Just like the flu now?

[Atlantis]

7 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Because in a better world where people actually feel some sense of responsibility to those around them, you would NOT deliberately be doing things that would expose yourself and others to getting sick, and I would be doing the same.

 

Your version is kinda like saying, if you don't want someone to cough in your face, then don't come in the room or don't come close to anyone else...  How about instead, everyone covering their mouth and nose before they cough/sneeze... as a matter of politeness and consideration to others.  That's the analogy with COVID.

 

But hey, maybe you're the "cough in your face" type?

 

 

"Your version is kinda like saying, if you don't want someone to cough in your face, then don't come in the room"

Not at all John. I explicitly stated that no one is saying people have a right to cough in your face. But your attempt, once again, to simplify this into a binary, is well noted.

"How about instead, everyone covering their mouth and nose before they cough/sneeze.."

And where exactly did you get the idea that the other poster wouldn't have the basic decency to cover his mouth when sneezing?

My version is not to assume everyone-but-me is inherently too stupid/selfish to take prudent actions in mitigating the spread of the virus.
 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

21 minutes ago, impulse said:

Don't forget that Johns Hopkins study that concluded the lockdowns only reduced deaths by 0.2%.

 

Yes, it was eminently easy to forget, because...

 

1. It wasn't a Johns Hopkins study.

2. It was a "working paper" mainly written by a libertarian economist -- not a public health or epidemiology expert. And never peer reviewed, AFAIK.

3. The author's claims were more than a little suspect...  And other actual experts in the field have dismissed its claims.

 

"did this working paper really provide enough evidence to support its bold claims? In a word, no. In two words, heck no. The authors claimed that they performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. That should mean that they should have considered and included all published peer-reviewed studies relevant to the topic at hand. Yet, this working paper did not include or even acknowledge many such studies that have shown the benefits of NPI’s such as face mask wearing and social distancing without explaining why the three authors excluded such studies."

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2022/02/06/did-so-called-johns-hopkins-study-really-show-lockdowns-were-ineffective-against-covid-19/?sh=5c9c20bc1225

 

If you wanna try to make a case here, at least try to do better than recycling some discredited Fox News rubbish.

 

@GidMK

Epidemiologist. Writer (Guardian, Observer etc). "Well known research trouble-maker". PhDing at

@UoW

 

 

And more elaboration follows in the ensuing series of tweets.

 

 

Edited March 24, 2022 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[impulse]

8 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Yes, it was eminently easy to forget, because...

It's the old my source is more authoritative than yours.  I'm not going to engage, because neither one of us is qualified to judge.

 

Besides, the statements I made stand even without referencing the study.  Lockdowns caused devastating economic hardship for hundreds of millions, and my right to decide what goes into my body doesn't end where someone else's fear begins.  You wanna stay home and get the jabs, feel free.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Yes, it was eminently easy to forget, because...

 

1. It wasn't a Johns Hopkins study.

2. It was a "working paper" mainly written by a libertarian economist -- not a public health or epidemiology expert. And never peer reviewed, AFAIK.

3. The author's claims were more than a little suspect...  And other actual experts in the field have dismissed its claims.

 

"did this working paper really provide enough evidence to support its bold claims? In a word, no. In two words, heck no. The authors claimed that they performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. That should mean that they should have considered and included all published peer-reviewed studies relevant to the topic at hand. Yet, this working paper did not include or even acknowledge many such studies that have shown the benefits of NPI’s such as face mask wearing and social distancing without explaining why the three authors excluded such studies."

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2022/02/06/did-so-called-johns-hopkins-study-really-show-lockdowns-were-ineffective-against-covid-19/?sh=5c9c20bc1225

 

If you wanna try to make a case here, at least try to do better than recycling some discredited Fox News rubbish.

 

@GidMK

Epidemiologist. Writer (Guardian, Observer etc). "Well known research trouble-maker". PhDing at

@UoW

 

 

And more elaboration follows in the ensuing series of tweets.

 

 

So, do you have a link to a peer reviewed study by reputable scientists that proves lockdowns did in fact prevent more than 0.2% of deaths from covid?

Also a peer reviewed study that shows the unintended consequences of lockdowns, eg the loss of life savings, houses and businesses, the suicides, the increased family violence etc were worth it?

 

BTW making unsupported claims that some don't wear a mask where it is mandated and go around coughing in people's faces is why posters such as I don't give much credence to those that post such attacks.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 Except your version of "personal responsibility" is IRRESPONSIBILITY when you deliberately take actions, contrary to public health guidance, that may endanger others in the midst of a worldwide pandemic that has officially killed more than 6 million and continues to kill 25,000 or so people worldwide per week at present.

