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

[Dockhead]

Masking is back in Denmark, and coronapasses for many public venues: https://cphpost.dk/?p=129696 Just two months after an end to the pandemic was declared in Denmark.

Infection is increasing throughout the region, even in Sweden which up to now had completely missed the fourth wave:



Death rates still reasonable, but only Sweden, at 0.49 per million, is under 1 per million.

Note very moderate death rates in UK and Ireland, despite very high rates of infection:



UK has been below 2 for a few days already.

None other than Neil Ferguson, the principle author of the Imperial College study which, at the beginning of the pandemic predicted millions of deaths, triggering possible overreactions in many countries, is now saying that he thinks the UK may have reached some degree of herd immunity:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/24/w...-immunity.html

This does line up with the study of total immunity linked upthread, which showed the UK to have a higher degree of total immunity than other countries in Europe.

"'Herd immunity is not an all or nothing thing,' Professor Ferguson said. 'It is something which limits transmission, and having basically flat transmission when we have — in England — no real restrictions in place is indicative that we are almost at the threshold of immunity which would stop transmission.'" op. cit.

Don't know if he's right or wrong, but the UK is doing pretty well, with high but fairly stable infection rates, and moderate and slowly falling death rate. In Germany, where death rates have now passed 3 and are steadily rising, the situation is much more alarming. I think this is the result of lower vaccination rate plus much less natural immunity in Germany, compared to the UK.

It is also interesting to note the difference between Finland and Denmark. Denmark, with much higher infection rate, has actually a lower death rate than Finland. Denmark has the highest vaccination rate in the Nordics, and besides that has had the most infections besides Sweden. Higher total immunity keeps the death rates down, even if it's not nearly enough yet for any kind of herd immunity effects.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

... There are traditional dead corona virus vaccines, but they are not approved for use in the US or in the EU. There are working treatment protocols, as effective as the vaccines and cheap with known and established drugs, but not approved or even forbidden by the FDA, CDC and other authorities to push for new experimental medications...

To which "traditional dead corona virus vaccines" are you referring?

There are four general categories of vaccines: whole virus, protein subunit, viral vector, and nucleic acid (RNA and DNA).

The US FDA has only approved 3 COVID-19 Vaccines: Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine/COMIRNATY, Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, & Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 Vaccine.

The Janssen [Johnson & Johnson] COVID-19 Vaccine [Ad26.CoV2.S] is a Viral Vector vaccine.

Viral vector vaccines use a modified version of a virus, that is different from the virus being targeted, to deliver important instructions to our cells. The modified version of the virus is called a vector virus.
The Janssen vaccine candidate is a recombinant vector vaccine that uses a human adenovirus to express the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in cells. Adenoviruses are a group of viruses that cause the common cold. However, the adenovirus vector used in the vaccine candidate has been modified so that it can no longer replicate in humans and cause disease. Janssen uses the same vector in the first dose of its prime-boost vaccine regimen against Ebola virus disease (Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo) that was recently granted marketing authorization by the European Commission
➥ https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...s/janssen.html
➥ https://www.fda.gov/emergency-prepar...vid-19-vaccine

[Baronkrak]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Adding to my last post in this thread:


My wife and I keep asking when the anti-vaxxers or even folks like this will be willing to give back their smallpox and polio vaccines that they were required to get before they went to school?


I never did understand why this response didn't appear as the first pushback to the "antis".

Because you are simply confused.

https://www.medicinenet.com/salk_vaccine/definition.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Sabin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox_vaccine

A prudent sailor never follows blindly another boat without assessing the risk involved.

[Zippee]

For a good overvies of the issues. It's clear that what is now been labeled as "Omicron" will take over rapidly, just as Delta did - except faster. For a great overview of mostly terrible news, and one possible hopeful outcome:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxlYyZ08cEg

This is not just another of the many other variants, most of which are trivial compared to Omicron. It has always been that this was a world problem that had to be addressed with world unity. Sadly and even though the vaccines were largely developed with great public investment and assistance, corporate greed and profits denied the 3rd world the vaccines and unified attention desperately needed. Does this mean corporations are "evil"? No, but it does mean that neither are they social or moral. The mad dash for continuing their greed for unthinkable and record profits still continues. One might even say their bloody profits depend on extending this madness. A very few mega-wealthy oligarchs will capture even more hundreds of billions while the masses suffer.


