|
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. |
Denmark is now lifting all Covid restrictions, including vaccine passports and mask mandates in public transport. I am not quite sure about mass testing and quarantenes. 73,5% of the Danish population is now fully vaccinated, and there are 125 covid patients in Danish hospitals, 30 in intensive care.
https://www.politico.eu/article/denmark-first-eu-lift-coronavirus-restrictions/
One argument I have seen used in Denmark has been that we have reduced our immune systems because of the covid-measures. I haven't seen any studies confirming this, but there have been some particularly strong outbreaks of other viruses among children (source in Danish):
https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2021-05-07-smitsom-rotavirus-breder-sig-blandt-boern-saerligt-slem-i-aar-siger-overlaege
I hope the Danish vaccine rate proves to be good enough to hold up!
In my area of Spain, the % of fully vaccinated is now over 79 and shots are still being given, also to university students from elsewhere. I believe the pandemic is essentially over, but there is some "lag" of patients in hospitals. I am a bit annoyed that people are still so afraid and that it might take months before the final restrictions are lifted (masks indoors, restaurant capacity and opening hours, social events, distancing in schools etc).
There was a fantastic job done here both with distributing the vaccines and people showing up to get them. It is time to claim the prize and start the mental recovery.
|
On September 14 2021 16:06 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2021 08:37 Acrofales wrote:On September 14 2021 07:36 BlackJack wrote:On September 14 2021 05:01 Elroi wrote:On September 14 2021 04:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Young people have tinder if they need to find some rando to bang. Just shut down clubs until this is over. It will never be over. Depends what you mean by "over." If you mean nobody will ever die from COVID again then yes it will never be over. It looks like Florida is on the other side of this delta wave, and much to the chagrin of the COVID doomsayers, they made it through to the other side without going back into lockdown. Florida's clubs are still open, I'm not really sure what Mohdoo has in mind when he says "shut them down until this is over." This is the dumbest take I read in a while. The lockdowns weren't necessary for humanity to survive but rather to prevent a lot of deaths. Florida had record deaths. Likewise, your post is the dumbest take I have read in a while. Lockdowns to prevent "a lot of deaths"? Even the health experts have said that lockdowns should be used as a last resort. Preventing death is not a last resort. Everyone with 2 brain cells to rub together knows that a lot more people are going to die if you open back up. That's not a good reason to not open back up. Show nested quote +Full lockdowns should be a 'very, very last resort' and can be avoided, WHO's Europe chief says https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/15/lockdowns-should-be-last-resort-whos-europe-chief-says.htmlShow nested quote +“The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.” -Dr. Navarro, special envoy on covid-19 for the WHO Lots of people dying if we open up is not a good reason to not open up? What?
Lots of people dying is a good reason to not open up.
And yes lockdowns should be a last resort. You know why we still got lockdowns? Because people are blithering idiots and didn't follow the earlier recommendations so governments had to escalate until eventual lockdowns.
The entire Western response since the start of 2020 had been series of escalating measures until eventual lockdowns were implemented because nothing else before it was enough to save the Healthcare sector from being overloaded.
|
|
|
We live in a warped and twisted world where preventing human death and suffering isnt a good reason to do something.
That should be just about the best god damned reason to do something.
