other than oil companies. JnJ is an abomination and should be dissolved.
As a regular person doing various kinds of research, I have something to add, too:
If anyone doesn't trust the J&J vaccine for the reason of them being a company with a bad track record, they shouldn't trust the Pfizer vaccine either for the same reason. In fact Pfizer have so far faced a lot more lawsuits than J&J and lost some of them.
Or - instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater - we can look at J&J and Pfizer not as single entities of which all branches are connected, but instead consider that their vaccine development runs separately and is being closely monitored by the FDA. That branch is not being worked on behind closed doors, meaning if any of these companies are being shady with their vaccines, then that would require a grand conspiracy involving the FDA.
You can get a rough idea of the legal situation surrounding various vaccine-producing companies here:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covid19-vaccine-meme/
|
New information for Australian residents living overseas, exemptions have been removed for people trying to leave Australia effective August 11.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/aug/06/australians-who-live-overseas-now-unable-to-leave-country-if-they-return-for-visit
The Australian government has quietly expanded its ban on Australian citizens leaving the country to include people who are ordinarily residents in another country, meaning that even people who live overseas may not be allowed to leave Australia.
Prof Kim Rubenstein, an expert in citizenship law from the University of Canberra, said the change would unfairly affect Australians from multicultural backgrounds and could be constitutionally invalid.
Currently, Australian citizens and permanent residents are banned from leaving Australia, and have to apply for an exemption to do so, which can be granted for employment, study, or compassionate reasons, among others.
On 1 August, the health minister, Greg Hunt, amended the legislative instrument that created the overseas travel ban to remove this exemption – and further tighten rules on Australian citizens or permanent residents.
Effective from 11 August, even Australian citizens who are ordinarily resident in another country will have to apply for an exemption to leave the country, and could be denied.
The Department of Foreign Affairs defines someone as “ordinarily resident in another country” if they spent more time outside Australia than inside for the last 12 to 24 months.Australian citizens who are seeking to return to Australia are still required to apply, comply by arrival caps, and pay for their own hotel quarantine. Only Australian citizens and permanent residents are allowed to enter Australia.
I doubt the government would prevent someone who resides overseas from returning, probably just another deterrent to stop them coming in the first place.Cruel policy though.
|
our government just baffles me more and more with each passing day. what do they achieve by refusing to let people leave the country? refusing inbound travellers can be explained by not wanting to risk spread of covid but how do outbound travellers affect australia's covid situation at all?
|
On August 06 2021 15:46 evilfatsh1t wrote:
our government just baffles me more and more with each passing day. what do they achieve by refusing to let people leave the country? refusing inbound travellers can be explained by not wanting to risk spread of covid but how do outbound travellers affect australia's covid situation at all?
People who leave generally come back. I have no idea how many this really corresponds to.
|
On August 06 2021 16:19 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2021 15:46 evilfatsh1t wrote:
our government just baffles me more and more with each passing day. what do they achieve by refusing to let people leave the country? refusing inbound travellers can be explained by not wanting to risk spread of covid but how do outbound travellers affect australia's covid situation at all? People who leave generally come back. I have no idea how many this really corresponds to.
funny thing to worry about when the government already heavily restricts inbound numbers. quarantine facilities havent been perfect either but if they do their job and moderate the inbound flights like they are currently do then its a non issue.
|
On August 06 2021 15:46 evilfatsh1t wrote:
our government just baffles me more and more with each passing day. what do they achieve by refusing to let people leave the country? refusing inbound travellers can be explained by not wanting to risk spread of covid but how do outbound travellers affect australia's covid situation at all?
It means fewer inbound visitors because people would be worried about not having permission to leave.That is the only reason i can think of.It’s messed up though since many of them are coming to Australia due to funerals or to look after sick relatives.
|
so a more subtle attempt at repeating what they did with citizens in india then.
|
|
|
The more interesting question is why they are less vaccinated.
And the answer to that is identity politics for republicans and mistrust of a biased medical system that discriminates against them for blacks (abridged version).
|
On August 06 2021 15:46 evilfatsh1t wrote:
our government just baffles me more and more with each passing day. what do they achieve by refusing to let people leave the country? refusing inbound travellers can be explained by not wanting to risk spread of covid but how do outbound travellers affect australia's covid situation at all?
If they let people leave, it would mean preventing a citizen from entering the country if they didn't let them back in.
|
On August 07 2021 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2021 15:46 evilfatsh1t wrote:
our government just baffles me more and more with each passing day. what do they achieve by refusing to let people leave the country? refusing inbound travellers can be explained by not wanting to risk spread of covid but how do outbound travellers affect australia's covid situation at all? If they let people leave, it would mean preventing a citizen from entering the country if they didn't let them back in.
not sure what point youre trying to make. are you suggesting that they shouldnt let citizens back in?
|
On August 07 2021 01:04 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2021 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 06 2021 15:46 evilfatsh1t wrote:
our government just baffles me more and more with each passing day. what do they achieve by refusing to let people leave the country? refusing inbound travellers can be explained by not wanting to risk spread of covid but how do outbound travellers affect australia's covid situation at all? If they let people leave, it would mean preventing a citizen from entering the country if they didn't let them back in. not sure what point youre trying to make. are you suggesting that they shouldnt let citizens back in?
