• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Social Covid 19 Thread: [no bitching about masks of Fauci edition]

funkygunther

Member
Dec 22, 2018
1,438
1,456
410

Prospective German government eyes coronavirus lockdown for the unvaccinated​

Responding to the criticism, the parties have agreed on stricter measures for the non-vaccinated, including requiring them to get a negative test before travelling by bus or train, public broadcaster ARD reported Monday.

Greens' leader Robert Habeck told the evening TV news on Sunday evening that, in simple terms, the proposed rules amounted to a "lockdown for the unvaccinated." That echoed restrictions that have just entered force in neighboring Austria, where vaccine numbers are lower and infection numbers even higher than in Germany.

 

FireFly

Member
Aug 5, 2007
1,820
1,354
1,440
There will never be a herd immunity with COVID-19. But you're right with controlling the peak ofc.

But we will have to wait and see how the situation develops over the next few years. Maybe the vaccination rates will not be so important and very specific antiviral and well-tolerated drugs will be easily and cheaply available for everyone. The virus continues to mutate, of course, and it may also become much weaker and less dangerous and eventually not play a role at all. This would of course be by far the worst option for the pharmaceutical industry.
You can think about herd immunity as something achieved at a given point in time, and given contact level. In this sense of the word, the UK may achieve herd immunity to Delta over winter, as the booster + natural infections cause the virus to run out of hosts. That doesn't mean the virus can't come back if immunity wanes or a new variant emerges, but it does mean it can be controlled in the short term.
 

betrayal

Member
Feb 2, 2018
1,722
2,617
445
So Austria is already imposing a lockdown for the unvaccinated only.
We're treading on a slippery slope in my opinion with all these restrictions that a government can impose with a snap of a finger. They're also giving the wrong ideas to other European countries, I'm sure.
edit: nvm :<
 
Last edited:

SpiceRacz

Member
Feb 27, 2017
2,300
4,313
580
Hazuki Dojo
For those of you who follow this shit when are they going to relax the rules for booster eligibility (US)? All my friends are lying to get theirs but I want to be a good citizen and not jump the line but I want a booster as I got my second shot back in April.

Don't feel bad. If anything, you're saving a vaccine dose from potentially being wasted. When I went in for my booster, they didn't ask for proof of my job or anything. I've heard the same from others who have gone in to get theirs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hari Seldon

poppabk

Member
Jan 21, 2008
13,172
2,108
1,470
USA
There will never be a herd immunity with COVID-19. But you're right with controlling the peak ofc.
It depends on what your definition of herd immunity is. Whooping cough is the best example of what we might expect with COVID going forward. It is an endemic infection with periodic epidemic outbreaks. We have a vaccine that is 80 -90% effective and which fades overtime and requires boosters over time that have limited take-up. And we have a high risk population (babies in the case of whooping cough).
Through mass vaccination in children, plus boosters especially for pregnant women, we effectively have herd immunity - ie the majority of the 'herd' has sufficient immunity to keep epidemics contained and make it very unlikely that the at risk population that lacks immunity comes into contact with the disease.
 

terintamel

Neo Member
Jan 13, 2021
36
47
110
Unvaccinated senior NIH doctor told Fauci forced vaccinations are 'extraordinarily problematic,' plans to buck Biden's vaccine mandate

So what do you all think of a seemingly knowledgeable expert saying vax mandates are not the right way to go if this article is to be believed?

Some quotes.

"A top infectious disease doctor, director of a research team at the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease — which Dr. Anthony Fauci heads — has reportedly been outspoken in his opposition to forced vaccinations. Dr. Matthew Memoli, a 16-year veteran at the National Institute of Health, allegedly informed Fauci in the summer that vaccine mandates are "extraordinarily problematic."

"I think the way we are using the vaccines is wrong," Memoli allegedly told Fauci, adding that vaccine mandates are "extraordinarily problematic."

Memoli believes that the COVID-19 vaccines should be reserved for the most vulnerable, such as obese people and the elderly. He reportedly said that widespread inoculations against coronavirus could hamper people's ability to develop natural, robust protection against the virus through infection."

