Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Oh dear.... there may be some logical thinking in the above somewhere but there is a complete absence of critical thinking and a lack of any nuanced perception.



For instance, comparing the whys and wherefores in a dictatorship with the processes in a democratic society will lead you to an incorrect and frankly stupid conclusion.



Can you think of any individual whose suppression resulted in the greater good? I can! Likewise the reverse.



However by and large, the community is far better off now than when witches were common. Regularly burning them has allowed you to live a cruising life. Oh wait... I am slipping back into logical thought.

All dictarships call themselves democratic.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

All dictarships call themselves democratic.

Freudian slip...?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Oh dear.... there may be some logical thinking in the above somewhere but there is a complete absence of critical thinking and a lack of any nuanced perception.

For instance, comparing the whys and wherefores in a dictatorship with the processes in a democratic society will lead you to an incorrect and frankly stupid conclusion.

Can you think of any individual whose suppression resulted in the greater good? I can! Likewise the reverse.

However by and large, the community is far better off now than when witches were common. Regularly burning them has allowed you to live a cruising life. Oh wait... I am slipping back into logical thought.

I always smile when someone brings up Democracy.. does the individual get to choose the candidates.. or are they a selection of choices determined by a selected fews agenda..
Was VdL a democratic choice as leader of the EU.. no, she was the only candidate put forward..
In the US elections does the peoples choice get to be President or is it really decided by behind the scenes arm twisting that makes people like Bernie Sanders step aside for people like H Clinton and Biden to be elected..
In the UK would people choose Boris or Kier, or do they just accept what they are given and make the best of crap choices.
You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but, you can't fool all of the people all of the time..

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

I hope the vaccine left some logical thinking alive.

IF the vaccine is effective, vaccinated have nothing to fear from the unvaccinated, because they should be protected.. . .

Except that that is not true.

I have been infected with Covid plus I have had the Pfizer vaccine. I'm healthy and have a robust immune system so I'm not concerned about being infected again.

HOWEVER, not everyone gets a good level of immunity. Immune response is weaker in older people and in people with immune system problems. Therefore, allowing the virus to circulate because not enough people have been vaccinated will kill people. I have, for example, a 93 year old father whom I don't want killed as the result of some anti-vaxxer having refused the vaccine.

Besides that, allowing the virus to circulate because not enough people have been vaccinated will result in health care costs and economic harm which also vaccinated people pay for. I respect your right to make up your own mind but it is not clear that this right trumps my right to not pay for your intensive care ward because you have an irrational fear of the vaccine, or for the health care costs of however many people you infect, or suffer my share of the economic costs caused by your irrational fear.

Yet another consequence of allowing the virus to circulate on and on because not enough people get vaccinated is mutation.

For all these reasons, it is not so that just because I'm vaccinated and well immune, that I don't have any interest in whether you are vaccinated or not.

I am against lockdowns, which I think have been hugely destructive, and I share Seaworthylass' concerns about the quality of the policymaking on pandemic measures. I respect people's rights to their own opinions. But vaccination is the only way to stop this pandemic. At some point people need to think about humanity and put aside their fears around microscopic personal risks associated with the vaccines.

[El Pinguino]

There is a very good reason that very strong incentives should be put in place to encourage vaccination - up to and beyond 'vaccination passports'.

Most people refusing to get vaccinated are of below average intelligence.

Most people of below average intelligence work in menial jobs - cleaning dunnies, street sweeping, working for Amazon or Walmart.

OK there are outliers - some become presidents and prime ministers .

So if the virus bumps many of them off - what then?

The end of life as we knew it, thats what.


QED

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

While not all medical advice is consistent the vast centre ground of reasonable immunologists support the vaccine program.

How do you determine which immunologists are “reasonable”?

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The requisite trials have been run and monitored carefully especially by the EU , which did not approve them on an emergency basis. unlike the U.K. or US.

The portion you underlined is another form of misinformation that is being spread during this pandemic. The partial truth. I assume you believe this rather than deliberately trying to mislead people that the EU has ruled the vaccines safe enough to authorise them fully.

It is true that the EU did not approve COVID-19 vaccines for emergency use, however, they did not give full approval either, as your statement implied.

