Austria to declare nationwide lockdown for unvaccinated people(bnonews.com)
bnonews.com
Austria to declare nationwide lockdown for unvaccinated people
https://bnonews.com/index.php/2021/11/austria-lockdown-for-unvaccinated-people/
280 comments
Litmus test on whether this is about "health" and "science" rather than mindless compliance: are people who already had covid exempt from the lockdown and vaccination? And if not, why not?
They are exempt. It's "2g" rules (geimpft, genesen), so you can have had it or be vaccinated. For clubs and similar they're introducing 2g+ which means you also need a PCR test.
> 2g+
Lost opportunity for some more confusing naming there, like 2gg or 2g+g or perhaps even 2g².
Lost opportunity for some more confusing naming there, like 2gg or 2g+g or perhaps even 2g².
This is, sadly, something the US government is too dumb to copy. More than half the country already had the disease and they pretend it's not the case.
Makes sense to me.
> we don't live in a police state...
Shocking statement that demonstrates more attempt to spin than inform.
Supposing we take the webster dictionary definition of police state: "political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures"
Considering this effects up to 40% of the population according to the article it checks quite a few boxes:
1. Arbitrary: No precedent, first in the world to do so, with no evidence this will solve the problem in total (controlling covid completely).
2. Repressive government control: There's no argument this fits the strictest definition of repressive.
3. Exercise of power by the police: There's no statement they'll use "secret police" but certainly the enforcement will be aggressive and severe to keep 40% of the population locked down. It's not like watching one person's house. That's a lot of people.
For the record, I am not against vaccines. I am however pro bodily autonomy at any cost, for whatever reason, in any condition. The "price to pay in society" isn't to violate your bodily autonomy, and therefore the non-aggression principle, but make a personal decision to avoid or interact with people you disagree with.
It turns out that all it took to test the waters of liberty and free will was deciding what you want to, and what you dont want to, put in your body. You would even think this would be a cut and dry case considering the alleged "libertarian" leanings of HN, but to my surprise it seems many people are willing to sacrifice this fundamental liberty for ephemeral (possibly even negative) gain. We're 2 years into 15 days to flatten the curve. We have all the evidence to show this won't fix anything unless these people are locked down permanently. At that point they may as well be thrown in prisons, or camps, or whatever the dictator says to do. Democracies can't simply hold you down and inject you with chemicals but coercing these people with objectively police state style tactics is the way tyrants dressed as democratic leaders effectively accomplish the same thing.
Shocking statement that demonstrates more attempt to spin than inform.
Supposing we take the webster dictionary definition of police state: "political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures"
Considering this effects up to 40% of the population according to the article it checks quite a few boxes:
1. Arbitrary: No precedent, first in the world to do so, with no evidence this will solve the problem in total (controlling covid completely).
2. Repressive government control: There's no argument this fits the strictest definition of repressive.
3. Exercise of power by the police: There's no statement they'll use "secret police" but certainly the enforcement will be aggressive and severe to keep 40% of the population locked down. It's not like watching one person's house. That's a lot of people.
For the record, I am not against vaccines. I am however pro bodily autonomy at any cost, for whatever reason, in any condition. The "price to pay in society" isn't to violate your bodily autonomy, and therefore the non-aggression principle, but make a personal decision to avoid or interact with people you disagree with.
It turns out that all it took to test the waters of liberty and free will was deciding what you want to, and what you dont want to, put in your body. You would even think this would be a cut and dry case considering the alleged "libertarian" leanings of HN, but to my surprise it seems many people are willing to sacrifice this fundamental liberty for ephemeral (possibly even negative) gain. We're 2 years into 15 days to flatten the curve. We have all the evidence to show this won't fix anything unless these people are locked down permanently. At that point they may as well be thrown in prisons, or camps, or whatever the dictator says to do. Democracies can't simply hold you down and inject you with chemicals but coercing these people with objectively police state style tactics is the way tyrants dressed as democratic leaders effectively accomplish the same thing.
>We have all the evidence to show this won't fix anything unless these people are locked down permanently
At vaccination rates of 60-70% the vaccinated make 1/3rd of new infections (and giving that the vaccinated have less symptoms, one may suppose that the vaccinated rate of infection is even higher than the official 1/3rd), and thus raising the vaccination rate from 70% to 100% would decrease infection rate just 2 times at best, so even locking down unvaccinated permanently would solve nothing. And that too:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y
" A person who was fully vaccinated and then had a ‘breakthrough’ Delta infection was almost twice as likely to pass on the virus as someone who was infected with Alpha."
"Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus."
At vaccination rates of 60-70% the vaccinated make 1/3rd of new infections (and giving that the vaccinated have less symptoms, one may suppose that the vaccinated rate of infection is even higher than the official 1/3rd), and thus raising the vaccination rate from 70% to 100% would decrease infection rate just 2 times at best, so even locking down unvaccinated permanently would solve nothing. And that too:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y
" A person who was fully vaccinated and then had a ‘breakthrough’ Delta infection was almost twice as likely to pass on the virus as someone who was infected with Alpha."
"Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus."
> I am however pro bodily autonomy at any cost, for whatever reason, in any condition.
Do you also oppose the assorted vaccinations that are often treated as a mandatory condition of public school attendance?
Do you also oppose the assorted vaccinations that are often treated as a mandatory condition of public school attendance?
> do you also oppose the assorted vaccines
It's not nice to lump me in with anti-vaxxers but I guess that's how modern politics^W^W^W^W^W^W science is.
I don't take the stance that children have complete autonomy only because it leads to some very strange and disturbing consequences. Therefore, if the parents decide the child should not be vaccinated than I think that's a fine decision. I also think deciding your child should be vaccinated is a fine decision.
Where I draw the line is the prevention of attendance at a learning institution. Since you mentioned public school, then this should either have a distanced option (home schooling, etc) or permit the students regardless. Private institutions may do what they please. Yes, this also goes for public grant-receiving universities, community colleges, etc. Forcing people to manufacturer "exemptions" is simply an end-around to the government enforcing it's will upon people and their choices with their body. It's both immoral and unethical.
It's not nice to lump me in with anti-vaxxers but I guess that's how modern politics^W^W^W^W^W^W science is.
I don't take the stance that children have complete autonomy only because it leads to some very strange and disturbing consequences. Therefore, if the parents decide the child should not be vaccinated than I think that's a fine decision. I also think deciding your child should be vaccinated is a fine decision.
Where I draw the line is the prevention of attendance at a learning institution. Since you mentioned public school, then this should either have a distanced option (home schooling, etc) or permit the students regardless. Private institutions may do what they please. Yes, this also goes for public grant-receiving universities, community colleges, etc. Forcing people to manufacturer "exemptions" is simply an end-around to the government enforcing it's will upon people and their choices with their body. It's both immoral and unethical.
It goes even beyond that: you need proof of vaccination to attend any school in the US. In all 50 states. And it's been that way for 65 years[1].
The "pro bodily autonomy" message is smoke and mirrors, designed to put a palatable glaze on an increasingly fringe and reactionary position.
[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/docs/school-vaccinations.pdf
The "pro bodily autonomy" message is smoke and mirrors, designed to put a palatable glaze on an increasingly fringe and reactionary position.
[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/docs/school-vaccinations.pdf
> The "pro bodily autonomy" message is smoke and mirrors, designed to put a palatable glaze on an increasingly fringe and reactionary position.
There is absolutely nothing fringe about wanting control of your body. This is a modern authoritarian take that is working to undo the last 50 years of increases in bodily freedom for everyone. I obviously won't win against someone espousing left-authoritarian views because neither of us will concede. But I do have some rhetorical things for you:
On "smoke and mirrors" for "an increasingly fringe, reactionary position". Do you think the same about abortion? Or is it, in your mind, okay for that form of bodily autonomy but some forms of bodily autonomy are more okay than others? Do you draw the line where "it harms people"? Who are "people"? It doesn't help you linked the CDC who has a vested interest in talking down the "bodily autonomy" argument as a public policy (public health is typically diametrically opposed to bodily autonomy because public health requires shirking the individual for the "common" good).
Arguing against bodily autonomy is binary. Either you are for bodily autonomy or you are for some level of government control over what people can and can't do with themselves. What I am willing to do to myself is my own business. Why should anyone but me decide?
There is absolutely nothing fringe about wanting control of your body. This is a modern authoritarian take that is working to undo the last 50 years of increases in bodily freedom for everyone. I obviously won't win against someone espousing left-authoritarian views because neither of us will concede. But I do have some rhetorical things for you:
On "smoke and mirrors" for "an increasingly fringe, reactionary position". Do you think the same about abortion? Or is it, in your mind, okay for that form of bodily autonomy but some forms of bodily autonomy are more okay than others? Do you draw the line where "it harms people"? Who are "people"? It doesn't help you linked the CDC who has a vested interest in talking down the "bodily autonomy" argument as a public policy (public health is typically diametrically opposed to bodily autonomy because public health requires shirking the individual for the "common" good).
Arguing against bodily autonomy is binary. Either you are for bodily autonomy or you are for some level of government control over what people can and can't do with themselves. What I am willing to do to myself is my own business. Why should anyone but me decide?
Bodily autonomy is not smoke and mirrors. "Bodily autonomy" qua "I don't want to get a safe and effective vaccine" is smoke and mirrors.
The rest of the post is built on top of your initial incorrect assumption, and isn't worth a line response. Consider, instead, whether there is any meaningful sense in which getting a free and effective vaccine can be reasonably compared to reproductive rights.
The rest of the post is built on top of your initial incorrect assumption, and isn't worth a line response. Consider, instead, whether there is any meaningful sense in which getting a free and effective vaccine can be reasonably compared to reproductive rights.
> "Bodily autonomy" qua "I don't want to get a safe and effective vaccine" is smoke and mirrors.
Effective?
Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7
Vermont sees the biggest surge in COVID cases despite having the country's highest vaccination rate https://fortune.com/2021/08/12/vermont-covid-cases-vaccinati...
Iceland has been a vaccination success. Why is it seeing a coronavirus surge? https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/iceland-covid-su...
99.7% of Waterford adults fully vaccinated against Covid-19 https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40704104.html
Waterford Now Has Highest Incidence of Covid in Ireland https://waterford-news.ie/2021/10/11/waterford-now-has-highe...
76% of September Covid-19 deaths are vax breakthroughs https://vermontdailychronicle.com/2021/09/30/76-of-september...
Safe?
Orange County woman's death after 2nd dose of Moderna vaccine spurs concern from family https://abc7.com/moderna-vaccine-covid-side-effects-orange-c...
CDC says 28 blood clot cases, 3 deaths may be linked to J&J Covid vaccine https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/12/cdc-says-28-blood-clot-cases...
Belgium halts J&J COVID vaccine for under 41s after first EU death https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
COVID-19: Vaccine recipient died of heart attack, CECC says https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2021/06/13/...
'I blame myself for vaccinating wife' https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-newdelh...
Two die in Japan after shots from suspended Moderna vaccines - Japan govt https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
Effective?
Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7
Vermont sees the biggest surge in COVID cases despite having the country's highest vaccination rate https://fortune.com/2021/08/12/vermont-covid-cases-vaccinati...
Iceland has been a vaccination success. Why is it seeing a coronavirus surge? https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/iceland-covid-su...
