On 1/27/2022 at 7:46 AM, ozimoron said:

10% of Australia's population have now had the virus and a good many of those have long covid symptoms which effectively prevent them from working or functioning normally.

 

 

From Johns Hopkins Jan. 27 COVID update:

 

"Researchers continue work to learn more about the clinical presentation and duration of persistent symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection, known as post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) or “long COVID.” Prevalence of the condition—which is characterized by fatigue, shortness of breath, brain fog, stress and anxiety, and other symptoms that last for weeks or years after acute infection—is unknown but estimated to be between 7% to 80% of recovered patients."

...

"preliminary data from Israel and the UK suggest that people who were fully vaccinated when infected were much less likely to report long COVID symptoms than people who were unvaccinated when infected."

...

"Some say the condition could be contributing to a worker shortage in the US, with a recent analysis from the Brookings Institution estimating that long COVID could account for 15% of the nation’s 10.6 million unfilled jobs."

 

https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/resources/COVID-19/COVID-19-SituationReports.html

 

4 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Agreed but (unlike you) I find it interesting to move out of my comfort zone and confront my views with people who don't agree with me. And other readers might find it interesting to see different viewpoints. 

 

I think I have made my points abundantly clear though so I will be taking a break for a while (unless I feel compelled to make the odd comment in another topic).

 

Cheers.

All the anti-vax and Covid isn't dangerous ideas have long been answered in the negative.

Two years in the same arguments are resurrected.

Mostly silly, "what about-ism", no significant arguments.

13 hours ago, rumak said:

yes, we do .   but we both are civil in our disagreement   LOL

 

as you know,  i am out biking and walking, also in close contact with workers and shop workers as we just built a house.

the mrs and me are still 100%  healthy and believe our natural immune system is the best long term preventative.     

I understand many older folk have medical issues and if they think that taking those "safe and effective"  shots are the right solution for them i have no quarrel. 

 

ok..... go back to my other forum

take care and enjoy life

You are, IMO, quite correct in your assumptions, but I doubt that will stop certain posters coming up with reasons why you are wrong and should conform to the dictat, else be branded a menace to society.

Seems to me there isn't much compromising going on, from either side of the debate.

 

I'll probably be attacked just for supporting you.

5 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Agreed but (unlike you) I find it interesting to move out of my comfort zone and confront my views with people who don't agree with me. And other readers might find it interesting to see different viewpoints. 

 

I think I have made my points abundantly clear though so I will be taking a break for a while (unless I feel compelled to make the odd comment in another topic).

 

Cheers.

I have been well outside my comfort zone and I've listened to the noise surrounding various debates.   On one side, we have what I can only describe as a cheerleading squad for the virus.   Here's a few of their arguments:

 

1.  It's not much more than flu.   Well look at the actual data on flu hospitalizations and deaths.   The answer is it is much more than flu.  It's much more contagious and it's much harder to treat.   That is simply a fact, and it can be substantiated by statistics from numerous countries.   

 

2.   It's mostly older people and people with comorbitities that are dying.   That assumption has some grounding in truth, but is there some reason that elderly people should be allowed to die?  Is it OK for obese people, people with diabetes, people undergoing cancer treatment and those with immune disorders to die?   This type of reasoning is not rational thinking and is just a way of minimizing the significance of the deaths. 

 

3.  Masks don't work.  They do.  Again look at the countries/cities with strong mask mandates and you will see a definite slow of the spread.  Don't cloud the issue with statistics from sparsely populated areas with those with dense populations.  Density matters.   If that isn't enough, take a look at mask mandates in schools in the US and compare it to those without any.  In the US the difference is stark and shows that masks most certainly do work.  They aren't perfect, but they work.   Oh, and most people forget that masks AND social distancing go together.

 

4.   Vaccines are dangerous/bad/ineffective.   Well, compare vaccinated to unvaccinated in any area and by almost any metric and it's clear that vaccinated people are faring significantly better than their unvaxxed counterparts.   Even the earliest and less reliable vaccines have a pretty decent track record in keeping people out of the hospital or the graveyard.   As far as being dangerous, they aren't.  With absolutely anything we put in our body, from eggs, peanuts to vaccines, there is a possibility of an anaphylactic reaction and death.  Deaths from all of the vaccines is minuscule on any metric you put it.    