Really?

If you are going to make such PERSONAL allegations you should at least have some sort of proof.

Where exactly did I say I don't wear a mask where it's mandated or deliberately take actions contrary to public health guidance? For starters I would not be allowed into the supermarkets or many places without.

For a poster to make such allegations without proof should be a serious matter to be considered by the relevant persons.

 

38 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

How about instead, everyone covering their mouth and nose before they cough/sneeze... as a matter of politeness and consideration to others. 

Always have, always will. It's just being polite.

Anyway, given that I'm not infected, I can hardly be accused of spreading the virus by coughing or sneezing, as I'm not doing either.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

31 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If you are going to make such PERSONAL allegations you should at least have some sort of proof.

 

My comments were addressed to the positions you and your fellow poster have been taking in this thread. I have no idea what you do or don't do in your personal life.

 

The "cough in your face" comment was a general analogy, as I said when I used it, for how people either can behave responsibly, or irresponsibly, toward others.

 

 

Edited March 24, 2022 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Credo]

4 hours ago, Atlantis said:

What don't you (and others) still not get about this? There is no black and white, zero and one, off and on, risk and no risk when it comes to this pandemic. I'm pretty sure you know this.

Then why on earth insist it is MY responsibility to do everything that YOU feel I ought to do when YOU have multiple ways of minimizing YOUR OWN risks?

Has anyone on this thread or anyone else on this board advocated for their "rights" to walk up close to you and cough in your face without consequence? Or advocated taking away your rights to vaccines? Or compel you to spend extended times in crowded spaces?

If you want close to zero risk, please go and live in a trailer in the middle of nowhere. No human contact = no virus = you're safe. Take as many boosters prior to living like hermit if you so choose. But wait wait, what's that you say? It's not fair that you have to do all this? Why should you have to do all this?

Well....welcome back to real society where shades of grey exist, where there is no one-off switch for Covid-19 risk, where individual's circumstances vary, where one-size-does-not-fit-all, where public health guidance is exactly that. Guidance. Partly because the people who wrote it recognize variation exists, exceptions are understandable, and individual citizens can and do exercise caution in their own ways.

It appears that the truth really triggers you.  So here's a little info on how things work.  In almost every country, the government has certain powers to protect the people during a public health emergency, such as a pandemic.  The extent of those laws vary greatly, but they do exist.  

 

If YOU wish to be a functioning member of society, then you abide by those rules or else either you go live in a 'trailer in the middle of nowhere' or you face other consequences.  Very, very few, if any countries, force people to get vaccinated.  You are welcome to find other employment if you have an employer who mandates it.   Apparently, you are not worth catching a disease over.  

 

It's interesting that the same people that demand 'their rights' with regard to COVID, had no problem in participating in supporting laws that prevented people who tested HIV + from employment, from housing, from traveling and they could be jailed if they failed to disclose their condition to people with whom they had close contact.  It took special laws to give them basic human rights.  But, no outrage, from the right.   

 

Once the situation moves from pandemic to endemic and the spread of the virus is under control, many of the precautions either requested or mandated will disappear, and at that point, people who are at higher risk from the virus will have to take precautions.  I assume you do know that those people have been advised to take precautions and I can assure you they aren't the ones walking around with no mask on.   

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

My comments were addressed to the positions you and your fellow poster have been taking in this thread. I have no idea what you do or don't do in your personal life.

 

The "cough in your face" comment was a general analogy, as I said when I used it, for how people either can behave responsibly, or irresponsibly, toward others.

 

 

If your reply is not addressed to me personally when you quote my post I suggest you don't use "YOU" when replying.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Credo said:

If YOU wish to be a functioning member of society, then you abide by those rules or else either you go live in a 'trailer in the middle of nowhere' or you face other consequences.

I haven't read any posts by persons saying they don't abide by the "rules", even if they disagree with them.

Anyway, in the UK it's apparently not mandatory to wear a mask now, and in a couple of weeks in NZ it seems no one will have to be vaccinated to keep their job. The unvaccinated will be mingling freely among the vaccinated.

Considering that many are still becoming infected it seems that even governments are having to accept that the "rules" didn't work anyway, though they word it so as to avoid embarrassing themselves.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Credo said:

It's interesting that the same people that demand 'their rights' with regard to COVID, had no problem in participating in supporting laws that prevented people who tested HIV + from employment, from housing, from traveling and they could be jailed if they failed to disclose their condition to people with whom they had close contact.  It took special laws to give them basic human rights.  But, no outrage, from the right.   

