Virtually no one left to vaccinate in Portugal: 98% of those eligible vaccinated(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Virtually no one left to vaccinate in Portugal: 98% of those eligible vaccinated
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/world/europe/portugal-vaccination-rate.html
98 comments
> how safe it felt
Some feel safe when they see that people are attentive - and only when people are attentive. Masks, sanitizers and checks are a formal practice that can easily be overlaid on radically dumb individuals and masses (for example, through conformity). That the acts are there, but not the presence, is still in the family of "superstition" (the ideas that survive their forgotten grounds and reasons).
Only minutes ago "a friend of mine" was forced to partial exposure because somebody in the street wanted to have a conversation, but while smoking, so mask on the chin: that means not having understood one meagre shard. This is not root-wise the behaviour of those who remove the mask when they want to speak and put it back when they have finished, which is more of a sign of deficiency of quantitative intelligence: it is instead a sign of defective presence to general contexts and specific situations - of shallow assimilation, together with radical inattentiveness. Very many people here show that.
Other words could be spent for those who assume that vaccination equals immunity (hence behave irresponsibly).
One will feel safe when the population will pass the basics of understanding their own behaviour.
And it is not just about epidemics.
Some feel safe when they see that people are attentive - and only when people are attentive. Masks, sanitizers and checks are a formal practice that can easily be overlaid on radically dumb individuals and masses (for example, through conformity). That the acts are there, but not the presence, is still in the family of "superstition" (the ideas that survive their forgotten grounds and reasons).
Only minutes ago "a friend of mine" was forced to partial exposure because somebody in the street wanted to have a conversation, but while smoking, so mask on the chin: that means not having understood one meagre shard. This is not root-wise the behaviour of those who remove the mask when they want to speak and put it back when they have finished, which is more of a sign of deficiency of quantitative intelligence: it is instead a sign of defective presence to general contexts and specific situations - of shallow assimilation, together with radical inattentiveness. Very many people here show that.
Other words could be spent for those who assume that vaccination equals immunity (hence behave irresponsibly).
One will feel safe when the population will pass the basics of understanding their own behaviour.
And it is not just about epidemics.
FYI, not all the countries in the UK have the same mask behaviour - the mask usage in Scotland is still pretty high.
> I was in Portugal last week and was surprised by how safe it felt.
That may be because you didn't know how many of those around you got their 2nd shot before last spring, and that masks don't significantly help. But it's important how you "feel", I get that.
"Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine antibodies gone by 7 months for many" - https://news.trust.org/item/20211001194329-xkwip
You may sometime want to consider the cost of government policies that has to be borne by other, unwilling participants in those schemes.
That may be because you didn't know how many of those around you got their 2nd shot before last spring, and that masks don't significantly help. But it's important how you "feel", I get that.
"Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine antibodies gone by 7 months for many" - https://news.trust.org/item/20211001194329-xkwip
You may sometime want to consider the cost of government policies that has to be borne by other, unwilling participants in those schemes.
It may be that they feel safe because they are about as safe as before COVID existed. When I have examined the data of countries compared to their vaccination rate the substantially lower death rate has been very clear. Israel's quick Pfizer roll out had additional break through cases, but continued spread primarily cost non-vaccinated lives. For the rest of us we have a different flu season now.
the article in passing mentions the key difference. People in Portugal don't pathologically question every source of authority. If you had trotted out a military general in uniform in the US talking about the war against vaccines one hour later every talk radio host would have started ranting about how the military has been undermined by the deep state and so on.
Conspiracy logic cannot be argued with because if commitment is strong enough everything that is seen as contrary evidence is just incorporated. "Oh great, now they're pretending they're apolitical!" etc. You've seen it already with other military personnel on different issues.
Also the culture in continental Europe vis-a-vis the military is entirely different. It's not that it's less political but more so, a lot of European countries even in very relative history have been governed by military authority at times. one only needs to look at the shocked "army in the streets" articles after every terror attack in the english-speaking press. I don't think this can be transplanted to the US.
Conspiracy logic cannot be argued with because if commitment is strong enough everything that is seen as contrary evidence is just incorporated. "Oh great, now they're pretending they're apolitical!" etc. You've seen it already with other military personnel on different issues.
Also the culture in continental Europe vis-a-vis the military is entirely different. It's not that it's less political but more so, a lot of European countries even in very relative history have been governed by military authority at times. one only needs to look at the shocked "army in the streets" articles after every terror attack in the english-speaking press. I don't think this can be transplanted to the US.
We are also allergic to anything else that brings memories from pre-1974 days.
If someone would try to make too much of right wing kind of stuff, "April never again" would be chanted on the streets.
Unfortunately, when my generation is gone, that kind of resistance will be gone as well.