99.7% of Waterford adults fully vaccinated against Covid-19 https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40704104.html
Waterford Now Has Highest Incidence of Covid in Ireland https://waterford-news.ie/2021/10/11/waterford-now-has-highe...
76% of September Covid-19 deaths are vax breakthroughs https://vermontdailychronicle.com/2021/09/30/76-of-september...
Safe?
Orange County woman's death after 2nd dose of Moderna vaccine spurs concern from family https://abc7.com/moderna-vaccine-covid-side-effects-orange-c...
CDC says 28 blood clot cases, 3 deaths may be linked to J&J Covid vaccine https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/12/cdc-says-28-blood-clot-cases...
Belgium halts J&J COVID vaccine for under 41s after first EU death https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
COVID-19: Vaccine recipient died of heart attack, CECC says https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2021/06/13/...
'I blame myself for vaccinating wife' https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-newdelh...
Two die in Japan after shots from suspended Moderna vaccines - Japan govt https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
Any useful comparison of outcomes would need to consider deaths instead of case rates as we have a well-known more-transmissible variant in play now compared to the beginning of the pandemic. Most of your sources don't do that.
The linked articles regarding Iceland in fact contradict your assertion. They provide a very clear graph of cases over time vs deaths over time and it is trivial to see that during the recent spike in cases, deaths are much lower in proportion compared to earlier spikes, a clear indicator of the vaccine working well.
It is also logical that most COVID cases in places with high vaccination rates are breakthrough cases, there are simply less unvaccinated hosts for the virus to potentially infect. It does not follow that the outcome would be better with less vaccinated hosts.
Finally, you've posted links to 7 deaths and 28 complications following vaccinations. Regardless of the merits of any particular one of those articles - this is scare mongering as it completely ignores that around 5 million people have died from COVID worldwide, while around 3 billion people have been vaccinated safely. (Source- Google searches for worldwide covid deaths and worldwide covid vaccinations).
The linked articles regarding Iceland in fact contradict your assertion. They provide a very clear graph of cases over time vs deaths over time and it is trivial to see that during the recent spike in cases, deaths are much lower in proportion compared to earlier spikes, a clear indicator of the vaccine working well.
It is also logical that most COVID cases in places with high vaccination rates are breakthrough cases, there are simply less unvaccinated hosts for the virus to potentially infect. It does not follow that the outcome would be better with less vaccinated hosts.
Finally, you've posted links to 7 deaths and 28 complications following vaccinations. Regardless of the merits of any particular one of those articles - this is scare mongering as it completely ignores that around 5 million people have died from COVID worldwide, while around 3 billion people have been vaccinated safely. (Source- Google searches for worldwide covid deaths and worldwide covid vaccinations).
It's also important to note that Iceland has a population of 370K and tourists this year will likely peak at about 400-450K (way less than a typical year). Of the 34 deaths attributed to Covid from the beginning of the pandemic in Iceland at least 3 were visiting tourists. All the Icelandic statistics do not differentiate between those living in Iceland and tourists so any calculations based on population will be off.
> an increasingly fringe and reactionary position.
If discussions on HN are any indication, opposition to lockdowns/vaccines is growing and anything but fringe. Risk tolerance is subjective, and the fact that someone's cost benefit analysis aligns against the extreme measures we are seeing does not imply heartlessness. This is not the plague. On the scale of deadly viruses, covid is quite close to a severe flu in terms of mortality/long term effects. It's high time that the moralists started listening to the rapidly growing body of opposition. Clearly this is a curve that we are not going to flatten without extreme measures, if ever given that this is now an endemic virus.
If discussions on HN are any indication, opposition to lockdowns/vaccines is growing and anything but fringe. Risk tolerance is subjective, and the fact that someone's cost benefit analysis aligns against the extreme measures we are seeing does not imply heartlessness. This is not the plague. On the scale of deadly viruses, covid is quite close to a severe flu in terms of mortality/long term effects. It's high time that the moralists started listening to the rapidly growing body of opposition. Clearly this is a curve that we are not going to flatten without extreme measures, if ever given that this is now an endemic virus.
A stance becomes no less valid by being driven to the fringe by a population that is increasingly desperate to find a scapegoat for all of its problems.
The stance was farcical to begin with. You aren't going to get anywhere by trying to walk it out of the fringes.
incrudible(1)
Does this include home school and private schools?
This is not true but it seems to repeated very often.
Why do authorities not want the populace to know about conscientious objections?
Why do authorities not want the populace to know about conscientious objections?
The link I provided includes conscientious objections, and makes it abundantly clear that they are extremely limited in scope. In particular, nearly every state requires (1) a statement in writing, (2) confirmation from a healthcare and/or faith practitioner, and (3) evidence that the belief is genuine and not a transient product of merely political beliefs. Additionally, many states will not accept a "genuine" belief if it is not also the belief of the complainant's faith.
This is also not entirely true. If you have kids going to school turn the vaccine statement paper over. In many states you just sign it.
It is very odd how this misinformation is _vehemently_ stated as fact.
It is very odd how this misinformation is _vehemently_ stated as fact.
Not you specifically but lots of people have tried to conflate restrictions for unvaccinated people to various historical blights including, but not limited to, Jewish persecution in Nazi Germany, South African Apartheid (google the phrase "medical apartheid"), the institution of slavery in the United States and so on.
None of these apply of course for one simple reason: a black person in South Africa can't simply choose not to be black to escape Apartheid. American slaves couldn't simply choose not to be slaves.
So policies that apply to unvaccinated people aren't analogous for the simple reason that you can choose to get vaccinated in almost all cases (side note: the very few people with a valid medical exemption shouldn't be subjected to these kinds of policies IMHO).
So it's not a lack of body autonomy that's going on here. It's just that those choices come with consequences. You don't want to wear a mask? No one is holding you down and putting one on you. But you can't fly on a commercial plane either.
I too believe strongly in body autonomy, which is one reason why I fully support reproductive rights, including access to abortion. What I find particularly ironic is in the Venn diagram there's a seemingly large intersection between the unvaccinated, those who oppose restrictions on unvaccinated people and those who support restricting access to abortions. Again, not you, specifically.
It's worth adding that this isn't purely a personal choice. If it was, I don't think anyone would be upset about it. There are documented cases of contact tracers who can directly establish links between a given person spreading Covid and the deaths that result from that. What about the people who medically cannot get the vaccine? Or are immunocompromised? If you oppose the vaccine because of the extremely low risks of negative side effects, remember your choice affects other people.
It's riskier to drive in a car than to get the Covid vaccine.
The term "body autonomy" here just doesn't apply. "Consequences to personal choices" is far more accurate.
None of these apply of course for one simple reason: a black person in South Africa can't simply choose not to be black to escape Apartheid. American slaves couldn't simply choose not to be slaves.
So policies that apply to unvaccinated people aren't analogous for the simple reason that you can choose to get vaccinated in almost all cases (side note: the very few people with a valid medical exemption shouldn't be subjected to these kinds of policies IMHO).
So it's not a lack of body autonomy that's going on here. It's just that those choices come with consequences. You don't want to wear a mask? No one is holding you down and putting one on you. But you can't fly on a commercial plane either.
I too believe strongly in body autonomy, which is one reason why I fully support reproductive rights, including access to abortion. What I find particularly ironic is in the Venn diagram there's a seemingly large intersection between the unvaccinated, those who oppose restrictions on unvaccinated people and those who support restricting access to abortions. Again, not you, specifically.
It's worth adding that this isn't purely a personal choice. If it was, I don't think anyone would be upset about it. There are documented cases of contact tracers who can directly establish links between a given person spreading Covid and the deaths that result from that. What about the people who medically cannot get the vaccine? Or are immunocompromised? If you oppose the vaccine because of the extremely low risks of negative side effects, remember your choice affects other people.
It's riskier to drive in a car than to get the Covid vaccine.
The term "body autonomy" here just doesn't apply. "Consequences to personal choices" is far more accurate.
You are right, one can not simply choose a racial identity. A more appropriate analogy would be the Inquisition, or perhaps Christian persecution in pagan Rome. Those generally left the option for heretics to renounce their beliefs.
>None of these apply of course for one simple reason: a black person in South Africa can't simply choose not to be black to escape Apartheid. American slaves couldn't simply choose not to be slaves.
so the chinese forcing the Uyghurs to abandon their culture is totally fine, because all they have to do is stop practicing it?
so the chinese forcing the Uyghurs to abandon their culture is totally fine, because all they have to do is stop practicing it?
You've inferred in the opposite direction of the other poster here. They started with conflations and said they didn't apply for a reason. You are starting with the reason and applying it to a conflation.
[deleted]
Conspicuously missing the persecution of Kulaks and Christians, among others, in the Soviet Union. Side note aside, some of those historical blights hinge on the choice of religion / ideology. You'd think that choosing the correct gods to worship is a fairly easy choice. Freedom of thought, freedom of religion? Pshaw, the State knows better what the population must think. For the common good, social harmony, the luminous future, etc, etc, etc...
There is religious and ideological prosecution which one could argue could be freely chosen, so it is only a counter-argument under certain definitions.
> 1. Arbitrary: No precedent, first in the world to do so, with no evidence this will solve the problem in total (controlling covid completely).
This isn't arbitrary at all, its actually extremely common to restrict the participation in society of unvaccinated people - in countries _much_ more free than the United States.
This isn't arbitrary at all, its actually extremely common to restrict the participation in society of unvaccinated people - in countries _much_ more free than the United States.
>I am however pro bodily autonomy at any cost
Me too! Have you figured out how to keep your COVID to yourself?
Me too! Have you figured out how to keep your COVID to yourself?
airza(1)
woodruffw(3)
Can they do Jews next? /s
We've banned this account for repeatedly posting flamebait and unsubstantive comments and ignoring our request to stop. Not cool.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Even with the /s and assuming best intentions, this made me upset. Sorry I'm downvoting and flagging.
"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."
a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls. In egregious cases you can always send a link to [email protected] so we can look into it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls. In egregious cases you can always send a link to [email protected] so we can look into it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Understood!
> The vaccines don't stop people from spreading it though...? (dead comment that deserves a reply)
It is ostensibly for their own good and to prevent the collapse of the healthcare system that, coincidently, has reduced capacity over 2020.
It is ostensibly for their own good and to prevent the collapse of the healthcare system that, coincidently, has reduced capacity over 2020.
Can we find a source for this story reputable enough that the sidebar isn't half "Amber" alerts?
[EDIT:] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/11/world/europe/austria-chan...
[EDIT:] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/11/world/europe/austria-chan...
I think this isn't enough and wrong way to do things. Only true way would be maximum of 24h old test result. Anything else is putting others including vaccinated people in danger.
Listen to yourself. This is insane.
No, if safety is paramount it is the only way. And I don't see it as any more fascist as lockdown for unvaccinated.
You’re worried about vaccinated people being in danger of the thing they’re vaccinated against. Either they work or they don’t.
If vaccinated people aren't in danger they don't need protection from unvaccinated. If they are they also need protection from vaccinated. On other hand willingly unvaccinated are willing to accept the risks, so it should be up to them.
If we want to truly protect those who can't take vaccines testing and lockdowns for those who have not been tested is only way.
If we want to truly protect those who can't take vaccines testing and lockdowns for those who have not been tested is only way.
