ManaByte
Gold Member
and 10 years
You wanted lockdowns for a decade?
and 10 years
You wanted lockdowns for a decade?
Just taking a shot in the dark here, but in the US it might have had something to to do with the all the deaths and the overwhelmed hospitals.Why are we locking down the globe for a 99.7% survivable virus
What is this nonsense?
Who is talking about people who "don't trust scientists"?
Science also says "don't eat so much", "exercise more" or "don't take drugs". How about you get in touch with these people and start accusing them of some kind of bullshit.
It's people like you who label whole groups of people as stupid and further divide an already very divided society.
Why must every decision of people always be answered immediately with hatred and agitation. You don't have to share an opinion, but you should be able to respect other opinions without always assuming some garbage like "no trust in science".
I am strongly in favor of vaccination, but nevertheless the virus shows once again that not only the "stupid" anti-vaxxers are stupid, but also many of their antagonists.
Just taking a shot in the dark here, but in the US it might have had something to to do with the all the deaths and the overwhelmed hospitals.
Just a guess though.
Without having more detailed data it's hard to be sure but it's very weird that Delaware and DC are the only two states in the country to ever deviate from the pattern seen in all other state, that each age group has a higher rate as they get older. The numbers for Delaware say that 0-17 year olds got hospitalized at a rate more then 6 times the ones 18-29. While on the same day in all the states around it there were less 0-17 hospitalized then 18-29.If you poke around in the data, you can see that Delaware had a spike in the 0-17 age group all the way up to 6.17 per 100,000! That's 6x what Florida is currently seeing. D.C. has hit 2.5 per 100,000 in that age group multiple times over the past year. Montana hit 3 per 100,000 last October.
Very interesting data out of the tiny country of Iceland:
Data
Latest updates on confirmed infections, the number of people in quarantine or isolation, and more.www.covid.is
Approximately 255,000 of their 364,000 population are fully vaccinated (126,000 of which are Pfizer, 20,000 of which are Moderna, 55,000 of which are Oxford AstraZeneca, and 53,000 of which are J&J, reportedly).
The breakdown of new domestic infections from their latest outbreak basically perfectly matches up with their breakdown of unvacc vs. vacc population.
It's also the biggest spike they have seen since the pandemic began.
It's a small country and thus there are very few hospitalizations (and so far zero deaths, thankfully) from this new wave, but it's still worth keeping an eye on.
an experimental new type of drug?
It's not experimental, it's been used before. But people love using the "experimental" dog whistle to justify their anti-vax crusade.
Wouldn't Delta be completely out of control given the extremely infectous nature in a nation that has an extremely low vaccination rate?
Also Australia has tried a zero covid approach which means that in total very few people have been infected in the past which means that both vaccination rate and antibodies from previous infections are low?
If Australia stays open, and the population is extremely centralized in big cities, then Delta would spread like wildfire and overwhelm the health services, wouldn't it?
It's not experimental, it's been used before. But people love using the "experimental" dog whistle to justify their anti-vax crusade.
Can anyone point to confirmed, verified and reviewed information that says the covid vaccines are experimental?
Because all I see is stuff like this:
https://fullfact.org/online/covid-vaccines-not-medical-experiment/
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/05/14/safe-fast-vaccine-fear-infertility-dna/?outputType=amp
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2AC2G3
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL1N2M70MW
So, come on my anti covid vaccine friends, post your homework. Provide us with recent information that shows that the vaccine is still experimental, and hadn’t passed all necessary safety and efficacy trials.
Here's some of the 'advice' we are receiving from the unelected health bureaucrats who are basically running their states in Australia right now.
You do realise both the cdc and the WHO have both stated that lockdowns should only be a last resort right...
Anyway, whilst Delta may be more infectious (thats debatable, at least in this country) it certainly has lower mortality. We've had a grand total of 17 deaths attributed to it this year, in a population of near 26 million. That's not a pandemic sorry. 910 deaths last year. Not a pandemic sorry. Vaccine or no vaccine
But still our politicians insist on causing all this collateral damage to small business, and peoples general well being and mental health, because they have doubled down on it so hard, they can't go back now.
And your last point sounds like something from April 2020
Have mrna vaccines been used before this one in humans? Show me the clinical trials with thousands of humans in the sample size and more than 5 years of trials.It's not experimental, it's been used before. But people love using the "experimental" dog whistle to justify their anti-vax crusade.
I think it just comes down to the fact that they are relatively new, widely untested vaccine delivery technologies, that they aren't fully approved by the FDA, and that their long-term safety follow up trials won't be complete for a couple more years (although this is apparently not uncommon even with fully FDA approved vaccines according to Reuters).
I doubt there is even a fixed definition of what "experimental" means, so it's going to come down to what the individual feels comfortable with.
Then that is awesome for her hospital, but that is not the case everywhere and it hasn't been. There were record hospitalization rates last year because of Covid. The articles covering them were everywhere. That's why we had lockdowns last year. It wasn't just about the death rate. It was about trying to limit the potential damage and patient load so that hospitals didn't get overwhelmed.The death rate has barely budged in 6 months, and global deaths are down since this started. My wife works for a hospital and talks to nurses all day long, the hospital is more empty than usual since they again cancelled electives.
Then that is awesome for her hospital, but that is not the case everywhere and it hasn't been. There were record hospitalization rates last year because of Covid. The articles covering them were everywhere. That's why we had lockdowns last year. It wasn't just about the death rate. It was about trying to limit the potential damage and patient load so that hospitals didn't get overwhelmed.