 

5.  Lockdowns:  Again, they work, but they happen at a potentially huge cost both economically and socially.   People are social creatures and we do not do well in isolation.  The arguments against lockdowns is understandable and is one that needs to be looked at carefully when this is over.  Should they occur?  How far ranging should they be?  How long can they be sustained?

 

I hate wearing a mask.  When I put it on I feel like I am smothering.  I am sure I am not getting enough oxygen, yet the last time I went to the Dr., I wore it for over an hour and my O₂ level was at 98%.  So much for what I read about it causing a build up of CO₂. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Credo said:

2.   It's mostly older people and people with comorbitities that are dying.   That assumption has some grounding in truth, but is there some reason that elderly people should be allowed to die?  Is it OK for obese people, people with diabetes, people undergoing cancer treatment and those with immune disorders to die?   This type of reasoning is not rational thinking and is just a way of minimizing the significance of the deaths. 

At the risk of being accused of being "non caring" it's called "survival of the fittest". I don't wish to get into an argument as to the morality of allowing people to die or not, and I'm NOT advocating putting people on ice floes to be eaten by polar bears; just pointing out what is IMO nature's way of keeping species healthy.

 

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

At the risk of being accused of being "non caring" it's called "survival of the fittest". I don't wish to get into an argument as to the morality of allowing people to die or not, and I'm NOT advocating putting people on ice floes to be eaten by polar bears; just pointing out what is IMO nature's way of keeping species healthy.

 

Elderly people have nothing to do the health of a species.  They are done reproducing.   So, you won't put them on an ice flow, but dying of a disease which is preventable is OK?

 

5 minutes ago, Credo said:

Elderly people have nothing to do the health of a species.  They are done reproducing.   So, you won't put them on an ice flow, but dying of a disease which is preventable is OK?

 

I never said it's OK. Please stick to what I actually said and stop claiming to know what I'm thinking. You don't.

2 hours ago, Credo said:

 

 

2.   It's mostly older people and people with comorbitities that are dying.   That assumption has some grounding in truth, but is there some reason that elderly people should be allowed to die?  Is it OK for obese people, people with diabetes, people undergoing cancer treatment and those with immune disorders to die?   This type of reasoning is not rational thinking and is just a way of minimizing the significance of the deaths. 

 

 

 

 

I’ve never heard anyone suggest that old people, or those with co-morbidities should just be allowed to die.
What is being said, is that going forward, those people should be ones who have to take extra precautions to protect their own health, rather than the whole of society. 
We can all make the world a safer place for the old and vulnerable by avoiding social contact with others in some hopeless attempt to slow the spread, but that will cause major disruptions in society. The way I see it, it makes a lot more sense for those vulnerable people to be the ones who limit their own social interactions, if they feel that they need to. 
 

8 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Agreed but (unlike you) I find it interesting to move out of my comfort zone and confront my views with people who don't agree with me. And other readers might find it interesting to see different viewpoints. 

 

I think I have made my points abundantly clear though so I will be taking a break for a while (unless I feel compelled to make the odd comment in another topic).

 

Cheers.

Sorry, but moving into the realm of fake news and conspiracy theories isn't for me.  It's one of the reasons this pandemic is extending.  Those who fall for such junk.  These viewpoints do nothing to help our society. 

 

Again, luckily, links to those sites aren't allowed here.  For very good reason.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

At the risk of being accused of being "non caring" it's called "survival of the fittest". I don't wish to get into an argument as to the morality of allowing people to die or not, and I'm NOT advocating putting people on ice floes to be eaten by polar bears; just pointing out what is IMO nature's way of keeping species healthy.

 

OMG.  Terrible anyone would think like that.  Horrible.  One of the biggest problems we have with the current pandemic, is covid deniers, skeptics, those who fall for misinformation, and those who feel it's good to thin the herd.  Pure insanity.

