5 ms·

Vaccination. Why it doesn't seem to be working is that not everyone is getting vaccinated and there are pockets where the numbers are even lower. EVERY single s

by giarc 5y ago

Vaccination. Why it doesn't seem to be working is that not everyone is getting vaccinated and there are pockets where the numbers are even lower. EVERY single study shows the likelihood of hospitalization and death is much higher in unvaccinated individuals, why is this hard to understand?

mwint 5y ago
Let’s suppose we won’t hit 100% vaccination rates, for whatever reason. Are we doing this lockdown thing forever, then?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- pfg 5y ago
  We'll have to do it as long as there's a risk that the healthcare system would get overloaded to a degree that significantly affects the population as a whole, due to delayed treatment of things like cancer or ICU beds not being available in the event of a medical emergency. Beyond that, a lockdown is not the only non-pharmaceutical intervention that's available to us. It's just that many governments have failed to use other tools at the right time and in a way that's actually effective, often only implementing them right before the peak of a wave when it's way too late.
- giarc 5y ago
  No, most definitely not. Vaccinated individuals are hospitalized less, are intubated less, die less, quite simply, they use up our healthcare system less. Lockdowns are in essence a way of preserving that limited resource (hospital beds). Where I live, in Alberta, we had a really bad 4th wave in September/October. Prior to that we were at ~75% vaccination rate in those over 18. The wave almost killed our healthcare system and it was primarily unvaccinated individuals using the beds. Had we been at 100% vaccination rate, we most definitely wouldn't have been in the same position.
Covzire 5y ago
Because people keep flagging every HN post that dares to challenge the "scientific consensus", proving that said 'consensus' is not scientific at all.
liopleurodon 5y ago
lmfao. the gene therapy masquerading as a vaccine doesn't work and governments don't like to give up power. Look up the recent statistics. It's the vaccinated that are filling up the hospitals, not the unvaccinated. Why is this hard to understand?

by giarc 5y ago

mwint 5y ago

Let’s suppose we won’t hit 100% vaccination rates, for whatever reason. Are we doing this lockdown thing forever, then?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pfg 5y ago
We'll have to do it as long as there's a risk that the healthcare system would get overloaded to a degree that significantly affects the population as a whole, due to delayed treatment of things like cancer or ICU beds not being available in the event of a medical emergency. Beyond that, a lockdown is not the only non-pharmaceutical intervention that's available to us. It's just that many governments have failed to use other tools at the right time and in a way that's actually effective, often only implementing them right before the peak of a wave when it's way too late.
giarc 5y ago
No, most definitely not. Vaccinated individuals are hospitalized less, are intubated less, die less, quite simply, they use up our healthcare system less. Lockdowns are in essence a way of preserving that limited resource (hospital beds). Where I live, in Alberta, we had a really bad 4th wave in September/October. Prior to that we were at ~75% vaccination rate in those over 18. The wave almost killed our healthcare system and it was primarily unvaccinated individuals using the beds. Had we been at 100% vaccination rate, we most definitely wouldn't have been in the same position.

Covzire 5y ago

Because people keep flagging every HN post that dares to challenge the "scientific consensus", proving that said 'consensus' is not scientific at all.

liopleurodon 5y ago

lmfao. the gene therapy masquerading as a vaccine doesn't work and governments don't like to give up power. Look up the recent statistics. It's the vaccinated that are filling up the hospitals, not the unvaccinated. Why is this hard to understand?