If someone would try to make too much of right wing kind of stuff, "April never again" would be chanted on the streets.
Unfortunately, when my generation is gone, that kind of resistance will be gone as well.
> Also the culture in continental Europe vis-a-vis the military is entirely different. It's not that it's less political
In this case, it is. Now that the Vice-Admiral is done with the vaccinations, all he wants is to be promoted to Admiral (which led to a kerfuffle between the President and the Government). He wants no political post whatsoever.
In fact, there was a doctor ahead of vaccination task force before, but he was pushed aside after supporting one of the losing candidates for president.
In this case, it is. Now that the Vice-Admiral is done with the vaccinations, all he wants is to be promoted to Admiral (which led to a kerfuffle between the President and the Government). He wants no political post whatsoever.
In fact, there was a doctor ahead of vaccination task force before, but he was pushed aside after supporting one of the losing candidates for president.
Are you trying to suggest that questioning authority figures is a flaw?
Anything taken to excess is a flaw. parent comment said "pathologically question", do not deliberately misinterpret.
This is a no true Scotsman statement. Questioning authority is okay as long as it’s just questioning, but any question can be dismissed as pathological questioning and forbidden.
If you want to use some qualification of ‘pathologically questioning’ you’ll have to define what it is. So it’s clear what kind of questions you want forbidden.
If you want to use some qualification of ‘pathologically questioning’ you’ll have to define what it is. So it’s clear what kind of questions you want forbidden.
This is a no true "no true Scotsman" statement: yet there are Scotsmen; there are still always excess of anything; despite the caveat that this can be abused as "any question can be dismissed as pathological". Do not overthink it into pretzel-logic. My other comment outlines the situation that I think clearly qualifies.
So your argument is that the no true Scotsman fallacy is not a fallacy because Scotsmen do in fact exist?
It would be nice to state in advance that you have abandoned logic and that any discussion with you is pointless.
It would be nice to state in advance that you have abandoned logic and that any discussion with you is pointless.
It's that claiming everything is a fallacy is a pointless distraction. it's not _always_ a falacy.
As I said, "Anything taken to excess is a flaw" - there is always a limit somewhere. That does not in itself make everything "no true scotsman!"
As I said, "Anything taken to excess is a flaw" - there is always a limit somewhere. That does not in itself make everything "no true scotsman!"
At what point does questioning of authority figures become "pathological"? Who decides where that line is drawn?
My reply to that is already present here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28736407
But nobody is "pathologically questioning" anything around vaccines, regardless of what some people may wish to believe. The questions are all very much relevant, on point and - given the untrustworthy nature of public health authorities up to this point - necessary to ask.
> But nobody is "pathologically questioning" anything around vaccines, regardless of what some people may wish to believe.
When the USA is having massive numbers of deaths and severe lasting illnesses, due to refusal to take the safe and effective vaccines and other necessary precautions, this opinion is just not tenable.
It's literally causing deadly disease, at scale. If that's not classifiable as "pathological", then I don't know what is.
When the USA is having massive numbers of deaths and severe lasting illnesses, due to refusal to take the safe and effective vaccines and other necessary precautions, this opinion is just not tenable.
It's literally causing deadly disease, at scale. If that's not classifiable as "pathological", then I don't know what is.
It is a documented fact that medical authorities in the United States lied to the American people to manipulate their COVID-related behavior.
Specifically, Dr. Fauci discouraged people from wearing masks, not because there was a shortage and they needed to be saved for front-line medical workers (the real reason), but because - he claimed at the time - they were not particularly effective.
"When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And often there are unintended consequences. People keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face."
At this point, it is dishonest to characterize Americans' distrust of medical authority as pathological. The distrust is well and truly deserved.
Specifically, Dr. Fauci discouraged people from wearing masks, not because there was a shortage and they needed to be saved for front-line medical workers (the real reason), but because - he claimed at the time - they were not particularly effective.
"When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And often there are unintended consequences. People keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face."
At this point, it is dishonest to characterize Americans' distrust of medical authority as pathological. The distrust is well and truly deserved.
Nations that are almost fully vaccinated are having to lock back down because the vaccine is useless in stopping transmission.
> the vaccine is useless in stopping transmission.
This is factually incorrect. it is dangerous scaremongering to say "the vaccine is useless".
"imperfect" not the same as "useless". This is simplistic, binary, "all or nothing" thinking that should have no place in this discussion. As stated before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28699570
This is factually incorrect. it is dangerous scaremongering to say "the vaccine is useless".
"imperfect" not the same as "useless". This is simplistic, binary, "all or nothing" thinking that should have no place in this discussion. As stated before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28699570
This is circular logic. You're quoting claims by the same authorities that have been making false claims since the beginning, as a way to attack anyone who questions claims by those same authorities.
