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

[Montanan]

COVID: 2 Pfizer doses and Moderna booster give somewhat more protection than 3 Pfizer jabs

https://www.yahoo.com/news/2-pfizer-...120125008.html

Those who have taken two Pfizer-BioNTech doses and their booster shot by Moderna are more protected against the risk of COVID-19 infection, compared with those who have taken three Pfizer doses.

Across the ages, they are 72 per cent less likely to be infected, compared with 62 per cent for the latter group, said Health Minister Ong Ye Kung on Monday (15 November) during a virtual press conference chaired by the multi-ministry taskforce.

Both mRNA vaccines work very well as boosters, with Pfizer-Pfizer-Moderna having a slight edge. Regardless, the impact on the reduction of severity of illness is extremely high for both combinations," he noted.

. . .

"The probability of infection and the probability of severe illness has been further drastically reduced," he said. "(For) seniors, the impact has been stark and very significant."

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...... Brief googling shows Oz gives UP TO 14 years for sexual assault. Don't know what the average sentence is there, but I would be willing to bet it's about the same as the U.S.

Brief googling suggests to me you stopped at NSW or WA.

For all of OZ, try this from Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault

In the State of New South Wales, sexual assault is a statutory offence punishable under s 61I of the Crimes Act 1900. The term "sexual assault" is equivalent to "rape" in ordinary parlance, while all other assaults of a sexual nature are termed "indecent assault".

To be liable for punishment under the Crimes Act 1900, an offender must intend to commit an act of sexual intercourse as defined under s 61H(1) while having one of the states of knowledge of non-consent defined under s 61HA(3). But note that s 61HA(3) is an objective standard which only require the person has no reasonable grounds for believing the other person is consenting.[96] The maximum penalty for sexual assault is 14 years imprisonment.[97]

Aggravated sexual assault is sexual intercourse with another person without the consent of the other person and in circumstances of aggravation. The maximum penalty is imprisonment for 20 years under s 61J of the Crimes Act.

In the state of Victoria, rape is punishable under s 38 of the Crimes Act 1958, with a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment.[98]

In the state of South Australia, rape is punishable under s 48 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) with a maximum term of life imprisonment.[99]

In the state of Western Australia, sexual penetration is punishable under s 325 the Criminal Code Act 1913 with a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment.[100]

In the Northern Territory, offences of sexual intercourse and gross indecency without consent are punishable under s 192 of the Criminal Code Act 1983 and punishable with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.[101]

In Queensland, rape and sexual assault are punishable under s 349, Chapter 32 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.[102]

In Tasmania, rape is punishable under s 185 of the Criminal Code Act 1924 with a maximum punishment of 21 years under s389 of the Criminal Code Act 1924.[103]

In the Australian Capital Territory, sexual assault is punishable under Part 3 of the Crimes Act 1900 with a maximum punishment of 17 years.[104]

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Brief googling suggests to me you stopped at NSW or WA.

For all of OZ, try this from Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault

In the State of New South Wales, sexual assault is a statutory offence punishable under s 61I of the Crimes Act 1900. The term "sexual assault" is equivalent to "rape" in ordinary parlance, while all other assaults of a sexual nature are termed "indecent assault".

To be liable for punishment under the Crimes Act 1900, an offender must intend to commit an act of sexual intercourse as defined under s 61H(1) while having one of the states of knowledge of non-consent defined under s 61HA(3). But note that s 61HA(3) is an objective standard which only require the person has no reasonable grounds for believing the other person is consenting.[96] The maximum penalty for sexual assault is 14 years imprisonment.[97]

Aggravated sexual assault is sexual intercourse with another person without the consent of the other person and in circumstances of aggravation. The maximum penalty is imprisonment for 20 years under s 61J of the Crimes Act.

In the state of Victoria, rape is punishable under s 38 of the Crimes Act 1958, with a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment.[98]

In the state of South Australia, rape is punishable under s 48 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) with a maximum term of life imprisonment.[99]

In the state of Western Australia, sexual penetration is punishable under s 325 the Criminal Code Act 1913 with a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment.[100]

In the Northern Territory, offences of sexual intercourse and gross indecency without consent are punishable under s 192 of the Criminal Code Act 1983 and punishable with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.[101]

In Queensland, rape and sexual assault are punishable under s 349, Chapter 32 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.[102]

In Tasmania, rape is punishable under s 185 of the Criminal Code Act 1924 with a maximum punishment of 21 years under s389 of the Criminal Code Act 1924.[103]

In the Australian Capital Territory, sexual assault is punishable under Part 3 of the Crimes Act 1900 with a maximum punishment of 17 years.[104]

Thanks for the correction. But it doesn't really change anything in the discussion, does it?