|
On September 14 2021 18:43 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2021 16:06 BlackJack wrote:On September 14 2021 08:37 Acrofales wrote:On September 14 2021 07:36 BlackJack wrote:On September 14 2021 05:01 Elroi wrote:On September 14 2021 04:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Young people have tinder if they need to find some rando to bang. Just shut down clubs until this is over. It will never be over. Depends what you mean by "over." If you mean nobody will ever die from COVID again then yes it will never be over. It looks like Florida is on the other side of this delta wave, and much to the chagrin of the COVID doomsayers, they made it through to the other side without going back into lockdown. Florida's clubs are still open, I'm not really sure what Mohdoo has in mind when he says "shut them down until this is over." This is the dumbest take I read in a while. The lockdowns weren't necessary for humanity to survive but rather to prevent a lot of deaths. Florida had record deaths. Likewise, your post is the dumbest take I have read in a while. Lockdowns to prevent "a lot of deaths"? Even the health experts have said that lockdowns should be used as a last resort. Preventing death is not a last resort. Everyone with 2 brain cells to rub together knows that a lot more people are going to die if you open back up. That's not a good reason to not open back up.Full lockdowns should be a 'very, very last resort' and can be avoided, WHO's Europe chief says https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/15/lockdowns-should-be-last-resort-whos-europe-chief-says.html“The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.” -Dr. Navarro, special envoy on covid-19 for the WHO This is the hottest of takes! You do know in the places outside of covid 0 locations it was the healthcare workers pleading for lockdowns right? You do know there is a massive shortage of nurses and other needed heathcare workers in the south because of exhaustion right? There is countless articles on this. People with even more than two brain cells to rub together consistently disagree with your hot takes, but this one actually made me laugh aloud and my wife came over to read and we had quite the chuckle. So thank you. Preventing lots of deaths and suffering is the only reason that makes sense for lockdowns, delaying them slighty wouldnt make sense, that is the point of yoir quote mate and the point of healthcare for the most part!
Delaying what slightly wouldn't make sense? The lockdowns? Because in case you missed it - Florida didn't delay them slightly, they delayed them entirely.
|
|
|
On September 14 2021 19:16 Zambrah wrote:
We live in a warped and twisted world where preventing human death and suffering isnt a good reason to do something.
That should be just about the best god damned reason to do something.
It's so easy to just look at the pros of something and ignore the cons, eh? Why do you think that Dr. of the WHO's special envoy on COVID-19 recommends against lockdowns as the primary control method for preventing COVID-19 when we already know this is far and away the best way to prevent death? Do you think he is just fucked in the head and doesn't care about preventing human death and suffering?
|
|
|
On September 14 2021 19:27 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2021 19:20 BlackJack wrote:On September 14 2021 18:43 JimmiC wrote:On September 14 2021 16:06 BlackJack wrote:On September 14 2021 08:37 Acrofales wrote:On September 14 2021 07:36 BlackJack wrote:On September 14 2021 05:01 Elroi wrote:On September 14 2021 04:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Young people have tinder if they need to find some rando to bang. Just shut down clubs until this is over. It will never be over. Depends what you mean by "over." If you mean nobody will ever die from COVID again then yes it will never be over. It looks like Florida is on the other side of this delta wave, and much to the chagrin of the COVID doomsayers, they made it through to the other side without going back into lockdown. Florida's clubs are still open, I'm not really sure what Mohdoo has in mind when he says "shut them down until this is over." This is the dumbest take I read in a while. The lockdowns weren't necessary for humanity to survive but rather to prevent a lot of deaths. Florida had record deaths. Likewise, your post is the dumbest take I have read in a while. Lockdowns to prevent "a lot of deaths"? Even the health experts have said that lockdowns should be used as a last resort. Preventing death is not a last resort. Everyone with 2 brain cells to rub together knows that a lot more people are going to die if you open back up. That's not a good reason to not open back up.Full lockdowns should be a 'very, very last resort' and can be avoided, WHO's Europe chief says https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/15/lockdowns-should-be-last-resort-whos-europe-chief-says.html“The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.” -Dr. Navarro, special envoy on covid-19 for the WHO This is the hottest of takes! You do know in the places outside of covid 0 locations it was the healthcare workers pleading for lockdowns right? You do know there is a massive shortage of nurses and other needed heathcare workers in the south because of exhaustion right? There is countless articles on this. People with even more than two brain cells to rub together consistently disagree with your hot takes, but this one actually made me laugh aloud and my wife came over to read and we had quite the chuckle. So thank you. Preventing lots of deaths and suffering is the only reason that makes sense for lockdowns, delaying them slighty wouldnt make sense, that is the point of yoir quote mate and the point of healthcare for the most part! Delaying what slightly wouldn't make sense? The lockdowns? Because in case you missed it - Florida didn't delay them slightly, they delayed them entirely. Flordia did not delay deaths entirely this is the problem, well it is for the rest of us. You are completely fine with "lots of people dying" as long as you are not inconvienced. The real strange and problematic issue with antivaxxers is they dont trust doctors until after they are sick. If they didnt trust them at all they wouldnt be plugging up the healthcare system for the people who trust doctors all the time not to mention costing tax payers trillions
Has nothing to do with my convenience, mate. In fact, considering I work in healthcare I would find it a lot more convenient if we did have lockdowns in place. I've been working 70-80 hour weeks, sometimes 16 hours at a time. You think I'm not exhausted? You think I wouldn't personally benefit from a fresh set of lockdowns? Give me a break.