Ok, you don't want the health authorities, virologists and experts in pandemics to answer your legit questions about vaccines.
Who do you think that has earned the stripes and the authority to answer your questions then?
FOX news?, a Russian troll farm?, Beyonce?, Jesus?
Please propose somebody that you would trust and why you think that should be seen as an expert in this field, so we can solve this obstacle and move on with our lives.
Who do you think that has earned the stripes and the authority to answer your questions then?
FOX news?, a Russian troll farm?, Beyonce?, Jesus?
Please propose somebody that you would trust and why you think that should be seen as an expert in this field, so we can solve this obstacle and move on with our lives.
It would be nice to have trustworthy authorities to answer these questions, but it appears they don't exist. Virologists in particular seem to have spent most of their time covering up evidence that SARS-CoV-2 came from one of their own labs: the exact opposite of the behaviour they should have been engaged in.
Given the absence of that, it is sufficient for people to make their own decisions based on whatever sources they personally find adequate. There is no need for fights over which organization gets to be the anointed provided of truth.
Personally, I don't feel a need for any of these self-proclaimed "experts". The data from public statistics is clear enough, as is evidence collected by talking to people around me.
Given the absence of that, it is sufficient for people to make their own decisions based on whatever sources they personally find adequate. There is no need for fights over which organization gets to be the anointed provided of truth.
Personally, I don't feel a need for any of these self-proclaimed "experts". The data from public statistics is clear enough, as is evidence collected by talking to people around me.
> somebody that you would trust
Presumably, a whole society, even in limited though adequate number, of experts who are capable of reassuring by asking the same questions the subject may raise, and providing convincing answers, and by avoiding acting with the most unconvincing signals. "The incumbent shall have an elephant detector and will positively and publicly acknowledge and properly assess all the specimens found in the rooms s/he will be assigned to".
Presumably, a whole society, even in limited though adequate number, of experts who are capable of reassuring by asking the same questions the subject may raise, and providing convincing answers, and by avoiding acting with the most unconvincing signals. "The incumbent shall have an elephant detector and will positively and publicly acknowledge and properly assess all the specimens found in the rooms s/he will be assigned to".
Its a start at least, but that's still very vague. Can you specify more?
No prob. I did not mean to be vague, I wanted to specify the principles.
Suppose that John was waiting for the availability of some treatment. Then John is reached by information about side effects of concern. It is normal that John will see something outside initial expectations ("a few days of distress owing to bodily reaction") around him (say, persistent inconveniences of some, maybe a few critical occurrences of somebody else - "Mary has been itching for three months", "Lucy's mother fell out of the window"), and by looking for further information he will reach extreme but unreliable information ("Anon wrote on a web billboard his cousin caught fire within four days of inoculation"). The expectation of John will probably be that these cases will be actively explained by theory and assessed case by case, at least in a representative sample (e.g. subject to active monitoring). What he will encounter will easily be worlds with little and scarcely effective inter-communication: publications for academics containing large number of pages relevant to general topic but none apparently assessing the questions emerging from his experience; "renegade" researchers speaking of toxicity; no mention of said toxicity elsewhere. Adding to that, the scenario is made more complex and/or confusing through the message of articles like "The final nail in the coffin of medical research";, through increasing diffusion of lapidary password constructs (take 'safe and effective' - which is not per se meaningful as its two members are not absolute, yet it is proposed (even here, nearby) as a final judgement); through the usual lunatics making extraordinary claims; through a public debate that obsessively refers to the usual lunatics, factually honouring them as The Interlocutors of choice; through censorship (Lex Fridman denounced it and went on to say that at the MIT researchers have started preferring to remain quiet and silent); through the extension of the same into principles that e.g. forbid the statement that 'vaccines are dangerous' (YouTube), which is a complete reinvention of the language, so even the common ground of communication is gone (as now for "dangerous" an arbitrary threshold is set and in the new vernacular fighting for dominance paracetamol, water, the sun are not dangerous anymore); through a defence of a principle of responsibility about the consequences of how a tick and a mouse may interpret your words (but not the consequences of how intellectual profession and principles bend under the weights of a tick and a mouse).
In all of that John will continue wondering "how and why had Mary been itching for months, and why was not that brought clearly to topic: all of that cannot be normal". John will not only expect explanations that put his experience into theoretical context, but also a slice of some system in which problematic experience is treated as expected: as something pending waiting for answers.
--
Edit: your post now reads, «Its a start at least, but that's still very vague»: you must have edited while I was writing: you know this is not the original poster writing, right?
