Coronavirus thread

[Madiel]

1. Young and fit, so don't feel as though COVID concerns them really.
2. Belong to a group with some history of abuse by medics -- some blacks in America maybe. So just no trust.
3. Feel that they can't afford to. Not just the unpaid time off work to get it, but what if they need a few days off because of side effects? They have to feed the kids, and they don't have sick pay.
4. My body is a temple and I only let very natural things go in it, unless I'm really ill, which I'm not. If I get COVID, I'll take a something for it, but I'll get over it in all probability, so it would be neurotic to worry.
5. It's a load of trouble. I have to travel to get it, possibly a log journey, book an appointment, wait in a line. Can't be bothered, better things to do.
6. Yes I may infect others if I catch it, but really so what? If they're so worried let them keep their distance or take a vaccine. Look after Number 1 is what they taught me in The University of Life, and indeed in school. Evey man for himself.

Definitely numbers 3 and 5 are frustrating barriers that laws and government policies should deal with. The lack of leave entitlements in the USA in particular is really bad, but then there are also issues for casual employees almost anywhere.  And actual availability of vaccines for those who want them is definitely something that needs to be managed.

Number 2 is highly understandable, I did hear a podcast episode at some point with a black doctor discussing the strategies that were being used to deal with this. Very much focused on making sure it was leaders of the black community urging vaccination, rather than a bunch of white people telling blacks to do it.

1 and 6 are self-centred and misunderstand part of how vaccination works (and also how life in general works). 4 would be laughable for it's lack of historical knowledge about how short "natural" life was, if there wasn't a multi-billion industry built around it.

[greg]

I'm repeating what you've said elsewhere as a supposed badge of your freethinking independence.

So what are these sources then? You're still not saying.

I just said in my next paragraph.

If I missed the part that it's "less transmissable" then that's my mistake, I've only heard the "also transmissible" part. From everywhere, IRL, here, mainstream media, etc. So if this is common knowledge and I missed it, then entirely my bad.

I don't have a single source for this information, can't point out anything specific. This is a commonly known thing, that it is still transmissible, that's why people are still wearing masks, or should be.

No, I wouldn't do it because it's NOT NECESSARY. As I said in the post now deleted and in another one above which you seem to have ignored, I live in a country where we don't have mass shootings, without the need for installing cameras. Your claim that installing cameras is necessary in order to prevent mass shootings is bunk. Your whole argument stems from a ridiculous premise. You're apparently offended by me calling it ridiculous, but that doesn't make it any less ridiculous. Go to any other country in the world and you will find we don't have these regular mass shootings, and don't worry about our kids getting shot at school, and yet you'll also find that we don't have government cameras in our houses.

The problem is not a lack of cameras. The problem is that you're the kind of American who is unable to notice that the rest of the planet is not America and is also quite unable to conceive that the rest of the world might be able to teach you something.

I didn't want to get into details about that, because at this point it really would start to go off-topic, but since you're saying that, now I have to, I thought this would be picked up already.

So in a country with this many guns, how do you suppose they would all be disposed of? Pass gun laws and they magically disappear? People will willingly turn in all of their guns, right?

You could start with police raiding everyone's homes, that would help to confiscate many guns. But what if some are well-hidden? And then someone knows someone that hides that gun, buys it from them, and wants to either go on a shooting spree or murder his drug dealer, or whatever.

Solution: install cameras in everyone's home to observe any gun handling activities. Make no place private. Privacy = breeding ground for criminal activity. (same for drugs, etc.)


And you know what, does it even matter if the scenario is ridiculous? It doesn't have to even be real to make the point I'm making, I could make up something like, what if everyone was mandated to chop off a finger to prevent nuclear war? The point is the idea, no need to focus on the specifics.

As for it not being younger people dying, tell that to the family of the 23-year-old local who died this week. He was vaccinated (2 shots, not a 3rd booster). He was lower risk on account of age, and did what he could to reduce the risk. He still died. All of this is about risk reduction.