Memoli reportedly plans to make his case against vaccine mandates during a roundtable session with NIH's main bioethics department on Dec. 1.

David Wendler – a senior NIH bioethicist in charge of planning the session – told the Journal, "There's a lot of debate within the NIH about whether [a vaccine mandate] is appropriate. It's an important, hot topic."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ma-Yuan

12Goblins

Lil’ Gobbie
Mar 1, 2017
4,991
8,131
715
So Austria is already imposing a lockdown for the unvaccinated only.
We're treading on a slippery slope in my opinion with all these restrictions that a government can impose with a snap of a finger. They're also giving the wrong ideas to other European countries, I'm sure.
it's complicated bro. gotta look at it in context of these numbers...


i'm presuming the majority of austrians are OK with it, and probably a lot even want the lockdowns in place...
 

Shai-Tan

Member
Mar 16, 2009
6,489
987
1,145
both those guys are dumbasses. even cursory literature review puts their claims into question. but that don't matter on youtube where people find channels that say what they want to believe dressed up in faux science

edit:

 
Last edited:

The Fartist

Member
Sep 10, 2019
1,506
3,405
560
Planet Erf
both those guys are dumbasses. even cursory literature review puts their claims into question. but that don't matter on youtube where people find channels that say what they want to believe dressed up in faux science

edit:

All they do is present the facts, they link all the paperwork. What more do you want?
 

Cyberpunkd

Member
Dec 16, 2020
1,889
2,733
455
So Austria is already imposing a lockdown for the unvaccinated only.
We're treading on a slippery slope in my opinion with all these restrictions that a government can impose with a snap of a finger. They're also giving the wrong ideas to other European countries, I'm sure.
The vaccinated did they part, the anti-vax didn’t. Now they can learn the great adult privilege of being responsible for your actions.
 
  • Empathy
Reactions: The Pleasure

Shai-Tan

Member
Mar 16, 2009
6,489
987
1,145
All they do is present the facts, they link all the paperwork. What more do you want?
that's a very naive view of the body of scientific literature. that dude doesn't even understand the articles he's reading. overconfident idiots with youtube channels are a good way to reach cognitive closure because they and their audience don't recognize how incompetent their "independent research" is. there's zero checking of their output by anyone with relevant expertise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vicetrailia

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,292
19,309
1,910
Best Coast
The majority of the virus is spread by vaccinated people. In my personal circle, it is exclusively vaccinated people who have spread the virus.

Not quite. Look up the base rate fallacy to see the error you are making.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

Many vaccinated people often get sick without symptoms, but pass the virus on to vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

If you don't understand it now, you will understand it in 2-6 weeks, when politics and the media have reached the point of publicly acknowledging it. I will quote your post again at that time.

If zero percent of people are vaccinated, then no disease is spread by vaccinated people. If 100% of people are vaccinated, then all disease is spread by vaccinated people.

You said that the majority of the virus is being spread by vaccinated people. Do you see the problem now? It involves denominators.
 

funkygunther

Member
Dec 22, 2018
1,438
1,456
410
All they do is present the facts, they link all the paperwork. What more do you want?

"present the facts"

in the first 2 minutes this Jimmy Dore guy goes from saying that "CDC recommended the use of ivermectin in trials" to "CDC recommended that doctors give ivermectin"...sounds like a classic FUD spreading plausibility denier, and then after that it's just a video of him mugging at the camera for 30 minutes while some other guy talks on a video behind him :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 

FunkMiller

Member
Aug 14, 2014
8,754
27,345
990
So Austria is already imposing a lockdown for the unvaccinated only.
We're treading on a slippery slope in my opinion with all these restrictions that a government can impose with a snap of a finger. They're also giving the wrong ideas to other European countries, I'm sure.

Jesus. You’re right.

The next thing you know they’ll be telling us we have to wear belts in cars, give them some of our money every month, and stop us taking cocaine.

Run for the hills!

Scared Saturday Night Live GIF by HULU
 

Erebus

Member
Aug 24, 2007
6,545
76
1,335
Europe
Jesus. You’re right.