Apples and oranges.

If one uses condoms and does not inject drugs, one is unlikely to catch HIV. Hence those with AIDS were likely seen in a poor light by society.

Covid is airborn.

[Credo]

13 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Apples and oranges.

If one uses condoms and does not inject drugs, one is unlikely to catch HIV. Hence those with AIDS were likely seen in a poor light by society.

Covid is airborn.

Tell that to the thousands of people who received blood transfusions.   

 

Both are infectious diseases.  Both were treated as a public health crisis, yet one carried a significant loss of freedom and serious penalties.  

 

But, as usual, you miss the point.  Governments the world over have laws to protect the population at large from infectious diseases.   Check and see what happens if you walk around with an active case of tuberculosis.  Then check and see what happens if you refuse treatment for syphilis.  

[alanrchase]

8 hours ago, impulse said:

Don't forget that Johns Hopkins study that concluded the lockdowns only reduced deaths by 0.2%.

 

That would be interesting if it was a Johns Hopkins study. Unfortunately the study was by three economists, one of which was affiliated with Johns Hopkins. Johns Hopkins has not endorsed the study.

[bbko]

When my unvaxed brother caught covid over a year ago, he had fever/chills, fatigue, trouble breathing, and had to be admitted to the hospital and his oxygen saturation was dangerously low (85-90%), he stayed about 10 days.

When my vaxed wife caught covid this year, she had fever/chills and a sore throat for 2-3 days, treated with paracetamol and Halls cough drops.

IMO the vaccines are helping to weaken the virus, for everyone.

[placeholder]

10 hours ago, Atlantis said:

"Your version is kinda like saying, if you don't want someone to cough in your face, then don't come in the room"

Not at all John. I explicitly stated that no one is saying people have a right to cough in your face. But your attempt, once again, to simplify this into a binary, is well noted.

"How about instead, everyone covering their mouth and nose before they cough/sneeze.."

And where exactly did you get the idea that the other poster wouldn't have the basic decency to cover his mouth when sneezing?

My version is not to assume everyone-but-me is inherently too stupid/selfish to take prudent actions in mitigating the spread of the virus.
 

Actually, your version is  more like assuming that everyone including you will take prudent actions in mitigating the spread of the virus.

[Atlantis]

20 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Actually, your version is  more like assuming that everyone including you will take prudent actions in mitigating the spread of the virus.

If you want to hear from the horse's mouth: no it is not.

I do not, and don't need to, assume that every single other person is taking "prudent actions" (however defined) to mitigate the spread of the virus. I merely need to assume that sufficiently large numbers of others are sufficiently rational and moral to protect themselves such that it outweighs the net cost-benefit of government over-reach, or sometimes just sheer stupidity.

I don't mind debating the merits and drawbacks of each type of action. What I do mind is, as mentioned above, being lazily portrayed as some sort of cough-in-your-face anarchist for making the case for (mostly) personal responsibility in countries where vaccines are accessible.

Edited March 25, 2022 by Atlantis
Typing errors

[Credo]

To make it simple for you, when there is a declared Public Health Emergency, the government has the right and obligation to take action to mitigate the disease.  That's not guidance, that's regulations that have the same force and effect as law.   It's not a multiple choice situation where you get to pick and choose.   

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Atlantis said:

If you want to hear from the horse's mouth: no it is not.

I do not, and don't need to, assume that every single other person is taking "prudent actions" (however defined) to mitigate the spread of the virus. I merely need to assume that sufficiently large numbers of others are sufficiently rational and moral to protect themselves such that it outweighs the net cost-benefit of government over-reach, or sometimes just sheer stupidity.

I don't mind debating the merits and drawbacks of each type of action. What I do mind is, as mentioned above, being lazily portrayed as some sort of cough-in-your-face anarchist for making the case for (mostly) personal responsibility in countries where vaccines are accessible.

You fail to note that my comment was in reference to this caricature of the opposing position that you posted:

"My version is not to assume everyone-but-me is inherently too stupid/selfish to take prudent actions in mitigating the spread of the virus.

 

And what is the "sufficiently large number" you are pinning your hopes on? 25%? 50%? 60%? 75%? 90%? 95%?

 

As for your bruised feelings about being portrayed as a narcissist, I have made no personal comments about your character or personality at all. 

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, Credo said:

Tell that to the thousands of people who received blood transfusions.   

 

Both are infectious diseases.  Both were treated as a public health crisis, yet one carried a significant loss of freedom and serious penalties.  