I'm saying in general countries never ever refuse a citizen entry. They seem to be preventing those situations by not letting citizens leave.
|
Got my 3rd dose. delta variant seems to easily spread from unvaxed to vaxed. Feels unsafe only having 2 doses atm
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I didn’t get a third dose, nor do I plan to for until it becomes a widespread recommendation. Seems frivolous to waste a dose on a minor increase in immunity rather than save it for the unvaccinated who will get a lot more benefit out of its use.
|
I'm not going to get a third dose for delta at least. Large portions of the word don't have access to one dose yet.
|
On August 07 2021 09:55 LegalLord wrote:
I didn’t get a third dose, nor do I plan to for until it becomes a widespread recommendation. Seems frivolous to waste a dose on a minor increase in immunity rather than save it for the unvaccinated who will get a lot more benefit out of its use.
I don't know the science on the usefulness of a 3rd dose but there are millions of doses expiring in the US so if people feel compelled to get one we can hope it's one of those?
Personally the 2nd dose side effects were the worst I've felt in years so I'd rather not do that again (if that'd even be a thing with a booster). I figured it'd be an updated version rather than just another dose if/when boosters were recommended for the general populace anyway.
|
On August 07 2021 09:55 LegalLord wrote:
I didn’t get a third dose, nor do I plan to for until it becomes a widespread recommendation. Seems frivolous to waste a dose on a minor increase in immunity rather than save it for the unvaccinated who will get a lot more benefit out of its use.
The place I went to said they are throwing away tons of doses each week. Its purely beneficial for people to get a 3rd instead of them being thrown out. By increasing my own immunity, I am also reducing my risk of transmitting to others. Its a totally significant and worthwhile increase in immunity, no idea what you're talking about. I'm about 18 hours after my 3rd and no effects so far.
Edit: I personally know of an instance where a large group of vaccinated people all got sick. After that I decided to get my 3rd.
If anyone cares, I'll outline my basic logic:
1) I understand the science of mRNA vaccines and prefer it from a chemical safety standpoint.
2) I have read literature published regarding 3rd doses
3) Israel already giving them to vulnerable people
4) doses are being thrown out in INSANE quantities. TONS AND TONS are being thrown out.
5) 3rd dose gives a significant increase against delta. Delta is what is breaking through all over the place
Having worked quite a bit in an industry with heavy regulation involving just about everything you can imagine, I know how to identify when something is basically 99% fine and when its just bureaucracy pipeline taking forever. Looking at the situation I decided it totally made sense to go grab a 3rd before it goes in a trash can.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
There are always doses being thrown out. Probably a sign of either wasteful allocation (maybe send them to one of the many places in the world where they're in short supply instead?) or just the nature of making them available on a walk-in basis. Sure, it gives a couple people who want to get a third dose by their own initiative be able to freeload a dose without any immediate consequence, but that obviously doesn't scale to widespread administration of third doses.
I assume you're getting a fourth, fifth, and sixth dose as well based on the same logic? No idea if it really increases immunity by any appreciable amount, but hey, it can't make immunity worse and at least these are doses that would otherwise get thrown away, right?
|
On August 08 2021 00:07 LegalLord wrote:
There are always doses being thrown out. Probably a sign of either wasteful allocation (maybe send them to one of the many places in the world where they're in short supply instead?) or just the nature of making them available on a walk-in basis. Sure, it gives a couple people who want to get a third dose by their own initiative be able to freeload a dose without any immediate consequence, but that obviously doesn't scale to widespread administration of third doses.
I assume you're getting a fourth, fifth, and sixth dose as well based on the same logic? No idea if it really increases immunity by any appreciable amount, but hey, it can't make immunity worse and at least these are doses that would otherwise get thrown away, right?
You're creating a silly straw man. You know this is silly.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 08 2021 00:11 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2021 00:07 LegalLord wrote:
There are always doses being thrown out. Probably a sign of either wasteful allocation (maybe send them to one of the many places in the world where they're in short supply instead?) or just the nature of making them available on a walk-in basis. Sure, it gives a couple people who want to get a third dose by their own initiative be able to freeload a dose without any immediate consequence, but that obviously doesn't scale to widespread administration of third doses.
I assume you're getting a fourth, fifth, and sixth dose as well based on the same logic? No idea if it really increases immunity by any appreciable amount, but hey, it can't make immunity worse and at least these are doses that would otherwise get thrown away, right? You're creating a silly straw man. You know this is silly.
Not at all. Your justification for why a third dose is worth it seems flimsy at best, and the fact that you go immediately towards crying "silly straw man" corroborates that you don't really have a good reason behind it. The reason you wouldn't go for the fourth, fifth, and sixth dose is the same reason that most wouldn't go for the third: the marginal benefit of doing so is... marginal. At best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
