5 ms·

> I would rather anti-vaxers leave the country than continue to hang around, yes Those supposed 'anti-vaxers' are more or less guaranteed to be vaccinated for

> I would rather anti-vaxers leave the country than continue to hang around, yes Those supposed 'anti-vaxers' are more or less guaranteed to be vaccinated for nearly all diseases just like I assume you (and others who insist on calling anyone who is not toeing the party line by that epithet) are. Some people have natural immunity from having had SARS2. Some people are being advised by their doctors not to take the current crop of vaccines. Some people deem their risk from contracting SARS2 lower than the risk of side-effects from the current crop of vaccines. Bodily autonomy is an essential part of a liberal democracy. If you are vaccinated you are mostly protected so why worry over those who do not get vaccinated? They run a higher risk of contracting SARS2, they have a higher risk of ending up in a hospital, they run a higher risk of needing intensive care and they have a higher risk of succumbing to the disease compared to vaccinated people in their own age and risk group. These are all risks to their own health, something you might find stupid and unreasonable but... it is their own choice. The only possible argument you might have in a country with socialised health care (like Oz) is that they may run up health care costs due to their refusal to take the vaccine. Those same people might respond that they do not want the vaccines because they fear potential side effects somewhere down the line. Given the limited amount of long-time experience with mRNA vaccines in humans this is not an unfounded risk, although most side effects seem to occur within 6 months of vaccination and as such should have already become visible. Have you seen the movie 'Babe', the one about the pig which acted like a dog? Do you remember how the sheep in that movie called anything which they deemed to be a threat a 'wolf', leading to a field full of sheep bleating 'wolf' in sheep-speak to each other and to the supposed wolf? Calling anyone who shows the slightest hesitancy towards these rather new vaccines 'anti-vaxxers' (the word seems to be mostly spelled with two 'x'-es) is comparable to how those sheep reacted. Don't be a sheep, Australia has enough of them already.

hug 5y ago
Approximately no one in Australia has 'natural immunity', because approximately no one here has had COVID. Those people who are advised by their docotrs not to get vaccinated are few and far between, but it turns out the current vaccine push takes those figures into account. The people who deem the risk of COVID lower than the vaccine are just straight up incorrect. They're either misled or just deliberately contrarian, and I don't care what they think. All autonomy is important, except where that autonomy would endanger others in society. > If you are vaccinated you are mostly protected so why worry over those who do not get vaccinated? If they also opt-out of taking up hospital care necessary for treating those people who didn't refuse a vaccine, honestly, I'd be okay with it. But we both know that won't happen. It'll end up like the US where there are people dying in the ER because there's no room due to COVID cases, and I do not want Australia to end up like the US. > Have you seen the movie 'Babe', the one about the pig which acted like a dog? [...] Don't be a sheep, Australia has enough of them already. All of this is very ironic, given that the group you are implying are the wolves are the ones taking livestock medication.
- the_third_wave 5y ago
  Do you drink, smoke, drive a car, are you overweight, do you participate in high-risk sports, eat a lot of processed food, red meat, fatty fish from polluted waters, drink sugared carbonated water, keep dangerous pets? If so, do you voluntarily opt out of any hospital care related to these activities or habits? The list can be made much longer. On the subject of people supposedly taking 'livestock medication'... really? I assume you mean those people are taking Ivermectin [1], a popular antihelmintic which also happens to demonstrate antiviral activity, preparations containing it being used both in veterinary as well as human applications? Are those people eating horse dewormers or taking Ivermectin tablets (Stromectol [2] et al)? If they're taking the latter, why call it 'livestock medication'? Stop labelling people who happen to disagree with 'your' opinion. Just accept that not everybody agrees with 'your' standpoint or before you know it you'll find 'your' opinion to be in the crosshairs of the authoritarians - and then what do you do? [1] As to the efficacy of Ivermectin for SARS2 prophylaxis or treatment the verdict is still out. It is unfortunate that this subject has been politicised to such an extreme that it has become a black/white issue, 'either you are with us or against us'. [2] https://www.rxlist.com/stromectol-drug.htm https://www.rxlist.com/stromectol-drug.htm
  - hug 5y ago
    > people supposedly taking 'livestock medication'... really? Yes. Really. And then apparently shitting their pants in the supermarket. Appalling, I know. > If they're taking the latter, why call it 'livestock medication'? Because a lot of them are not, they are taking livestock medication bought from agricultural stores, because their doctor won't prescribe them what they want. You and I both know this is the case, so please don't bother pretending it isn't. And to be clear. the people who are taking literal horse dewormer as opposed to getting vaccinated are doing a stupid thing. It is the wrong answer to COVID, no matter which way you look at it. Even if Ivermectin -- formulated for humans, qua Stromectol -- is actually a useful treatment against COVID, there's another more useful prophylactic against COVID: A vaccine. This isn't an opinion, it's a bald-faced fact. You don't need to be given Ivermectin to treat severe COVID if you never end up with severe COVID in the first place. Should hospitals be administering Ivermectin clinically? I dunno, jury is still out and I'm not a doctor, but an alternative to the vaccine it is not.