|
On September 14 2021 19:28 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2021 19:16 Zambrah wrote:
We live in a warped and twisted world where preventing human death and suffering isnt a good reason to do something.
That should be just about the best god damned reason to do something. It's so easy to just look at the pros of something and ignore the cons, eh? Why do you think that Dr. of the WHO's special envoy on COVID-19 recommends against lockdowns as the primary control method for preventing COVID-19 when we already know this is far and away the best way to prevent death? Do you think he is just fucked in the head and doesn't care about preventing human death and suffering? Who outside of Australia is using lockdowns as a primary tool to prevent covid deaths? Almost every country only turned to lockdowns as a last resort when all other methods of control failed.
Your arguing a strawman.
I would confidently state that if you were to ask either of the people you quotes if Florida was doing a good job they would say "no".
Remember, Florida is not just not locking down. Their governor is actively fighting all other methods of control aswell. He is going to war with schools over them wanting their students to wear masks.
|
On September 14 2021 19:37 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2021 19:27 JimmiC wrote:On September 14 2021 19:20 BlackJack wrote:On September 14 2021 18:43 JimmiC wrote:On September 14 2021 16:06 BlackJack wrote:On September 14 2021 08:37 Acrofales wrote:On September 14 2021 07:36 BlackJack wrote:On September 14 2021 05:01 Elroi wrote:On September 14 2021 04:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Young people have tinder if they need to find some rando to bang. Just shut down clubs until this is over. It will never be over. Depends what you mean by "over." If you mean nobody will ever die from COVID again then yes it will never be over. It looks like Florida is on the other side of this delta wave, and much to the chagrin of the COVID doomsayers, they made it through to the other side without going back into lockdown. Florida's clubs are still open, I'm not really sure what Mohdoo has in mind when he says "shut them down until this is over." This is the dumbest take I read in a while. The lockdowns weren't necessary for humanity to survive but rather to prevent a lot of deaths. Florida had record deaths. Likewise, your post is the dumbest take I have read in a while. Lockdowns to prevent "a lot of deaths"? Even the health experts have said that lockdowns should be used as a last resort. Preventing death is not a last resort. Everyone with 2 brain cells to rub together knows that a lot more people are going to die if you open back up. That's not a good reason to not open back up.Full lockdowns should be a 'very, very last resort' and can be avoided, WHO's Europe chief says https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/15/lockdowns-should-be-last-resort-whos-europe-chief-says.html“The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.” -Dr. Navarro, special envoy on covid-19 for the WHO This is the hottest of takes! You do know in the places outside of covid 0 locations it was the healthcare workers pleading for lockdowns right? You do know there is a massive shortage of nurses and other needed heathcare workers in the south because of exhaustion right? There is countless articles on this. People with even more than two brain cells to rub together consistently disagree with your hot takes, but this one actually made me laugh aloud and my wife came over to read and we had quite the chuckle. So thank you. Preventing lots of deaths and suffering is the only reason that makes sense for lockdowns, delaying them slighty wouldnt make sense, that is the point of yoir quote mate and the point of healthcare for the most part! Delaying what slightly wouldn't make sense? The lockdowns? Because in case you missed it - Florida didn't delay them slightly, they delayed them entirely. Flordia did not delay deaths entirely this is the problem, well it is for the rest of us. You are completely fine with "lots of people dying" as long as you are not inconvienced. The real strange and problematic issue with antivaxxers is they dont trust doctors until after they are sick. If they didnt trust them at all they wouldnt be plugging up the healthcare system for the people who trust doctors all the time not to mention costing tax payers trillions Has nothing to do with my convenience, mate. In fact, considering I work in healthcare I would find it a lot more convenient if we did have lockdowns in place. I've been working 70-80 hour weeks, sometimes 16 hours at a time. You think I'm not exhausted? You think I wouldn't personally benefit from a fresh set of lockdowns? Give me a break.
well i for one work in healthcare, and have dealt with 120 hour weeks
surely my opinion is most important
|
|
|
On September 14 2021 19:28 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2021 19:16 Zambrah wrote:
We live in a warped and twisted world where preventing human death and suffering isnt a good reason to do something.