The next thing you know they’ll be telling us we have to wear belts in cars, give them some of our money every month, and stop us taking cocaine.

Run for the hills!

Scared Saturday Night Live GIF by HULU

What a great way to over simplify things.

But you're right, governments always care about our well-being and safety. They have never ever overstepped boundaries and abuse their power.

The vaccinated did they part, the anti-vax didn’t. Now they can learn the great adult privilege of being responsible for your actions.
That's debatable. Last time I checked the vaccine is not mandatory in EU, outside of specific jobs that are of increased risk.

I just don't see how punishing and singling out a part of the population with an all-out lockdown is helping anyone. Demanding negative rapid tests for most indoor activities on the other hand sounds more fair and logical for those who choose not to take the vaccines.
 
Last edited:

Cyberpunkd

Member
Dec 16, 2020
1,889
2,733
455
That's debatable. Last time I checked the vaccine is not mandatory in EU, outside of specific jobs that are of increased risk.

I just don't see how punishing and singling out a part of the population with an all-out lockdown is helping anyone. Demanding negative rapid tests for most indoor activities on the other hand sounds more fair and logical for those who choose not to take the vaccines.
The vaccine is not obligatory. You neither have the right to go to restaurants, cinemas, cafés, etc.
Rapid tests have drawbacks since outside of the activities above you can have Covid and be asymptomatic. So if everyone thinks ‘no biggie, I will just make a test when I want to go somewhere’ - till that moment they will still infect lots of people and if (as mentioned) people will choose not to vaccinate you will have lots of them in hospitals and ICUs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rentahamster

funkygunther

Member
Dec 22, 2018
1,438
1,456
410
I just don't see how punishing and singling out a part of the population with an all-out lockdown is helping anyone. Demanding negative rapid tests for most indoor activities on the other hand sounds more fair and logical for those who choose not to take the vaccines.

The government is just helping them live like its April 2020. Its obviously what they want.
 

betrayal

Member
Feb 2, 2018
1,722
2,617
445
If zero percent of people are vaccinated, then no disease is spread by vaccinated people. If 100% of people are vaccinated, then all disease is spread by vaccinated people.

You said that the majority of the virus is being spread by vaccinated people. Do you see the problem now? It involves denominators.

Again, this is all true, but it does not change the fact that whether the vaccination rate is 70% or 100%, it will not change the current case rates.

My point is simply that we need to stop blaming everything on the unvaccinated and accept that vaccination cannot and will not be the final solution to this virus (to avoid occasional regional overloads of the health system).


It depends on what your definition of herd immunity is. Whooping cough is the best example of what we might expect with COVID going forward. It is an endemic infection with periodic epidemic outbreaks. We have a vaccine that is 80 -90% effective and which fades overtime and requires boosters over time that have limited take-up. And we have a high risk population (babies in the case of whooping cough).
Through mass vaccination in children, plus boosters especially for pregnant women, we effectively have herd immunity - ie the majority of the 'herd' has sufficient immunity to keep epidemics contained and make it very unlikely that the at risk population that lacks immunity comes into contact with the disease.

I do not agree. The virus will still regularly overwhelm some regional health care systems because vaccination has simply not been proven to protect well enough against infection and spread.

It is also not a solution to permanently vaccinate those groups of people (e.g. children) for whom the virus is not a threat. We are talking about an endemic virus. Vaccination every 10-20 years is not enough. It must be done annually and perhaps several times a year.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: SpiceRacz

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,292
19,309
1,910
Best Coast
Again, this is all true, but it does not change the fact that whether the vaccination rate is 70% or 100%, it will not change the current case rates.
What is the data that is leading you to this conclusion?

My point is simply that we need to stop blaming everything on the unvaccinated and accept that vaccination cannot and will not be the final solution to this virus (to avoid occasional regional overloads of the health system).
It can be. What do you feel about the other vaccines that are already mandated, and what is the prevalence of those diseases in our modern society?

Again, this is all true
Also, do you understand how you are making a base rate fallacy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CrikeyGeno

betrayal

Member
Feb 2, 2018
1,722
2,617
445
What is the data that is leading you to this conclusion?
Where is the data that leads you to something else? The number of unvaccinated people in a hospital has absolutely nothing to do with whether they are the primary spreaders of the virus.