 

But, as usual, you miss the point.  Governments the world over have laws to protect the population at large from infectious diseases.   Check and see what happens if you walk around with an active case of tuberculosis.  Then check and see what happens if you refuse treatment for syphilis.  

Apologies. I did forget about the blood transfusions.

 

Both were treated as a public health crisis

Not in my recollection. Perhaps where you lived.

 

However, the point I'm trying to make is that even while many are becoming infected, some governments are walking away from the mandates they once claimed could stop the virus, which to me is an admission that they don't work, though they'll probably never admit it.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, bbko said:

When my unvaxed brother caught covid over a year ago, he had fever/chills, fatigue, trouble breathing, and had to be admitted to the hospital and his oxygen saturation was dangerously low (85-90%), he stayed about 10 days.

When my vaxed wife caught covid this year, she had fever/chills and a sore throat for 2-3 days, treated with paracetamol and Halls cough drops.

IMO the vaccines are helping to weaken the virus, for everyone.

????

Far as I understand it, a vaccine only works on the person who has had the vaccine, so do you have some scientific evidence for that last sentence?

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, Credo said:

To make it simple for you, when there is a declared Public Health Emergency, the government has the right and obligation to take action to mitigate the disease.  That's not guidance, that's regulations that have the same force and effect as law.   It's not a multiple choice situation where you get to pick and choose.   

As I said before, I haven't seen any posters saying they refuse to abide by the regulations, and I did so, even though I disagreed with some of them. I even had the vaccine just so I could go to places like cinemas. Now it's been decided I don't need to be vaccinated, so had I waited another couple of months I'd be able to do everything without having something I didn't want injected into me.

[placeholder]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

As I said before, I haven't seen any posters saying they refuse to abide by the regulations, and I did so, even though I disagreed with some of them. I even had the vaccine just so I could go to places like cinemas. Now it's been decided I don't need to be vaccinated, so had I waited another couple of months I'd be able to do everything without having something I didn't want injected into me.

What you don't seem to get is that Atlantis claimed that  regulations were only "guidance" and had no legal force behind them. That is not true.

[Credo]

21 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Apologies. I did forget about the blood transfusions.

 

Both were treated as a public health crisis

Not in my recollection. Perhaps where you lived.

 

However, the point I'm trying to make is that even while many are becoming infected, some governments are walking away from the mandates they once claimed could stop the virus, which to me is an admission that they don't work, though they'll probably never admit it.

I don't want to belabor the point nor derail the topic, but I do believe that your country most certainly did have restrictions, as a matter of fact, they were one of a handful of countries who continued (at least until 2021) to have travl restrictions on HIV+ individuals.   

 

UNAIDS welcomes New Zealand’s decision to lift travel restrictions for people living with HIV

 

https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/pressreleaseandstatementarchive/2021/october/new-zealand-lift-travel-restrictions-hiv

 

But my point is that governments have and do have the power to take rather drastic action when there is a pandemic/epidemic/public health emergency.

 

It's interesting that people seem to object to a vaccine and mask mandate, but have no problem in placing onerous and restrictive conditions (and jail time for those who disobey) and others.   

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, placeholder said:

What you don't seem to get is that Atlantis claimed that  regulations were only "guidance" and had no legal force behind them. That is not true.

Did he ignore them then?

 

In NZ till recently we could wear a scarf around our noses/ mouth instead of a mask. Masks only became mandatory a few weeks ago, but I gather that the UK has abandoned the mask mandate anyway, so one could ask if there is any point to mask mandates?

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Credo said:

I don't want to belabor the point nor derail the topic, but I do believe that your country most certainly did have restrictions, as a matter of fact, they were one of a handful of countries who continued (at least until 2021) to have travl restrictions on HIV+ individuals.   

 

UNAIDS welcomes New Zealand’s decision to lift travel restrictions for people living with HIV

 

https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/pressreleaseandstatementarchive/2021/october/new-zealand-lift-travel-restrictions-hiv

 

But my point is that governments have and do have the power to take rather drastic action when there is a pandemic/epidemic/public health emergency.

 

It's interesting that people seem to object to a vaccine and mask mandate, but have no problem in placing onerous and restrictive conditions (and jail time for those who disobey) and others.   

I don't have enough information about regulations in NZ about HIV to answer that, but far as I can remember HIV wasn't much of a big deal anywhere I lived. Might have been different in the US.

I saw the occasional news item about infected men deliberately having sex with lots of women without a condom ( in other countries ), but that's as far as it goes.

[BritManToo]

On 3/25/2022 at 4:26 AM, Credo said:

It's interesting that the same people that demand 'their rights' with regard to COVID, had no problem in participating in supporting laws that prevented people who tested HIV + from employment, from housing, from traveling and they could be jailed if they failed to disclose their condition to people with whom they had close contact. 