In Austria until last week PCR tests were deemed adequate. Now they aren't anymore.
Given that the currently available vaccines are all non-sterilising (do not prevent infection and transmission), it is difficult to see this as a measure aimed at controlling transmission.
It is terrifying to me that a government is confining healthy people to their homes for refusing a treatment that they (rightly or wrongly) believe is not in their best interests.
Of course, recorded cases are likely to fall naturally at some point. If the fall is coincident with the introduction of this rule, we can expect the same across the West.
It is terrifying to me that a government is confining healthy people to their homes for refusing a treatment that they (rightly or wrongly) believe is not in their best interests.
Of course, recorded cases are likely to fall naturally at some point. If the fall is coincident with the introduction of this rule, we can expect the same across the West.
If the vaccine would protect against transmission in any way, shouldn't I see a less steep flank when a new wave hits and cases are increasing? I have compared graphs with the same axis configuration and it looks like there is no difference at all. The amplitude of that latest wave is even higher in my country than when people were unvaccinated. Cannot control for factors like behavior. Lockdown rules were almost the same, although I think people take current rules far less serious. If you constantly are having an emergency, it isn't an emergency anymore...
So, it's apparently to protect the hospitals. While I've no idea of the situation in Austria, in most Western European countries ICU occupancy is largely unvaccinated people and severely immunosuppressed people.
So once you're close to ICU capacity you have three options: - Ignore it, likely leading to a lot of deaths. - Full lockdown - Targeted lockdown of the most vulnerable population (similar to 'cocooning' of elderly in the early stages)
Obviously, none of these are great options, but they're the choices a number of places are now facing.
So once you're close to ICU capacity you have three options: - Ignore it, likely leading to a lot of deaths. - Full lockdown - Targeted lockdown of the most vulnerable population (similar to 'cocooning' of elderly in the early stages)
Obviously, none of these are great options, but they're the choices a number of places are now facing.
ICUs are a scarce bonus, not an entitlement. We are talking denying basic human rights to a large segment of healthy people on the off chance that a tiny percent of them will end up populating the tiny number of ICUs available in the country at some point in the future. What's next: obese people, people engaging in sexual promiscuity, smokers, babies with congenital malformations or simply old people? All of these populations have a higher statistical chance to occupy an ICU bed, so we should just ban them from society? WTaF?
> or simply old people?
So, in the early stages of the pandemic, a number of countries did exactly that. Which was, arguably, a lot more unfair; over 80s can't take a de-oldening vaccine.
Ultimately, _if_, and only if, the ICU numbers dictate either locking down the whole population or locking down that fraction of the population who have voluntarily decided to be the main contributors to ICU load... well, it's not a _great_ choice to have to make, certainly, but there's something to be said for locking down fewer people, if that is the choice.
So, in the early stages of the pandemic, a number of countries did exactly that. Which was, arguably, a lot more unfair; over 80s can't take a de-oldening vaccine.
Ultimately, _if_, and only if, the ICU numbers dictate either locking down the whole population or locking down that fraction of the population who have voluntarily decided to be the main contributors to ICU load... well, it's not a _great_ choice to have to make, certainly, but there's something to be said for locking down fewer people, if that is the choice.
Sorry, does not compute. Feel free to do whatever triage you want for the scarce ICU resource. Banning large numbers healthy people form society, of which the vast majority (>99%) will never need an ICU, is something else entirely.
Society forcing people to behave in a certain way is a fundamental aspect of any and all civilizations. At certain points, you rights have to give way for the collective good, especially when people's lives are at stake.
"Social bullying has happened before, so accept it now, as it's for a good cause" is not the best of arguments. Fundamental rights and liberties are fundamental for a reason.
I was pro-lockdown when they first started, but the mandates coming out now don't really make any sense. It seems like politicians are just imposing new restrictions because they need to be seen doing something.
In my (EU) country you need to be vaccinated to go into most shops, restaurants, bars, and beauty services. However you can freely go to your office and not wear a mask. Even the people working in places where as a customer you need to be vaccinated, do not themselves need to be vaccinated.
I'm fully vaccinated, but I have friends who are not. The people who do not want to be vaccinated have their reasons, and I doubt these restrictions which cause mild inconveniences at best (compared to lockdowns like last winter, where some stores were closed for 3 month and you couldn't leave your city) are really going to make them change their mind. If they really want everyone to be vaccinated, they should just come out and say that, then work to get it passed into law.
In my (EU) country you need to be vaccinated to go into most shops, restaurants, bars, and beauty services. However you can freely go to your office and not wear a mask. Even the people working in places where as a customer you need to be vaccinated, do not themselves need to be vaccinated.
I'm fully vaccinated, but I have friends who are not. The people who do not want to be vaccinated have their reasons, and I doubt these restrictions which cause mild inconveniences at best (compared to lockdowns like last winter, where some stores were closed for 3 month and you couldn't leave your city) are really going to make them change their mind. If they really want everyone to be vaccinated, they should just come out and say that, then work to get it passed into law.
>you rights have to give way for the collective good, especially when people's lives are at stake
But when discussions over the degree to which measures actually benefit the collective good are suppressed, both top down (tech censorship) and bottom up (downvotes and social shaming), you are moving into the territory of tyranny/oppression.
But when discussions over the degree to which measures actually benefit the collective good are suppressed, both top down (tech censorship) and bottom up (downvotes and social shaming), you are moving into the territory of tyranny/oppression.
> people to behave in a certain way
This isn't about behavior, unless you mean blindly following authority (in which case those civilizations had huge downsides). This is about a medical treatment for a disease that is objectively not a civilization-ending threat, by any measure.
The problem is forcing people to take a specific medical treatment (it's not about immunity from the virus, it's about the specific treatment ONLY), and using fear as a justification to control society.
What you're calling "collective good" is exactly how past atrocities have happened. Anytime there has been genocide or millions of people getting slaughtered, it's because one side decided it was for the collective good. It's a cliche argument that can go both ways and says nothing about the actual reasons for implementing force across a society.
This isn't about behavior, unless you mean blindly following authority (in which case those civilizations had huge downsides). This is about a medical treatment for a disease that is objectively not a civilization-ending threat, by any measure.
The problem is forcing people to take a specific medical treatment (it's not about immunity from the virus, it's about the specific treatment ONLY), and using fear as a justification to control society.
What you're calling "collective good" is exactly how past atrocities have happened. Anytime there has been genocide or millions of people getting slaughtered, it's because one side decided it was for the collective good. It's a cliche argument that can go both ways and says nothing about the actual reasons for implementing force across a society.
Please stop spreading misinformation.
Vaccines prevent infection, as evidenced by the drastically lower COVID case numbers in the vaccinated. You can’t spread it if you don’t have it. If you do contract it, you are less infectious.
This is no different to instituting lockdowns before vaccines became available.
Vaccines prevent infection, as evidenced by the drastically lower COVID case numbers in the vaccinated. You can’t spread it if you don’t have it. If you do contract it, you are less infectious.
This is no different to instituting lockdowns before vaccines became available.
Covid vaccines cannot 100% prevent infection like polio vaccine. There are papers that talked about vaccinated people with higher load virus for the initial infection. Given vaccinated people tends to display even less symptoms and more asymptomatic, they are able to spread more because more "infectious". If one is severely down with Covid, one will be confine at home or hospital. Hence the OP claims of more infections is correct and it is not spreading misinformation. This is why now healthcare professionals have opt not to use the word "herd immunity" confer by vaccines. Ironically you are actually more inline with spreading misinformation by not clarifying the vaccinated can still be infected and move around way more than severely unvaccinated people. Having say this, I am pro vaccinations. It is still the right and responsibility thing to do.
I'll believe that the vaccine prevents spreading COVID as soon as mask mandates stop applying to vaccinated people.
They did here a month or two ago. They now apply only in areas where vaccinated and unvaccinated people mingle and enforcement would be too much bother.
That's not the case here. I've gone to places where everyone has had to show their vaccine card at the door, but we still had to wear masks inside.
Perhaps the vaccinated won't be required to wear a second mask?
I don't think the "Please stop spreading misinformation." boilerplate is necessarily always hostile and provocative.
In situations where the comment is only aimed at correcting a factual mistake, for example, it can be okay, if still bad style.
It always feels as if it prematurely implies evil intention, which is a move that does not belong in any intellectually honest conversation, neither casual nor scientific.
I don't think the boilerplate should be used in comments that then continue with highly questionable, very radical statements. Especially if heterodox opinions are stated as if they were well established positions.
For example: "This is no different to instituting lockdowns before vaccines became available."
The idea that conditional lockdowns are identical to non-conditional lockdowns from legal, medical or political perspective is not just wrong, but also unnecessarily radical. The radicalism just makes the wrongness trivial to spot.
The position that actually justifies conditional lock-downs (like the new Austrian policy) is one where the discriminatory treatment is acknowledged and justified, not simply denied.
...which should not surprise anyone who somewhat followed the discourse on the issue.
I know that's not as attractive as just denying the existence of differences between two obviously different policies.
In situations where the comment is only aimed at correcting a factual mistake, for example, it can be okay, if still bad style.
It always feels as if it prematurely implies evil intention, which is a move that does not belong in any intellectually honest conversation, neither casual nor scientific.
I don't think the boilerplate should be used in comments that then continue with highly questionable, very radical statements. Especially if heterodox opinions are stated as if they were well established positions.
For example: "This is no different to instituting lockdowns before vaccines became available."
The idea that conditional lockdowns are identical to non-conditional lockdowns from legal, medical or political perspective is not just wrong, but also unnecessarily radical. The radicalism just makes the wrongness trivial to spot.
The position that actually justifies conditional lock-downs (like the new Austrian policy) is one where the discriminatory treatment is acknowledged and justified, not simply denied.
...which should not surprise anyone who somewhat followed the discourse on the issue.
I know that's not as attractive as just denying the existence of differences between two obviously different policies.
Technically, lockdowns before vaccines were available were also lockdowns only for unvaccinated people. There just weren't any vaccinated ones.
Pedantry, I know, but this is HN.
Pedantry, I know, but this is HN.
Naming a difference is not an argument in favour of sameness.
The availability of a vaccine is one of the several ways in which the current Austrian policy is different from earlier lockdowns.
This alone already has direct consequences for the political justification of the policy: In the article OP linked they specifically name vaccination nudges as one of the effects they expect from their conditional lockdown. Which is something that would not have made sense in the absence of vaccines.
Pedantry can have it's upside though, so I'm not complaining! :)
The availability of a vaccine is one of the several ways in which the current Austrian policy is different from earlier lockdowns.
This alone already has direct consequences for the political justification of the policy: In the article OP linked they specifically name vaccination nudges as one of the effects they expect from their conditional lockdown. Which is something that would not have made sense in the absence of vaccines.
Pedantry can have it's upside though, so I'm not complaining! :)
[deleted]
> Vaccines prevent infection, as evidenced by the drastically lower COVID case numbers in the vaccinated.
Vaccines suppress symptoms, which may result in infected people being unaware they are infected or transmitting to others. That's why the CDC recommends (as of October 15) that vaccinated people be tested after exposure, since lack of symptoms != lack of infection, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vac...
> Based on evolving evidence, CDC recommends fully vaccinated people get tested 5-7 days after close contact with a person with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.