 

There are much better ways of keeping our species healthy rather then let them die off with a tube jammed down their throat.  Heartless to even think that.

17 minutes ago, Ryan754326 said:

I’ve never heard anyone suggest that old people, or those with co-morbidities should just be allowed to die.
What is being said, is that going forward, those people should be ones who have to take extra precautions to protect their own health, rather than the whole of society. 
We can all make the world a safer place for the old and vulnerable by avoiding social contact with others in some hopeless attempt to slow the spread, but that will cause major disruptions in society. The way I see it, it makes a lot more sense for those vulnerable people to be the ones who limit their own social interactions, if they feel that they need to. 
 

Best way around this is for those who are not vaccinated to take the extra precautions.  Have them avoid social contact.  Makes a lot of sense and many nations are moving forward with this.  No jab, stay home.

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I never said it's OK. Please stick to what I actually said and stop claiming to know what I'm thinking. You don't.

Well, your are certainly IMPLYING that it's OK.  Minimizing the significance of people's deaths is a typical trick.   

1 hour ago, Ryan754326 said:

I’ve never heard anyone suggest that old people, or those with co-morbidities should just be allowed to die.
What is being said, is that going forward, those people should be ones who have to take extra precautions to protect their own health, rather than the whole of society. 
We can all make the world a safer place for the old and vulnerable by avoiding social contact with others in some hopeless attempt to slow the spread, but that will cause major disruptions in society. The way I see it, it makes a lot more sense for those vulnerable people to be the ones who limit their own social interactions, if they feel that they need to. 
 

Oh, you haven't been paying close attention.  Have you not read some of the posts from those who blame the overweight for catching Covid because they have allowed themselves to get fat?   

 

The same people who demand the freedom not to wear masks or get vaccinated have no problem of making the elderly 'be careful' and isolate.  Apparently, their rights and freedom of movement doesn't matter.

On 1/28/2022 at 2:50 AM, Jeffr2 said:

Pfizer is a proven vaccine. Sad some can't get past this. I'm guessing it's due to the information they are reading on social media.

Do you insinuate that social media inseminate misinformation? Not to forget that this forum is also social media, isn't it?

In fact, some social media are strong enough to suppress some information, even from a sitting president. So, wouldn't they suppress a misinformation? 

2 hours ago, Ryan754326 said:

I’ve never heard anyone suggest that old people, or those with co-morbidities should just be allowed to die.
What is being said, is that going forward, those people should be ones who have to take extra precautions to protect their own health, rather than the whole of society. 
We can all make the world a safer place for the old and vulnerable by avoiding social contact with others in some hopeless attempt to slow the spread, but that will cause major disruptions in society. The way I see it, it makes a lot more sense for those vulnerable people to be the ones who limit their own social interactions, if they feel that they need to. 
 

By the same argument, it makes a lot of sense to limit the social interactions of those who refuse to be vaccinated.

 

Since they refuse to voluntarily do what’s necessary to help themselves and help others, they make the case for compulsion.

10 minutes ago, Saanim said:

Do you insinuate that social media inseminate misinformation? Not to forget that this forum is also social media, isn't it?

In fact, some social media are strong enough to suppress some information, even from a sitting president. So, wouldn't they suppress a misinformation? 

I don't insinuate, it's a proven fact.  And yes, this is a social media outlet.  Luckily, the mods here do a fantastic job of removing misinformation.

 

A sitting president?  You mean Trump who lied about 100 times a day!  Best thing that happened to the world, banning his lies from social media.

11 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

But science and religion can be courrupted for political (or other) motives and that is where dogma comes into play. A religious person can live their faith without adhering to the Church, just as a scientist can depart from the doxa currently prevailing in the scientific community. 

I have always marveled at the ability of religions to claim the high moral ground, when it is entirely possible for an atheist or agnostic to have equivalent or better morals and ethics. I haven't heard of any agnostics who have killed other people in support of their beliefs. Or that a percentage of them use their beliefs to sexually abuse children.