Certainly it was useless to speculate on any one country or even group of countries, when the virus was allowed free reign to mutate. Such an event was even expected and now our worst fears may have been realized.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Masking is back in Denmark, and coronapasses for many public venues: https://cphpost.dk/?p=129696 Just two months after an end to the pandemic was declared in Denmark.

Infection is increasing throughout the region, even in Sweden which up to now had completely missed the fourth wave:

Attachment 248915

Death rates still reasonable, but only Sweden, at 0.49 per million, is under 1 per million.

Note very moderate death rates in UK and Ireland, despite very high rates of infection:

Attachment 248916

UK has been below 2 for a few days already.

None other than Neil Ferguson, the principle author of the Imperial College study which, at the beginning of the pandemic predicted millions of deaths, triggering possible overreactions in many countries, is now saying that he thinks the UK may have reached some degree of herd immunity:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/24/w...-immunity.html

This does line up with the study of total immunity linked upthread, which showed the UK to have a higher degree of total immunity than other countries in Europe.

"'Herd immunity is not an all or nothing thing,' Professor Ferguson said. 'It is something which limits transmission, and having basically flat transmission when we have — in England — no real restrictions in place is indicative that we are almost at the threshold of immunity which would stop transmission.'" op. cit.

Don't know if he's right or wrong, but the UK is doing pretty well, with high but fairly stable infection rates, and moderate and slowly falling death rate. In Germany, where death rates have now passed 3 and are steadily rising, the situation is much more alarming. I think this is the result of lower vaccination rate plus much less natural immunity in Germany, compared to the UK.

It is also interesting to note the difference between Finland and Denmark. Denmark, with much higher infection rate, has actually a lower death rate than Finland. Denmark has the highest vaccination rate in the Nordics, and besides that has had the most infections besides Sweden. Higher total immunity keeps the death rates down, even if it's not nearly enough yet for any kind of herd immunity effects.

These are the sorts of stats which give me pause over vaccine mandates. As noted, I don't question the safety & effectiveness of vaccines generally, nor do I have any reticence that it's the best choice for myself personally. I also applaud, of course, countries like the UK who may now have achieved some level of herd immunity. But this is an entirely separate matter than whether govts. should mandate it, perhaps esp. so should Covid become (or has already become) endemic as an increasing number of experts claim.

The statistics wax & wane, and vary by country & region, but high infection rates coupled with low hospitalizations & deaths do not seem to support the principal justification for vax mandates and restrictions, namely overburdening hospitals and health care resources. But the other justification that is increasingly advocated for -- namely the unvaccinated prolonging the pandemic (and therefore its restrictions, etc.) by allowing the virus to remain in circulation -- seems increasingly dubious as we learn that the vaccines are not as effective as anticipated at preventing new infections as they are at preventing (or at least mitigating) serious illness and death. This would confirm that Covid-19 and its variants will in fact become endemic, and this in turn gets us back to the principal and I think still the best societal justification for vaccines, namely to avoid overburdening health care systems. In other words, IF the data shows that the unvaccinated are mainly a risk & burden to themselves as opposed to the vaccinated and society at large, then this would arguably cut against govt-imposed mandates.

As a policy matter, this is and should be based on the ever-changing data, i.e. science-driven as opposed to motivated by individual fears, scapegoating, or politicians who lack the disposition or courage to speak candidly with their citizenry. Or worst of all, those who cloak such patently non-scientific rationales by misconstruing or distorting the science to justify their own personal desires or agendas.