Vaccines suppress symptoms, which may result in infected people being unaware they are infected or transmitting to others. That's why the CDC recommends (as of October 15) that vaccinated people be tested after exposure, since lack of symptoms != lack of infection, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vac...
> Based on evolving evidence, CDC recommends fully vaccinated people get tested 5-7 days after close contact with a person with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.
From the first sentence of the intro paragraph of your link:
"COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective at preventing infection."
"COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective at preventing infection."
What do you think this video proves?
It's a record of historical claims of effectiveness, posted in response to a claim of effectiveness.
The problem with this “record” is that people may come to incorrect conclusions from the way the information is presented.
Do these headlines represent revisions to the initial effectiveness? Or do they represent the waning effectiveness over time? What is the point of having Fauci in the video?
Do these headlines represent revisions to the initial effectiveness? Or do they represent the waning effectiveness over time? What is the point of having Fauci in the video?
As with the single sentence to which the video was posted in response, headline interpretation requires further reading.
There’s the problem right there. No conclusions should be drawn from watching that YouTube video, yet it has been created specifically to fool people who will do no further reading. The creator doesn’t care of course. YouTube doesn’t care either.
Well no one cares about spread to vaccinated people. No one truly cares about spread except as it affects the health care system. If everyone was vaccinated, all cases would be mild and life could go on as normal. But unvaccinated people are filling hospitals causing disruption to the healthcare system and that effect snowballs.
How do you know that? If you are reading that from MS news, and if you are just repeating a statement without actual numbers, you are spreading propaganda of those who are interested in promoting the vaccines (aka Big Pharma and the sponsored media). As shown in this thread , IC hospital occupancy was low in France, and I know it was the same in the Netherlands. The current occupancy numbers of vaccinated vs unvaccinated are conveniently undisclosed by the Dutch government.
Dunno, recent stats from my country (Canada) shows that during our last wave, about 90% of our hospital occupancy was unvaccinated people despite them being about 20% of the population.
Perhaps you mean "90% of covid hospitalizations", which is different than "90% of hospitalizations". I've been checking the jhu pages for various US states, never seen covid hospitalization rates above 10-20% and covid ICU utilization rate above 30%.
Right now, using the Rt map from https://covidestim.org, looks like Indiana & Ohio are in the middle of a wave. Covid hospital bed utilization: IN 10%, OH 15%. Covid ICU utilization: IN 20%, OH 20%.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/us/indiana
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/us/ohio
Right now, using the Rt map from https://covidestim.org, looks like Indiana & Ohio are in the middle of a wave. Covid hospital bed utilization: IN 10%, OH 15%. Covid ICU utilization: IN 20%, OH 20%.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/us/indiana
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/us/ohio
Yes, 90% of Covid hospitalizations. According to the stats, Covid isn't dangerous at all to the vaccinated if you're < 80 yrs old.
Then covid medicine would certainly be a more liberal way to go towards; have a remedy available if need be, without being pushed to require vaccines from citizens.
And that'll be great when it's widely available.
I think in a few months we experts can look at this winter cases around the globe and compare the differences between the vaccination rates and other measures and find some conclusions.
No, the goal is to reduce load on the healthcare system. It's well known that the Covid vaccines keep people out of hospital. There's no reason that people should interfere with other people receiving urgently needed medical treatment.
In France, during the whole year 2020, people were told that the hospital infrastructure was overloaded because of COVID.
Actually, the final report shows that COVID patients represented 2% (!!!) of the total hospitalized... And only 5% (!?!?) of what they call "critical care"...
This report from the ATIH (Official agency) was published in october 2021.
The report: https://www.atih.sante.fr/sites/default/files/public/content...
From LCP (a kind of French C-SPAN): https://twitter.com/LCP/status/1458163736175386624
Actually, the final report shows that COVID patients represented 2% (!!!) of the total hospitalized... And only 5% (!?!?) of what they call "critical care"...
This report from the ATIH (Official agency) was published in october 2021.
The report: https://www.atih.sante.fr/sites/default/files/public/content...
From LCP (a kind of French C-SPAN): https://twitter.com/LCP/status/1458163736175386624
How about simply turning away the unvaccinated from hospitals for Covid care? Is that less or more humane than holding them under house arrest?
PS: I think arguments justifying such mandates for avoiding overwhelming of hospitals will further enrage anyone who was already against universal healthcare because it becomes yet another avenue for govt/bureaucratic manipulation of people's lives.
PS: I think arguments justifying such mandates for avoiding overwhelming of hospitals will further enrage anyone who was already against universal healthcare because it becomes yet another avenue for govt/bureaucratic manipulation of people's lives.
That's a political impossibility. Besides - whom to reprioritize? Pick the sickest person, the latest arrival, or what?
There was a case not too long ago in Alabama where a person suffered a heart attack and died because in three dozen hospitals no intensive care bed could be found, so the concern isn't even theoretical.
There was a case not too long ago in Alabama where a person suffered a heart attack and died because in three dozen hospitals no intensive care bed could be found, so the concern isn't even theoretical.
In the US, that would result in severe disparate impact on non-Asian minorities, because Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans are currently the least-vaccinated groups.
Not really politically viable until these numbers equalize.
Not really politically viable until these numbers equalize.
It isn't universal healthcare if you exclude anyone for any reason. It still can be public healthcare with alternatives for private insurance schemes. It would be most unwise to kill universal healthcare because of the threat or costs Covid poses.
Like many things in life, absolute universal healthcare is impossible. At limit it implies life without death and youth without aging. The utopian ideal must contend with the reality that resources are finite and accept tradeoffs.
You have set boundaries for the quality of healthcare, but it isn't utopian to not set any conditions for eligibility of health care. That are two different topics.
In that case, why not just say that unvaccinated people at the hospital because they have COVID will be deprioritized, and dispense with all of the other mandates and stuff with the vaccine?
You jump to random conclusions and "knowingly??" do not outline the whole picture.
What is the estimate of the authoritarian rules of increasing mortality? E.g. by a war? By racial cleaning, by collapse of social structures?
You spread half information and consequently fake. The legislation is there for a reason and you throw it away. You just took a decision for the uncaccinated people by eliminating their freedom. They never did it to you.
What is the estimate of the authoritarian rules of increasing mortality? E.g. by a war? By racial cleaning, by collapse of social structures?
You spread half information and consequently fake. The legislation is there for a reason and you throw it away. You just took a decision for the uncaccinated people by eliminating their freedom. They never did it to you.
[deleted]
> not been double-jabbed will only be allowed to leave their homes for work, school, exercise and buying essential supplies
This makes absolutely no sense. The most terrifying is people actually defending and promoting this kind of orwellian and irrational measures.
This makes absolutely no sense. The most terrifying is people actually defending and promoting this kind of orwellian and irrational measures.
It’s a false dichotomy to claim that they’re non-sterilising. They’re partially sterilising, at to at least 50% effectiveness even after waning. With boosters, it seems that returns to 90%+.
Yeah, the other thing is, sterilising vaccines are possible, they are just harder to research so the initial target for pretty much every vaccine was to reduce hospotalizations and deaths.
I don't know if sterilising vaccins are being researched now though. I heard something about possible nose-spray vaccine that would both improve this and make applications easier. Maybe well see that in near future.
I don't know if sterilising vaccins are being researched now though. I heard something about possible nose-spray vaccine that would both improve this and make applications easier. Maybe well see that in near future.
This is not true, at all. The current crop of vaccines are roughly 95% non-sterilizing.
It IS true that they reduce net transmission, but the literature is clear that the reason is almost exclusively due to how they shorten the duration of carrying. The nasal viral load is virtually identical. The primary factor is how long you're carrying that load for (approximately 11 days vs 8 days from what I can tell from pubmed et al).
Does vaccination help the herd? Sure, but it's pretty limited. The reality is that vaccination mostly protects YOU - it keeps the infection in the top layer of the respiratory epithelium, ensures to a great degree that you won't be hospitalized for deeper tissue damage.
It IS true that they reduce net transmission, but the literature is clear that the reason is almost exclusively due to how they shorten the duration of carrying. The nasal viral load is virtually identical. The primary factor is how long you're carrying that load for (approximately 11 days vs 8 days from what I can tell from pubmed et al).
Does vaccination help the herd? Sure, but it's pretty limited. The reality is that vaccination mostly protects YOU - it keeps the infection in the top layer of the respiratory epithelium, ensures to a great degree that you won't be hospitalized for deeper tissue damage.
Bearing in mind that transmission effectiveness data is only just becoming available from multiple countries, it certainly isn't showing that duration of carrying is the only factor.
Dutch data, for instance, has recently shown substantial reductions in transmission within households, locations where a three day difference in the duration of symptoms is unlikely to have had a major impact. [0]
[0]https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.14.21264959v...
Dutch data, for instance, has recently shown substantial reductions in transmission within households, locations where a three day difference in the duration of symptoms is unlikely to have had a major impact. [0]
[0]https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.14.21264959v...
Good for them.
I wish other governments did the same. We could all work together to get rid of this disease, but this will never happen if we let people that refuse medicine to walk freely contaminating others.
I wish other governments did the same. We could all work together to get rid of this disease, but this will never happen if we let people that refuse medicine to walk freely contaminating others.
The reasoning inside your comment shows the worst kind of obsessive rationalization of truly abnormal, paranoid efforts to mitigate a number that by itself is steadily becoming practically irrelevant. For one thing, COVID will without a doubt become an endemic disease of the human species and is currently impossible to erradícate no matter the forced vaccination programs we throw at it, and secondly, who cares? So long as the virus either mutates into something no worse than seasonal flu and cold viruses, or we adapt to cause us a comparable level of immune protection, its spread and case numbers should be no more relevant than the annual spread of any normal mild flu strain or cold virus was before the absurd 2021 hysteria over raw COVID numbers (not even fatalities or anything that actually has any serious meaning anymore) took hold over millions of people and the politicians who pander to them.
It's sad to see how many otherwise presumably normal people so easily skip away from ideas of basic individual rights for such flimsy reasons now.
It's sad to see how many otherwise presumably normal people so easily skip away from ideas of basic individual rights for such flimsy reasons now.
This is an endemic disease of humans and will never be eradicated.
what data makes you think vaccine prevents spreading ? I haven't found any compelling case that would go in that direction. Number of cases seem totally unrelated to vaccination coverage..
Vaccines reduce spreading, reduce hospitalizations, and reduce serious illness
Saying "the vaccines don't work at all" is IMO equivalent to saying seatbelts don't work at all, they should be abolished, because someone wrecked and died at 200mph while wearing seatbelts.
Saying "the vaccines don't work at all" is IMO equivalent to saying seatbelts don't work at all, they should be abolished, because someone wrecked and died at 200mph while wearing seatbelts.
Seatbelts do work yet the data on vaccines is - in the very few countries that publish the needed data - by now very clear. Only six months after vaccination the vaccinated are actually much more likely to get COVID than the unvaccinated. Yes this sounds wrong but the data is unambiguous. The UK breaks out cases by age and status. For over 30s case rates are now double or higher. Check my comment history for links.
And according to the same UK data, the unvaccinated are much more likely to end up hospitalized or dead. Seems useful.