I'm not sure what this has to do with mandates? We don't know how this person got sick, or if mandates would have prevented this or not.

Vaccinated people need to still be wearing masks around others to keep them from getting sick. Whoever got him sick should have done that.

but it's a really, really terrible argument to just point to something with a MASSIVE cost and (contrary to your assertion) no real benefit as if that's relevant to the discussion.

If I'm understanding correctly and that "MASSIVE cost" is referring to mandates, then my point that I gave was to show that that is a subjective feeling, it differs for everyone. If a lot of people feel uncomfortable with it, then yes, it is in a way, a massive cost, if you want to call it that, that's why so many people are upset about it.

[Spotted Horses]

I don't have a single source for this information, can't point out anything specific. This is a commonly known thing, that it is still transmissible, that's why people are still wearing masks, or should be.

It is a commonly known thing, that is not true. Vaccines (now with boosters) dramatically reduce the probability of contracting the disease, and similarly reduce the risk of transmitting the disease. (This has been known since spring 2021.) A person refusing the vaccine increases the risk to him or herself, and increases the risk to others to whom he or she might transmit the virus. It is therefore not an entirely individual decision. The vaccines don't reduce the risk to zero, and not everyone has a vaccine. That is why people are advised to wear masks under certain circumstances (an indoor, public space).

[greg]

I wouldn't fault someone unvaccinated for accidentally getting me sick and I die (though I would fault them if they were not wearing a mask and recklessly coughing on me)- despite me being vaccinated, because I don't get to tell them what they have to put in their body, period. That's their decision. Just stay away from me. I'll wear a mask for myself, do the same please.
Probably a decent summary how I feel. If it were purely selfishness, then I would feel differently.

And I believe that is the gist of the anti-mandate sentiment, if I understand correctly.

[Madiel]

The "massive cost" reference was to your stupid proposal to install a camera in every home. Not to vaccine mandates.

The mindset with which you read things is fascinating. Wrong, but fascinating.

I'm not going to comment further on guns beyond observing that I come from the country KNOWN for its gun buyback scheme. A scheme that American gun nuts are deeply terrified by precisely because it worked.

I believe parts of America have had similar schemes. So again, your whole "we couldn't possibly get rid of the guns so we will have to install cameras" shtick just seems to come from a refusal to engage with the planet that the rest of us are actually on. You put metal detectors in schools. You put guards in schools. The one thing people like you won't actually countenance is the thing that actually works: reducing the number of pointless deadly objects you have lying around houses.

And meanwhile people refuse vaccines. Often the same people who have pointless deadly objects lying around their house. There is something deeply wrong with a mindset that worries about the tiny risks of a life saving technology and clings to a technology that is over 20 times more likely to cause the owner harm than to be used for the purported purpose of self protection. That's what the statistics say. To the extent that statistics can be collected, given that the gun lobby actually pushed through laws to prevent the gathering of information, for God's sake.

When people are actively scared of data lest it overturn their ideas, I've got very little sympathy.

[Que]

The new game in town: is it over yet and can we move on?

End mass jabs and live with Covid, says ex-head of vaccine taskforce (Guardian/Observer)

In my mind , the anwer is given by Eleanor Riley, professor of immunology and infectious disease at the University of Edinburgh: "Everything depends on whether another variant comes up."

Another take away from this article: more boosters are probably pointless. If Omicron is going to stay, we need a modified vaccine.

[Madiel]

The new game in town: is it over yet and can we move on?

End mass jabs and live with Covid, says ex-head of vaccine taskforce (Guardian/Observer)

In my mind , the anwer is given by Eleanor Riley, professor of immunology and infectious disease at the University of Edinburgh: "Everything depends on whether another variant comes up."

Another take away from this article: more boosters are probably pointless. If Omicron is going to stay, we need a modified vaccine.

I'm a bit curious as to how "end mass jabs" actually matches with "treat it like flu". Because around here we treat flu by... encouraging people to get vaccinated!

