8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm pretty sure that most are not antivax per se, but specifically anti covid vaccine. Claiming that they are anti ALL vaccines is IMO just attempting to smear them. I personally wouldn't take Pfizer, which meant I had to wait till an alternative was available.

IMO had they not had polio vaccine there would be lots of people getting polio, and there ain't, in western countries at least.

There is a vociferous hard core of anti-vaxxers who are against everything - fluoride, Big Pharma, vaccines - you name it.

I can understand hesitancy over the mRNA vaccines, that is new technology. Having said that, I don't understand the resistance to vaccines such as Sputnik, Sinovac or Astra Zeneca. The technologies behind those vaccines have been around as long as polio vaccines.

 

I don't advocate forcing people into taking vaccines. However, if they are disproportionally represented in COVID patients presenting at public hospitals, they should be paying the costs of their personal choice. And yes, I think smokers, alcoholics and the obese should too.

 

BTW, polio is still endemic in Afghanistan and Pakistan - a mix of availability and culture.

 

 

9 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

Your nitpicking.  The vaccines work, it's been proven ad nauseam for months.

I was just reestablishing truth as to what actually happened. It is up to everyone's appreciation whether the jabs work or not, I am not commenting on that here.

5 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The purpose of my intervention was not to criticise them but to reestablish facts. The assertion that the authorities' stance has been consistent from day one (which I have seen several users of this forum make) is erroneous and equates to rewriting history. Truth matters.

I agree. Unfortunately, truth is a fairly elusive attribute in these days of social media.

I never cease to marvel at the arrogance of people who, with limited education, think their beliefs are more important than those of scientists who have spent years if not decades acquiring skills, knowledge and experience in their chosen field.

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I wonder if they closed beds because they couldn't get the staff, or because they wanted to save money or some other reason?

I know the NHS had a huge problem getting staff when I was working for it. They just didn't pay enough to make it worthwhile to train, IMO. They were having to recruit in Africa. Lots came from the Philippines too.

In France, public services have consistently seen a reduction of their budgets in favor of privatisation and cost-cutting since 1983. The state is hugely indebted because it borrows money from private banking establishments and pays interest on them, under a law which was promulgated on January 3rd 1973. This was applied to all EU member-states in 2007 with the Lisbon Treaty. Lots of people do not know that but it is the root of all evil.

A post from an unapproved source that also violates Fair Use Policy has been removed along with replies.   

 

5 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I agree. Unfortunately, truth is a fairly elusive attribute in these days of social media.

I never cease to marvel at the arrogance of people who, with limited education, think their beliefs are more important than those of scientists who have spent years if not decades acquiring skills, knowledge and experience in their chosen field.

Yes, thank you.

I saw a great cartoon depicting 3 scientist-types in a lab, one is sitting at a computer, he is saying (paraphrase):

"I know we have all devoted our lives to the study of infectious diseases, but this guy on Facebook (could be ASEANNOW) makes a lot of sense".

13 hours ago, Lacessit said:

There is a vociferous hard core of anti-vaxxers who are against everything - fluoride, Big Pharma, vaccines - you name it.

I can understand hesitancy over the mRNA vaccines, that is new technology. Having said that, I don't understand the resistance to vaccines such as Sputnik, Sinovac or Astra Zeneca. The technologies behind those vaccines have been around as long as polio vaccines.

Which is why I specifically included "MOST" in my post.

 

I think the thing that turns people off all of them is because of the big stick the government is waving at us, rather than using persuasion. People don't like being threatened by employees ( government is paid for by taxes ergo we employ them ).

IMO if they think that threats are the only way to go, there must be something not right about what the government is trying to force them to have.

Also, many people just don't trust the government.

13 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I agree. Unfortunately, truth is a fairly elusive attribute in these days of social media.

I never cease to marvel at the arrogance of people who, with limited education, think their beliefs are more important than those of scientists who have spent years if not decades acquiring skills, knowledge and experience in their chosen field.

IMO not so much believing they know more, but more not trusting scientists. IMO doesn't matter how long they studied, if they are dependent on grants from people or institutions that require a certain outcome.

Unless they are self funded, they are beholden to those that pay them.

 

On 1/20/2022 at 8:08 AM, Chelseafan said:

 

We have vaccines for mumps, rubella, chicken pox, measles and other airborne viruses, I don't see any reason not to have the Covid vaccine unless you are medically exempt. It's not discrimination, it's common sense.

 

 

Then remove the immunity from prosecution that vaccine suppliers have, and make it a law. If people are to be forced to have a medication against their will, they must have the ability to sue for compensation if they are adversely impacted by that medication.

On 1/20/2022 at 9:36 AM, Airalee said:

Covid-19: Fact check—how many patients in hospital are unvaccinated?
 