Of COVID, yes. There are potential problems with these stats too, but the problem I'm trying to tackle here is that people are mis-stating what seems to really be happening with actual infection rates and making invalid comparisons to things like seatbelts.
For the analogy to hold true seatbelts would have to double your chances of actually crashing your car, and also sometimes randomly kill people who hadn't crashed at all (vaccine injuries are a real thing and excess death is now elevated for non-COVID reasons). Clearly the tradeoffs involved here are quite different and statistics need to be used very carefully to assess them.
For the analogy to hold true seatbelts would have to double your chances of actually crashing your car, and also sometimes randomly kill people who hadn't crashed at all (vaccine injuries are a real thing and excess death is now elevated for non-COVID reasons). Clearly the tradeoffs involved here are quite different and statistics need to be used very carefully to assess them.
i've been trying to find precise good data about excessive deaths ( or abnormal increase of peculiar diseases) due to vaccination but so far i haven't. Either the source isn't reliable or the graphs don't really show anything if you're in good faith. And yet there are a large number of people giving personnal testimonies of very bad side effects with relatives (although it could be just people paying more attention)
Do you have any good source ?
Do you have any good source ?
Well, what exactly are you looking for?
There are no sources showing an increase in excess death due to vaccination because the medical and media establishment categorically deny that this could possibly be happening. As far as they're concerned more or less nobody ever dies of the COVID vaccine, period, end of story and any claim to the contrary is misinformation. This attitude is sometimes summed up as "Vaccines are amongst the leading causes of coincidences".
The US VAERS database of course tracks peculiar diseases/symptoms/deaths that follow vaccination. At this point it has more records of adverse events for COVID vaccines than all other vaccines combined since the tracking programme began, but the vast majority of problems never make it to VAERS or similar databases, so the absolute numbers aren't that useful. So the best people can do is inference. There appears to be a sharp increase in deaths due to heart attacks and strokes/other clotting disorders this year. The media are occasionally reporting on this but either claiming it's some inexplicable mystery or coming up with some absurd alternative explanation. Examples:
"Health experts have been left baffled by a big rise [25%] in a common and potentially fatal type of heart attack in the west of Scotland": https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mystery-rise-in-heart-att...
"Why are heart attacks becoming common amongst seemingly fit people?" - their answer is a sudden epidemic of too much exercise: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitnes...
The UK has very good public health data compared to most countries. It breaks out heart related deaths for both with and without COVID. There has been a large rise in non-COVID heart deaths in 2021. Some of this may be/must be due to the (not really admitted) collapse of the UK healthcare system due to lockdown triggered overload. However there is also a correlation with the vaccine rollout (it's graphed):
https://dailysceptic.org/2021/08/31/why-has-there-been-a-ris...
It's a 12x increase. That's either lockdowns or vaccines but whichever it is, that's not a natural cause, it's caused by government policy.
From a quick bit of Googling there seems to be similar data from Israel but I have not checked this tweet in any depth - the tables seem legit but the summarization of it looks backwards to me:
https://twitter.com/RanIsraeli/status/1425002893116166144
Anecdotally there seem to be a noticeably larger number of athletes having heart attacks whilst playing. Example montages of these stories are here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l34v01crsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZAPxYouf-c
I have a friend who is investigating this phenomenon in more depth. He found a research paper from the early 2000s that counted news reports about sudden on-field medical emergencies amongst young sports players, then compared that rate to some big lists of news stories in 2021 about it he compiled. He's still working on this project and hasn't written anything up publicly but so far it seems the rate is 6x higher than normal. Obviously this sort of investigation is limited by several factors, but as public health agencies refuse to investigate or report on this stuff, there's a limit to how far random members of the public can go.
There are no sources showing an increase in excess death due to vaccination because the medical and media establishment categorically deny that this could possibly be happening. As far as they're concerned more or less nobody ever dies of the COVID vaccine, period, end of story and any claim to the contrary is misinformation. This attitude is sometimes summed up as "Vaccines are amongst the leading causes of coincidences".
The US VAERS database of course tracks peculiar diseases/symptoms/deaths that follow vaccination. At this point it has more records of adverse events for COVID vaccines than all other vaccines combined since the tracking programme began, but the vast majority of problems never make it to VAERS or similar databases, so the absolute numbers aren't that useful. So the best people can do is inference. There appears to be a sharp increase in deaths due to heart attacks and strokes/other clotting disorders this year. The media are occasionally reporting on this but either claiming it's some inexplicable mystery or coming up with some absurd alternative explanation. Examples:
"Health experts have been left baffled by a big rise [25%] in a common and potentially fatal type of heart attack in the west of Scotland": https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mystery-rise-in-heart-att...
"Why are heart attacks becoming common amongst seemingly fit people?" - their answer is a sudden epidemic of too much exercise: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitnes...
The UK has very good public health data compared to most countries. It breaks out heart related deaths for both with and without COVID. There has been a large rise in non-COVID heart deaths in 2021. Some of this may be/must be due to the (not really admitted) collapse of the UK healthcare system due to lockdown triggered overload. However there is also a correlation with the vaccine rollout (it's graphed):
https://dailysceptic.org/2021/08/31/why-has-there-been-a-ris...
It's a 12x increase. That's either lockdowns or vaccines but whichever it is, that's not a natural cause, it's caused by government policy.
From a quick bit of Googling there seems to be similar data from Israel but I have not checked this tweet in any depth - the tables seem legit but the summarization of it looks backwards to me:
https://twitter.com/RanIsraeli/status/1425002893116166144
Anecdotally there seem to be a noticeably larger number of athletes having heart attacks whilst playing. Example montages of these stories are here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l34v01crsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZAPxYouf-c
I have a friend who is investigating this phenomenon in more depth. He found a research paper from the early 2000s that counted news reports about sudden on-field medical emergencies amongst young sports players, then compared that rate to some big lists of news stories in 2021 about it he compiled. He's still working on this project and hasn't written anything up publicly but so far it seems the rate is 6x higher than normal. Obviously this sort of investigation is limited by several factors, but as public health agencies refuse to investigate or report on this stuff, there's a limit to how far random members of the public can go.
Ah yeah, links to some random blogs... seems legit. A bit like all the "proof" of Democrats stealing 2020, I just don't have time to debunk them all and I'm just going to assume they're fudging the numbers.
But well, I've spotted something: https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/ukhsa-efficacy-stats-death-..., ages 40-49: the vaxxed are getting sick at twice the rate of unvaxxed ones.
But this image https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/7A0B/production/... from https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55274833 says more than 75% of 40-49 have had 1 dosage.
Imagine if 100% of a population has been vaccinated. We know breakthrough cases are possible. Everyone that gets Covid after that will be breakthrough! And this graph would have 0 cases of the unvaxxed, and a non-zero bar for the vaxxed, and you're going to interpret that as "The vaccination gives you Covid!". The quoted emails try to explain why this graph is bad and liable to misinterpration, but the Substack author is misleading you by telling you there's dodgy stuff going on.
If the vaccine efficacy drops down after 6 months, then, boosters should be prescribed and even made mandatory. But boohoo, more crying from the other side.
But well, I've spotted something: https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/ukhsa-efficacy-stats-death-..., ages 40-49: the vaxxed are getting sick at twice the rate of unvaxxed ones.
But this image https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/7A0B/production/... from https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55274833 says more than 75% of 40-49 have had 1 dosage.
Imagine if 100% of a population has been vaccinated. We know breakthrough cases are possible. Everyone that gets Covid after that will be breakthrough! And this graph would have 0 cases of the unvaxxed, and a non-zero bar for the vaxxed, and you're going to interpret that as "The vaccination gives you Covid!". The quoted emails try to explain why this graph is bad and liable to misinterpration, but the Substack author is misleading you by telling you there's dodgy stuff going on.
If the vaccine efficacy drops down after 6 months, then, boosters should be prescribed and even made mandatory. But boohoo, more crying from the other side.
There are two problems in your understanding.
1. The problem appears when comparing rates. Your counter-argument is assuming we're comparing absolute numbers which is false.
2. The argument about "data fudging" is the other way around. The raw data shows sharply negative effectiveness against symptomatic disease, and the UK HSA then "fudges" the data into showing the opposite using a statistical technique called TNCC - the validity of which is currently under debate, as it relies on an assumption that doesn't seem to be true.
But these mis-understandings aren't really surprising given that you admit you haven't actually bothered to read the links, and instead decided that you already know the answers because of some unrelated discussion to do with US politics. None of the people I've cited are Americans or in the USA so whatever you think did or did not happen in the 2020 election is quite irrelevant.
1. The problem appears when comparing rates. Your counter-argument is assuming we're comparing absolute numbers which is false.
2. The argument about "data fudging" is the other way around. The raw data shows sharply negative effectiveness against symptomatic disease, and the UK HSA then "fudges" the data into showing the opposite using a statistical technique called TNCC - the validity of which is currently under debate, as it relies on an assumption that doesn't seem to be true.
But these mis-understandings aren't really surprising given that you admit you haven't actually bothered to read the links, and instead decided that you already know the answers because of some unrelated discussion to do with US politics. None of the people I've cited are Americans or in the USA so whatever you think did or did not happen in the 2020 election is quite irrelevant.
not sure who you're quoting. I'm only saying empirical data seem to show that high vaccination rates don't seem to reduce spreading at all. eg: netherlands and cayman islands.
> what data makes you think vaccine prevents spreading ?
Maybe because the CDC says so? Or have we lost all faith in them?
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/keythings...
"COVID-19 vaccines are effective at protecting people from COVID-19 and help keep adults and children from getting seriously sick. COVID-19 vaccines can reduce the risk of people spreading the virus that causes COVID-19."
Maybe because the CDC says so? Or have we lost all faith in them?
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/keythings...
"COVID-19 vaccines are effective at protecting people from COVID-19 and help keep adults and children from getting seriously sick. COVID-19 vaccines can reduce the risk of people spreading the virus that causes COVID-19."
Well, but then how do you explain the total non-correlation between number of cases vs vaccination rates in various countries ?
Variants. Delta changed everything. This isn't just one virus globally so you can't compare across countries like that.
Look into what happened with Vietnam. They were able to 'control' the spread multiple times over the first year. They thought they could always control things, so they didn't focus on vaccination.
Once delta took hold, it spread more quickly than they could control things and the govt. has gone crazy on getting everyone vaccinated as quickly as possible.
At this point though, infections are soaring. The govt. has given up trying to control it. A lot of people are going to die. They are figuring that they will push to get as many people vaccinated, but herd immunity will come faster. The plan now is to get the country open again more quickly.
Look into what happened with Vietnam. They were able to 'control' the spread multiple times over the first year. They thought they could always control things, so they didn't focus on vaccination.
Once delta took hold, it spread more quickly than they could control things and the govt. has gone crazy on getting everyone vaccinated as quickly as possible.
At this point though, infections are soaring. The govt. has given up trying to control it. A lot of people are going to die. They are figuring that they will push to get as many people vaccinated, but herd immunity will come faster. The plan now is to get the country open again more quickly.
and then you have netherlands with 80%+ of the pop vaccinated hitting record number of cases.
I'm sorry but the narrative "vaccine prevents spread" has been falling apart for the past 6 months and is now completely disproved by real world data. Not a single country has been successful at preventing the spread with vaccination. And it shows at every level : from cities (singapore) to small islands (cayman islands) to states.