[SimonNZ]

I wouldn't fault someone unvaccinated for accidentally getting me sick and I die (though I would fault them if they were not wearing a mask and recklessly coughing on me)- despite me being vaccinated, because I don't get to tell them what they have to put in their body, period. That's their decision. Just stay away from me. I'll wear a mask for myself, do the same please.
Probably a decent summary how I feel. If it were purely selfishness, then I would feel differently.

And I believe that is the gist of the anti-mandate sentiment, if I understand correctly.

My impression is that the anti-vax people and the anti-mask people are a pretty big Venn diagram overlap. And are responding to the same sources of disinformation.

You don't seem to be seeing that.

[Madiel]

I wouldn't fault someone unvaccinated for accidentally getting me sick and I die (though I would fault them if they were not wearing a mask and recklessly coughing on me)

So you fault one kind of recklessness and not another.

Because that's what "recklessness" actually means. It's not about intentionally causing a result, it's about wilfully ignoring the consequences of your actions.

[prémont]

In my mind , the anwer is given by Eleanor Riley, professor of immunology and infectious disease at the University of Edinburgh: "Everything depends on whether another variant comes up."

Another take away from this article: more boosters are probably pointless. If Omicron is going to stay, we need a modified vaccine.

Completely agree, as I wrote some time ago:

Possibly we shall not reach herd immunity until an omikron specific vaccine has been developed. And maybe we shall be in a similar situation next year with an omega variant, which is even more transmissible than the omikron, until also an omega specific vaccine has been developed.

[Mandryka]

Definitely numbers 3 and 5 are frustrating barriers that laws and government policies should deal with. The lack of leave entitlements in the USA in particular is really bad, but then there are also issues for casual employees almost anywhere.  And actual availability of vaccines for those who want them is definitely something that needs to be managed.

Number 2 is highly understandable, I did hear a podcast episode at some point with a black doctor discussing the strategies that were being used to deal with this. Very much focused on making sure it was leaders of the black community urging vaccination, rather than a bunch of white people telling blacks to do it.

1 and 6 are self-centred and misunderstand part of how vaccination works (and also how life in general works). 4 would be laughable for it's lack of historical knowledge about how short "natural" life was, if there wasn't a multi-billion industry built around it.

The point I really wanted to make is that declining the vaccine may not be the best decision people can make, but it is, in some cases, totally understandable. It's not crazy, something to be dismissed out of hand.

[Madiel]

The point I really wanted to make is that declining the vaccine may not be the best decision people can make, but it is, in some cases, totally understandable. It's not crazy, something to be dismissed out of hand.

Yes, I get that. And I would rate at least half of the reasons that you presented as understandable to me personally.

But I would note that those reasons are not the sort of reasons that tend to lead people to go around in full anti-vaxxer mode. Indeed, a couple of them are reasons where the issue is access to the vaccine, not desire to have it.

[Florestan]

End mass jabs and live with Covid, says ex-head of vaccine taskforce (Guardian/Observer)

Last paragraph of the article:

child health expert, Professor Helen Bedford of University College London, warned that there was a danger in lumping diehard anti-vaxxers with people who have nagging doubts about getting a vaccine. "If you do that you will miss the chance to persuade those who have genuine concerns but who could change their minds and get vaccinated. It does not help to criticise them all as talking mumbo-jumbo."

[Mandryka]

Yes, I get that. And I would rate at least half of the reasons that you presented as understandable to me personally.

But I would note that those reasons are not the sort of reasons that tend to lead people to go around in full anti-vaxxer mode. Indeed, a couple of them are reasons where the issue is access to the vaccine, not desire to have it.

This is true.

[vandermolen]

My wife has finally tested negative over two consecutive days so we will go out for a walk today.

[MusicTurner]

My wife has finally tested negative over two consecutive days so we will go out for a walk today.

That's really great to hear - congratulations.