 

I see the purported scientists that depart from majority positions on a regular basis, because an anti-vaxxer and climate sceptic friend sends the links to me. When I examine them, I ask what are their motivations, and where they are getting their funding from. Quite commonly, it's from sheeple anti-vaxxers or climate deniers subscribing to their channels, because they are being told what they want to hear.

 

When I look at the data they put forward ( some don't even bother ) it's usually from dubious sources, or cherry-picked to suit their position.

 

The most comical one I saw was an antimasker who 1/ Did not know the correct diameter of coronavirus ( out by a factor of 8 ) 2/ Did not know water vapor is a gas, not a liquid. His experimental design aimed at demonstrating the ineffectiveness of masks was way off the mark. He had a shelf of tomes behind him to prove he was a scientist.

 

I'd suggest if you think mainstream science is dogmatic, you should see some of these guys on Facebook and YouTube.

1 hour ago, Saanim said:

Do you insinuate that social media inseminate misinformation? Not to forget that this forum is also social media, isn't it?

In fact, some social media are strong enough to suppress some information, even from a sitting president. So, wouldn't they suppress a misinformation? 

inseminate ???

54 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

I don't insinuate, it's a proven fact.  And yes, this is a social media outlet.  Luckily, the mods here do a fantastic job of removing misinformation.

 

A sitting president?  You mean Trump who lied about 100 times a day!  Best thing that happened to the world, banning his lies from social media.

Banning lies. By the fact checker. Although, the fact checker (Facebook) admitted in a congressional hearing that the fact checking is based on opinion.  

1 hour ago, Saanim said:

Do you insinuate that social media inseminate misinformation? Not to forget that this forum is also social media, isn't it?

 

7 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

inseminate ???

555... you must admit that certain social media have spawned some very ugly offspring.

1 minute ago, Saanim said:

Banning lies. By the fact checker. Although, the fact checker (Facebook) admitted in a congressional hearing that the fact checking is based on opinion.  

I'm not talking about Fakebook.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

By the same argument, it makes a lot of sense to limit the social interactions of those who refuse to be vaccinated.

 

Since they refuse to voluntarily do what’s necessary to help themselves and help others, they make the case for compulsion.

I think you’re more worried about the “help others” part, than the “help themselves” part. 

 

Once again, you’re so focused on the anti-vaxxers, that you disregard all of the people in less developed countries who still don’t have access to a vaccine in the first place, and probably won’t have access for some time yet. These countries are where new mutations are most likely to pop up. Should those people also be forced to shut their lives off and isolate themselves until they have the opportunity to be vaccinated?

 

The countries who do have easy access to vaccines, and high rates of vaccination,  have tried excluding the unvaccinated from society, and it didn’t do anything to slow down the spread. 

If you think compulsion should be used to push people into being vaccinated, in order to take pressure off of our fragile healthcare systems, then why shouldn’t it be used to push people into eating better and exercising regularly? 
Maybe an obesity tax, or tightly controlled access to food that is high in fat and sugar are needed too. 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Credo said:

Oh, you haven't been paying close attention.  Have you not read some of the posts from those who blame the overweight for catching Covid because they have allowed themselves to get fat?   

 

The same people who demand the freedom not to wear masks or get vaccinated have no problem of making the elderly 'be careful' and isolate.  Apparently, their rights and freedom of movement doesn't matter.

It seems to me like the people who don’t want to get vaccinated really don’t care what the obese do with themselves. 
 

It’s the minority of people who are most vulnerable to covid that seem to be the ones who want to put restrictions on others lives; not the other way around. 

If you’re afraid of getting hit by a car, it’s your job to stay off of the road. You can’t expect everyone else to stop driving so that you feel safe walking down the sidewalk. 

8 minutes ago, Ryan754326 said:

If you think compulsion should be used to push people into being vaccinated, in order to take pressure off of our fragile healthcare systems, then why shouldn’t it be used to push people into eating better and exercising regularly? 

The answer is not that complicated.  By pushing an individual to eat better and exercising you improve only that one individuals outcome.  In pushing for vaccinations, the health of the individual PLUS those around them is improved.  In other words killing/wounding several birds with one shot.