Here in Germany there were countless so-called "2G" events, which means that one must either be proven to have recovered or be vaccinated. Almost all of these events led to mass infections among the participants afterwards. In many places there is now a discussion about "2G+", which means recovered and vaccinated people have to be tested additionally before they can join an event or visit specific locations. One federal state (Saxony) already wanted to introduce "1G", i.e. everyone, whether vaccinated or not, must always be tested. However, this was prevented by law for now.

These are only personal anecdotes, but most of the people I know are vaccinated and so far, that doesn't change whether or not they catch the virus. And we are only talking about those with symptoms, because if you are vaccinated and have no symptoms, you are not considered sick or get tested at any time, but you can spread the virus. I live in an area with currently extremely high infection rates. One in 40 people here is currently confirmed to be infected with the virus. I can literally show you a whatsapp screenshot now of a sick call from a colleague who, and i'm not shitting you, called in 10 minutes ago with a confirmed positive PCR test. Actually, the virus is detected daily among a friend or colleague of mine. And so far, everyone was vaccinated and usually does not know where he or she got the virus.

Fortunately, despite the extremely high numbers, I do not know anyone who has a severe course of disease. One person had to be hospitalized and ventilated, but is fine now...and she was unvaccinated.

It can be. What do you feel about the other vaccines that are already mandated, and what is the prevalence of those diseases in our modern society?
I am clearly in favor of vaccination. However, there is no general mandatory vaccination for everyone to protect against an endemic virus that occurs annually in waves.


Also, do you understand how you are making a base rate fallacy?
No. Do you?
 
Last edited:

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,292
19,309
1,910
Best Coast
Where is the data that leads you to something else? The number of unvaccinated people in a hospital has absolutely nothing to do with whether they are the primary spreaders of the virus.
I asked you first, but here you go -




Vaccinated people get infected less, which means that they spread it less per capita, assuming similar behavior.

Now you go.

Here in Germany there were countless so-called "2G" events, which means that one must either be proven to have recovered or be vaccinated. Almost all of these events led to mass infections among the participants afterwards. In many places there is now a discussion about "2G+", which means recovered and vaccinated people have to be tested additionally before they can join an event or visit specific locations. One federal state (Saxony) already wanted to introduce "1G", i.e. everyone, whether vaccinated or not, must always be tested. However, this was prevented by law for now.
And this proves...what? That Germans don't have very good compliance or enforcement of these safeguards?

These are only personal anecdotes
Which means that they are fine for generating a casual understanding of your immediate surrounding, but are prone to bias and are useless relative to controlled and rigorously analyzed data.

I am clearly in favor of vaccination. However, there is no general mandatory vaccination for everyone to protect against an endemic virus that occurs annually in waves.
Are measles, mumps, rubella, whooping cough, and other such viruses endemic? Why or why not?

You don't understand your error? Then how did you respond to it the first time if you don't understand it? In order to compare two different populations, in this case the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated, you have to analyze them separately and get the per capita numbers for each group. Tell me - and use several different countries to get a broader point of view - how many vaccinated people per capita are getting infected? How many unvaccinated people per capita are getting infected? How many vaccinated people per capita are getting hospitalized or dying? How many unvaccinated people per capita are getting hospitalized or dying?

Yes. That's how I know you're doing it.
 

FunkMiller

Member
Aug 14, 2014
8,754
27,345
990
What a great way to over simplify things.

But you're right, governments always care about our well-being and safety. They have never ever overstepped boundaries and abuse their power.

😂 Stop over simplifying things! = I don’t have an argument.
 

betrayal

Member
Feb 2, 2018
1,722
2,617
445
I asked you first, but here you go -




Vaccinated people get infected less, which means that they spread it less per capita, assuming similar behavior.

Now you go.

How many times does this stupid chart have to be used to prove that it is meaningless without context?

It shows statistics based on a very specific fixed assumption: the 2nd dose was administered 14 - 30 days ago.