“The Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre (ICNARC), which has been monitoring activity throughout the pandemic, provides information on admissions to intensive care.3 Its latest report, published on 31 December, showed that the proportion of patients admitted to critical care in December 2021 with confirmed covid-19 who were unvaccinated was 61%.”

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o5

39% is not an insignificant number.

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO not so much believing they know more, but more not trusting scientists. IMO doesn't matter how long they studied, if they are dependent on grants from people or institutions that require a certain outcome.

Unless they are self funded, they are beholden to those that pay them.

 

You clearly have no idea how scientific  research works.

 

 

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

39% is not an insignificant number.

It’s a meaningless number unless presented in the context to give it meaning.

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You clearly have no idea how scientific  research works.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s a meaningless number unless presented in the context to give it meaning.

Did you not read the post I quoted? That is the context.

 

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

39% is not an insignificant number.

Let's say you have a population of 10 million people, 80% of whom are vaccinated. You have 39 hospital cases in the vaccinated part of the population, and 61 coming from the unvaccinated.

If you are vaccinated, your chance of having to go to hospital is 0.00049%

If you are unvaccinated, the percentage rises to 0.0031.

In other words, you are 6 times more likely to be taking up a hospital bed, through your own selfish choice.

Probability is not your strong point.

 

23 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Did you not read the post I quoted? That is the context.

 

Yes, I did. 
 

Your extraction of a single percentage is still complete out of context and has no meaning.

 

So it’s also statistics you don’t understand or, you choose to misrepresent.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Let's say you have a population of 10 million people, 80% of whom are vaccinated. You have 39 hospital cases in the vaccinated part of the population, and 61 coming from the unvaccinated.

If you are vaccinated, your chance of having to go to hospital is 0.00049%

If you are unvaccinated, the percentage rises to 0.0031.

In other words, you are 6 times more likely to be taking up a hospital bed, through your own selfish choice.

Probability is not your strong point.

 

It’s been explained on this forum numerous times. 
 

Thise who don’t understand it are choosing not to understand it.

36 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Which is why I specifically included "MOST" in my post.

 

I think the thing that turns people off all of them is because of the big stick the government is waving at us, rather than using persuasion. People don't like being threatened by employees ( government is paid for by taxes ergo we employ them ).

IMO if they think that threats are the only way to go, there must be something not right about what the government is trying to force them to have.

Also, many people just don't trust the government.

I can understand many people don't trust the government, I don't either. Having said that, conflating sound medical advice with statements coming from politicians whose only focus is getting re-elected is dishonest and misleading.

Choices have consequences. If one chooses to be unvaccinated, there are organisations who will discriminate against such people, if only to protect themselves. Can you imagine the legal liabilities an aged care facility would create for itself if it let unvaccinated staff tend to the residents?

If you don't want to be threatened with a stick, what sort of carrot do you suggest governments use? What sort of message would that send to the majority of people who acted responsibly?

55 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

If one chooses to be unvaccinated, there are organisations who will discriminate against such people, if only to protect themselves.

I was speaking to a pregnant woman the other day. She can't get midwife coverage now as so many midwives refuse to be vaccinated and are not allowed to work. Who suffers from that?

 

57 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

If you don't want to be threatened with a stick, what sort of carrot do you suggest governments use? What sort of message would that send to the majority of people who acted responsibly?

I'm not a criminal and I am a taxpayer. I expect to be treated with respect by my employees in the government, not harassed and treated badly.

 

They just had a vaccine, it isn't a big deal unless one doesn't want it. I have no idea of the "message" you reference.

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Let's say you have a population of 10 million people, 80% of whom are vaccinated. You have 39 hospital cases in the vaccinated part of the population, and 61 coming from the unvaccinated.

If you are vaccinated, your chance of having to go to hospital is 0.00049%

If you are unvaccinated, the percentage rises to 0.0031.

In other words, you are 6 times more likely to be taking up a hospital bed, through your own selfish choice.

Probability is not your strong point.

 

The problem with this reasoning is that it does not take into account age and health (nor does the bmj article referred to above). If I am in the unvaccinated group but young and fit, I am not 6 times more likely to end up in hospital than a vaccinated 60-year old diabetic. It is a fallacious argument.

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Excellent post, but expect the usual anti replies.

And expect it to be deleted altogether by moderators.

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

The problem with this reasoning is that it does not take into account age and health (nor does the bmj article referred to above). If I am in the unvaccinated group but young and fit, I am not 6 times more likely to end up in hospital than a vaccinated 60-year old diabetic. It is a fallacious argument.

Isn't selective reasoning wonderful? One gets to post all sorts of things that are easily refuted, but few bother to do so.

It's good to see a couple of posters standing up to the usual suspects.

