6 ms·

The goal is to keep serious cases to a minimum so they don’t clog the healthcare system thus making people die of all sorts of other things because they couldn’

The goal is to keep serious cases to a minimum so they don’t clog the healthcare system thus making people die of all sorts of other things because they couldn’t be treated. Vaccines do help with that, tremendously.

prohobo 5y ago
Do they? Can you prove that, or are you just saying random shit everyone else says? This was not the narrative at the beginning of the vaccine rollout, by the way. The narrative changed every month towards what you're currently saying. From what I've heard, thousands of people have been losing out on proper healthcare because of governments blocking their access; I'm talking people who should have had cancer screenings not getting them and dying because they were coerced into "lowering the strain on healthcare services". I also heard that thousands of healthcare workers have been getting fired, and ICU beds removed because of governments deciding they weren't heroic enough, and not fit for treating patients. Who are you trying to protect exactly?
- Swenrekcah 5y ago
  You can look up all the statistics on vaccine effectiveness against serious cases. They work really well for that. They don’t work as well as first hoped against infection but data on third booster suggests better results on that front. Look it up instead of asking me for proof, while you yourself are restating hearsay originating from who knows where.
  - prohobo 5y ago
    I asked if you can prove that they stop hospitals from being overwhelmed, not whether they were effective. So far it's not looking very good, is that why you support the decision to mandate the shots?
    - Swenrekcah 5y ago
      I'm not sure I support a vaccine mandate. I'm just saying that the vaccines work and it's foolish to claim otherwise. I can understand hesitation to get vaccinated, but I'd like to ask those same people if they take any other medicine at all and if they have read the pamphlet that comes with those. Also I'd like to ask if they are fine with getting a completely alien and known harmful substance into their body, the substance we call Coronavirus.
  - MarcoZavala 5y ago
TurkishPoptart 5y ago
Sure, yet since when do I have to undergo an irreversible medical procedure for the sake of the government healthcare infrastructure?
- Swenrekcah 5y ago
  I'll start by saying I haven't been a supporter of vaccine mandates. It's best if people can make this up for themselves. Given the right information it's not really a hard choice. And of course there can be personal reasons why it'd be wise to not get vaccinated, but those are rare. The procedure is benign. Describing it as irreversible is technically true but practically it's scaremongering. And it's for the sake of the people around you. Your society. So they don't die waiting for their healthcare services to unclog. Edit: And it's also obviously for the sake of the person getting vaccinated, let's not forget that :)
  - TurkishPoptart 5y ago
    Because, sadly, we know that's not true anymore. >...fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts. Host–virus interactions early in infection may shape the entire viral trajectory. Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
    - Swenrekcah 5y ago
      Yes I know, it was clear early on. The study also says: >Although vaccines remain highly effective at preventing severe disease and deaths from COVID-19, our findings suggest that vaccination is not sufficient to prevent transmission of the delta variant in household settings with prolonged exposures. Which is what we're talking about here, preventing serious cases.
- chki 5y ago
  Since we have a global pandemic. This is a completely novel and unusual situation, why wouldn't you think that the solutions will be novel and unusual as well?
codr7 5y ago
Source? From listening to nurses and doctors, I get the impression that most people in hospitals with Covid-issues lately are vaccinated; and I trust real people with real experiences over authorities with agendas.
- usr1106 5y ago
  > I get the impression that most people in hospitals with Covid-issues lately are vaccinated I read some statistics over that the other day. It is correct when looking only at hospital patients. The explanation is that most who need hospital care come from a risk group. And risk groups are fully vaccinated by over 90% (here). So you end up with high absolute numbers of vaccinated hospital patients. If you look at a somewhat comparable group of people, chances to need hospital care are manyfold for the unvaccinated. It's true for higher risk groups and for lower risk groups. Vaccinations are not perfect protection against anything, but they reduce risk by a high factor.
  - codr7 5y ago
    Wasn't filling up hospitals the problem we were trying to solve by vaccinating people in the first place? Isn't that the excuse people use to harass anyone who doesn't feel like being experimented on for profit?
klipklop 5y ago
>The goal is to keep serious cases to a minimum so they don’t clog the healthcare system... Reminds me of 2 weeks to flatten the curve. Yet here we are. Why all the sudden are we at risk of clogging the healthcare system with some areas hitting 70%+ adult vaccination rates? Germany already has given out 124,401,062 doses of the vaccine. All I ever see is the goalposts being moved with this stuff. I have taken the vaccine, but I am hesitant about mandates and vaccine passports.
- kelnos 5y ago
  I find it exhausting that people such as yourself seem to latch onto missed time frames as a reason to just assume all public health policy is bullshit. Yes, because when I say I'm going to finish some software project in 2 weeks, I absolutely always get it done in 2 weeks. These are estimates. They are sometimes (often!) wrong. Sometimes they're wrong because the problem was underestimated. Sometimes they are wrong for political reasons. Yes, "flattening the curve" took more than 2 weeks. Big deal. Doing so did absolutely reduce pressure on ICUs and saved many lives. And hell, if everyone had actually followed all the mandates and guidelines at the time, maybe it would have only taken two weeks. But people don't, and it's always hard to gauge how many people will refuse to cooperate, and in what ways, and exactly what effect that will have. The reason the goalposts are moving is because this isn't a well-defined game with strictly-set rules. The virus doesn't care about our rules or projections. If it mutates, and the new variant does better against our vaccines, then... yes, the goalposts will move. Our utter failure to get high vaccination rates in poorer countries is likely a big cause of the new variants. It's all well and good to be sitting in a highly-vaccinated city in the first world, but all it takes is one person to fly in from somewhere with a new variant, and you're hosed.
  - poszlem 5y ago
    You miss a time frame if you say "2 weeks" and end up having to lockdown for 3 instead. If you say "2 weeks" and end up with lockdowns for years you are either incompetent or lying or both.
    - 5y ago

prohobo 5y ago

Do they? Can you prove that, or are you just saying random shit everyone else says? This was not the narrative at the beginning of the vaccine rollout, by the way. The narrative changed every month towards what you're currently saying. From what I've heard, thousands of people have been losing out on proper healthcare because of governments blocking their access; I'm talking people who should have had cancer screenings not getting them and dying because they were coerced into "lowering the strain on healthcare services". I also heard that thousands of healthcare workers have been getting fired, and ICU beds removed because of governments deciding they weren't heroic enough, and not fit for treating patients. Who are you trying to protect exactly?