Suppose that John was waiting for the availability of some treatment. Then John is reached by information about side effects of concern. It is normal that John will see something outside initial expectations ("a few days of distress owing to bodily reaction") around him (say, persistent inconveniences of some, maybe a few critical occurrences of somebody else - "Mary has been itching for three months", "Lucy's mother fell out of the window"), and by looking for further information he will reach extreme but unreliable information ("Anon wrote on a web billboard his cousin caught fire within four days of inoculation"). The expectation of John will probably be that these cases will be actively explained by theory and assessed case by case, at least in a representative sample (e.g. subject to active monitoring). What he will encounter will easily be worlds with little and scarcely effective inter-communication: publications for academics containing large number of pages relevant to general topic but none apparently assessing the questions emerging from his experience; "renegade" researchers speaking of toxicity; no mention of said toxicity elsewhere. Adding to that, the scenario is made more complex and/or confusing through the message of articles like "The final nail in the coffin of medical research";, through increasing diffusion of lapidary password constructs (take 'safe and effective' - which is not per se meaningful as its two members are not absolute, yet it is proposed (even here, nearby) as a final judgement); through the usual lunatics making extraordinary claims; through a public debate that obsessively refers to the usual lunatics, factually honouring them as The Interlocutors of choice; through censorship (Lex Fridman denounced it and went on to say that at the MIT researchers have started preferring to remain quiet and silent); through the extension of the same into principles that e.g. forbid the statement that 'vaccines are dangerous' (YouTube), which is a complete reinvention of the language, so even the common ground of communication is gone (as now for "dangerous" an arbitrary threshold is set and in the new vernacular fighting for dominance paracetamol, water, the sun are not dangerous anymore); through a defence of a principle of responsibility about the consequences of how a tick and a mouse may interpret your words (but not the consequences of how intellectual profession and principles bend under the weights of a tick and a mouse).
In all of that John will continue wondering "how and why had Mary been itching for months, and why was not that brought clearly to topic: all of that cannot be normal". John will not only expect explanations that put his experience into theoretical context, but also a slice of some system in which problematic experience is treated as expected: as something pending waiting for answers.
--
Edit: your post now reads, «Its a start at least, but that's still very vague»: you must have edited while I was writing: you know this is not the original poster writing, right?
> Your post now reads, «Its a start at least, but that's still very vague»: you must have edited while I was writing: you know this is not the original poster writing, right?
Just for the record. The original post was: "This is still very vague, can you specify more?"
I think that it sounded a little harsh and I was not the meaning that I wanted to express so I changed it. Is this a problem to you?
Just for the record. The original post was: "This is still very vague, can you specify more?"
I think that it sounded a little harsh and I was not the meaning that I wanted to express so I changed it. Is this a problem to you?
No harshness was perceived on the first formulation; the second one with «Its a start at least», creates doubts about "what exactly missed a start, what remained unexplained before that partial disclosure". Among the tentative interpretations of those doubts was that you may have understood that the original poster was replying clarifying his own position, as you elicited.
There is little hidden about what is unconvincing in the situation. I just submitted an article from The Atlantic, "The Myth That Democracies Bungled the Pandemic" (they do not, to the reading of some data by that author), https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28748382 , and in providing a few quotations in the opening post I noted a there reported statement from Francis Fukuyama:
> it is not necessarily democracy but “whether citizens trust their leaders, and whether those leaders preside over a competent and effective state” that is crucial to defeating a pandemic
This is another way to express the issue, and another formulation of The Reply to a reading of your post as "what does one demand to trust": trustworthiness.
There is little hidden about what is unconvincing in the situation. I just submitted an article from The Atlantic, "The Myth That Democracies Bungled the Pandemic" (they do not, to the reading of some data by that author), https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28748382 , and in providing a few quotations in the opening post I noted a there reported statement from Francis Fukuyama:
> it is not necessarily democracy but “whether citizens trust their leaders, and whether those leaders preside over a competent and effective state” that is crucial to defeating a pandemic
This is another way to express the issue, and another formulation of The Reply to a reading of your post as "what does one demand to trust": trustworthiness.
Sadly, at this point even some published NIH scientists think that the figureheads that dictate the policy on TV have lost the plot (since Delta).
That's what I've been told in a private conversation by a published researcher at NIH, who does mRNA research for therapeutic vaccines.
I don't know what to think of this. Known him for years. I don't think he has any motive here, and he is also fully vaccinated, so no antivaxx angle either.
That's what I've been told in a private conversation by a published researcher at NIH, who does mRNA research for therapeutic vaccines.
I don't know what to think of this. Known him for years. I don't think he has any motive here, and he is also fully vaccinated, so no antivaxx angle either.