In reality, this is absolutely meaningless. Protection against infection and contagion decreases sharply with each passing month. If the average time after vaccination is 3 months, the figures are completely different. The evidence for this is very clear. Anyone can look it up.

If you get a booster shot every month, then you can take this statistic as a reference. Otherwise, please stop relying on statistics that have nothing to do with the real-world.




And this proves...what? That Germans don't have very good compliance or enforcement of these safeguards?

It's the same everywhere. Almost all of Germany's neighboring countries have significantly higher infection rates. Germany is just one example of many.



Which means that they are fine for generating a casual understanding of your immediate surrounding, but are prone to bias and are useless relative to controlled and rigorously analyzed data.

What data you are referring to? I'm still waiting for you to finally provide this data showing that the unvaccinated are the drivers of the pandemic.



Are measles, mumps, rubella, whooping cough, and other such viruses endemic? Why or why not?

It's about the seasonal effect of an endemic. I have assumed that this is clear.

There are other factors at play as well. For COVID, vaccine protection against infection and spread and duration of protection are just way too low at this time to even remotely achieve similar things as other vaccines.



You don't understand your error? Then how did you respond to it the first time if you don't understand it? In order to compare two different populations, in this case the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated, you have to analyze them separately and get the per capita numbers for each group. Tell me - and use several different countries to get a broader point of view - how many vaccinated people per capita are getting infected? How many unvaccinated people per capita are getting infected? How many vaccinated people per capita are getting hospitalized or dying? How many unvaccinated people per capita are getting hospitalized or dying?
As I said, I'm still waiting for your data to prove your point.

I can't support mine with data because vaccinated people are almost never tested unless they clearly show symptoms. So the number of vaccine breakthroughs are not recorded at all. But it has become very clear that vaccination does not protect very well against the spread of the virus unless you get a booster every month. Of course, I'm going to assume for your benefit that you're not one of those who think that the numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated people in hospitals can be used to draw conclusions about the general number of infections.

Your complete foundation of your assumptions is based on - nothing. You have neither numbers nor practical situations or anecdotes to support your assertions.

What we both have are studies that agree consistently that vaccination protects against infection and spread already drops after the 3rd to 4th month to only ~50% and after the 6th month it is 20% at best, sometimes even 0%.
 

Erebus

Member
Aug 24, 2007
6,545
76
1,335
Europe
😂 Stop over simplifying things! = I don’t have an argument.
Ι didn't think you made an argument in the first place other than being ironic to me.

If you don't see the problem in a government single-handily deciding what's best for you and what's not in all facets of your life, why don't you move in China or N. Korea then? I guess you would also be fine if they started prohibiting other things that are considered detrimental to people's health as they see fit like smoke, alcohol, sugar or limiting how many hours you can get on the internet or play games citing health issues?

I know it's an extreme example but my point is that these covid restrictions are happening way too easily and often have a punishing nuance in my eyes at least. I don't have a problem with Austria's decision per se (I don't even know if they've tried other things first before reaching down to this decision) but judging from our government here, they practically churn out new restrictions overnight that make no sense and are aiming to punish people who haven't been vaccinated than actually protect them from the virus. Instead of trying to educate and convince someone who is hesitant to do something by building trust, you're treating them like second-class citizens, putting the blame solely on them while trying not to piss off the already vaccinated population who are also spreading the virus (letting them get stacked on clubs every night because that's the "normality" that you promised in order for them to take the vaccine in the first place) and lose their votes in the upcoming elections. Sorry but this is not my definition of a government that cares to end the pandemic for real.
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: FunkMiller

funkygunther

Member
Dec 22, 2018
1,438
1,456
410
Ι didn't think you made an argument in the first place other than being ironic to me.

If you don't see the problem in a government single-handily deciding what's best for you and what's not in all facets of your life, why don't you move in China or N. Korea then? I guess you would also be fine if they started prohibiting other things that are considered detrimental to people's health as they see fit like smoke, alcohol, sugar or limiting how many hours you can get on the internet or play games citing health issues?