"Call for an immediate investigation into the increasing death rate amongst 15-19 year-old males since May of this year"

 

https://www.hartgroup.org/press-release/

 

"At the High Court on Thursday 13th January, the ONS (Office for National Statistics) confirmed that there has been a significant rise in the death rate for adolescent males over the last eight months, compared to the same time period of 2015-2019.  There have been at least 65 extra deaths in England and Wales,  though the figure may be higher due to reporting delays for coroners cases.  During the same time frame there were only 2 deaths involving Covid."

 

Whats different about 2021 compared to any other year prior to this that may be relevant to what is causing this?  Anyone have any ideas? 

So, the biggest news in days by far is the uk dropping all Covid restrictions. Even masks. 
 

I see it nowhere in this forum. Maybe I overlooked it. I just figured that would be the most discussed topic. Is it possible that information is not allowed here? This would not surprise me. 

7 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

So, the biggest news in days by far is the uk dropping all Covid restrictions. Even masks. 
 

I see it nowhere in this forum. Maybe I overlooked it. I just figured that would be the most discussed topic. Is it possible that information is not allowed here? This would not surprise me. 

Indeed, surprising it's not posted as a new thread. Very good news indeed.

I hope NZ government sees the light and follows Britain's lead.

 

 

Just googled it

 

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-boris-johnson-business-health-london-59417842d49e95ef556eb9b0352144dd

UK lifts COVID restrictions, says omicron wave ‘has peaked’

3 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

So, the biggest news in days by far is the uk dropping all Covid restrictions. Even masks. 
 

I see it nowhere in this forum. Maybe I overlooked it. I just figured that would be the most discussed topic. Is it possible that information is not allowed here? This would not surprise me. 

Nothing wrong with doing that if your hospitals can cope, same is being done in the Netherlands at a slower pace. But don't forget most people have been vaccinated in those countries and thus show less people on the ICU.

 

Omricon is less bad then expected a great thing lets hope there won't be an other mutation for the worse.

 

 

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Goes against the message of "we must all be fearful". Not surprised it's not mentioned.

Actually I think most people love the news, i know I do in my country they are slowly opening up again too. Research has shown that the models about omricon were wrong. In my country we opened up too early before and had trouble so now the models were to negative. 

 

It was all admitted and discussed in the news and now the goverment is slowly opening up and watching what happens. Fearful no, watchful yes. 

 

Not sure why anyone would want restrictions when they are not needed to keep hospitals empty. I for one think its great news. Slowly other countries will follow if their hospitals can cope.

 

That is the reason why countries lock up as not to overburden the health system. Now with the effects of omricon milder that can be done add to that high vaccination levels. 

Variants are created, in most cases, from…. Genetic variation within populations… you know, I have blonde hair, she has red hair tryin to splain this as I would to a 3 year old bc of the question I got

 

That genetic variation within the population then get “acted upon” by our medicines. Nothing unnatural happens without vaccines or medicines, that’s absurd to claim. 
 

When the virus’s genetic variation is now acting upon a vaccinated population, only certain strains can make it (assuming the vaccine is actually doing its job). These strains then become much much more prominent. When before this strain was only 1% of the population, now it’s 50%and rising, because of the induced treatments (ie vaccines). 
 

That’s how this works. And you see, I do t need bogus links to “back” me, because I actually understand stuff. 
 

The problem is, you won’t hear whati just wrote on the 8 o’clock news. But that doesn’t mean it’s not the truth, you see how that works?

16 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The problem with this reasoning is that it does not take into account age and health (nor does the bmj article referred to above). If I am in the unvaccinated group but young and fit, I am not 6 times more likely to end up in hospital than a vaccinated 60-year old diabetic. It is a fallacious argument.

Your problem with that reasoning is based on your own misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the risk/benefit data.

 

Nobody claims you are 6 times more likely to end up in hospital than is a vaccinated 60 year old.

 

The vaccines reduce the individual risk for each individual vaccinated.

 

3 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

Variants are created, in most cases, from…. Genetic variation within populations… you know, I have blonde hair, she has red hair tryin to splain this as I would to a 3 year old bc of the question I got

 

That genetic variation within the population then get “acted upon” by our medicines. Nothing unnatural happens without vaccines or medicines, that’s absurd to claim. 
 

When the virus’s genetic variation is now acting upon a vaccinated population, only certain strains can make it (assuming the vaccine is actually doing its job). These strains then become much much more prominent. When before this strain was only 1% of the population, now it’s 50%and rising, because of the induced treatments (ie vaccines). 
 

That’s how this works. And you see, I do t need bogus links to “back” me, because I actually understand stuff. 
 

The problem is, you won’t hear whati just wrote on the 8 o’clock news. But that doesn’t mean it’s not the truth, you see how that works?

You actually understand stuff ????