Swenrekcah 5y ago
You can look up all the statistics on vaccine effectiveness against serious cases. They work really well for that. They don’t work as well as first hoped against infection but data on third booster suggests better results on that front. Look it up instead of asking me for proof, while you yourself are restating hearsay originating from who knows where.
- prohobo 5y ago
  I asked if you can prove that they stop hospitals from being overwhelmed, not whether they were effective. So far it's not looking very good, is that why you support the decision to mandate the shots?
  - Swenrekcah 5y ago
    I'm not sure I support a vaccine mandate. I'm just saying that the vaccines work and it's foolish to claim otherwise. I can understand hesitation to get vaccinated, but I'd like to ask those same people if they take any other medicine at all and if they have read the pamphlet that comes with those. Also I'd like to ask if they are fine with getting a completely alien and known harmful substance into their body, the substance we call Coronavirus.
- MarcoZavala 5y ago

TurkishPoptart 5y ago

Sure, yet since when do I have to undergo an irreversible medical procedure for the sake of the government healthcare infrastructure?

Swenrekcah 5y ago
I'll start by saying I haven't been a supporter of vaccine mandates. It's best if people can make this up for themselves. Given the right information it's not really a hard choice. And of course there can be personal reasons why it'd be wise to not get vaccinated, but those are rare. The procedure is benign. Describing it as irreversible is technically true but practically it's scaremongering. And it's for the sake of the people around you. Your society. So they don't die waiting for their healthcare services to unclog. Edit: And it's also obviously for the sake of the person getting vaccinated, let's not forget that :)
- TurkishPoptart 5y ago
  Because, sadly, we know that's not true anymore. >...fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts. Host–virus interactions early in infection may shape the entire viral trajectory. Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
  - Swenrekcah 5y ago
    Yes I know, it was clear early on. The study also says: >Although vaccines remain highly effective at preventing severe disease and deaths from COVID-19, our findings suggest that vaccination is not sufficient to prevent transmission of the delta variant in household settings with prolonged exposures. Which is what we're talking about here, preventing serious cases.
chki 5y ago
Since we have a global pandemic. This is a completely novel and unusual situation, why wouldn't you think that the solutions will be novel and unusual as well?

codr7 5y ago

Source? From listening to nurses and doctors, I get the impression that most people in hospitals with Covid-issues lately are vaccinated; and I trust real people with real experiences over authorities with agendas.

usr1106 5y ago
> I get the impression that most people in hospitals with Covid-issues lately are vaccinated I read some statistics over that the other day. It is correct when looking only at hospital patients. The explanation is that most who need hospital care come from a risk group. And risk groups are fully vaccinated by over 90% (here). So you end up with high absolute numbers of vaccinated hospital patients. If you look at a somewhat comparable group of people, chances to need hospital care are manyfold for the unvaccinated. It's true for higher risk groups and for lower risk groups. Vaccinations are not perfect protection against anything, but they reduce risk by a high factor.
- codr7 5y ago
  Wasn't filling up hospitals the problem we were trying to solve by vaccinating people in the first place? Isn't that the excuse people use to harass anyone who doesn't feel like being experimented on for profit?

klipklop 5y ago

>The goal is to keep serious cases to a minimum so they don’t clog the healthcare system... Reminds me of 2 weeks to flatten the curve. Yet here we are. Why all the sudden are we at risk of clogging the healthcare system with some areas hitting 70%+ adult vaccination rates? Germany already has given out 124,401,062 doses of the vaccine. All I ever see is the goalposts being moved with this stuff. I have taken the vaccine, but I am hesitant about mandates and vaccine passports.

kelnos 5y ago
I find it exhausting that people such as yourself seem to latch onto missed time frames as a reason to just assume all public health policy is bullshit. Yes, because when I say I'm going to finish some software project in 2 weeks, I absolutely always get it done in 2 weeks. These are estimates. They are sometimes (often!) wrong. Sometimes they're wrong because the problem was underestimated. Sometimes they are wrong for political reasons. Yes, "flattening the curve" took more than 2 weeks. Big deal. Doing so did absolutely reduce pressure on ICUs and saved many lives. And hell, if everyone had actually followed all the mandates and guidelines at the time, maybe it would have only taken two weeks. But people don't, and it's always hard to gauge how many people will refuse to cooperate, and in what ways, and exactly what effect that will have. The reason the goalposts are moving is because this isn't a well-defined game with strictly-set rules. The virus doesn't care about our rules or projections. If it mutates, and the new variant does better against our vaccines, then... yes, the goalposts will move. Our utter failure to get high vaccination rates in poorer countries is likely a big cause of the new variants. It's all well and good to be sitting in a highly-vaccinated city in the first world, but all it takes is one person to fly in from somewhere with a new variant, and you're hosed.
- poszlem 5y ago
  You miss a time frame if you say "2 weeks" and end up having to lockdown for 3 instead. If you say "2 weeks" and end up with lockdowns for years you are either incompetent or lying or both.
  - 5y ago