I know it's an extreme example but my point is that these covid restrictions are happening way too easily and often have a punishing nuance in my eyes at least. I don't have a problem with Austria's decision per se (I don't even know if they've tried other things first before reaching down to this decision) but judging from our government here, they practically churn out new restrictions overnight that make no sense and are aiming to punish people who haven't been vaccinated than actually protect them from the virus. Instead of trying to educate and convince someone who is hesitant to do something by building trust, you're treating them like second-class citizens, putting the blame solely on them while trying not to piss off the already vaccinated population who are also spreading the virus (letting them get stacked on clubs every night because that's the "normality" that you promised in order for them to take the vaccine in the first place) and lose their votes in the upcoming elections. Sorry but this is not my definition of a government that cares to end the pandemic for real.

a government that has spent millions/billions on vaccines is not one that cares to end the pandemic, for real
 

Erebus

Member
Aug 24, 2007
6,545
76
1,335
Europe
a government that has spent millions/billions on vaccines is not one that cares to end the pandemic, for real
Now imagine if they had spent a fraction of these billions on the actual health care system (again talking specifically for my country here). But no, it's far more logical to assume that everyone would be willing to take a new vaccine within the first year of its release, right? So let's just overprovision on vaccines, force them down people's throat, and paint everyone who doesn't agree antivaxxer, conspiracy theorist and whatnot. At the same time, let's leave the poorer countries open to the virus (it's a global pandemic after all) and wait to see what happens while taking our 3rd, 4th and 5th booster jabs every 6 months making the pharmaceuticals richer.
 
Last edited:

funkygunther

Member
Dec 22, 2018
1,438
1,456
410
Now imagine if they had spent a fraction of these billions on the actual health care system (again talking specifically for my country here). But no, it's far more logical to assume that everyone would be willing to take a new vaccine within the first year of its release, right? So let's just overprovision on vaccines, force them down people's throat, and paint everyone who doesn't agree antivaxxer, conspiracy theorist and whatnot. At the same time, let's leave the poorer countries open to the virus (it's a global pandemic after all) and wait to see what happens while taking our 3rd, 4th and 5th booster jabs every 6 months.

yes you want a solution that takes decades to sort out and costs a magnitude more money than the vaccine procurement, majority of people have taken the vaccine...if you don't want it then you want to live like we all lived before the vaccine was available

rest of your post is strawman
 

Cyberpunkd

Member
Dec 16, 2020
1,889
2,733
455
Here in Germany there were countless so-called "2G" events, which means that one must either be proven to have recovered or be vaccinated. Almost all of these events led to mass infections among the participants afterwards. In many places there is now a discussion about "2G+", which means recovered and vaccinated people have to be tested additionally before they can join an event or visit specific locations. One federal state (Saxony) already wanted to introduce "1G", i.e. everyone, whether vaccinated or not, must always be tested. However, this was prevented by law for now.
So what? If 100% people were vaccinated the virus can spread all it wants, you will not have many people hospitalized. How is that different than the common cold you can get vaccinated against each year?
 

poppabk

Member
Jan 21, 2008
13,172
2,108
1,470
USA
I do not agree. The virus will still regularly overwhelm some regional health care systems because vaccination has simply not been proven to protect well enough against infection and spread.

It is also not a solution to permanently vaccinate those groups of people (e.g. children) for whom the virus is not a threat. We are talking about an endemic virus. Vaccination every 10-20 years is not enough. It must be done annually and perhaps several times a year.
You may be okay with rolling lockdowns, and semi permanent social distancing and masking, but the majority of us want normality to return or continue. I don't know if UBI is tenable but I can guarantee that if you try and bring it in through the back door like this it will be a complete failure. You need to try and soften your liberal beliefs with a little reality, because most of us have to live in the real world.
 

Erebus

Member
Aug 24, 2007
6,545
76
1,335
Europe
yes you want a solution that takes decades to sort out and costs a magnitude more money than the vaccine procurement, majority of people have taken the vaccine...if you don't want it then you want to live like we all lived before the vaccine was available

rest of your post is strawman
Not everything is black and white and you clearly don't care about the bigger picture so sure keep living in your bubble.