For example, here in the US there's a growing sense from some quarters that the govt is deliberating downplaying or even ignoring the significance of natural immunity from those who have recovered from verifiable Covid infections. Looked at in the best light, one can easily assume this has been well-intended as a way of promoting the need for vaccinations regardless. But afaik, the science has never suggested that natural immunity alone is just as protective as natural immunity and vaccination. The problem comes not from any misplaced but good intentions of policymakers, however, but rather their loss of credibility in the minds of those who are already predisposed not to trust them. That many will (justifiably) view this distrust as ignorant/conspiratorial/shameful/political/etc. may have some truth but is rather besides the point, since this distrust in fact exists and the only remedy is for policymakers to speak honestly to people that encourages and trusts them to make their own choices, esp. when it involves an issue as fundamental and important as public health. This effort to reach achieve consensus may not be enough at some point, obviously, but this in turn depends on actual, clearly articulated, and credible threats to the society at large from those who remain vaccinated.

To this end, here is an informative article from the WSJ (maybe paywalled) that surveys the current state of the science when it comes to natural immunity. If anything, the consensus of the scientists questioned is that vaccines are more effective in the shorter run, but that natural immunity may actually provide longer lasting protection. Importantly, nobody is recommending that people avoid vaccination and run the substantially greater risk of getting Covid in the hopes that natural immunity will provide greater benefits!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-1...d=hp_lead_pos3

[Anders]

Face masks will be mandatory in England in shops and public transport.
PCR tests for international arrivals to the UK with home quarantine until results are back.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Zippee

For a good overvies of the issues. It's clear that what is now been labeled as "Omicron" will take over rapidly, just as Delta did - except faster. For a great overview of mostly terrible news, and one possible hopeful outcome:

This is not just another of the many other variants, most of which are trivial compared to Omicron. It has always been that this was a world problem that had to be addressed with world unity. Sadly and even though the vaccines were largely developed with great public investment and assistance, corporate greed and profits denied the 3rd world the vaccines and unified attention desperately needed. Does this mean corporations are "evil"? No, but it does mean that neither are they social or moral. The mad dash for continuing their greed for unthinkable and record profits still continues. One might even say their bloody profits depend on extending this madness. A very few mega-wealthy oligarchs will capture even more hundreds of billions while the masses suffer.


Certainly it was useless to speculate on any one country or even group of countries, when the virus was allowed free reign to mutate. Such an event was even expected and now our worst fears may have been realized.

1. Looks like this latest variant could very well prove more contagious, but no reported scientific information as of yet on how lethal it may be. The historical trend is for variants to become increasingly contagious but less lethal (to those not otherwise vulnerable). I think this was the case with Delta, no?

2. Pfizer and maybe others have been selling licenses to facilitate production in 3rd world countries, and have been taking other measures to try and distribute more equitably around the world. There are many logistical, financial, and other obstacles that have and will frustrate these efforts.

3. Without a profit-motive, the technological advancements that produced these highly effective vaccines in record time would never have transpired. Suggesting it is all only motivated by "greed" or that it violates your personal (albeit naive) "moral" sensibilities sounds pretty far removed from reality. How much more would the masses have suffered without?

4. Presumably the experts know more about Omicron than you or I do, and they know very little at this point.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Baronkrak

Because you are simply confused.

https://www.medicinenet.com/salk_vaccine/definition.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Sabin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox_vaccine

A prudent sailor never follows blindly another boat without assessing the risk involved.

I don't understand your "point(s)" with these links. Usually someone who posts just links tries to explain the purpose of such posts. You haven't.

Your smallpox link says this:


As vaccination spread, some European countries made it compulsory. Concern about its safety led to opposition and then repeal of legislation in some instances.[78]: 236–40 [79] Compulsory infant vaccination was introduced in England by the 1853 Vaccination Act. By 1871, parents could be fined for non-compliance, and then imprisoned for non-payment.[79]: 202–13  This intensified opposition, and the 1898 Vaccination Act introduced a conscience clause. This allowed exemption on production of a certificate of conscientious objection signed by two magistrates. Such certificates were not always easily obtained and a further Act in 1907 allowed exemption by a statutory declaration which could not be refused. Although theoretically still compulsory, the 1907 Act effectively marked the end of compulsory infant vaccination in England.[79]: 233–38 