I'm sorry but the narrative "vaccine prevents spread" has been falling apart for the past 6 months and is now completely disproved by real world data. Not a single country has been successful at preventing the spread with vaccination. And it shows at every level : from cities (singapore) to small islands (cayman islands) to states.
The vaccine isn't a superman cape or body condom. It doesn't prevent you from getting covid if you're exposed to it. You're honestly an idiot if you believe it prevents you from getting covid.
The real benefit of the vaccine is that it lessen the effects if you are infected. The benefit of that is that hospitals don't fill up. People who have other issues won't be locked out. Fewer people will die.
Get vaccinated.
The real benefit of the vaccine is that it lessen the effects if you are infected. The benefit of that is that hospitals don't fill up. People who have other issues won't be locked out. Fewer people will die.
Get vaccinated.
When comparing data with last year, keep in mind that was different and far less contagious strain of the virus.
You seem to imply it is ok for people who take the medication to walk freely contaminating others.
You can leave your place also for any physical and mental recreation. Otherwise you can buy everything on the internet so this is mainly bad for the local shops. The gov is rather hysterical because of the recent corruption scandal
Austria also discusses switching to 1G what would mean that only people who count as fully vaccinated would not be locked down but there is still discussion on the definition and limitations of this.
There is also further discussion about requiring PCR-Tests for the non restricted groups.
There is also further discussion about requiring PCR-Tests for the non restricted groups.
Some data points.:
Austria has a around 60% vaccination rate² and around 12% of the population had an documented infection³.
Herd immunity is a discussion point but scientists are undecided how high the numbers need to be. Estimates from earlier this year did talk about 60% but this number was raised and some experts even say its impossible.
2: https://orf.at/corona/daten/impfung
3: https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-m...
Austria has a around 60% vaccination rate² and around 12% of the population had an documented infection³.
Herd immunity is a discussion point but scientists are undecided how high the numbers need to be. Estimates from earlier this year did talk about 60% but this number was raised and some experts even say its impossible.
2: https://orf.at/corona/daten/impfung
3: https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-m...
Regulations up to recent was 3g (since august).
The implementation was the following:
- FFP2 Mask mandated in essential services like pharmacies, grocery store and postal offices for everyone.
- No Mask or distancing mandate for anyone who was vaccinated or recovered.
- Mask mandate and a negative covid test that is not older than 24/48h depending on the testing method for non vaccinated for anything outside of essential services.
The implementation was the following:
- FFP2 Mask mandated in essential services like pharmacies, grocery store and postal offices for everyone.
- No Mask or distancing mandate for anyone who was vaccinated or recovered.
- Mask mandate and a negative covid test that is not older than 24/48h depending on the testing method for non vaccinated for anything outside of essential services.
You count as fully vaccinated with 2 doses.
The minimum time between 2 vaccinations is 2 weeks but it might be better to have a longer interval according to research².
Recovered need to wait for a minimum of 21 days before getting a vaccination.
Vaccination need to be refreshed after 270 days.
2:https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1875
The minimum time between 2 vaccinations is 2 weeks but it might be better to have a longer interval according to research².
Recovered need to wait for a minimum of 21 days before getting a vaccination.
Vaccination need to be refreshed after 270 days.
2:https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1875
1cvmask(1)
peakaboo(4)
Meanwhile, Sweden enjoys extremely low case numbers and fatalities.
Perhaps Sweden did the right thing? Unthinkable, let's repeat failed policies ad infinitum!
Perhaps Sweden did the right thing? Unthinkable, let's repeat failed policies ad infinitum!
One interesting thing about Sweden that seems to fly over everyone's head is that they spend a significant amount of effort promoting health in public schools. So you have generations of people who are taught to focus on their well-being for the rest of their lives. This is likely one of the major reasons why socialized medical system works in Sweden. Soviets did the same thing and even promoted health at work places by instituting Sanatorium breaks for employees. So, with that said, we're probably talking about a sub-group of people with better natural immunity than some other surrounding countries in the area.
Sweden has already had more cases and more deaths than Austria, both in absolute and per capita numbers, and has a larger vaccination rate than Austria.
Sweden has lower excess deaths than Austria, so Austria just looks better since they under reported deaths.
Edit: Austria currently has more absolute excess deaths and lower population than Sweden according to Financial Times.
Source: https://www.ft.com/content/a2901ce8-5eb7-4633-b89c-cbdf5b386...
Edit: Austria currently has more absolute excess deaths and lower population than Sweden according to Financial Times.
Source: https://www.ft.com/content/a2901ce8-5eb7-4633-b89c-cbdf5b386...
Freedom is worthless. Better live your life in lockdown, than stand a 1% chance of dying. Or actually, better for someone else to live their life in lockdown, than to have me stand a 1% chance of dying.
Please stop posting ideological flamebait to HN. We ban accounts that do that, and this thread is bad enough as it is.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
These threads invariably generate heat, and not light.
Yes, but there are degrees of heat as well as light. It makes a difference which circle of hell a thread ends up in, so comments that push things further in are a particular problem.
I can’t recall too many threads where I have left inspired rather than despondent, but maybe that is atypical. In general though, are these topical news-focused submissions in the spirit of the guidelines? They don’t satisfy too much intellectual curiosity, and are well-covered by the news, so it seems like “no”
Sweden's early response was really bad, and it still has bad stats. The saving grace has been the high vaccination rate, but the total death toll is still much worse than any of our neighbours.
... but total deaths per capita in Sweden is still below France, Spain, Italy, UK (and fwiw Belgium, Bulgaria, Russia, US ...)
Sweden is also suggesting that if you're vaccinated you do not need to get tested.
"If you are vaccinated, you do not generally need to get tested when you experience symptoms." [1]
With ~69% [2] of the population fully vaccinated that is definitely going to skew the numbers a bit.
1. https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/the-public-health-agency... 2. https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
With ~69% [2] of the population fully vaccinated that is definitely going to skew the numbers a bit.
1. https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/the-public-health-agency... 2. https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
The influence of different testing rates can be avoided by looking at the number of fatalities. Sweden looks much better now than Austria and the overall picture is the same:
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
Looking at this, I also do not understand why Austria's ICUs are overloaded now but not in November 2020.
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
Looking at this, I also do not understand why Austria's ICUs are overloaded now but not in November 2020.
Sweden basically did soft lockdowns: capacity limits, mandated social distancing, masking, and closures of schools and universities.
No businesses were shut down, pubs and clubs were open and no masks were ever required to enter a business. They closed a few public buildings for a short time but nobody was ever locked down.
Perhaps it's just hard to die twice...?
Total deaths per million in Sweden so far: 1466 Total deaths per million in Denmark so far: 471
Total deaths per million in Sweden so far: 1466 Total deaths per million in Denmark so far: 471
Sweden has vaccinated pretty much all elderly people
According to this source [0], it looks like something like 80% of the population is vaccinated. If they are still implementing lockdowns with an 80% vaccination rate, maybe it's time to acknowledge that the efficacy numbers we've been fed are a little optimistic?
This is hardly unique to australia. UK, Ireland, Israel, and other highly vaccinated nations are experiencing record case numbers. Where is the skepticism? I feel like 80% of the population has gone totally crazy, completely unwilling to question the safety or efficacy of the vaccines, as though they were sacrosanct.
0. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-inter...
Edit: article is about austria. Still, the accusations of being "antivaxx" are dishonest. Not all vaccines are created equal. And in any case a ≈65% vaccination rate failing to contain the virus still does not bode well for estimates of effectiveness. Something's not right and the discussion needs to be had.
This is hardly unique to australia. UK, Ireland, Israel, and other highly vaccinated nations are experiencing record case numbers. Where is the skepticism? I feel like 80% of the population has gone totally crazy, completely unwilling to question the safety or efficacy of the vaccines, as though they were sacrosanct.
0. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-inter...
Edit: article is about austria. Still, the accusations of being "antivaxx" are dishonest. Not all vaccines are created equal. And in any case a ≈65% vaccination rate failing to contain the virus still does not bode well for estimates of effectiveness. Something's not right and the discussion needs to be had.
The efficacy numbers you might be remembering could have been for the wild type, not the more infectious delta variant. A higher infectiousness also requires a far higher fraction of the population to be vaccinated to reduce spread (rule of thumb is that a fraction of 1 - 1/R_0 would be needed for a given value of R_0 iirc).
You also have to keep in mind that the incidences for vaccinated and unvaccinated are vastly different. Several German federal states record these values and the incidence among the unvaccinated is usually ~10x as high as for the vaccinated, so a small fraction of the population can be responsible for a good deal of the infections. I shall provide a link for the latter in a moment.
Example for Saxony, one of the more affected federal states at the moment. Ratio of incidences for unvaccinated:vaccinated is ~19:1, see:
https://www.coronavirus.sachsen.de/infektionsfaelle-in-sachs...
Example for Bavaria, also heavily affected. Ratio of incidences for unvaccinated:vaccinated is ~9.7:1. Source:
https://www.lgl.bayern.de/gesundheit/infektionsschutz/infekt...
Baden-Württemberg, taken from an article as I couldn't find the original source. Ratio of incidences unvaccinated:vaccinated is ~18.4:1 there:
https://www.swp.de/panorama/intensivstation-geimpfte-corona-...
Keep in mind that you would need to weigh that according to the vaccination levels if you want to calculate somethign with them but you should find the current levels on the same pages, I think.
You also have to keep in mind that the incidences for vaccinated and unvaccinated are vastly different. Several German federal states record these values and the incidence among the unvaccinated is usually ~10x as high as for the vaccinated, so a small fraction of the population can be responsible for a good deal of the infections. I shall provide a link for the latter in a moment.
Example for Saxony, one of the more affected federal states at the moment. Ratio of incidences for unvaccinated:vaccinated is ~19:1, see:
https://www.coronavirus.sachsen.de/infektionsfaelle-in-sachs...
Example for Bavaria, also heavily affected. Ratio of incidences for unvaccinated:vaccinated is ~9.7:1. Source:
https://www.lgl.bayern.de/gesundheit/infektionsschutz/infekt...
Baden-Württemberg, taken from an article as I couldn't find the original source. Ratio of incidences unvaccinated:vaccinated is ~18.4:1 there:
https://www.swp.de/panorama/intensivstation-geimpfte-corona-...
Keep in mind that you would need to weigh that according to the vaccination levels if you want to calculate somethign with them but you should find the current levels on the same pages, I think.
Is germany also using a lower threshold for PCR tests for vaccinated vs unvaccinated, as was the official recommendation by the CDC last year? Because they would significantly skew the numbers.
Which source? The Austrian announcement stated that roughly 65% of the population is fully vaccinated against Covid-19, one of the lowest rates in western Europe.
[edit] aahh, you linked Australia instead of Austria - that's pretty much exactly on the opposite side of the globe.
[edit] aahh, you linked Australia instead of Austria - that's pretty much exactly on the opposite side of the globe.
LOL, grandparent actually mixed Austria and Australia up... well done!
You're confusing Austria and Australia, but hey, it's par for the course for the dumpster fire level of comments currently on this thread...