4 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

Best way around this is for those who are not vaccinated to take the extra precautions.  Have them avoid social contact.  Makes a lot of sense and many nations are moving forward with this.  No jab, stay home.

No, it’s not the best way around. Those who are highly vulnerable to covid represent a tiny portion of the population.
Right now, there are more unvaccinated people on this planet who simply can’t get a vaccine if they want one, than there are highly vulnerable people.

12 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

The answer is not that complicated.  By pushing an individual to eat better and exercising you improve only that one individuals outcome.  In pushing for vaccinations, the health of the individual PLUS those around them is improved.  In other words killing/wounding several birds with one shot.

I disagree. How much extra capacity would our hospitals have if we took all of the people out of the picture who only remain alive today because of medical intervention, or a steady diet of prescription drugs?

People who neglect their overall health by eating poorly and living a sedentary lifestyle are every bit as much of a strain on our hospitals as the willingly unvaccinated are.

4 hours ago, Ryan754326 said:

I’ve never heard anyone suggest that old people, or those with co-morbidities should just be allowed to die.
What is being said, is that going forward, those people should be ones who have to take extra precautions to protect their own health, rather than the whole of society. 
We can all make the world a safer place for the old and vulnerable by avoiding social contact with others in some hopeless attempt to slow the spread, but that will cause major disruptions in society. The way I see it, it makes a lot more sense for those vulnerable people to be the ones who limit their own social interactions, if they feel that they need to. 
 

Agree 100%, and I've been saying from the start that vulnerable people should be isolated while everyone else just gets on with living. It MIGHT be all over had that happened.

Making everyone suffer to save a few has not worked very well, IMO, and the unintended consequences will be felt for many years to come, with the inflation and business collapse etc.

16 minutes ago, Ryan754326 said:

I disagree. How much extra capacity would our hospitals have if we took all of the people out of the picture who only remain alive today because of medical intervention, or a steady diet of prescription drugs?

People who neglect their overall health by eating poorly and living a sedentary lifestyle are every bit as much of a strain on our hospitals as the willingly unvaccinated are.

I wonder what life would be like now if the vaccines were still under development. Would government have accepted reality and freed the people, or would we be in permanent lockdown?

33 minutes ago, Ryan754326 said:

I think you’re more worried about the “help others” part, than the “help themselves” part. 

 

Once again, you’re so focused on the anti-vaxxers, that you disregard all of the people in less developed countries who still don’t have access to a vaccine in the first place, and probably won’t have access for some time yet. These countries are where new mutations are most likely to pop up. Should those people also be forced to shut their lives off and isolate themselves until they have the opportunity to be vaccinated?

 

The countries who do have easy access to vaccines, and high rates of vaccination,  have tried excluding the unvaccinated from society, and it didn’t do anything to slow down the spread. 

If you think compulsion should be used to push people into being vaccinated, in order to take pressure off of our fragile healthcare systems, then why shouldn’t it be used to push people into eating better and exercising regularly? 
Maybe an obesity tax, or tightly controlled access to food that is high in fat and sugar are needed too.

What?  This has nothing to do with those who can't get the jabs.  Just those who refuse for ridiculous reasons or help spread the propaganda that they are bad.

 

It's a terrible situation for many who don't have access. With that being said, one of the main reasons people are not getting the jabs in South Africa is misinformation.  All the BS misinformation we see in the West, they see the same, and worse.

 

The only way to get these people vaccinated is via incentives.  Positive or negative.  But that's about all we have to end this pandemic and stop the mutations.

 

Not appropriate to digress about those with underlying conditions.  Not all of them are based on weight or diet.  Some are hereditary.

27 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

The answer is not that complicated.  By pushing an individual to eat better and exercising you improve only that one individuals outcome.  In pushing for vaccinations, the health of the individual PLUS those around them is improved.  In other words killing/wounding several birds with one shot.

That's what many here miss.  Vaccines help our entire society.  Individuals choice to get fat or not is their problem.  Not mine...for the most part.