hug 5y ago

Approximately no one in Australia has 'natural immunity', because approximately no one here has had COVID. Those people who are advised by their docotrs not to get vaccinated are few and far between, but it turns out the current vaccine push takes those figures into account. The people who deem the risk of COVID lower than the vaccine are just straight up incorrect. They're either misled or just deliberately contrarian, and I don't care what they think. All autonomy is important, except where that autonomy would endanger others in society. > If you are vaccinated you are mostly protected so why worry over those who do not get vaccinated? If they also opt-out of taking up hospital care necessary for treating those people who didn't refuse a vaccine, honestly, I'd be okay with it. But we both know that won't happen. It'll end up like the US where there are people dying in the ER because there's no room due to COVID cases, and I do not want Australia to end up like the US. > Have you seen the movie 'Babe', the one about the pig which acted like a dog? [...] Don't be a sheep, Australia has enough of them already. All of this is very ironic, given that the group you are implying are the wolves are the ones taking livestock medication.

the_third_wave 5y ago
Do you drink, smoke, drive a car, are you overweight, do you participate in high-risk sports, eat a lot of processed food, red meat, fatty fish from polluted waters, drink sugared carbonated water, keep dangerous pets? If so, do you voluntarily opt out of any hospital care related to these activities or habits? The list can be made much longer. On the subject of people supposedly taking 'livestock medication'... really? I assume you mean those people are taking Ivermectin [1], a popular antihelmintic which also happens to demonstrate antiviral activity, preparations containing it being used both in veterinary as well as human applications? Are those people eating horse dewormers or taking Ivermectin tablets (Stromectol [2] et al)? If they're taking the latter, why call it 'livestock medication'? Stop labelling people who happen to disagree with 'your' opinion. Just accept that not everybody agrees with 'your' standpoint or before you know it you'll find 'your' opinion to be in the crosshairs of the authoritarians - and then what do you do? [1] As to the efficacy of Ivermectin for SARS2 prophylaxis or treatment the verdict is still out. It is unfortunate that this subject has been politicised to such an extreme that it has become a black/white issue, 'either you are with us or against us'. [2] https://www.rxlist.com/stromectol-drug.htm https://www.rxlist.com/stromectol-drug.htm
- hug 5y ago
  > people supposedly taking 'livestock medication'... really? Yes. Really. And then apparently shitting their pants in the supermarket. Appalling, I know. > If they're taking the latter, why call it 'livestock medication'? Because a lot of them are not, they are taking livestock medication bought from agricultural stores, because their doctor won't prescribe them what they want. You and I both know this is the case, so please don't bother pretending it isn't. And to be clear. the people who are taking literal horse dewormer as opposed to getting vaccinated are doing a stupid thing. It is the wrong answer to COVID, no matter which way you look at it. Even if Ivermectin -- formulated for humans, qua Stromectol -- is actually a useful treatment against COVID, there's another more useful prophylactic against COVID: A vaccine. This isn't an opinion, it's a bald-faced fact. You don't need to be given Ivermectin to treat severe COVID if you never end up with severe COVID in the first place. Should hospitals be administering Ivermectin clinically? I dunno, jury is still out and I'm not a doctor, but an alternative to the vaccine it is not.