What country was this?

There was certainly never any requirement to reveal you had HIV to any person or authority in the UK or EU (which is most of the western world).

Edited March 27, 2022 by BritManToo

[rumak]

On 3/26/2022 at 1:08 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

As I said before, I haven't seen any posters saying they refuse to abide by the regulations, and I did so, even though I disagreed with some of them. I even had the vaccine just so I could go to places like cinemas. Now it's been decided I don't need to be vaccinated, so had I waited another couple of months I'd be able to do everything without having something I didn't want injected into me.

good thing i don't care about the cinema   haha    still unvaxxed and still healthy 

[Madgee]

I've been playing badminton for the past 3 years with the same group, sometimes up to 5 times a week. For the last couple of weeks some of the group haven't been playing, now I know why ... Covid! Several of us went down with it at the same time. One guy who has been playing was asymptomatic and passed it on. I felt slightly unwell on Wednesday-Thursday, Had a positive ATK on Friday morning so went to the local Gov. Covid clinic. Now doing my 10 day home isolation stint. Triple Pfizer jabbed. I've been abiding by the guidelines pretty well as regards wearing a mask and washing my hands with gel 10,000 times a day! 

 

Slight fever, very runny nose and feeling lethargic, just like a bad cold. Sleeping extremely well, eating well and love the paranoid attention from my missus. No talking just messages, instant room service. Told her I might have to isolate on a more regular basis! Oh, according to the locals 40% proof liqueur with lime is a cure so I'll go along with that! 

 

Seriously, The first time I've been ill since leaving the UK over 12 years ago. Never liked getting a cold then and certainly don't like the symptoms I'm experiencing now. IMHO, glad I had my jabs, it could be a lot worse.

 

If this is the 'new normal' then I'm going to continue being cautious as this virus is so contagious, more so than a cold virus.  Will it ever end?

Keep well, keep safe. 

 

 

 

 

  

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 hours ago, rumak said:

still unvaxxed and still healthy 

 

77 of the 84 new COVID deaths (almost 92%) reported by the TH MoPH on Sunday had NOT received their third booster vaccine shot.

 

How healthy was that???

 

Or this kind of data from the U.S. CDC showing how vaccinations (and especially the third booster dose) substantially reduce the risk of being hospitalized with COVID in all age groups:

 

COVID Hospitalizations in unvaccinated vs boosted:

 

COVID Hospitalizations in unvaccinated vs fully vaccinated:

 

Source link

 

[Credo]

5 hours ago, BritManToo said:

What country was this?

There was certainly never any requirement to reveal you had HIV to any person or authority in the UK or EU (which is most of the western world).

The UK and the parts of the EU were a little more tolerant, however, there were restrictions.  If you suspected you had HIV and had sex without a condom, jail time was on the table.  Spitting at or on someone along with a few other acts involving bodily fluids like blood could put you in jail.  Asylum seekers were denied on the basis of their HIV status.   

 

The restrictions on immigration to the US for HIV infected people was not lifted until  2010.   13 countries still do not allow entry of anyone with HIV and/or deport anyone found infected.   

 

The point isn't to discuss HIV, but to show the level of control that gov'ts can and do exercise in the area of Public Health.   The rather extreme measures taken with HIV were to protect everyone.  The same is true of Covid.   

 

The comparison between the two infectious diseases is only relevant to a discussion on the mitigating regulations to control the spread, not to the diseases directly.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Credo said:

The UK and the parts of the EU were a little more tolerant, however, there were restrictions.  If you suspected you had HIV and had sex without a condom, jail time was on the table.  Spitting at or on someone along with a few other acts involving bodily fluids like blood could put you in jail.  Asylum seekers were denied on the basis of their HIV status.   

 

The restrictions on immigration to the US for HIV infected people was not lifted until  2010.   13 countries still do not allow entry of anyone with HIV and/or deport anyone found infected.   

 

The point isn't to discuss HIV, but to show the level of control that gov'ts can and do exercise in the area of Public Health.   The rather extreme measures taken with HIV were to protect everyone.  The same is true of Covid.   

 

The comparison between the two infectious diseases is only relevant to a discussion on the mitigating regulations to control the spread, not to the diseases directly.

 

We get that governments can do anything if they can "justify" it, including conscripting young men with long lives ahead of them to be killed in a war.

Far as I'm concerned they got it wrong with lockdowns and business destroying mandates, and I guess there will be much discussion in the future about such.