ozimoron

Omicron amps up concerns about long COVID and its causes https://apnews.com/article/long-covid-omicron-research-45986f5b42e47e656d5b385bd51b2bb2

Omicron subvariant BA.2 more infectious than 'original', Danish study finds https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/omicron-subvariant-ba2-more-infectious-than-original-danish-study-finds-2022-01-31/

And how could the proportion of people dying have shifted against the vaccinated? That statistic is likely to have remained similar.

In this case, freedom to infect others without giving a ....

I mean that I will hear him once at least. How can I know without doing so? After that, not in his case for sure. It's great that influential artists are exercising their right to freedom of speech and pulling their content from spotify as a protest over allowing him. It's hilarious that the far right think media should be forced to carry extremist content but that a business should not have to bake a gay themed cake. They can't get their ducks in a row, lol.

There is nobody on the planet whose words I will not hear. Beyond that is a different story. Many deserve to be censored, others not.

Never advocated burning books. It's US Republicans most active on that scene at the moment. All media should be censored for hate speech, antisocial behaviour and misinformation. It is a responsibility of the media owners to do so or be prosecuted for failure to do so. They obviously have a right of appeal. Would you repeal Section 18C of the Racial Vilification Act? Or the entire Act? No country has an absolute right to freedom of speech. For example, one can't make bomb jokes in an airport. They obviously can't make defamatory statements without proving it's true. Defamation laws exist everywhere. The term "Freedom of speech" is a mantra used by those who would use the right in the worst way to appeal to the worst aspects of human nature and make a claim to be free to do so. Do you not believe that there should be any limits to freedom of speech and if so, what might those limits be in a social context? Most western nations have perfectly adequate and well protected laws permitting free speech.

The meme you posted directly refers to Nazi activities during the second world war. The legislation you referenced is intended to prevent antisocial and fascist organisations from forming like those which led to the initial success of the Nazis. Think white supremacist organisations.

I would agree that people with lifestyle related diseases should be forced to pay more for their treatments where it can be shown that those illnesses were potentially under the control of those who have them. It isn't always the case. People who smoke, drink alcohol and refuse vaccines are clearly going to strain the system somewhat. Mitigation can occur in several forms. They can include better education, higher taxes and insurance premiums or rationalized care in favour of those who have taken steps to minimize their risk. All of these options should be on the table and all used where appropriate. Sanctions against people spreading misinformation should also be implemented. There isn't an unfettered right to absolute freedom of speech. It's just a matter of having an independent and educated organisation to adjudicate. If we can't have that we can't progress as a society. Misinformation is the biggest challenge we face in tackling intolerance, pandemics and climate change.

I prefer to do it on a case by case basis. Examine everything on it's own merits. I never make blanket assumptions or stereotype anybody. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Sweeping generalisations are the antithesis of free thinking in my book. Those leaders who are not authoritarian by nature know they have to gain the trust of the electors or they don't get to control anything. This is why democracy is so important because it does give us a better chance of removing corrupt politicians than any other process. I attach little to no importance to religious leaders but I do recognise that they have a part to play in society because too many people are still religious. I think those religious leaders and politicians who appeal to the worst human traits like intolerance are the ones to avoid the most. Finally, I am not of the view that we need to blame ourselves for the sins of our forefathers but I strongly believe we should seek out the truth in our history and teach it to our children because we need to make sure we are not repeating the mistakes of past generations. This is very important as, increasingly, I feel that we are do just that.

The problem here is that when the hard right see such warnings it's a signal to deliberately misinterpret these statistics as talking points, knowing that many of their constituents won't analyse the source data with a critical mind. I'm not at all confident that those who have cherry picked some statistics and taken them out of context have done so out of a detailed analysis of technical data. Rather, they have seen these misinterpretations published by pseudo science websites and dutifully parroted them on forums like this. It is far from an accidental misreading of the data which is why this behaviour is so egregious.

A toxic mix of politics and psychosis. Especially when you consider that the majority of anti vaxers on this board are vaccinated.

Why? because he's right on this matter at this time. There's plenty of injustices and crimes perpetrated by every country and religion in the world at some time. Should we never listen to any world leader on any issue?

Lots of paranoid and deranged responses here. I have yet to see a single news report quoted on this board where anything the government has said about the virus or the vaccines themselves which is even remotely untrue. I'm not referring to testing rates or prevalence of the virus but the actual facts about the virus and the vaccines.

Do you mean the NSW that has record deaths today? That NSW? https://covidlive.com.au/report/daily-deaths/nsw

exactly what are these undreamt of imaginary powers that the governments have? Closing down a few bars? What does that get them? This garbage about world control is beyond stupid. In Australia, the state governments which locked down the hardest were the most popular. The year we had no covid because of border controls was wildly popular. And now that mini me decided we had to bow to the wishes of big corporations and open up without quarantine, the hospitals are going under, deaths are at a record high and the government has got buckley's of being re-elected in May. Most workers world wide support mask mandates and vaccine restrictions. https://www.ipsos.com/en/covid-and-the-workplace-dec-2021

"When free and efficient drugs are available, should people be able to renounce it without consequences ... while we struggle to take care of other patients?" Paris AP-HP hospitals system chief Martin Hirsch said on French television on Wednesday. Hirsch said he raised the issue because health costs are exploding and that the irresponsible behaviour of some should not jeopardise the availability of the system for everyone else. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/paris-hospitals-chief-sparks-debate-whether-unvaccinated-patients-should-pay-2022-01-27/

ok, that's true. You're right.

Nobody ever suggested that science can't be wrong. The climate change denialists and vaccine dodgers would have it that science is always wrong. It is the low information, anti science zealots who exhibit the religious fervor, not the other way round. You're just projecting here. Science frequently changes as new information is discovered. You can see that in action every day is the major newspapers and science journals. For example, some scientists are now postulating that there is life on Mars and others are skeptical but neither side is claiming they are right. On the other hand the climate denialist and anti vaccine idiots are never going to change their mind. They never do. I have yet to see a single one of those two (very related) groups ever admit they were wrong.

Humans were never immune to the plague, it was not a virus. Antibiotics are mainly responsible for reducing its spread.

Who would want to listen to a scientist who was incapable of changing his mind given updated research and data? Or, for that matter, who would want to listen to a conspiracy theorist or theologist who was incapable of changing his mind?

The science won't change and neither will the "narrative". That term comes straight from social media. Those who continue with the virus is a hoax and the government is lying because they want more control will continue to have posts removed I suspect.

same they probably don't want to because he is correct

It's easy to see from that graph which country is the least vaccinated per capita.

need for confirmation bias which allows them to ignore credible science by deluding themselves that all opinions are equal.