The COVID-19 vaccines were only given “conditional marketing authorisation”, as comprehensive clinical data was not available and this was considered a public health emergency. Unlike emergency authorisation in the UK, this type of authorisation is valid only for a year, although it may be extended if certain conditions are met.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The choice is not palatable , wait till some perfect nirvana vaccine is available and let COVID rip through the population, or subject populations to increasingly stringent lockdowns for years.

The COVID vaccines are extremely effective in comparison to many other vaccines , no vaccine is perfect. All vaccines have break through rates etc.

But the vaccine programme is having quantifiable and visible effects. Hospital admissions are way down , serious ICU treatments are way down

That’s the point , whether you like them or not the vaccine programme is having a tremendous effect in preventing serious disease and death.

To deny this is like trying to argue the sky is pink

You are preaching to a believer, although the sky is often pink every morning and evening . The vaccines have surpassed everyone’s expectations of efficacy. They are our lifeline out of this pandemic. This does not, however, lead to the conclusion that mass vaccination of those at very low risk of severe illness is the best strategy long term.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Could a side effect be lurking in the vaccine. That risk of course exists. But we balance risk and reward every time we drive a car. This is no different.

This is not a reasonable comparison. The risks driving are well known. In addition, they can also be reduced significantly by driving with care and full concentration, having a safe vehicle, wearing a seat belt, not driving under the influence of alcohol or certain drugs or when visibility is poor or it is raining etc.

Nothing is known about the long term risks with these new vaccines. Zero. We cannot even make an educated guess by looking at other vaccines, as the mode of action is dramatically different.

Emergency and conditional use is certainly warranted for those at high risk of severe illness, but mass vaccinating healthy children and young adults (whose risk of severe illness is negligible) with not fully tested vaccines employing very new technology, is a potentially dangerous move. This certainly does not have widespread approval from experts in the field.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I do not agree anti sentiment is being suppressed, if anything social media amplification is given pseudo science and conspiracy mumbo jumbo a platform it doesn’t deserve.

Canadian doctor’s views are being harshly suppressed, unless the YouTubes regarding this are propaganda. It seems to be professional suicide if views opposing those of the government and medical associations are disputed.

Medically, ideas have been traditionally openly discussed. It helps poke holes in theories and management practices. The majority view has not always be shown to be the correct one, not by a long shot. Any doctors/immunologists etc who are currently voicing contrary opinions are being labelled quacks. YouTubes released are often quickly taken off line for the “good of the people”. This is bad policy.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Have we seen an erosion of civil rights , absolutely that’s not in question
Do most people believe that loss of rights was justified , sadly yes. If anything public mood is more stringent then public policy

The public want this disease put behind them , vaccines are seen as a way to achieve this , you stand in front of a juggernaut at your own peril !

Agreed, and it is not just sad, but disturbing. Stringent public mood and the push to take the extreme measure of vaccinating those at minimal risk is driven not just by the general population’s fear, but a false hope that this is the only means of putting “the disease behind them”. In my view, this is not justified.

SWL

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

I hope the vaccine left some logical thinking alive.

IF the vaccine is effective, vaccinated have nothing to fear from the unvaccinated, because they should be protected.

IF the vaccine doesn't work, you are screwed anyway and have nothing to fear from the unvaccinated either.

The only one who should fear unvaccinated are the lawmakers, if the vaccines and lockdowns and mask mandates show they were obsolete, the disease is not worse than a flu and cannot be controlled anyway.

They are the living evidence, that this was a plandemic and the control group for the vaccinated. Without a control group you cannot proof efficacy.

The "geater good for the society" has done horrible things in the past, from all that claimed it - communists and nazis. Ethnic cleansing was for the "greater good of the envisioned society" and a lot of gulaks too. China has "education camps" for the greater good, same in North Korea. Always when individuals are opressed for the "greater good" one has to stand up and protect the individuum from the mob. "Witches" were burned too for the greater good btw.

Health is very individual. The sick person suffers first before it spreads it to others. The "Vaccines" doesn't prevent spreading, they just hope to train your own immune system. They do not neutralize the virus. You still can get it, can have it, can spread it and even can die of it.

Oh dear

Firstly you are engaging in absolutism , the vaccines are not 100% effective they have a failure rate and that rate is different in different groups

Secondly the vaccine does inhibit ( not stop ) virus transmission as your immune system prevents your body becoming a high viral load host.