1919 Notice issued by the British General Post Office encouraging postal staff to apply for the free vaccination


In the United States vaccination was regulated by individual states, the first to impose compulsory vaccination being Massachusetts in 1809. There then followed sequences of compulsion, opposition and repeal in various states. By 1930 Arizona, Utah, North Dakota and Minnesota prohibited compulsory vaccination, 35 states allowed regulation by local authorities, or had no legislation affecting vaccination, whilst in ten states, including Washington, D.C. and Massachusetts, infant vaccination was compulsory.[67]: 292–93  Compulsory infant vaccination was regulated by only allowing access to school for those who had been vaccinated.[80] Those seeking to enforce compulsory vaccination argued that the public good overrode personal freedom, a view supported by the U.S. Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts in 1905, a landmark ruling which set a precedent for cases dealing with personal freedom and the public good.


*********************
I try hard to NOT be confused.


You haven't helped.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Exile

These are the sorts of stats which give me pause over vaccine mandates. As noted, I don't question the safety & effectiveness of vaccines generally, nor do I have any reticence that it's the best choice for myself personally. I also applaud, of course, countries like the UK who may now have achieved some level of herd immunity. But this is an entirely separate matter than whether govts. should mandate it, perhaps esp. so should Covid become (or has already become) endemic as an increasing number of experts claim.

The statistics wax & wane, and vary by country & region, but high infection rates coupled with low hospitalizations & deaths do not seem to support the principal justification for vax mandates and restrictions, namely overburdening hospitals and health care resources. But the other justification that is increasingly advocated for -- namely the unvaccinated prolonging the pandemic (and therefore its restrictions, etc.) by allowing the virus to remain in circulation -- seems increasingly dubious as we learn that the vaccines are not as effective as anticipated at preventing new infections as they are at preventing (or at least mitigating) serious illness and death. This would confirm that Covid-19 and its variants will in fact become endemic, and this in turn gets us back to the principal and I think still the best societal justification for vaccines, namely to avoid overburdening health care systems. In other words, IF the data shows that the unvaccinated are mainly a risk & burden to themselves as opposed to the vaccinated and society at large, then this would arguably cut against govt-imposed mandates.

As a policy matter, this is and should be based on the ever-changing data, i.e. science-driven as opposed to motivated by individual fears, scapegoating, or politicians who lack the disposition or courage to speak candidly with their citizenry. Or worst of all, those who cloak such patently non-scientific rationales by misconstruing or distorting the science to justify their own personal desires or agendas.

For example, here in the US there's a growing sense from some quarters that the govt is deliberating downplaying or even ignoring the significance of natural immunity from those who have recovered from verifiable Covid infections. Looked at in the best light, one can easily assume this has been well-intended as a way of promoting the need for vaccinations regardless. But afaik, the science has never suggested that natural immunity alone is just as protective as natural immunity and vaccination. The problem comes not from any misplaced but good intentions of policymakers, however, but rather their loss of credibility in the minds of those who are already predisposed not to trust them. That many will (justifiably) view this distrust as ignorant/conspiratorial/shameful/political/etc. may have some truth but is rather besides the point, since this distrust in fact exists and the only remedy is for policymakers to speak honestly to people that encourages and trusts them to make their own choices, esp. when it involves an issue as fundamental and important as public health. This effort to reach achieve consensus may not be enough at some point, obviously, but this in turn depends on actual, clearly articulated, and credible threats to the society at large from those who remain vaccinated.

To this end, here is an informative article from the WSJ (maybe paywalled) that surveys the current state of the science when it comes to natural immunity. If anything, the consensus of the scientists questioned is that vaccines are more effective in the shorter run, but that natural immunity may actually provide longer lasting protection. Importantly, nobody is recommending that people avoid vaccination and run the substantially greater risk of getting Covid in the hopes that natural immunity will provide greater benefits!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-1...d=hp_lead_pos3

This is a really interesting and intelligent comment, which gives much to think about.