So what? If 100% people were vaccinated the virus can spread all it wants, you will not have many people hospitalized. How is that different than the common cold you can get vaccinated against each year?
That's a big if, especially with the vaccine dwindling down in effectiveness every couple of months.
 

funkygunther

Member
Dec 22, 2018
1,438
1,456
410
Not everything is black and white and you clearly don't care about the bigger picture so sure keep living in your bubble.

You can keep your ad hominems mate, I'm very much rooted in reality and you want to talk about hypothetical strawmen then I'm sure someone else will humour you
 

poppabk

Member
Jan 21, 2008
13,172
2,108
1,470
USA
Now imagine if they had spent a fraction of these billions on the actual health care system (again talking specifically for my country here). But no, it's far more logical to assume that everyone would be willing to take a new vaccine within the first year of its release, right? So let's just overprovision on vaccines, force them down people's throat, and paint everyone who doesn't agree antivaxxer, conspiracy theorist and whatnot. At the same time, let's leave the poorer countries open to the virus (it's a global pandemic after all) and wait to see what happens while taking our 3rd, 4th and 5th booster jabs every 6 months making the pharmaceuticals richer.
Man the bleeding heart liberals are sure out in force today. Yeah it sucks that impoverished nations get screwed on this - bit that is just like they do on every other fucking thing. I'm sorry the western world is too wealthy for your liking but that's just the way global capatilism works, your great reset is not what we need right now when even wealthy economies are struggling.
 

QSD

Member
Nov 8, 2020
1,283
1,305
405
Amsterdam
www.quixoticsounddesign.com
For a bit of a humorous aside.... apparantly anti-vaxxers in greece have been bribing doctors to inject them with water instead of the vaccine. The doctors though, afraid of problems or disciplinary action, pocketed the bribe but still injected the antivaxxers with the real vaccine! Any legal action re: medical malpractice can only be made by confessing to the attempted bribe in the first place. Checkmate :messenger_beaming:

story
 

Erebus

Member
Aug 24, 2007
6,545
76
1,335
Europe
Man the bleeding heart liberals are sure out in force today. Yeah it sucks that impoverished nations get screwed on this - bit that is just like they do on every other fucking thing. I'm sorry the western world is too wealthy for your liking but that's just the way global capatilism works, your great reset is not what we need right now when even wealthy economies are struggling.
Have you ever heard of virus mutations? You know you can be cynical and ignore the impoverished nations but the virus mutations can travel and fuck up our struggling wealthy economies again. But sure we can combat this with more booster shots because Pfizer loves producing them.
 

Loki

Count of Concision
Jun 6, 2004
7,546
609
1,670
The vaccine is not obligatory. You neither have the right to go to restaurants, cinemas, cafés, etc.
Rapid tests have drawbacks since outside of the activities above you can have Covid and be asymptomatic. So if everyone thinks ‘no biggie, I will just make a test when I want to go somewhere’ - till that moment they will still infect lots of people and if (as mentioned) people will choose not to vaccinate you will have lots of them in hospitals and ICUs.

"It's not obligatory - you just don't have a right to go to cafes, restaurants, stores, events, museums, basically anywhere except your own home. Oh, and you also can't work or find new employment. Or travel. We'll let you breathe (with 3 masks on) and maybe throw you some food, though!" :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Sometimes I wonder if people hear themselves. Bunch of fucking tyrants up in here over such a relatively trifling "pandemic". I often ask this: If people are willing to tolerate (or advocate, as some of the clowns in here do) this level of abrogation of freedoms and liberty for THIS comparatively harmless virus, what would they be willing to accept and advocate for a TRULY deadly pandemic? Weld people into their homes? Complete lockdown and martial law?