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion about the appropriate punishment for all these things. Some people may favor the death penalty; I have no idea.

I am speaking up for moderation, perspective and kindness and not losing our heads over this. You are welcome to speak up for something else.



It's a classical problem of criminal justice -- perspective. We lost it in the U.S. during the so-called "war on drugs" when we decided to create mandatory sentencing for people committing trivial drug offenses, putting millions of people in jail. The arguments then were the same -- the drug situation is a crisis; it's ruining the nation -- deal with it mercilessly. That grandmother we threw in jail for 10 years for two ounces of pot -- she knew the law. She knew the minimum penalty. Yet she chose to violate it. Let her rot in jail.


This attitude got us a different crisis of major proportions in the U.S. Lack of moderation and perspective; giving ourselves over to one crisis without thinking that it's not the only important thing in life at this moment.


There is a lesson for us in this crisis, too.



That's my opinion and you are welcome to a different one.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Take it easy, man. We are here for polite and civilized conversation. Enough said? You are welcome to bring better facts, if you have them. You are not welcome to make personal attacks.

I thought 'gentleman' was polite enough.
Beats calling people 'it' as in -

'It comes out of the woodwork! I remember you!'

Now, what is an 'antivaxxer'?
An antivaxxer ia an unvaccinated person but an unvaccinated person isn't neccesarily an antivaxxer.
The shire I reside in has a population of about 14,000. About 300 over 16yo are unvaccinated. Are there any 'antivaxxers' amongst them? Dunno but I doubt it - maybe a few closet antivaxxers. Are they visible? No. Do any go on facebook and preach the antivax gospel. Dunno I don't 'do' facebook.

Antivaxxers probably make up only a small number of visible protesters - most either are just easily led or ratbags.
Take this town in NZ - the easily led are the general population - the ratbags are the patched gang members.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/hea...-lives-at-risk

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Thanks for the correction. But it doesn't really change anything in the discussion, does it?


Everyone is entitled to his own opinion about the appropriate punishment for all these things. Some people may favor the death penalty; I have no idea.



I am speaking up for moderation and kindness and not losing our heads over this. You are welcome to speak up for something else.

Well yes it does - you were indulging in a bit of hyperbole by comparing the three months plus seven months suspended handed down in Perth with the sentences given for sexual assault.

Speaking of the death penalty.
The other day in Melbourne at the protest against some new legislation https://www.theage.com.au/national/v....html#comments which also attracted the antivaxx lot a member of the state opposition Bernie Finn addressed the crowd.
What a class act he is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Finn
He wants to bring back capital punishment "if two or three drug lords were executed, others would get the message. They should be disqualified from breathing the same oxygen that we do."[17].
And Raymond worries about Dan.

[tp12]

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

Love this thread

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

. . . Now, what is an 'antivaxxer'?
An antivaxxer ia an unvaccinated person but an unvaccinated person isn't neccesarily an antivaxxer.
The shire I reside in has a population of about 14,000. About 300 over 16yo are unvaccinated. Are there any 'antivaxxers' amongst them? Dunno but I doubt it - maybe a few closet antivaxxers. Are they visible? No. Do any go on facebook and preach the antivax gospel. Dunno I don't 'do' facebook.

Antivaxxers probably make up only a small number of visible protesters - most either are just easily led or ratbags.
Take this town in NZ - the easily led are the general population - the ratbags are the patched gang members.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/hea...-lives-at-risk

We've already discussed this. If you don't have anti-vaxxers in your shire, and anti-vaxxers are not a problem in your pandemic response, and no one shames them, then great for you! In other parts of the world, the situation is much, much harder, with anti-vaxxers concretely preventing countries from getting to a level of vaccination which is able to arrest the pandemic, take Germany and Russia as two examples. But this has already been posted.

And anyway, we're not just talking about anti-vaxxers, but slight victemless violators of pandemic regulations, people who even question pandemic regulations. If you are not experiencing the kind of strife where you live -- then great! But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Well yes it does - you were indulging in a bit of hyperbole by comparing the three months plus seven months suspended handed down in Perth with the sentences given for sexual assault.. . .