I always thought the US should have been harnessing ad agencies and Hollywood production companies in its public outreach for covid. Instead I think it overrelied on basically politicians or administrative heads of various govt depts appointed by politicians.
> Hollywood production companies
I don’t disagree that messaging in the US about Covid could have been improved. But I think there’s a reasonable chunk of the population that would assume malicious intent (or at least political intent) in anything coming out of Hollywood. And there might be a fair amount of overlap with folks currently hesitant or outright refusing the vaccine.
I’d be interested in a historian’s take on messaging re: Covid in comparison with messaging re: polio or the like. I think there will be a lot of scholarship in sociology and public health about Covid in the years to come.
I don’t disagree that messaging in the US about Covid could have been improved. But I think there’s a reasonable chunk of the population that would assume malicious intent (or at least political intent) in anything coming out of Hollywood. And there might be a fair amount of overlap with folks currently hesitant or outright refusing the vaccine.
I’d be interested in a historian’s take on messaging re: Covid in comparison with messaging re: polio or the like. I think there will be a lot of scholarship in sociology and public health about Covid in the years to come.
This site is interesting on the history. https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/history-a...
To be clear I wasn’t bringing up Hollywood to get celebrities, I was just thinking higher production value public information spots. I don’t think there would be any added particular pushback there - no one rejects high production value Marvel movies just because they from Hollywood.
I think many people didn't expect US vaccination to be as difficult as it has turned out to be. Anti-vaccine sentiment existed before covid but in a smaller proportion (at least in my eyes). Using hindsight I agree with you and think that could have been more effective.
I’ve wondered this often during the crisis. Normally, to me anyway, in crisis, politicians fall back on a toolbox of propaganda.
I’ve been waiting on the, “Anti- vaccination is un-American. And the conspiracy theories are all a (Russian/Chinese/Iranian) plot to undermine our way of life,” rhetoric. But it never came along.
I’ve been waiting on the, “Anti- vaccination is un-American. And the conspiracy theories are all a (Russian/Chinese/Iranian) plot to undermine our way of life,” rhetoric. But it never came along.
I don't think the current social elites in america could bring themselves to say 'un-american' like that.
Un-american is considered a virtue by current society though.
The propaganda is there, it's just sufficiently well evolved that you can't see it. It even works as you say it does, which is amazing.
Consider the way that Biden keeps blaming lockdowns and government measures on the unvaccinated. He keeps saying, everything can go back to normal, if only those annoying unvaccinated people get the jab. Literally "the unvaccinated are undermining our way of life", as you put it. But that's illogical because if the vaccines worked, there'd be no need for any more measures. People could decide to take it or not and deal with the consequences themselves. Health insurers could take it into account in their premium calculations, if necessary.
Instead they are keeping the measures and using them as an excuse to pit Americans against each other. In reality the measures will never end until people collectively insist they are removed. Israel is a good demonstration of what happens in a country with high levels of compliance: over a million people who thought they were vaccinated, are now having their passes revoked, because they didn't get a booster shot. How many "boosters" are necessary for this particular vaccine? Probably an infinite number. They certainly are not any way to restore life to normal given government attitudes so far.
Consider the way that Biden keeps blaming lockdowns and government measures on the unvaccinated. He keeps saying, everything can go back to normal, if only those annoying unvaccinated people get the jab. Literally "the unvaccinated are undermining our way of life", as you put it. But that's illogical because if the vaccines worked, there'd be no need for any more measures. People could decide to take it or not and deal with the consequences themselves. Health insurers could take it into account in their premium calculations, if necessary.
Instead they are keeping the measures and using them as an excuse to pit Americans against each other. In reality the measures will never end until people collectively insist they are removed. Israel is a good demonstration of what happens in a country with high levels of compliance: over a million people who thought they were vaccinated, are now having their passes revoked, because they didn't get a booster shot. How many "boosters" are necessary for this particular vaccine? Probably an infinite number. They certainly are not any way to restore life to normal given government attitudes so far.
> But that's illogical because if the vaccines worked, there'd be no need for any more measures.
Your logic seems short there. People are still falling ill and filling up hospitals, and these are primarily the unvaccinated. If the vaccine workee and everyone took it then we can reduce the restrictions, oh hey this is a comment thread about a country that's doing exactly that... does that mean the vaccine is working? Zomg!
Imagine a row of houses, and the ones at the left side are on fire. Firefighters are spraying the houses from the right with retardant so they will only be slightly charred if the fire reached them. In my mind whar you're proposing is analogous to wanting the firefighters to stop spraying the stuff after 60% of the houses got the spray.
Your logic seems short there. People are still falling ill and filling up hospitals, and these are primarily the unvaccinated. If the vaccine workee and everyone took it then we can reduce the restrictions, oh hey this is a comment thread about a country that's doing exactly that... does that mean the vaccine is working? Zomg!