Unvaccinated people ARE a threat

They fill up hospitals denying spaces to those with serious illness

They are sites for viral mutations some of which could potentially bypass vaccines

They can carry high viral loads and infect vaccinated people that have underlying vulnerabilities


The simple fact is no vaccine is black or white. Your argument simply makes no sense as a result.

( seat belts are by no means 100 % effective , but are mandated all over the world because they “ help “ reduce fatalities , using your arguments we would abandon seatbelts simply cause some people still die with them on )


Public health by its very definition is NOT individual . Where a highly transmissible disease is involved the greater good principle always has been deployed . You are NOT free to infect others at will.

Vaccines stimulate the immune system as a result :
Vaccines do help inhibit transmission
Vaccines do prevent the disease from developing
Vaccines protect vulnerable groups
Vaccines help prevent mutations and high viral loads

At this stage the anti vaccine arguments are descending into Cognisant Dissonance and the suffers need treatment.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

How do you determine which immunologists are “reasonable”?









The portion you underlined is another form of misinformation that is being spread during this pandemic. The partial truth. I assume you believe this rather than deliberately trying to mislead people that the EU has ruled the vaccines safe enough to authorise them fully.



It is true that the EU did not approve COVID-19 vaccines for emergency use, however, they did not give full approval either, as your statement implied.



The COVID-19 vaccines were only given “conditional marketing authorisation”, as comprehensive clinical data was not available and this was considered a public health emergency. Unlike emergency authorisation in the UK, this type of authorisation is valid only for a year, although it may be extended if certain conditions are met.









You are preaching to a believer, although the sky is often pink every morning and evening . The vaccines have surpassed everyone’s expectations of efficacy. They are our lifeline out of this pandemic. This does not, however, lead to the conclusion that mass vaccination of those at very low risk of severe illness is the best strategy long term.









This is not a reasonable comparison. The risks driving are well known. In addition, they can also be reduced significantly by driving with care and full concentration, having a safe vehicle, wearing a seat belt, not driving under the influence of alcohol or certain drugs or when visibility is poor or it is raining etc.



Nothing is known about the long term risks with these new vaccines. Zero. We cannot even make an educated guess by looking at other vaccines, as the mode of action is dramatically different.



Emergency and conditional use is certainly warranted for those at high risk of severe illness, but mass vaccinating healthy children and young adults (whose risk of severe illness is negligible) with not fully tested vaccines employing very new technology, is a potentially dangerous move. This certainly does not have widespread approval from experts in the field.









Canadian doctor’s views are being harshly suppressed, unless the YouTubes regarding this are propaganda. It seems to be professional suicide if views opposing those of the government and medical associations are disputed.



Medically, ideas have been traditionally openly discussed. It helps poke holes in theories and management practices. The majority view has not always be shown to be the correct one, not by a long shot. Any doctors/immunologists etc who are currently voicing contrary opinions are being labelled quacks. YouTubes released are often quickly taken off line for the “good of the people”. This is bad policy.









Agreed, and it is not just sad, but disturbing. Stringent public mood and the push to take the extreme measure of vaccinating those at minimal risk is driven not just by the general population’s fear, but a false hope that this is the only means of putting “the disease behind them”. In my view, this is not justified.



SWL

It’s the only route we have of beating this disease and returning to a previous normality. The alternative is either national isolation or various forms of lockdown and banning group contact , the first has failed in Oz and NZ and the public have had enough of the second.

The efficacy of the vaccines are there to be seen. It’s entirely as a result of vaccination that the U.K. is risking freedom day.

There is no evidence countries are using COVID to control anything. Everyone would dump all the restrictions in the morning if there was a simple way out.

I agree with you on only one thing , yes we do not know what the long term consequences of the vaccines are.

Personally I and many millions have weighted that against demonstrable death , sickness and long COVID effects of the virus and have decided the overwhelming benefit lies in taking that risk of having the vaccine.

( here vaccine rejection is running at less then 2% and it’s been approved for 12 and upwards this week , 18 to 24 year olds are enthusiastic recipients )

That’s the short and curlies of it. No conspiracies , no big pharma nonsense , no microchip in your head nonsense.