Yeah, yeah - miss me with the "b...b...but 5 million deaths!" Not trying to minimize anything, but let's be realistic. 5M dead over the course of ~22 months for the entire world. 75-80% of those are folks over 75 years of age with multiple comorbidities. And the situation today is quite different from that of March 2020, so why there's this zealotry now is baffling to me. To quote myself from a post elsewhere regarding the ever-increasing push for mandates:

Loki said:
Now, when looking at the sheer FERVOR with which these people advocate for vaccine mandates, and the furiously rapid progression of said dictates, one should keep in mind that all of this is not happening in the USA of March or April 2020 - it is happening now. That is to say, the dynamics of the disease as well as our knowledge of and response to it have grown dramatically since the inception of the pandemic. The landscape has changed significantly, and thus some measures which might (MIGHT) have been understandable/acceptable in the early months of COVID are simply no longer acceptable as they no longer comport with the science. The way these mandate-pushers talk, you'd think that folks were just as likely to contract COVID, be hospitalized from it, or die from it as they were in April 2020 when the alpha strain was dominant. This is simply NOT the case for the following reasons:

- Alpha strain was demonstrably more lethal (roughly 150% as lethal as Delta). All the data from the UK/Israel/US supports this. Delta, a less lethal (yet admittedly more contagious) strain, now predominates. One would thus expect fewer deaths per capita. Admittedly, however, Delta's presumptive lethality is confounded by the fact that...

- Treatment modalities have improved tremendously. The biggest change from the first 6-10 months of the pandemic has been the increasing consensus that putting folks on ventilators actually does more harm than good. If you'll recall, early statistics showed that 40-50% of patients who were put on these vents ended up dying. It was later found that a lot of this was due to the mechanism of action of the virus (which wasn't known initially), and that mechanical pressure was actually counterproductive and could cause a cascade into total pulmonary failure. Now folks are treated for low blood oxygen and poor respiration via other methods, leading to better outcomes. In addition, you have monoclonal antibodies being deployed at scale, steroid-based treatment regimens, anti-virals about to enter the market (Monulpiravir as well as one from Pfizer), a mini-resurgence of HCQ etc. The net effect of all these new treatments and knowledge is that it makes the "prognosis" for hospitals and society much less grim than it was in early-mid 2020. I dare say that if we have these treatments and knowledge from the outset, we'd probably be looking at 350-500K dead in the US instead of 700K.

- The first two waves picked off the "low hanging fruit," so to speak. Folks who were disposed towards severe disease for whatever reasons (age, comorbidities, immune/genetic predisposition in terms of their idiosyncratic response to the virus etc.) were likely culled during the initial phases. At a population level, this means that what you are left with as a substrate for future infections is a more resilient, healthier populace which is better able to fight off severe outcomes or is more responsive to treatment. The net effect is that if you had population B (the population of, say, March-August 2021) as the full population at the start of the pandemic, we wouldn't have accrued as many deaths as we did, simply because it is, on average, a healthier and more resilient population. The same is even more true today.

- Between vaccine-induced and natural immunity, somewhere between 70-85% of the population has some form of protection against severe disease from COVID. This means that if we had today's population living in March/April of 2020, we would not have incurred nearly the amount of deaths which we did, nor would nearly the same amount of people require hospitalization.

Note that each of the above considerations are independent of each other, but each serves to lower the overall risk of death/disease today as compared to 18 months ago. Thus, the question becomes: why are they pushing these mandates so forcefully right now? It's an incongruous reaction given the level of threat.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,292
19,309
1,910
Best Coast
"It's not obligatory - you just don't have a right to go to cafes, restaurants, stores, events, museums, basically anywhere except your own home. Oh, and you also can't work or find new employment. Or travel. We'll let you breathe (with 3 masks on) and maybe throw you some food, though!" :messenger_tears_of_joy:
Freedom doesn't mean having the right to put other people's lives in danger.

I often ask this: If people are willing to tolerate (or advocate, as some of the clowns in here do) this level of abrogation of freedoms and liberty for THIS comparatively harmless virus, what would they be willing to accept and advocate for a TRULY deadly pandemic? Weld people into their homes? Complete lockdown and martial law?
You don't need to ask yourself that. We have seen this before. America lost its collective mind 20 years ago with the draconian and freedom-killing initiatives known as the war on terror and the Patriot Act, which are unprecedented, unjustified, and much worse than vaccine mandates (which have precedent).

The difference was that 9/11 "only" killed 2000 people. COVID19 is killing that many people every 3 days.