I have gone back and forth about vaccine mandates. The civil libertarian in me doesn't like the idea of forcing people to do something like that to their bodies, plus among the actual doctors I know and respect, more than one of them is concerned about heretofore unknown risks of the vaccines. On the other hand, I do believe, contrary to how you come out, that significant numbers of unvaccinated in society affect the dynamics of the pandemic in a way which has very negative consequences for the rest of us. However, I don't know. You make an awfully good argument.

This thing of yours:

"As a policy matter, this is and should be based on the ever-changing data, i.e. science-driven as opposed to motivated by individual fears, scapegoating, or politicians who lack the disposition or courage to speak candidly with their citizenry. Or worst of all, those who cloak such patently non-scientific rationales by misconstruing or distorting the science to justify their own personal desires or agendas."

is really right, incisive, and true.

There is a lot of vicious and anti-scientific rhetoric on all sides of this -- the result of polarization. In fact I was just reading this in today's NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/27/s...time-cutoff-20

Which is REALLY chilling. I had no idea this sort of things was going on.

"The design of social media platforms amplifies moral outrage and triggers the brain’s reward centers through punishment and shaming, particularly shaming that is motivated by schadenfreude, according to Molly Crockett, a psychologist at Yale University. But “likes” and sharing expressions of moral outrage bolster more “extreme” views and can lead to harassment, the spread of misinformation and increased polarization, some studies have found.
“'Play stupid games, win stupid prizes' is one common refrain on the Facebook pages of the anti-vaccine dead, as is 'misinformation kills.'
One commenter who mocked Nick Bledsoe’s death on Mr. Bledsoe’s Facebook page was asked by another Facebook user to take down the remarks out of respect for Mr. Bledsoe’s family. The commenter refused. 'I am not the problem, he WAS,' she wrote.
"Reached by phone, the commenter said she stood by her online sentiments. 'I do believe in everything I say,' she said. 'I can be very passionate, sometimes a little too passionate.' She declined to discuss the matter further, but shortly after the call ended, her Facebook comments disappeared."

Just wow.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

In the United States vaccination was regulated by individual states, the first to impose compulsory vaccination being Massachusetts in 1809. There then followed sequences of compulsion, opposition and repeal in various states. By 1930 Arizona, Utah, North Dakota and Minnesota prohibited compulsory vaccination, 35 states allowed regulation by local authorities, or had no legislation affecting vaccination, whilst in ten states, including Washington, D.C. and Massachusetts, infant vaccination was compulsory.[67]: 292–93  Compulsory infant vaccination was regulated by only allowing access to school for those who had been vaccinated.[80] Those seeking to enforce compulsory vaccination argued that the public good overrode personal freedom, a view supported by the U.S. Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts in 1905, a landmark ruling which set a precedent for cases dealing with personal freedom and the public good.


*********************
I try hard to NOT be confused.

And it looks like your efforts have paid off! EXCEPT(), the Jacobsen case and its historical (and more recent) progeny involved the so-called "police powers" on the individual plenary powers of the individual US states, and not the enumerated and therefore prescribed powers of the US federal govt. The "police powers" of the states are not just confined to law & order, but include an entire panoply of state statutes & regulations that govern citizens' everyday lives and that are not specifically granted by the US Constitution to the feds to govern. This obviously includes public health (Affordable Care Act authorized by other constitutional provisions, i.e. Commerce Clause), which is why US governors have been playing such a prominent role responding to the pandemic. But this is also why the first federal appeals court to consider the issue has at least preliminarily ruled that the Biden administration vax mandates on private businesses (over 100 employees) are not authorized.

[dannc]

Originally Posted by laird

This new variant is being called omiron ,..

The WHO started using the Greek alphabet to name the variants. However, you can't make this up, the latest South African variant, this is the second variant from SA that I know about, should have been named after the next "available" Greek letter. The WHO skipped that letter to go to Omicron.

The skipped Greek letter was Xi.

