7 ms·

> I don't want any unvaccinated person near me because I am more likely to die as a consequence and I expect the Government to keep them away from me at all cos

by ls15 5y ago

> I don't want any unvaccinated person near me because I am more likely to die as a consequence and I expect the Government to keep them away from me at all costs—for it is the constitutional duty of government to protect me as a citizen from threat and danger. The vaccines are not reasonably effective against transmission, especially for the current dominant strain, but also the previous ones. Vaccinated people are still infecting people that were not able to be vaccinated and other vaccinated people as well - that's actually happening at the Australian Open right now. The absolute risk reduction of the vaccines is below 3%. [0] The guilt-tripping is not based on facts or science, but on fear, the flawed idea that you could eliminate risk from life, as well as lack of respect for other people's freedoms. [0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5... > It has always been thus for centuries across many counties. How many instances and examples would you like? Do an internet search. Just because these facts are new to you and that you have never previously experienced a pandemic in your lifetime then it doesn't mean that such action by governments is not normal practice. Well, I can assure that it fucking-well is normal practice and that you need to get used to the fact or alternatively withdraw from society altogether. Witch-hunts used to be common too, but that does not mean that we should bring them back.

hilbert42 5y ago
"The vaccines are not reasonably effective against transmission, especially for the current dominant strain, but also the previous ones. Vaccinated people are still infecting people..." Perhaps so, but those who are vaccinated shed less viral load, ipso facto it's less likely that another person would be infected. Same goes for masks: viral load is attenuated when someone with COVID breathes out, if an uninfected person nearby also has a mask then there's further viral load attenuation when he/she breathes in. Morever the attenuation is not just additive but rather it's multiplicative - and that's the big deal, it's why everyone should wear masks. It's the reason why they're often mandated for everyone. Even if vaccines are minimally effective in stopping the spread of the virus, if you then factor in masks then up goes the attenuation again (check the figures from recent research, there are quite a few papers around by now - and they'll all be saying essentially the same thing). If vaccinated people are infecting others then one needs to ask why. First, I'd suggest that almost none of the general public are wearing the effective N95/P2 masks (they are certified and type approved by regulation). Instead, most are wearing surgical masks which are nigh on useless for COVID, especially so when huge numbers of people wear them down around their chin - their mouths may be covered but the masks are essentially useless when their noses are exposed (one has to wonder what's wrong with these idiots, either they've room-temperature IQs or a death wish). Remember, surgical masks have no airtight seal as do N95/P2s, their original purpose was to catch spit and droplets that fall onto patients when a surgeon is talking and they work for that purpose. Frankly, the fact that governments have failed to give proper instruction/training to their citizens about proper mask usage and hygiene (by TV ads etc.) has been an unmitigated fucking disaster. If proper, effective masking had been employed then likely 30% of the 5.4 million who've already died to date would still be alive now. (I accept that early on there was a mask shortage, this was a significant problem but there are any number of proper certified masks now available.) Why do I care that others aren't wearing their masks properly? For the same reasons I mentioned earlier, which is when they fail to wear them in the correct and effective way then they also degrade my protection to unacceptable levels. "The absolute risk reduction of the vaccines is below 3%. [0] The guilt-tripping is not based on facts or science, but on fear, the flawed idea that you could eliminate risk from life, as well as lack of respect for other people's freedoms." Well, I'd suggest you're wrong with that 3% - damn lies and statistics taken out of context. Look at these realworld figures. Yes, there is breakthrough with vaccines but it's a no-brainer to be both fully vaccinated with booster and for those around you to be of the same status. With proper mask protection as well then one has a much better chance of either not catching the virus or only getting mild symptoms. https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/covid-19-breakthrough-data https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/covid-19-breakthrough-data HN's comments link: https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/covid-19-breakthrough-data https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/covid-19-breakthrough-data https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29956681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29956681 Why are people like you so damn negative about this and so deliberately intent in disrupting society when it's in such a state of stress? Why are so many of you so intent in trying to undermine and sabotage the rest of us when we're doing our darndest to try and protect ourselves from this cursed disease? You are forcing us to fight on two fronts and it's damn inconsiderate and selfish of you to do so. You may not care about your own lives but reasonable people are normally considerate of others. And why are you continually whingeing about your so-called freedoms and rights in this terrible time with millions of people dying, especially when it takes so little effort to comply with the mask and vaccination rules? After all, the majority of us are doing our best to follow the best scientific advice available. And science is by far our best option and way out of this unholy mess. Sure, the science is not perfect but then it's still early days for research (and what we've achieved in only a couple of years has been truly phenomenal). Even my valid points about well accepted practices that countries have adopted during pandemics from centuries back right up to the present you've dismissed and poo-pooed and even tried to parallel them with the workings of a witch hunt when they're nothing of the sort. Counties have adopted