That should be just about the best god damned reason to do something. It's so easy to just look at the pros of something and ignore the cons, eh? Why do you think that Dr. of the WHO's special envoy on COVID-19 recommends against lockdowns as the primary control method for preventing COVID-19 when we already know this is far and away the best way to prevent death? Do you think he is just fucked in the head and doesn't care about preventing human death and suffering?
The doctor you're speaking of is Dr. Nabarro I presume. There are at least two things to say to this:
1) He did not "advise against lockdowns". Here's more context on what he actually said:
The only time we believe a lockdown in justified is to buy you time to reorganise, regroup, rebalance your resources; protect your health workers who are exhausted," Dr Nabarro said.
"But by and large, we'd rather not do it."
Dr Nabarro told The Spectator the economic impact on small countries that rely on tourism and increased poverty levels are two major effects of shutting communities down.
"We really do appeal to all world leaders, stop using lockdown as your primary method of control," he said.
"Lockdowns have just one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-12/world-health-organization-coronavirus-lockdown-advice/12753688
Nowhere in there does he advise against lockdowns.
Furthermore, he added the following:
Titled, Reflections about the Middle Path, he advocates for governments around the world to find a balance between restrictions and normal life.
"Too many restrictions damage people's livelihoods and provoke resentment. 'Virus run wild' will lead to lots of deaths as well as debilitating long-COVID among younger people," he wrote.
So here he shows concern that the virus would run wild, which puts his previous comment into context. Since he didn't "advise against lockdowns" contrary to your claim, this indicates that he's in favor of lockdowns when needed. He also isn't only concerned about deaths, but also long-covid among young people. I'd conclude from this that he'd prefer to take strong measures like lockdowns to prevent both deaths and long-covid, since his main argument "against" lockdowns is only that it shouldn't be "the primary method of control". That's not how you presented his position.
He further lays out plans to contain the spread and save lives by means other than lockdowns. He mentions those not as a substitute for lockdowns but as additional measures.
Unfortunately he also said something that is now known isn't entirely true:
"Lockdowns just freeze the virus … they do not lead to elimination."
Lockdowns quite clearly do have the capacity to eliminate the virus, in fact it's among the most effective ways. What he should've said is that lockdowns alone don't lead to elimination.
2) His statement was made public 11 months ago on October 9 in 2020. At that time, daily infections in the US were at roughly 20-25% of the peak later in January 2021, and daily deaths had been in decline for weeks and months (~20% of the peak in Jan 2021). Global daily infections were at roughly 35-40% of the peak in Jan 2021, and daily deaths had also been in decline for weeks and months (~35% of the peak in Jan 2021).
Dr. Nabarro didn't know what the pandemic would bring 11 months later. Or would you argue that he'd say exactly the same thing about the situation today as he did about the situation back then?
|
Norway28712 Posts
On September 14 2021 19:16 Zambrah wrote:
We live in a warped and twisted world where preventing human death and suffering isnt a good reason to do something.
That should be just about the best god damned reason to do something.
Lockdowns cause a lot of suffering. They prevent deaths, which I agree is a worthy cause, but I'm not sold on them reducing suffering.
Mortality rates are not the primary determiner of how good a society is to live in (I mean, a really high rate is obv a bad indicator). I've read that Norway has had a lower mortality rate than normal during covid (other deaths are down by more than what covid deaths are up by), but it has certainly been a very tough year and a half for many. With how few people have died and become seriously ill, I think there is no question that the anti covid measures have caused more suffering than what covid has. (Of course, that equation would be entirely different with fewer measures, and I'm not disagreeing with the measures taken. ) The point however is that people that are anti lockdown have not reached that conclusion because they are pro suffering, rather they've reached it through thinking lockdowns cause more suffering than otherwise.
|
What is a "lockdown" even mean? Shudding down everything non-essential? Forcing everybody to stay at home? Forcing people to not leave their areas? Closing all restaurants? Closing gyms? Closing schools?