I'm going to trust the statistics that the vaccines work, and aren't deadly. The numbers seem to speak for themselves, thousands of samples and you can see any region with higher vaccination rates have lower infection and death rates (well, I guess until the efficacy wears down and boosters are needed...). On the topic of long term effects, I'm going to trust this scientist (of course at the end of the day, that's what it ends with isn't it, what statements do each of us trust):
https://www.uab.edu/reporter/resources/be-healthy/item/9544-...
> Unlike many medications, which are taken daily, vaccines are generally one-and-done. "Medicines you take every day can cause side effects" that reveal themselves over time, including long-term problems as levels of the drug build up in the body over months and years, Goepfert said. But "vaccines are just designed to deliver a payload and then are quickly eliminated by the body," he said. "This is particularly true of the mRNA vaccines. mRNA degrades incredibly rapidly. You wouldn't expect any of these vaccines to have any long-term side effects. And in fact, this has never occurred with any vaccine."
I'm going to trust the statistics that the vaccines work, and aren't deadly. The numbers seem to speak for themselves, thousands of samples and you can see any region with higher vaccination rates have lower infection and death rates (well, I guess until the efficacy wears down and boosters are needed...). On the topic of long term effects, I'm going to trust this scientist (of course at the end of the day, that's what it ends with isn't it, what statements do each of us trust):
https://www.uab.edu/reporter/resources/be-healthy/item/9544-...
> Unlike many medications, which are taken daily, vaccines are generally one-and-done. "Medicines you take every day can cause side effects" that reveal themselves over time, including long-term problems as levels of the drug build up in the body over months and years, Goepfert said. But "vaccines are just designed to deliver a payload and then are quickly eliminated by the body," he said. "This is particularly true of the mRNA vaccines. mRNA degrades incredibly rapidly. You wouldn't expect any of these vaccines to have any long-term side effects. And in fact, this has never occurred with any vaccine."
>The numbers seem to speak for themselves, thousands of samples and you can see any region with higher vaccination rates have lower infection and death rates (well, I guess until the efficacy wears down and boosters are needed...)
This is inconsistent with record case numbers in highly vaccinated countries across the globe.
>On the topic of long term effects, I'm going to trust this scientist (of course at the end of the day, that's what it ends with isn't it, what statements do each of us trust):
Publishing literature critical of vaccines is social and career suicide. The science is effectively poisoned, one sided because of social shaming. But Pfizer et al. aren't complaining given that they are raking in the cash explicitly free of liability. Not like that's a huge conflict of interest or anything, we should continue to trust their safety and efficacy data unquestionably. Surely big pharma has a spotless ethical and safety record.
This is inconsistent with record case numbers in highly vaccinated countries across the globe.
>On the topic of long term effects, I'm going to trust this scientist (of course at the end of the day, that's what it ends with isn't it, what statements do each of us trust):
Publishing literature critical of vaccines is social and career suicide. The science is effectively poisoned, one sided because of social shaming. But Pfizer et al. aren't complaining given that they are raking in the cash explicitly free of liability. Not like that's a huge conflict of interest or anything, we should continue to trust their safety and efficacy data unquestionably. Surely big pharma has a spotless ethical and safety record.
> This is inconsistent with record case numbers in highly vaccinated countries across the globe.
Let's see your data then.
> Publishing literature critical of vaccines is social and career suicide.
Ah yeah, of course, when you don't like the statement, the messenger is part of a giant lying conspiracy. Where's the science to prove otherwise? (Hidden by the money and power, I guess?) The studies that Jenny McCarthy and her doctor Andrew Wakefield[1] made up about vaccines = autism have been debunked. But I guess that's all because the powers that be have decided they need to be made pariahs, right? Sigh, I'm glad I live in reality. But hey, maybe I'm the one who's been brainwashed, and you're the clear thinking one, right?
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/
Let's see your data then.
> Publishing literature critical of vaccines is social and career suicide.
Ah yeah, of course, when you don't like the statement, the messenger is part of a giant lying conspiracy. Where's the science to prove otherwise? (Hidden by the money and power, I guess?) The studies that Jenny McCarthy and her doctor Andrew Wakefield[1] made up about vaccines = autism have been debunked. But I guess that's all because the powers that be have decided they need to be made pariahs, right? Sigh, I'm glad I live in reality. But hey, maybe I'm the one who's been brainwashed, and you're the clear thinking one, right?
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/
It is amazing to see the anti-vaxers here on HN, especially with a comment this high up.
The people filling the hospitals are unvaccinated.
The vaccine doesn't prevent new cases. It isn't a super man cape. It lessens the effects, if you do get infected.
The people filling the hospitals are unvaccinated.
The vaccine doesn't prevent new cases. It isn't a super man cape. It lessens the effects, if you do get infected.
It's amazing to see people still buying into the idea that the vaccine or lock-downs will stop Covid from spreading. It's an endemic coronovirus, it will be around forever. People that want the vaccine (that doesn't prevent covid infection) can get it. Why destroy civilization to achieve less than nothing?
If it supposedly lessens effects if you get infected, why is there such controversy of worrying about those that don't want it?
The people filling the hospitals, which has consistently been overstated in magnitude, are obese/overweight and with other co-morbidities. For vast majority of Covid cases the symptoms are nothing to worry about. The risk of dying from under 50 is like 0.1% or better if not overweight.
This is an extreme modern aversion to any risk that would desire society grind itself to a halt forever and fight pointless mandate battles towards inevitable political chaos instead of just moving on with life.
If it supposedly lessens effects if you get infected, why is there such controversy of worrying about those that don't want it?
The people filling the hospitals, which has consistently been overstated in magnitude, are obese/overweight and with other co-morbidities. For vast majority of Covid cases the symptoms are nothing to worry about. The risk of dying from under 50 is like 0.1% or better if not overweight.
This is an extreme modern aversion to any risk that would desire society grind itself to a halt forever and fight pointless mandate battles towards inevitable political chaos instead of just moving on with life.
> For vast majority of Covid cases the symptoms are nothing to worry about. The risk of dying from under 50 is like 0.1% or better if not overweight.
I'm not sure this claim is consistent with the available evidence. Long term cognitive side effects (e.g. "brain fog" and memory loss) and respiratory problems each seem to occur in ~15% of symptomatic COVID cases among working-age, not-particularly-unhealthy people. "Long term" here means 7-9 months after infection. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.18.21253633v...
I'm not sure this claim is consistent with the available evidence. Long term cognitive side effects (e.g. "brain fog" and memory loss) and respiratory problems each seem to occur in ~15% of symptomatic COVID cases among working-age, not-particularly-unhealthy people. "Long term" here means 7-9 months after infection. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.18.21253633v...
> ~15% of symptomatic COVID cases
Okay? That's not inconsistent with what I said, and moreover this is an absurdly vague and nebulous set of supposed symptoms. It is just simply not that credible that this is a significant real world issue to any large degree worthy of the costs of (ineffectively) trying to mitigate them.
But also, everyone is going to get Covid more or less. It is not going away. It is an endemic coronavirus. Even if what you're saying was true, so what? Where does that leave us? It leaves us with those occurrences still happening, AND a perpetually degraded economic, political and social life due to ineffective mandates, shut downs, restrictions and mask drama. None of this stops the spread of Covid!
Okay? That's not inconsistent with what I said, and moreover this is an absurdly vague and nebulous set of supposed symptoms. It is just simply not that credible that this is a significant real world issue to any large degree worthy of the costs of (ineffectively) trying to mitigate them.
But also, everyone is going to get Covid more or less. It is not going away. It is an endemic coronavirus. Even if what you're saying was true, so what? Where does that leave us? It leaves us with those occurrences still happening, AND a perpetually degraded economic, political and social life due to ineffective mandates, shut downs, restrictions and mask drama. None of this stops the spread of Covid!
>The people filling the hospitals, which has consistently been overstated in magnitude, are obese/overweight and with other co-morbidities.
Good thing that only 15-30% of the Western world is obese. I don't follow the situation everywhere but here in Belgium fact is that people have been refused access to the ICU because there was no place because of COVID-19. And that's with postponing non-urgent care (which is happening, again) and all the measures taken.
What you call moving on with life means refusing people access to hospitals.
Good thing that only 15-30% of the Western world is obese. I don't follow the situation everywhere but here in Belgium fact is that people have been refused access to the ICU because there was no place because of COVID-19. And that's with postponing non-urgent care (which is happening, again) and all the measures taken.
What you call moving on with life means refusing people access to hospitals.
U.S.A. is 40% obese.
Hospitals at capacity has been wildly overstated and additionally none of these measures stop the spread of Covid. The cost is not worth the negligible benefit.
Hospitals at capacity has been wildly overstated and additionally none of these measures stop the spread of Covid. The cost is not worth the negligible benefit.
What makes you think they are overstated? Do hospitals refuse people and postpone treatment for fun?
Every time after measures are taken the spread of COVID slows down, every time they are loosened it increases again.
Every time after measures are taken the spread of COVID slows down, every time they are loosened it increases again.
>Every time after measures are taken the spread of COVID slows down, every time they are loosened it increases again.
We should probably keep doing this merry go round yes? Expecting different results. This is like arguing we should never pull out of Afghanistan because chaos would ensue. Just lock-down forever yes?
Stopping the spread of a coronavirus is impossible, how do you not understand this?
We should probably keep doing this merry go round yes? Expecting different results. This is like arguing we should never pull out of Afghanistan because chaos would ensue. Just lock-down forever yes?
Stopping the spread of a coronavirus is impossible, how do you not understand this?
Where did I say stopping the spread?
It's not going to go on forever, we have vaccines, every time more people aquire natural immunity, we get better treatment, etc. But we will do this until we don't have to worry about our hospitals anymore. How do you not understand this?
It's not going to go on forever, we have vaccines, every time more people aquire natural immunity, we get better treatment, etc. But we will do this until we don't have to worry about our hospitals anymore. How do you not understand this?
What evidence do you have that civilization is being 'destroyed'? Seems "extreme" no?
Nobody is saying "stop" the spread, it is obvious it isn't going to just stop. "slow" it is a more admirable goal.
Nobody is saying "stop" the spread, it is obvious it isn't going to just stop. "slow" it is a more admirable goal.
0.1% is low?
JFK airport has about 500 takeoffs a day. 0.1% chance of a crash means on average a jumbo plane full of passengers (400 people?) crashes every 2 days. How would you feel about air travel if these were the risks?
JFK airport has about 500 takeoffs a day. 0.1% chance of a crash means on average a jumbo plane full of passengers (400 people?) crashes every 2 days. How would you feel about air travel if these were the risks?
I would feel great because I have a low body fat, I workout, lift weights, eat healthy and get sun and vitamin D in high amounts.
0.1 was for everyone...without co-morbidities it's even lower and more of a non-issue. People that want to take the vax should do it. Why do they care what young and healthy people do?
Again though, coronvirus's don't go away it will be around forever and likely everyone gets it eventually. So what are we even talking about accomplishing here?
0.1 was for everyone...without co-morbidities it's even lower and more of a non-issue. People that want to take the vax should do it. Why do they care what young and healthy people do?
Again though, coronvirus's don't go away it will be around forever and likely everyone gets it eventually. So what are we even talking about accomplishing here?
Yeah and those things make you safe, huh.. are you sure about that?
Maybe you should read this (and feel free to conclude it's lying media): https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/30/fact...
A strong immune system might even be better for the virus: https://magazine.ucsf.edu/your-immune-system-could-turn-covi...