It’s simply a balance of risk and to most people it’s a clear and evident decision


Here it looks like , leaving aside a small cohort who can’t take the vaccine that by end of august we will have 90% of the population vaccinated with only under 12s remaining ( that decision will await the specific trial data ) we are vaccinating final cohorts ( mostly low risk groups ) at present.

The opening up of the economy proceeds with indoor dining back ( for the vaccinated and their children ) , increasing numbers at events etc. Far from normal but getting there

The general view is not withstanding some unforeseen issues society should be largely back to pre COVID position by the year end. No doubt some public health measures will linger a bit.

The public see the light , they have little sympathy for the crackpots , they want it behind them. Step into their way at your peril.


Ps

The vaccine is being offered to children and those under 16 need parental approval. It’s not mandatory or anything like that.

The feedback however is most parents on balance will vaccinate their children. The reasoning is it will reduce host sites and help eradication

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I have, for example, a 93 year old father whom I don't want killed as the result of some anti-vaxxer having refused the vaccine.
..........
I am against lockdowns, which I think have been hugely destructive, and I share Seaworthylass' concerns about the quality of the policymaking on pandemic measures. I respect people's rights to their own opinions. But vaccination is the only way to stop this pandemic. At some point people need to think about humanity and put aside their fears around microscopic personal risks associated with the vaccines.

'Lockdown' is a very loose sort of a word with many meanings.

I am sure your father - if he had been in Federal ( ie private ) aged care in the Australian state of Victoria last year would have been very happy with the lockdown imposed at that time.

Globally 'lockdowns' have come in many shades. Here in Australia we have seen the lot.

(Bear in mind we still have only 13% of the entire population vaccinated. )

Our lockdowns have gone from such simple ones as closing state borders all the way through city lockdowns, post code lock downs, all the way down to the very hard - no one in no one out - lockdown of some Melbourne public housing high rise apartments last year. And in the absence of a vaccine they have worked. We have yet to see how 'lockdown lite' works out in Sydney.

Our latest Victorian one has hopefull nailed a delta outbreak. It was a fairly simple and painless event over a few weeks.
So yes 'lockdowns' can work and its not a simple 'this or that' choice between it or the vaccine.

Meanwhile a case of two lockdowns in South America. Chile has had quite severe movement restrictions in place for 18 months and it didn't really work despite high vaccination rates.

Ecuador on the other hand had simple restrictions aka 'lockdowns' in place that did work. Just no travel between provinces which restricted much of the problem to Guayas - and mask wearing.

Speaking of masks - here in Victoria masks have been found the most effective means of stopping the spread in an unvaccinated population..

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The public see the light , they have little sympathy for the crackpots , they want it behind them. Step into their way at your peril.

Expressing a contrary opinion seems to make anyone, in the “public’s” view, one of the crackpots. Lack of respect for alternative opinions is not beneficial.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The vaccine is being offered to children and those under 16 need parental approval. It’s not mandatory or anything like that.

Well, if it prevents children from attending school, it is essentially the same thing as being mandatory. Currently in some regions of NSW year 12 students can only receive face-to-face education to prepare for their finals if they are vaccinated:

https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/news/P...210728_03.aspx

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The feedback however is most parents on balance will vaccinate their children. The reasoning is it will reduce host sites and help eradication

The widely accepted view is that eradication is not possible. This virus is now endemic. Many decisions on this basis is not sensible. People are clutching at straws.

SWL

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Well, if it prevents children from attending school, it is essentially the same thing as being mandatory. Currently in some regions of NSW year 12 students can only receive face-to-face education to prepare for their finals if they are vaccinated:

https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/news/P...210728_03.aspx



SWL

Sorry but that is not correct, what the link says is
'Up to 40,000 Pfizer doses will be allocated from NSW Health's rural and regional supply of COVID-19 vaccine to help Year 12 students in south west and western Sydney get back to school for face-to-face learning on 16 August.'

They are all going back to school on the 16th - maybe some will have had their first shot.
Nowhere does it say they will not be allowed back to school if awaiting that first shot or that they will not be allowed back if they refuse it.
I can't find that anywhere else either.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

'Lockdown' is a very loose sort of a word with many meanings.



I am sure your father - if he had been in Federal ( ie private ) aged care in the Australian state of Victoria last year would have been very happy with the lockdown imposed at that time.



Globally 'lockdowns' have come in many shades. Here in Australia we have seen the lot.