Imagine a row of houses, and the ones at the left side are on fire. Firefighters are spraying the houses from the right with retardant so they will only be slightly charred if the fire reached them. In my mind whar you're proposing is analogous to wanting the firefighters to stop spraying the stuff after 60% of the houses got the spray.
"People are still falling ill and filling up hospitals, and these are primarily the unvaccinated"
Most of the stats claiming this are heavily manipulated, for example by using "everyone since the start of the epidemic" as the denominator for unvaccinated people. The US agencies have been especially bad at this, with their 99% claims (not at all true, as their own leaked documents show). Stats that don't play this kind of game show a much less convincing effectiveness.
But even if your point were completely true, it has nothing to do with logic. It's just the latest talking point that will be gone in five minutes. Hospital demand has always been built out to meet demand. If unvaccinated people end up in hospital more often, they could just be charged more via insurers to pay for the additional capacity, same as the obese or those who smoke and get lung cancer or those who do extreme sports. There is no actual reason to force everyone to take a vaccine to manage hospital capacity, and in fact places with relatively low vaccination rates are not experiencing a hospital crisis of any kind (see: Switzerland).
And even if you don't agree with that last paragraph, it's irrelevant because the topic we're discussing in this sub-thread is whether there's been government propaganda! And there certainly has been, vast amounts of it, it's just effective enough that some people can't see it for what it is. The unvaccinated are systematically demonized by governments and painted as dangerous including to the vaccinated, which is upside-down world thinking. It's no different to how people were described as "un-American" when they opposed the war in Iraq.
Most of the stats claiming this are heavily manipulated, for example by using "everyone since the start of the epidemic" as the denominator for unvaccinated people. The US agencies have been especially bad at this, with their 99% claims (not at all true, as their own leaked documents show). Stats that don't play this kind of game show a much less convincing effectiveness.
But even if your point were completely true, it has nothing to do with logic. It's just the latest talking point that will be gone in five minutes. Hospital demand has always been built out to meet demand. If unvaccinated people end up in hospital more often, they could just be charged more via insurers to pay for the additional capacity, same as the obese or those who smoke and get lung cancer or those who do extreme sports. There is no actual reason to force everyone to take a vaccine to manage hospital capacity, and in fact places with relatively low vaccination rates are not experiencing a hospital crisis of any kind (see: Switzerland).
And even if you don't agree with that last paragraph, it's irrelevant because the topic we're discussing in this sub-thread is whether there's been government propaganda! And there certainly has been, vast amounts of it, it's just effective enough that some people can't see it for what it is. The unvaccinated are systematically demonized by governments and painted as dangerous including to the vaccinated, which is upside-down world thinking. It's no different to how people were described as "un-American" when they opposed the war in Iraq.
> "People are still falling ill and filling up hospitals, and these are primarily the unvaccinated"
> Most of the stats claiming this are heavily manipulated
Are you saying the states taking the extraordinary steps of rationing hospital care because of capacity problems don't really have full hospitals but are letting patients die based on manipulated stats? That...is an extraordinary claim that needs some support more than vague handwaving.
> Most of the stats claiming this are heavily manipulated
Are you saying the states taking the extraordinary steps of rationing hospital care because of capacity problems don't really have full hospitals but are letting patients die based on manipulated stats? That...is an extraordinary claim that needs some support more than vague handwaving.
You're mixing up two separate things.
1. The hospitals that are busy firing health workers due to vaccine mandates are having capacity problems? Of course they are. That's an inevitable consequence of reducing staffing at a time when you need more. It's the result of bad government policy.
2. Statistical claims being manipulated. Consider the claim that 99% of hospitalizations are in the unvaccinated, made quite recently by US authorities. This stat didn't match stats from any other country, because it was a lie. The CDC's own internal presentations show this, clear as day. See for yourself:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/cdc-breakthrough-infe...
Slide 4. The graph shows that already in May 15% of people hospitalized for COVID were vaccinated. Not 1% at all, although this claim was being made far more recently than May. And, it was climbing quickly, as would be expected from the stats released by other countries.
1. The hospitals that are busy firing health workers due to vaccine mandates are having capacity problems? Of course they are. That's an inevitable consequence of reducing staffing at a time when you need more. It's the result of bad government policy.
2. Statistical claims being manipulated. Consider the claim that 99% of hospitalizations are in the unvaccinated, made quite recently by US authorities. This stat didn't match stats from any other country, because it was a lie. The CDC's own internal presentations show this, clear as day. See for yourself:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/cdc-breakthrough-infe...