The word "lockdown" has almost lost its meaning at this point as it covers so many different shades of anti-covid measures.
I know Spain the most, and the word lockdown (confinamiento) was not really used after the initial response, which was one of the harshest in the world and caused incredible mental, physical and economic harm. It was close during the January wave, but people most businesses were still running and the schools stayed open.
I think how many deaths a bad flu season can cause should always be a reference for acceptable amounts of deaths. The vaccines have made those numbers much more comparable, and now people cry crisis about numbers noone shrugged about a few years ago.
|
On September 14 2021 20:00 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2021 19:28 BlackJack wrote:On September 14 2021 19:16 Zambrah wrote:
We live in a warped and twisted world where preventing human death and suffering isnt a good reason to do something.
That should be just about the best god damned reason to do something. It's so easy to just look at the pros of something and ignore the cons, eh? Why do you think that Dr. of the WHO's special envoy on COVID-19 recommends against lockdowns as the primary control method for preventing COVID-19 when we already know this is far and away the best way to prevent death? Do you think he is just fucked in the head and doesn't care about preventing human death and suffering? ... Since he didn't "advise against lockdowns" contrary to your claim,? ...
Bro, my post is practically 1 sentence long, are you really going to misquote it in such a ridiculous way?
I said he "recommends against lockdows as the primary control method for preventing COVID-19."
Here is his quote
"We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus."
|
|
|
|
|
On September 14 2021 20:29 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2021 20:00 Magic Powers wrote:On September 14 2021 19:28 BlackJack wrote:On September 14 2021 19:16 Zambrah wrote:
We live in a warped and twisted world where preventing human death and suffering isnt a good reason to do something.
That should be just about the best god damned reason to do something. It's so easy to just look at the pros of something and ignore the cons, eh? Why do you think that Dr. of the WHO's special envoy on COVID-19 recommends against lockdowns as the primary control method for preventing COVID-19 when we already know this is far and away the best way to prevent death? Do you think he is just fucked in the head and doesn't care about preventing human death and suffering? ... Since he didn't "advise against lockdowns" contrary to your claim,? ... Bro, my post is practically 1 sentence long, are you really going to misquote it in such a ridiculous way? I said he "recommends against lockdows as the primary control method for preventing COVID-19." Here is his quote Show nested quote +"We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus." No one outside of arguably Australia is using lockdowns as a primary means of control. Everyone is using it as a last resort after the other measures failed to contain it.
What are you even arguing at this point?
|
On September 14 2021 20:29 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2021 20:00 Magic Powers wrote:On September 14 2021 19:28 BlackJack wrote:On September 14 2021 19:16 Zambrah wrote:
We live in a warped and twisted world where preventing human death and suffering isnt a good reason to do something.
That should be just about the best god damned reason to do something. It's so easy to just look at the pros of something and ignore the cons, eh? Why do you think that Dr. of the WHO's special envoy on COVID-19 recommends against lockdowns as the primary control method for preventing COVID-19 when we already know this is far and away the best way to prevent death? Do you think he is just fucked in the head and doesn't care about preventing human death and suffering? ... Since he didn't "advise against lockdowns" contrary to your claim,? ... Bro, my post is practically 1 sentence long, are you really going to misquote it in such a ridiculous way? I said he "recommends against lockdows as the primary control method for preventing COVID-19." Here is his quote Show nested quote +"We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus."
You claimed that Dr. Nabarro "recommends against lockdowns as the primary control method for preventing COVID-19"
Since you're doubling down, let me correct you even more than I have in my previous comment.
1) You used present tense, when the Doctor's statement is from 11 months ago. You should've used past tense.
2) "Advise against" and "recommend against" have the same meaning. Are you going to argue otherwise?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