Sure it'll probably be around forever. But a higher vaccination rate will decrease the rate of hospital overflow. Currently in the UK no one else can get sick or end up in the ICU, and ambulances queue for hours. Suddenly we've gone to third world level of healthcare accessibility. Maybe the answer is expand the hospital network, but no one else is doing this either.
Good luck with your health... you'll need it, since you said everyone will get the virus.
Maybe you should read this (and feel free to conclude it's lying media): https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/30/fact...
A strong immune system might even be better for the virus: https://magazine.ucsf.edu/your-immune-system-could-turn-covi...
Sure it'll probably be around forever. But a higher vaccination rate will decrease the rate of hospital overflow. Currently in the UK no one else can get sick or end up in the ICU, and ambulances queue for hours. Suddenly we've gone to third world level of healthcare accessibility. Maybe the answer is expand the hospital network, but no one else is doing this either.
Good luck with your health... you'll need it, since you said everyone will get the virus.
>Yeah and those things make you safe, huh.. are you sure about that?
Well, for context, the US military is overwhelmingly physically-fit and healthy compared to the general population.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2021/09...
50% of the 6 deaths reported in the article were >50 years old.
"Their deaths bring the military’s COVID-19 mortality rate to just over 0.02, much lower than the roughly 2-percent rate nationwide, but 50 times higher than it was during previous surges last year."
Seems like banking on your overall fitness isn't a terrible position to take... Delta variant is probably the main cause of the uptick in fatalities but they remain comparatively low (nevertheless something that led me to get vaccinated....just before they made it mandatory to keep feeding my family anyway).
Well, for context, the US military is overwhelmingly physically-fit and healthy compared to the general population.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2021/09...
50% of the 6 deaths reported in the article were >50 years old.
"Their deaths bring the military’s COVID-19 mortality rate to just over 0.02, much lower than the roughly 2-percent rate nationwide, but 50 times higher than it was during previous surges last year."
Seems like banking on your overall fitness isn't a terrible position to take... Delta variant is probably the main cause of the uptick in fatalities but they remain comparatively low (nevertheless something that led me to get vaccinated....just before they made it mandatory to keep feeding my family anyway).
Is this number really true? I remember a study from Italy (on Dr. John Campbell's channel) that there were 0 death from Covid* in people under 40 that were healthy.
*Covid was the cause of death, not sepsis and btw he tested positive for Covid.
*Covid was the cause of death, not sepsis and btw he tested positive for Covid.
IMO, in the modern world, either the professional institutions of your society are trustworthy or people are screwed. Individual investigation into the sciences cannot be the last refuge of a nation under stress.
NL is at 84% and a bit for 12 yrs and older. We have record numbers of infections and restrictions are tightening.
Please get vaccinated, if not for your sake for others needing to use emergency services. I waited 4 hours in a good deal of pain in an ER waiting room to be stationed to an overflow bed in the hall because of unvaccinated covid cases filling up the rooms. Being next to the nurses' station I got to hear multiple ambulances and helicopters be redirected to farther away hospitals due to lack of room while doctors and nurses constantly rushed between rooms with confused oxygen deprived patients trying to get out of their beds and take their oxygen masks off while they waited for spots in the ICU to open up.
Talking to the nurses the vast majority of hospitalized cases are unvaccinated and looking it up 40% of the state is unvaccinated but they represented 98% of the covid hospitalizations that were filling up over 1/3 of the beds that night. Exactly 0 beds across the entire state were taken due to being vaccinated.
Thankfully 4 hours of pain is something that is easy to get over and I was able to get treated before it caused life threatening problems, some of the people that were redirected won't be able to say the same.
Talking to the nurses the vast majority of hospitalized cases are unvaccinated and looking it up 40% of the state is unvaccinated but they represented 98% of the covid hospitalizations that were filling up over 1/3 of the beds that night. Exactly 0 beds across the entire state were taken due to being vaccinated.
Thankfully 4 hours of pain is something that is easy to get over and I was able to get treated before it caused life threatening problems, some of the people that were redirected won't be able to say the same.
walterbell(1)
How easy is it to fake Austrian vaccination cards? The ones my friends have (in Dallas, TX) are indistinguishable.
Essentially you need to get issued a fake vaccination record by the actual medical system.
My local news had some people admitted to hospital with Covid and despite having the certificate, not having been actually vaccinated (which can be seen in blood tests some time afterwards) which has resulted in identifying some medical personnel who had been issued fake certificates of vaccination without actually vaccinating people; since every certificate "knows" when and where exactly you got the vaccine, which exact batch/vial of vaccine was used, and the institutions' medical records will show who (supposedly) made the injection.
The prosecution for the document forgery is still ongoing, but since some of the affected patients died from severe covid, that's essentially wrongful death through intentional medical malpractice, so the involved doctors/nurses will not only lose their licenses to practice but are quite likely to see jail time, and since a nontrivial ratio of people do get ill as Covid is still spreading, if someone fake-vaccinates a lot of people, they are likely to be identified.
My local news had some people admitted to hospital with Covid and despite having the certificate, not having been actually vaccinated (which can be seen in blood tests some time afterwards) which has resulted in identifying some medical personnel who had been issued fake certificates of vaccination without actually vaccinating people; since every certificate "knows" when and where exactly you got the vaccine, which exact batch/vial of vaccine was used, and the institutions' medical records will show who (supposedly) made the injection.
The prosecution for the document forgery is still ongoing, but since some of the affected patients died from severe covid, that's essentially wrongful death through intentional medical malpractice, so the involved doctors/nurses will not only lose their licenses to practice but are quite likely to see jail time, and since a nontrivial ratio of people do get ill as Covid is still spreading, if someone fake-vaccinates a lot of people, they are likely to be identified.
We use the EU-wide QR system. I don't know how easy is to get a fake certificate that would pass scrutiny, but here in Austria nobody seems to really check them. If you have something with a QR code on it, they let you pass.
Yeah it uses cryptographic signing, but fails at the human level when the checker doesn't use the app to check it and doesn't check the holder's ID.
But there were reports that some Germans were selling the certificates on the "dark web" (i.e. you have to know the WhatsApp number of the seller), and are working with rogue pharmacy employees to issue valid certificates...
But there were reports that some Germans were selling the certificates on the "dark web" (i.e. you have to know the WhatsApp number of the seller), and are working with rogue pharmacy employees to issue valid certificates...
In stores and restaurants they are rarely checked, but in the cinema and in concerts I had to bring a document.
FWIW I wasn't checked at any cinema I go to, nor was I checked by my employer, and in fact, I wasn't even checked when I went to the hospital (of course I assume they had it on record, but that's just after you check-in and everything).
As for stores, I don't think they are supposed to check at all. Or at least I hope so. Personally I have never been checked.
As for stores, I don't think they are supposed to check at all. Or at least I hope so. Personally I have never been checked.
Strange, I've shown the CovPass app in the past when either a test or vaccination were required, for eating inside, for example. But I think rules change from city to city. I don't think it's needed anymore, anyways.
In Greece we had cases of fake certificates which were issued by crooked doctors who had access in the system. So I guess the same must apply all over Europe.
I read some assertions that in Greece there were some doctors who took like 400 euros bribe to make a fake injection, but injected the actual vaccine anyway so that the reality matched the paperwork - from a local perspective, is that true or if so, was it widespread?
It is true, but no, it wasn't widespread. I find it funny though, like the ultimate act of trolling.
[deleted]
[deleted]
It's a digitally signed QR code with your name on it. You can't fake it. Some just reuse some other QR code and hope nobody cross-checks the name with some other ID.
here in Lithuania we already have some cases when people were caught using fake/other people's QR code and got punished for it.
another case was that doctors were bribed to sign a document that person was vaccinated even if that person has not visited vaccination center. so yeah, there are attempts, but at the same time, law enforcement works its job sometimes.
another case was that doctors were bribed to sign a document that person was vaccinated even if that person has not visited vaccination center. so yeah, there are attempts, but at the same time, law enforcement works its job sometimes.
How many Austrians have already recovered from Covid infection and thus have long-lasting nasal/mucosal sterilizing immunity that stops both infection and transmission, unlike vaccines which reduce severity of symptoms and risk of death?
CDC estimates 146 million Americans have already been infected, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
CDC estimates 146 million Americans have already been infected, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
Those do count as vaccinated, as far as I know.
In the EU with proof of recovery, but sadly not (yet?) in the US.
With the side-effect that if one is vaccinated with the Janssen vacin, one cannot enter Austria.
But also, in the Netherlands, booster shots for those people are not available.
So quite a few people are now prohibited from entering Austria just because to get assigned to have the Janssen vacin instead of e.g. Biontech/Pfizer.
It is my understanding that a single dose of the Janssen vaccine is still recognized until 2021-01-02 [0]. After that, you need to have an additional dose of any EMA-approved vaccine.
I assume you would be able to get a booster off-label in the Netherlands.
[0] https://gruenerpass.gv.at/geimpft/ "03. Jänner 2022 ist das Impfzertifikat einer einmaligen Janssen Impfung nicht mehr gültig."
I assume you would be able to get a booster off-label in the Netherlands.
[0] https://gruenerpass.gv.at/geimpft/ "03. Jänner 2022 ist das Impfzertifikat einer einmaligen Janssen Impfung nicht mehr gültig."
Corona vaccination in the Netherlands has been pretty strictly “invite only”. I.e. once your age group had its turn, you got an invite to make an appointment to get the injection.
Currently no one in NL has gotten any booster yet. They hope to start 60+ somewhere beginning of December.
So as an example, come 03-01-2022, if you’re 30 and you have a Janssen shot and you want to go to Austria you’re out of luck. It’ll be months before you’re going to get the booster and you cannot “get it off label”.
Currently no one in NL has gotten any booster yet. They hope to start 60+ somewhere beginning of December.
So as an example, come 03-01-2022, if you’re 30 and you have a Janssen shot and you want to go to Austria you’re out of luck. It’ll be months before you’re going to get the booster and you cannot “get it off label”.
"In the fall of 1988, the Los Angeles Times published one of the first feature stories in the U.S. media about the Cuban HIV sanatorium system. The article quoted a New York City doctor that had visited Havana, who called the institutions 'pleasant but frightening,' and that their use as a public health response to HIV could 'only be termed totalitarian.'"
'From 1986 until 1994, Cuba quarantined people living with HIV in medical facilities called sanatorios, or sanatoriums.'
https://nacla.org/news/2017/11/29/cuba%E2%80%99s-hiv-sanator...
'From 1986 until 1994, Cuba quarantined people living with HIV in medical facilities called sanatorios, or sanatoriums.'
https://nacla.org/news/2017/11/29/cuba%E2%80%99s-hiv-sanator...
All of the headlines I've seen on this are misleading. It's not actually a lockdown for unvaccinated people, it's a lockdown for unvaccinated and never infected people (see https://www.austria.info/en/service-and-facts/coronavirus-in...).
I think this would surprise a lot of Americans at least, since their government pretends that prior infections don't matter.
That said, it does send a chill up my spine to read about a country locking down a specific subset of their population.
I think this would surprise a lot of Americans at least, since their government pretends that prior infections don't matter.
That said, it does send a chill up my spine to read about a country locking down a specific subset of their population.