Slide 4. The graph shows that already in May 15% of people hospitalized for COVID were vaccinated. Not 1% at all, although this claim was being made far more recently than May. And, it was climbing quickly, as would be expected from the stats released by other countries.
To point 2, of the 99[.5]%:
https://api.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/22/joe-biden/...
So Biden says in July a number which was valid 6 weeks beforehand, before Delta became much more prevalent (feel free to fact-check me there), the PDF in the WaPo URL is from late July. In your conspiracy theorist mind this talking point (he's an old geezer politician using an almost 100% number to shock...) means the government is manipulating statistics across the board.
Yeah ok mate, believe what you want.
https://api.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/22/joe-biden/...
So Biden says in July a number which was valid 6 weeks beforehand, before Delta became much more prevalent (feel free to fact-check me there), the PDF in the WaPo URL is from late July. In your conspiracy theorist mind this talking point (he's an old geezer politician using an almost 100% number to shock...) means the government is manipulating statistics across the board.
Yeah ok mate, believe what you want.
This stat has been repeated many times, but even in July, the figure was completely wrong, as the leaked CDC docs show very clearly.
Yes, I do think that the President of the USA should - when citing statistics about health to justify forcing people to take medical interventions - actually use accurate statistics. And that such stats should not have to come to light through press leaks. Do you disagree?
Yes, I do think that the President of the USA should - when citing statistics about health to justify forcing people to take medical interventions - actually use accurate statistics. And that such stats should not have to come to light through press leaks. Do you disagree?
> You're mixing up two separate things.
> 1. The hospitals that are busy firing health workers due to vaccine mandates are having capacity problems? Of course they are.
You're also mixing things. Sure in your mind these 2 things might be interchangeable, but staff doesn't equal bed. Got any detailed information that links the two? Who knows if the fired staff are even the Covid nurses, or if they're e.g. people who work in the hospital kitchen.
You're also mixing things. Sure in your mind these 2 things might be interchangeable, but staff doesn't equal bed. Got any detailed information that links the two? Who knows if the fired staff are even the Covid nurses, or if they're e.g. people who work in the hospital kitchen.
Will you address point (2)?
Bed capacity is mostly a synonym for worker capacity. When people talk about hospitals being "full" they don't mean literally physically full - that's why the emergency hospitals that were built never got used even though the press keep telling you that hospitals are overflowing. Here's a random recent example of such an article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/covid-vaccine-mandate-h...
"Across the country, health-care systems that have instituted mandates have seen some workers leave or be terminated over their refusal to get the shot, exacerbating a shortage in skilled nursing and bedside care."
Another: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-york-hospitals-face-sta...
"NEW YORK, Sept 27 (Reuters) - New York hospitals on Monday began firing or suspending healthcare workers for defying a state order to get the COVID-19 vaccine, and resulting staff shortages prompted some hospitals to postpone elective surgeries or curtail services ... Erie County Medical Center in Buffalo suspended elective inpatient surgeries and had stopped accepting intensive-care patients from other hospitals as it prepares to fire hundreds of unvaccinated employees, a spokesman Peter Cutler said."
Note: before they were OK, accepting ICU patients and doing elective surgeries. After: they can't handle electives or ICU intake anymore. That isn't being caused by unvaccinated people getting so sick they're flooding out all the other operations, it's caused by hospitals being forced to shed staff.
At any rate, isolated hospitals can easily run out of staffed beds for many reasons and this is a phenomenon that predates COVID. That's why there are stories about overflowing hospitals from the flu in pre-COVID years. As the article notes there were already problems but this is now making it worse.
So staffing levels are not genuinely a COVID problem, let alone an unvaccinated COVID problem. If it were true that unvaccinated COVID = overflow then it'd be the case everywhere. Look at the Swiss dashboard:
https://www.covid19.admin.ch/en/hosp-capacity/total
COVID utilization is low during the entire pandemic, with ~25% at its peak (but still lots of spare beds, i.e. a lot of these cases are infections of people already there for something else). There has never been a time throughout the whole two years when there wasn't plenty of spare capacity - in fact they've been reducing the number of beds allocated to ICU during 2021 because the level of nursing care required for them is expensive.
Now look at vaccination rate on the same dashboard. Only 64% of the population has even taken one dose. Yet, the hospitals are fine and there are thousands of free beds. There is nothing magical about the Swiss people or hospitals. You can find similar graphs for US regions, I think (I am just less familiar with them). Rather, looking at the raw data tells a very different story to what the press and governments are telling.
Bed capacity is mostly a synonym for worker capacity. When people talk about hospitals being "full" they don't mean literally physically full - that's why the emergency hospitals that were built never got used even though the press keep telling you that hospitals are overflowing. Here's a random recent example of such an article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/covid-vaccine-mandate-h...