There have been links to some of Dr. Campbell's videos in this discussion. In one of his recent video's he discussed the jab rate in Gibraltar. Gibraltar has a vaccination rate of 143.6%.

https://graphics.reuters.com/world-c...ies/gibraltar/

Gibraltar has vaccinated thousands of works from Spain which is why the rate is so high.

Even with this high vaccination rate, people are still getting the virus. There a huge increase in people getting sick in early November. The spike went up really fast and seems to be falling just as quickly.

The good news is that they had no deaths. I could not find any data on hospitalizations. The vaccines are not stopping people from catching the virus but they do minimize one's chance of getting sick enough to go to the hospital, ICU or dying.

One can accomplish at least this much with making sure one has the proper level of vitamin D in you system. Dr. Campbell recently discussed yet another study showing benefits of vitamin D. The Irish paper published earlier this year mentioned that the patients in hospital with the virus had only one thing they could find in common. Low levels of vitamin D.

Later,
Dan

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This is a really interesting and intelligent comment, which gives much to think about.

* * *

I was hoping to elicit some worthwhile thoughts and comments, as I often find it difficult to get my head around as I try to digest all the facts & figures you and others have been generously posting and commenting on. I'm probably in a similar place as you when it comes to balancing civil liberties with the common good, but also have a pragmatic outlook given all the pushback and polarization that has been created. But I feel the need to emphasize again that we all come at this from our own experiences and outlooks, in no small part influenced by where we hail from and/or where we've chosen to live. I wouldn't presume to opine on what may be best for another nation or its peoples, especially after reading the horror you've been describing from places such as Russia, Latvia, and elsewhere. I'm going to try and keep an open mind until/unless the science & data are developed further. In the meantime, I continue to endorse vaccination & boosters as the most proven and best way out of this (or making it manageable).

From my own perspective, the announced federal mandates in the US have already proven to be yet another source of division in an already fractured and increasingly hostile society, and the fact that -- whether people like it or not -- this involves an exercise of govt power legally and historically left to the individual states is only fueling the idea that the mandates are politically motivated. I for one view this growing political divide as possibly more of a long-term threat to my country than the virus. Reasonable and respectable minds would disagree I'm sure, so just my opinion and in no way intended to offend anyone who may have lost loved ones or otherwise suffered personally.

On the more pragmatic side, I've been reading that up to 30% of all US health care workers remain unvaccinated (as hard as this is to believe). So if mandates are enforced and ___% lose their jobs, will the health care system still be functional enough to handle another large outbreak? What about just meeting everyday but equally critical needs? If mandatory vaxes drop the numbers of unvaccinated to 20%, can the system still perform on 80% staffing? What about 90%? Sounds better but, in the US anyway (and probably elsewhere), it is well known that ICUs are cost-prohibitive so running at close to full capacity during normal times is actually normal. That's why cardiac and other surgeries were cancelled/postponed in the early days when add'l ICU bed space was so desperately needed. And how about first responders, truck drivers, food service workers, garbage collectors, and the list goes on? There are already severe labor shortages in the US and elsewhere from a direct and indirect results of the pandemic and its restrictions. To what extent will public health be compromised if some significant percentage of these people lose their jobs??

This all requires an objective, unemotional, rational & responsible weighing of benefits & costs, something which much of the rhetoric we're hearing and reading simply doesn't endorse.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

* * *

There is a lot of vicious and anti-scientific rhetoric on all sides of this -- the result of polarization. In fact I was just reading this in today's NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/27/s...time-cutoff-20

Which is REALLY chilling. I had no idea this sort of things was going on.