First of all, hyperbole is not a crime in any country I've ever heard about. But what I said was not even hyperbole. Several months -- originally 6 to be served out of 10 handed down -- of hard time, is indeed, and this is a fact, the kind of jail time that very often sexual offenders, robbers, and so forth get. When it's a first offence, no priors, etc., like this case. You may think that someone who merely travels to another state against the rules, not infecting anyone, should be subjected to the same kind of punishment -- your opinion is just as valid as mine. But I respectfully disagree, and I think a large proportion of professionals involved with civil liberties would disagree. You don't have to agree, but a little bit of respect would be nice.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

We've already discussed this. If you don't have anti-vaxxers in your shire, and anti-vaxxers are not a problem in your pandemic response, and no one shames them, then great for you! In other parts of the word, the situation is much, much harder, with anti-vaxxers concretely preventing countries from getting to a level of vaccination which is able to arrest the pandemic, take Germany and Russia as two examples. But this has already been posted.


And anyway, we're not just talking about anti-vaxxers, but slight victemless violators of pandemic regulations, people who even question pandemic regulations. If you are not experiencing the kind of strife where you live -- then great! But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You seem to be struggling a bit with this. Most of the unvaxxed - the vaxx hesitant - have probably had their hesitancy reinforced by the rabid ratbag antivaxxers. These RRAvs - the likes of Brian Tamaki - get well and truly named and shamed in this part of the planet. In his case it is a shame he has just been bailed and not banged up for the summer.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

You seem to be struggling a bit with this. Most of the unvaxxed - the vaxx hesitant - have probably had their hesitancy reinforced by the rabid ratbag antivaxxers. These RRAvs - the likes of Brian Tamaki - get well and truly named and shamed in this part of the planet. In his case it is a shame he has just been bailed and not banged up for the summer.

Anti-vaxxers, and their leaders, are a major problem in the continent I live in, and in the continent where I was born.

How to deal with them? I suggest that name-calling and shaming and ridicule is not the way to persuade anyone. And "banging up"? Even as a joke?

I'm not the only person who believes this:

https://www.thecut.com/2015/02/why-s...wont-work.html

Should Anti-Vaxers Be Shamed or Persuaded? - The Atlantic

There are other points of view, but this is mine.

NOW, people who intentionally spread information which they know to be false -- that's disinformation as opposed to misinformation -- that's a different story. If it can be proved, then something should be done about that, like withdrawing media access.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

First of all, hyperbole is not a crime in any country I've ever heard about. But what I said was not even hyperbole. Several months -- originally 6 to be served out of 10 handed down -- of hard time, is indeed, and this is a fact, the kind of jail time that very often sexual offenders, robbers, and so forth get. When it's a first offence, no priors, etc., like this case. You may think that someone who merely travels to another state against the rules, not infecting anyone, should be subjected to the same kind of punishment -- your opinion is just as valid as mine. But I respectfully disagree, and I think a large proportion of professionals involved with civil liberties would disagree. You don't have to agree, but a little bit of respect would be nice.

Where is it said that 6 months was to be served? Everything I have read says 3 plus 7. No mention of an appeal.
They were remanded in custody on 29th September. https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/vic...0e9cadd0b50d0a
Case heard on 13th October when they copped 3 months less the 14 days already served.
https://www.9news.com.au/national/me...1-03a32e39de84
They are facing further charges in the NT this month. Watch this space.

Their crime was only going to be victimless until it wasn't.

You could compare this to the removalists that brought the latest round of Delta into Victoria. They didn't go to jail but they were just doing their job - and they weren't scofflaws. I think they may have each copped a few hundred dollars fine - and one gave covid to his mum - who died.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Where is it said that 6 months was to be served? Everything I have read says 3 plus 7. No mention of an appeal.
They were remanded in custody on 29th September. https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/vic...0e9cadd0b50d0a
Case heard on 13th October when they copped 3 months less the 14 days already served.
https://www.9news.com.au/national/me...1-03a32e39de84
They are facing further charges in the NT this month. Watch this space.

Their crime was only going to be victimless until it wasn't.

You could compare this to the removalists that brought the latest round of Delta into Victoria. They didn't go to jail but they were just doing their job - and they weren't scofflaws. I think they may have each copped a few hundred dollars fine - and one gave covid to his mum - who died.