Yes there is. There is a fixed, clear definition of experimental. It means that something has not been approved for use after clinical trials. In medical science, that's the experimental stage. If it has been approved for use after clinical trials it is no longer experimental. Multiple agencies have approved the covid vaccines across the world. They are not experimental.
Well, there you go. Not experimental according to the various government classifications! I may be wrong, but I think most people calling them experimental are just using the word to say we don't know the long term effects yet, because we cannot.
Because governments and the scientific establishment get to say what an experimental vaccine is
Yeah, I'm sure that will go over well...
I am asking more out of curiosity, because I am not from Australia and can't properly judge the situation at hand there.
The delta spreading big time so far we have only seen in countries with high vaccination rate like the UK so I can't really compare that when many of those people there actually have the vaccines which prevents them from dying and also with bigger previous covid outbreaks which helped achieving herd immunity
...with idiots? Probably not. Because only idiots think they know better than the people who have the skills, expertise and experience to make qualified judgements on these things.
I never said the last few weeksSure, I remember "two weeks to flatten the curve"
Well now its "take this chemical into your body, or you can't participate in society". The conspiracy about a "vaccine passport" in 2020 is now becoming a global reality.
Get me some links to analyze! I'm curious where you are getting information about an explosion of deaths in the last few weeks, I can't find it.
No, it's not that they think they know better about the subject matter than the experts (well, not most), it's that they think the experts in power are compromised.
No, it's not that they think they know better about the subject matter than the experts (well, not most), it's that they think the experts in power are compromised.
Fuck my life. If every single person out there who decided they knew better than all the epidemiologists, doctors, and scientists because of something they saw on the internet, died by drowning in their own lung fluid tomorrow, the world would be a better place.
Gonna stop responding to you now, because you're basically a psycho.
"People who question things and do not do what they are told by their betters deserve to die." You'd have done well in Nazi Germany.
Don't be so childish, with your Godwin's Law babbling. I'm clearly stating that people who have zero evidence of something other than some shit they read on social media are idiots who are weighing the world down for the rest of us.
You know I agree with you that people who think they know better than actual doctors are idiots (because they are), but the drowning comment was a bit much I have to admit.Don't be so childish, with your Godwin's Law babbling. I'm clearly stating that people who have zero evidence of something other than some shit they read on social media are idiots who are weighing the world down for the rest of us.
Well ... to be fair, you did wish for everyone that didn't agree with <PhD> death. Your counter-arguments are heavy with ad hominem too. Archetyped.
You know I agree with you that they are idiots (because they are), but the drowning comment was a bit much.
Could you at least make some sense with your responses?
Also, look up 'ad hominem' sometime.
Ad hominem: instead of replying to an argument, point out some attribute of the person making the argument.
"Idiots don't believe what i think they should believe, and therefore should die"
The argument is "should the state be able to force a medical procedure on citizens, or punish them"..
I take it you believe they should be able to force medical procedures? It's been tried, never worked well.
Um. Ad hominem requires that the attack is directed against a person. If I'd called Zefah an idiot, that would be ad hominem - and I obviously did not do that.
...and quite where you got anything about medical procedures forced on people from I have no idea, but I'll leave you to it.
That is where this global discussion is going. We should determine the principles underlying the discussion, so we can make wise decisions long-term, rather than creating laws out of fear.
"vaccine passports" "fired from your job if you don't take the medical procedure".
The question, now that people will be barred from restaurants, voting (etc) unless they have a vaccine passport, is should the state be allowed to require a medical procedure for the entire population, and punish those who opt out?
Well, what do you think, on principle?
Also perfectly reasonable for restaurants to bar people who are unvaccinated. In a free society, businesses have the right to dictate the terms of their custom.
So basically a run-on-sentence of ad hominem..
Convincing! I have no interest in arguing, just looking for basic human decency and letting me make medical decisions for myself.
IF this were a 75% death sentence virus, I would let them experiment on me.
It's 99.7% survival. 100% for a person of my age / weight / health. Get the vaccine! Then you're safe from boogey men like me.
OK, I can work with this ... so you're making a principled argument that a business should be able to block anyone they want from being a customer, based on whatever attributes the business owner determines?
That means a business can block the vaccinated? What about the gay cake question? What about blocking certain skin colors?
Or do you introduce some additional laws to make it only about what medical procedures a person has had?
A "gay cake" and skin color do not threaten the health of staff members and other customers. Not even comparable, pathetic strawman.OK, I can work with this ... so you're making a principled argument that a business should be able to block anyone they want from being a customer, based on whatever attributes the business owner determines?
That means a business can block the vaccinated? What about the gay cake question? What about blocking certain skin colors?
Or do you introduce some additional laws to make it only about what medical procedures a person has had?
we know with insane granularity what effects the vaccination has
A "gay cake" and skin color do not threaten the health of staff members and other customers. Not even comparable, pathetic strawman.
Is it the business owners choice, or are you advocating a law that would need to be created to determine which medical discriminations would be allowed by the state?
Could a business owner choose not to serve people who have had abortions for example?
What about smokers? (not smoking, but smokers)
If I haven't been vaccinated, but am not sick, can a business owner still discriminate? (i.e. not a threat to employees, but the business owner only wants malaria vaccinated customers)
How does someone having an abortion pose a risk to other customers? Or how does a smoker not actually smoking a cigarette?
Do you understand that unvaccinated people pose a health risk, and that is why they are being barred?
OK, so if I'm reading you correctly, there would need to be a law written that says a business owner can discriminate as long as they believe the customer is a medical threat to the employees.
Or do you envision the state creating a cycling list of "approved medical discriminations"?
So for example a business owner could require a negative AIDS/HIV test before accepting a customer.
Who do you appoint to determine which medical procedures count as "discrimination capable"?