"The design of social media platforms amplifies moral outrage and triggers the brain’s reward centers through punishment and shaming, particularly shaming that is motivated by schadenfreude, according to Molly Crockett, a psychologist at Yale University. But “likes” and sharing expressions of moral outrage bolster more “extreme” views and can lead to harassment, the spread of misinformation and increased polarization, some studies have found.
“'Play stupid games, win stupid prizes' is one common refrain on the Facebook pages of the anti-vaccine dead, as is 'misinformation kills.'
One commenter who mocked Nick Bledsoe’s death on Mr. Bledsoe’s Facebook page was asked by another Facebook user to take down the remarks out of respect for Mr. Bledsoe’s family. The commenter refused. 'I am not the problem, he WAS,' she wrote.
"Reached by phone, the commenter said she stood by her online sentiments. 'I do believe in everything I say,' she said. 'I can be very passionate, sometimes a little too passionate.' She declined to discuss the matter further, but shortly after the call ended, her Facebook comments disappeared."

Just wow.

I'll give it a wow too, but I'm a bit surprised you're surprised over this. After all, I've read comments with similar themes right here on CF, and possibly in this very thread. Well, not quite that bad, but certainly ones which express a complete lack of compassion for those who have succumbed to Covid, and even some with the "it serves them right" theme. I've also heard in the wider (non-cyber) world comments suggesting that those who don't vaccinate shouldn't be entitled to burden the health care system when they get sick. Nice, huh?

I get it. Everyone should get vaccinated. But really? And of course we all know that internet postings exacerbate such hateful comments because, unlike face-to-face dealings with our fellow human beings, there's anonymity and therefore little accountability. While I haven't always lived up to this myself, I try and remind myself and others to pretend that the person you're communicating with is standing next to you in the same room. Would you still be standing?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Exile

I'll give it a wow too, but I'm a bit surprised you're surprised over this. After all, I've read comments with similar themes right here on CF, and possibly in this very thread. Well, not quite that bad, but certainly ones which express a complete lack of compassion for those who have succumbed to Covid, and even some with the "it serves them right" theme. I've also heard in the wider (non-cyber) world comments suggesting that those who don't vaccinate shouldn't be entitled to burden the health care system when they get sick. Nice, huh?

I get it. Everyone should get vaccinated. But really? And of course we all know that internet postings exacerbate such hateful comments because, unlike face-to-face dealings with our fellow human beings, there's anonymity and therefore little accountability. While I haven't always lived up to this myself, I try and remind myself and others to pretend that the person you're communicating with is standing next to you in the same room. Would you still be standing?

Indeed. Empathy, tolerance. A little humility. Where did it go? Are we really that ugly?

I have experienced some challenges in being empathetic to the unvaccinated. That's a kind of weakness which I regret.

I'll never forget that flight I took on Finnair what, a year ago. When some lady freaked out and refused to wear a mask on the flight, she experienced some difficulty in breathing. The Finnair flight attendant politely reasoned with her, and then, left her alone. Nor did the other passengers get upset. That's the response of a healthy society, different from the one I grew up in.

[davil]

I started my medical practice as a “country doc” delivered babies at home,did home visits, my patients did not have medical insurance, they paid as they could, many did not.
Over the years learned a lot about human behavior, compassion, understanding.
Retired but been a physician is a state of mind.
Must admit, my empathy and sense of compassion is running thin.
Glad not having to provide medical care on the current state of affairs, mostly in emergency rooms/ICU settings to a population that has made a decision to not vaccinate and mostly disregarded basic guidelines as masking, keeping distance.
Those hospital units are specific on their roles, provide medical/surgical care to catastrophic conditions like strokes,MI,accidents, life-threatening conditions like burns, road accidents, serious injuries etc. You get the idea.
Even surgical /medical interventions considered selective are now postponed and increasing morbidity on the population.
And if not enough, those providing care also are risking their health/lives as well as their families .
Should I continue to be patient? Understanding?
Why?
Vaccines have been available now for over a year?
Information?
We are overloaded with information.
People are selective on what they want to hear.
So, I respect your decision to refuse vaccination, your right?
But please, be consistent, with your “rights”
Stay the course of your disease, should you be infected at home !, you know the outcome, recovery or death.
You will have both my empathy and respect, even sorrow in the case of your passing.
Just stay the h...l out of the hospital.

PS
I felt the urge to share my thoughts, do not intend to debate or argue.