In the initial report I read, it was 6 months. Maybe it was a mistake, maybe it was changed. Maybe I even misrembered it. But it makes no difference -- months of hard time. And over Christmas. And the original article I read stated that the one guy would lose his alcohol license and his ability to run his restaurant, and wouldn't ever to be able to get an alcohol license again. And you say yourself that there will be even more prosecution.

"Their crime was only going to be victimless until it wasn't." But it was, in the event, victimless. This was known when they were sentenced. You said, or someone said that what they did is equivalent to drunk driving. I think this is much less serious than drunk driving, but suppose, for the sake of argument -- no one gets 3 months of hard time, for a first offence of drunk driving with no priors, without some extraordinary aggravating factors.

Look, if you think all this is reasonable and proportionate to the crime, you are perfectly entitled to that view. I'm not sure why it exercises you so much, that my view is different.

[Dockhead]

Meanwhile, back in Northern Europe:









We are at a kind of crossroads in the pandemic. Just a month or so ago, Norway and Denmark announced the final end of any pandemic measures -- everyone who is willing to be vaccinated is already vaccinated, and the virus is officially "endemic", and we're not going to restrict society any more. Happy days. More or less the same announcement in Norway, which led to wild revelry in Oslo.


But what a difference a month makes. Daily infection rate in Denmark is now over 500 -- that's a really big outbreak, bigger than Germany. The Danes have reopened their "white tents" and have resumed large scale free testing, so there might not be as much difference between Denmark and, say, Finland, where a PCR test costs €200 and you get a free one only if you have symptoms, as you might think from looking at the stats.



Will the Danes stay the course, or will they reverse the "end of the pandemic" and reimpose restrictions? I don't know. The death and hospitalization rates are still very reasonable, death rate under 1 per million. That is certainly because the current outbreak is heavily concentrated among young people:





Is this wave of the pandemic going to look like that elsewhere?


I am really worried about Finland, as we have the least amount of natural immunity of any Nordic country. Vaccination rate is not bad, but it's significantly less than in Denmark. We have far less natural immunity than Denmark, since Denmark had several severe waves of infection, which we have never had. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be having an even more severe wave than Denmark. We shall see.


Sweden is not doing quite as great as the infection numbers say, because they are doing very little testing. There is certainly more than 75 daily cases per million. But still, they are doing great as can be seen by their death and hospitalization numbers. Certainly because, as the hardest hit Nordic country, they have more natural immunity, plus a pretty decent vacccination rate.


It is very good to see that the infection rates have fallen right off in Latvia and Estonia after horrible outbreaks during the last month. The death rate in Latvia continues to be catastrophic; over 20 per million a few days and today nearly 20 per million. I left Latvia and Estonia out of the death chart in order not to compress the scale. This is horrendous; tragic. Worse than Italy at its worst. And in November, 2021, almost a year after we started vaccinating people. Simply tragic. In my opinion, this is the result of the low level of vaccination plus the fact that Latvia was practically untouched during 2020, only getting the first serious outbreak earlier this year, so horrible combination of low natural immunity and low vaccination rate. This outbreak has finally scared a significant part of the Latvian population which was sitting on the fence about getting vaccinated, and they have been vaccinating at a pretty high rate the last few weeks. They have almost reached 60% of the whole population fully vaccinated, but this came too late to prevent this horrible outbreak.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

... Everyone is entitled to his own opinion about the appropriate punishment for all these things. Some people may favor the death penalty; I have no idea.

I am speaking up for moderation, perspective and kindness and not losing our heads over this. You are welcome to speak up for something else.

It's a classical problem of criminal justice -- perspective...

Originally Posted by Dockhead

... When it's a first offence, no priors, etc., like this case. You may think that someone who merely travels to another state against the rules, not infecting anyone, should be subjected to the same kind of punishment -- your opinion is just as valid as mine. But I respectfully disagree, and I think a large proportion of professionals involved with civil liberties would disagree. You don't have to agree, but a little bit of respect would be nice.

Indeed.
Not just civil libertarians, but also criminologists/lawyers, interested in the effectiveness of deterrence.

Deterrence is primarily a function of the Certainty of Punishment, NOT its Severity

A rational sentencing policy would consider a sentence severity that incorporates an assessment, of both, the individual offender, and the nature, and circumstances, of his offense.
For instance, nonviolent, first-time offenders should ordinarily receive non-prison sentences, or a length of incarceration that is “no longer than needed to serve the purposes for which it is imposed.”