[Que]

Last paragraph of the article:

child health expert, Professor Helen Bedford of University College London, warned that there was a danger in lumping diehard anti-vaxxers with people who have nagging doubts about getting a vaccine. "If you do that you will miss the chance to persuade those who have genuine concerns but who could change their minds and get vaccinated. It does not help to criticise them all as talking mumbo-jumbo."

Agreed. Branding doubters as anti-vaxxers is unfair and counter productive.
Not that is no relation between the two. It is the anti-vaxxers that are trying sowing the seeds of doubt, paranoia and discord amongst the general population, playing into primal fears and using disinformation.

Hopefully, if (and only if) Omicron is the final chapter in this drama, the need for vaccination of the general population will dissappear and we can put this issue to rest. But I'm afraid that in the event of another pandemic, lack of trust in vaccination will become an even bigger problem than this time around.

[Florestan]

That's really great to hear - congratulations.

+1.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

My wife has finally tested negative over two consecutive days so we will go out for a walk today.

Hurrah!  Is she feeling any after-effects, tiredness, etc.?

Enjoy your walk.

I'd be curious to hear from folks here--particularly any Australians as to what they think about the whole Novak Djokovic situation (fighting not to be deported and be allowed to play in the Australian Open).  I've been following the story fairly carefully after it broke.  Without reiterating everything that I've heard and/or read, it seems like a big mess.  Tennis Australia seemed to be going by one set of rules for medical exemptions from being fully vaccinated and being able to get into the park to play vs. what the ABF allows as legitimate reasons for being allowed into the country in the first place.  Novak apparently stated that he had tested positive for Covid in mid-December and had been given a medical exemption by two panels of medical experts (supposedly the experts didn't know who was asking for the exemptions and only a handle were granted).  He then stated on I believe it was his Facebook page that he had been given a ME, but in the time that it took from him to fly from Dubai to Australia with his team, his visa had been revoked.   I had heard also that he applied for the wrong type of visa?

To make a long (and getting longer) story short, he is now in a "hotel" along with asylum seekers (some of whom have, it seems, been there for YEARS) and at least one other tennis player (rounded up after she had already been playing tennis in Australia for a week).

All kinds of questions here including how come other people managed to get through customs if they had also been given MEs for the same reason as Novak in the first place?  Why would the TA medical experts give out exemptions to tennis players as apparently Craig Tiley had asked questions to the Australian health department and from what I understand been told back in November that everyone had to be *double-jabbed...and then there's also confusion as to how the Victorian government was  involved, if at all, with all of this too.  From what I understand, CT is saying that he received conflicting information from the federal government (I'm having trouble accessing the latest stories at the moment).

*Or have other legitimate medical reasons for not having been fully vaccinated....and I believe then would need to self-quarantine for two weeks?  Non-legitimate including having had tested positive for Covid within the past 6 months.

Can anyone here shed further light on the above?  And last I heard, Novak's lawyers launched an appeal; that will happen at 10 a.m. Monday (Australian time).

Novak had skirted around his vaccination status for ages, and for whatever reason, didn't want to get vaccinated.  From what I've heard, many Australians are furious with him for not getting vaccinated and then wanting to come into Australia--particularly after all of the lock-downs.  I would appreciate any news and/or impressions from what you've heard/read.

PD

[Todd]

Last paragraph of the article:

child health expert, Professor Helen Bedford of University College London, warned that there was a danger in lumping diehard anti-vaxxers with people who have nagging doubts about getting a vaccine. "If you do that you will miss the chance to persuade those who have genuine concerns but who could change their minds and get vaccinated. It does not help to criticise them all as talking mumbo-jumbo."

Not at all coincidentally, people I know who work in health care have expressed grave concerns about vaccinating young children as a matter of course - and these are adults who have been fully vaccinated, I hasten to add - yet when one turns to the corporate press, the unrelenting propaganda has it that young children really ought to be vaccinated.

Such thinking, combined with misinformation, can seep into the thinking of the allegedly best and brightest, who have the power to influence what happens to tens of millions of people: Justice Sotomayor incorrect on 'serious' child COVID-19 cases