(Bear in mind we still have only 13% of the entire population vaccinated. )



Our lockdowns have gone from such simple ones as closing state borders all the way through city lockdowns, post code lock downs, all the way down to the very hard - no one in no one out - lockdown of some Melbourne public housing high rise apartments last year. And in the absence of a vaccine they have worked. We have yet to see how 'lockdown lite' works out in Sydney.



Our latest Victorian one has hopefull nailed a delta outbreak. It was a fairly simple and painless event over a few weeks.

So yes 'lockdowns' can work and its not a simple 'this or that' choice between it or the vaccine.



Meanwhile a case of two lockdowns in South America. Chile has had quite severe movement restrictions in place for 18 months and it didn't really work despite high vaccination rates.



Ecuador on the other hand had simple restrictions aka 'lockdowns' in place that did work. Just no travel between provinces which restricted much of the problem to Guayas - and mask wearing.



Speaking of masks - here in Victoria masks have been found the most effective means of stopping the spread in an unvaccinated population..

"Lockdown" is a term used in different ways, but I'm using it in the strict sense of stay at home orders, other severe restrictions of movement, and mass closing of businesses.

Whether and to what extent they work is a question for science. I have not seen any strong evidence that lockdowns have a significant beneficial effect. Yet it is clear that they are massively costly and massively destructive.

Correlation does not prove causation, so the fact that my region has gotten through the pandemic best of any region of Europe doesn't prove that lockdowns are never needed. Likewise, the fact that a minor outbreak in Vic was contained whilst lockdowns were implemented doesn't prove that they were necessary or that they evenwork, and much less does it prove that they were worth the cost. And indeed there is a strong negative correlation between lockdowns and outcomes around the world.

So we don't really know for sure. It looks to me that lockdowns are not extremely effective in the best case, and could hardly be worth the cost in any case. But scientists will be studying this for years to come and I guess we will gradually have a better understanding.

Whether Australia's strategy was good or not is not yet clear. On the plus side, severe measures, however effective or ineffective they are, have in any case a far lesser cost, far lesser downside if they are not implemented for long periods of time, and Australia did fairly well there compared to many other countries.

On the big question side - is it possible to suppress the epidemic forever, with whatever measures, or are you just delaying it? We shall see how the situation develops in NSW.

In any case of course it is extremely risky to have allowed vaccination to proceed so slowly, leaving the country so vulnerable for so long. We've seen how Europe managed to accelerate to warp speed after a slow start - I sure hope that Oz can manage to do the same. Otherwise the wheels can come off this strategy in no time.

[El Pinguino]

Now if you really want to end up in a state of bewilderment (aka NSW) start watching Glady's each day. After half an hour you come away knowing less than you knew at the beginning.
Scotty doesn't like to be seen in her company any more... rumour is he plans to start going to Dan's press conferences instead.

Speaking of Scotty - this afternoon he came out of his burrow - less than a minute of ' bit of a covid issue in NSW - gold standard response - trust me' then straight into 'Oh look over there , more gold in Tokyo - golly gosh - isn't that wonderful' .

Then in a backflip that would have won gold in Tokyo - 'lockdowns are the answer to all our problems not vaccines ( sotto voce - because I screwed up the vaccine thingo )'
Sigh..

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

There is a very good reason that very strong incentives should be put in place to encourage vaccination - up to and beyond 'vaccination passports'.

Most people refusing to get vaccinated are of below average intelligence.

Most people of below average intelligence work in menial jobs - cleaning dunnies, street sweeping, working for Amazon or Walmart.

OK there are outliers - some become presidents and prime ministers .

So if the virus bumps many of them off - what then?

The end of life as we knew it, thats what.


QED

Yup.. No one to serve and clean up after you any more..

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Sorry but that is not correct, what the link says is
'Up to 40,000 Pfizer doses will be allocated from NSW Health's rural and regional supply of COVID-19 vaccine to help Year 12 students in south west and western Sydney get back to school for face-to-face learning on 16 August.'

They are all going back to school on the 16th - maybe some will have had their first shot.
Nowhere does it say they will not be allowed back to school if awaiting that first shot or that they will not be allowed back if they refuse it.
I can't find that anywhere else either.

The wording is ambiguous. My interpretation has been coloured by news reports, so yes, it may be incorrect. Thanks for picking this up.

SWL