"Across the country, health-care systems that have instituted mandates have seen some workers leave or be terminated over their refusal to get the shot, exacerbating a shortage in skilled nursing and bedside care."
Another: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-york-hospitals-face-sta...
"NEW YORK, Sept 27 (Reuters) - New York hospitals on Monday began firing or suspending healthcare workers for defying a state order to get the COVID-19 vaccine, and resulting staff shortages prompted some hospitals to postpone elective surgeries or curtail services ... Erie County Medical Center in Buffalo suspended elective inpatient surgeries and had stopped accepting intensive-care patients from other hospitals as it prepares to fire hundreds of unvaccinated employees, a spokesman Peter Cutler said."
Note: before they were OK, accepting ICU patients and doing elective surgeries. After: they can't handle electives or ICU intake anymore. That isn't being caused by unvaccinated people getting so sick they're flooding out all the other operations, it's caused by hospitals being forced to shed staff.
At any rate, isolated hospitals can easily run out of staffed beds for many reasons and this is a phenomenon that predates COVID. That's why there are stories about overflowing hospitals from the flu in pre-COVID years. As the article notes there were already problems but this is now making it worse.
So staffing levels are not genuinely a COVID problem, let alone an unvaccinated COVID problem. If it were true that unvaccinated COVID = overflow then it'd be the case everywhere. Look at the Swiss dashboard:
https://www.covid19.admin.ch/en/hosp-capacity/total
COVID utilization is low during the entire pandemic, with ~25% at its peak (but still lots of spare beds, i.e. a lot of these cases are infections of people already there for something else). There has never been a time throughout the whole two years when there wasn't plenty of spare capacity - in fact they've been reducing the number of beds allocated to ICU during 2021 because the level of nursing care required for them is expensive.
Now look at vaccination rate on the same dashboard. Only 64% of the population has even taken one dose. Yet, the hospitals are fine and there are thousands of free beds. There is nothing magical about the Swiss people or hospitals. You can find similar graphs for US regions, I think (I am just less familiar with them). Rather, looking at the raw data tells a very different story to what the press and governments are telling.
Apples and oranges much? Nowadays Switzerland requires digitally signed vaccinated/recovered/tested certificates before you go into a lot of places (bars, restaurants, clubs), meanwhile in the red states, where the infection rates are the worst currently, some governments are even banning such restrictions.
So, are you pro restrictions for the unvaccinated, and pro control of public events with such certificates, then?
Also, to clarify, those thousands of free beds in Switzerland are not ICU beds, they don't even have 1000 ICU beds in total: https://www.covid19.admin.ch/en/hosp-capacity/icu . So, don't confuse those 2 either.
So, are you pro restrictions for the unvaccinated, and pro control of public events with such certificates, then?
Also, to clarify, those thousands of free beds in Switzerland are not ICU beds, they don't even have 1000 ICU beds in total: https://www.covid19.admin.ch/en/hosp-capacity/icu . So, don't confuse those 2 either.
No, the vaccine passes are recent and have made no impact. That is visible in the graphs. Nor can they, given that vaccinated people still get sick and spread it. Regardless it's irrelevant to my point: the hospital system was never even close to being collapsed or overwhelmed, even though it's the same virus everywhere.
Obviously I know the graphs are total capacity and not ICU. I even mentioned that. The point is identical if considering ICU beds.
I guess the answer is no, you won't answer point (2).
Obviously I know the graphs are total capacity and not ICU. I even mentioned that. The point is identical if considering ICU beds.
I guess the answer is no, you won't answer point (2).
I think this shit sells itself.
??? What's more political than a Hollywood movie company? How many conservative movies or TV shows have you seen lately?
"I always thought the US should have produced more consoomer-appealing propaganda. We should have had the Avengers tell us to take the vaccine to defeat Thanos-19."
Would you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN? We ban accounts that do that, and you've unfortunately been doing it a ton. That's seriously not cool here—it's destructive of what the site is supposed to be for.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit more to heart, we'd be grateful.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit more to heart, we'd be grateful.
And somehow we didn’t got our freedom back.
For those who could not immediately interpret the number in the title (before reading the article): the vaccinated in Portugal are 88% of the total population, and 98% of those eligible (principally owing to age).
ohcomments(1)
Everyone still wears masks indoors and in built up areas, sanitiser was available everywhere, people checked our vaccination status when sitting indoors.
They're not major points but it definitely felt like people went out of their way to be conscious of others and the virus which is different to how I feel people in the UK treat the virus now (eg mask usage on the tube is virtually non existent).
Most of this is largely anecdotal on my part but I feel countries that continue to do a little now will get long term benefits (eg mandatory mask use in public transport)