On the day of sentencing, judges frequently tell a convicted defendant that they are being sentenced to prison to “send a message”, that their criminal behavior will not be tolerated. The human instinct to do so is understandable, but unfortunately, the value of this message is often insignificant.

The deterrent effect of the criminal justice system has been studied for hundreds of years, with increasing sophistication in recent decades. In regard to the impact of punishment, on potential offenders, a key finding is that deterrence is primarily a function of the certainty of punishment, not its severity. [1]
Daniel Nagin, a leading deterrence scholar in the United States, concluded that “the evidence in support of the deterrent effect of the certainty of punishment is far more consistent and convincing than for the severity of punishment” and that “the effect of certainty rather than severity of punishment reflect[s] a response to the certainty of apprehension.”

[1] “Deterrence in the Twenty-First Century: A Review of the Evidence.” ~ by Daniel S. Nagin
➥ https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/do...10.1086/670398
➥ https://kilthub.cmu.edu/articles/jou...idence/6471200

[Zippee]

Yet another persistant notion being promoted here is the idea that the vaccines remain very effective. Really?

The goalposts have been moved however, as the term “effectiveness” has now been reduced as now referring only to death or hospitalization, not the original and usual understanding as efficacy at preventing infection. This reduction is highly political and a seeming attempt to put a positive or political spin on bad news.

Aside: consider too the realization that the world has failed at ending the pandemic, and that we are ever more likely to have to live with Covid and it’s current and future variants as endemic. Get used to regular boosters, and the likelihood that we are all probably destined to contract Covid. We once had a chance with the original variant – but no more.

Thus the spin to “still effective” (not so much) in re death or hospitalization,"so let’s open up, get back to work, ignore inflation, and support big business and capitalism".

Ignoring the elephant in the room – long haul effects – is necessary for this false “return to normacy” being promoted (this thread not excluded). Sad.

Over the months of this thread, the much larger issue of the effects of long haul, multiple and severe damages have been largely ignored. Two important facts: it has been variously reported that unlike the relatively low death rates, around 30 to 40% of those who contract Covid – even without hospitalization - will have lasting and life altering damages and/or serious effects.

At the least.

The second fact: the real efficacy for preventing infection (not just hospitalization or death) faded rather rapidly and severely over just months. Studies vary but it is fair to estimate the loss at about 10% per month – thus the need for boosters after 5 or 6 months as the efficacy against infection has reduced to about 60% (from the 90’s). This fact too is ignored here.

Forget death and hospitalization as these two ARE indeed limited by the vaccines, but do consider the MUCH more likely long haul consequences that will occur to the un-vaccinated, partially vaccinated, or unboosted parties:

“According to the CDC, the most common lasting symptoms are fatigue, shortness of breath, cough, joint pain and chest pain. Other issues include cognitive problems, difficulty concentrating, depression, muscle pain, headache, rapid heartbeat and intermittent fever..."

.

These are common, but that’s just the beginning. Consider these additional long haul effects, paraphrased:

1. Crystallization of the lungs, and serious shortness of breath, often after even mild cases.
2. About 60% show lasting inflammation of the heart, palpitation, a-fib (increased risk of later stroke or heart attack) and the like to various extents.
3. Kidney damage due to hyper-inflammation. Similar effects to other organs and the circulatory system.
4. Loss of ability to smell or taste, not recovered by about 75% of those affected, and risking loss of appetite, anxiety or depression
5. Brain fog, fatigue, headaches and dizziness, loss of concentration and insomnia.
6. Mental issues related to loss, isolation, grief, damaged interpersonal relations, lingering anxiety and depression.
7. Increasing evidence of related Type 2 diabetes.

There are more. Children and younger people have not proved exempt. There are long haul effects on health and psychological care. Both serious and long haul needs are dominating both systems of care, to the point that normal needs for both are not being well served, with no end in sight.

So to summarize:

1. The focus on deaths and hospitalization – especially insofar as the claim that vaccines are still very effective – greatly ignores reality and the true and total long term damages and effects on society at large.

2. I could not disagree more with comments that seem to me at the least pollyannish, but perhaps even partisan or propagandic depending on the source.


A competent link (of many) follows. Don’t take my word or interpretation as I am not an epidemiologist. This from John Hopkins:

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/heal...cts-of-covid19