these practices/solutions during pandemics because they've found that through centuries of experience that they provide the best practical outcomes. No one ever said they were perfect, we've always known they're not. It would be interesting to contemplate the outcomes if the tables were turned and instead we were dealing with the polio epidemic of the 1950s and '60s. I wonder if the anti-vaxxers and naysayers would be so inconsiderate and disruptive. I seriously doubt it, and I'd pretty much bet they'd be vaccinated in a flash. One look at young kids dying, or paralyzed and unable to breathe and having to be kept alive in iron lungs often for the rest of their lives; or with legs so paralyzed that they were barely able to walk with crutches, then I'd reckon they would quickly change their minds. Well, lived through that time and it was horrible, a kid in my class died and two others were left with paralyzed legs and unable to walk without the aid of crutches, we were always wondering if we'd be next. When the Salk vaccine arrived in the 1960s it was welcome with open joy. There weren't any recalcitrant mobs marching down the street demanding their freedoms and rights. Any such action would have been unthinkable. Instead no one opted out except for a very small minority on religious grounds but they'd long done so for other medical procedures. There was no messing about either, my school of just under 1,100 kids was completely vaccinated between the midmorning break and lunchtime. https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/remembering-australia-s-polio-scourge https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/remembering-australi... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_lung https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_lung
- ls15 5y ago
  > Well, I'd suggest you're wrong with that 3% - damn lies and statistics taken out of context. Look at these realworld figures. Yes, there is breakthrough with vaccines but it's a no-brainer to be both fully vaccinated with booster and for those around you to be of the same status. With proper mask protection as well one has a much better chance of either not catching the virus or only getting mild symptoms. That was a paper from the Lancet.. Have you seen the hospitalization rate by vaccination status from Denmark? That's real world data for you. Similar pictures from Scotland. Vaccine mandates are dead, because there is no scientific basis for them. If you cannot tolerate the remaining risk, then your best option is to stay at home. You cannot ask society to remove every ever so small risk from life for you. Besides of the fact that all the vaccines will not do that for you. You need to do your own part. Did you get your vitamin D level checked? How is your BMI, could you lose some weight maybe? Do you need to take insulin? If so, please get your levels checked. Did you get enough fresh air today? Stay healthy.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - hilbert42 5y ago
    My earlier post was already too long. If I had then tried to quantify what I said by examining instances of the effect of COVID and various of vaccines on the virus over range of different counties then it would have been too long to post. My response, therefore, is just a summary of what I have observed. I’d add that I’m a professional—although not a medico—so I’m used to reading scientific papers and journals and I reckon since the advent of COVID I’ve almost doubled my reading. I've read papers on almost every aspect of the disease and that includes some that are of a highly technical nature which have challenged my comprehension thereof. Simply, I’ve been covering COVID in considerable detail and I believe I'm reasonably well informed. “That was a paper from the Lancet.” When I said ”damn lies and statistics taken out of context.” I meant it. In fact, The Lancet article is almost the quintessential example of what I was talking about: someone cites a very reputable source to prove a point and then expects everyone to take its findings as gospel, or readers are bamboozled with the science and then don't question any further—these outcomes being the original objective. I've known The Lancet for years and have read articles from it in the past, and I'm well aware that it's an authoritative source of information. Moreover, I have no doubt that when The Lancet published the article the information therein was both authoritative and up to date—the trouble is that it was published on April 20, 2021—some nine months ago! (Here, your objective may not have been to deliberately mislead but one sees so many instances of this tactic that it's hard not to believe that most of them are nothing other then a deliberate ploy to deceive.) The information the article contains is now nigh on useless—it's nothing other than ancient history, thus it can no longer be relied upon for fact and authoritative information, as the COVID situation has changed vastly from the time of its publication. For starters, we've developed better methods of treating the disease, we’ve had time to evaluate booster shots—and probably the most important factor of all, which is that we’ve seen the subsequent emergence of COVID's most contagious strains to date—Delta and Omicron—and they have altered everything. I’m far from the smartest person around but I’m certainly smart enough not to be conned or mislead this easily whether deliberately or otherwise. When presented with a link like that or when reading scientific papers the first thing I check is the paper's submission date, I then check the publication date. However, what this demonstrates is that in this highly polarized climate over COVID, people have very few qualms about twisting or distorting the truth—or exaggerating for the point of emphasis: as the saying goes ‘if the facts don't agree with one's own worldview then alter them to suit’. Unfortunately, it's this widespread propensity to not to bother checking the accuracy of source material, or to cheat and be loose with the facts that’s been one of the most significant and substantial reasons for why our response to the COVID pandemic has been—and still is—in so much of a schemozzle. Re: hospitalization rate by vaccination status in Denmark, I have now read various docs and I’ve nothing further to add other than Denmark’s response to COVID, like almost every other country or different location across the globe, has had a very different response to the disease when compared to many other places. And that’s happened for any number of reasons: the time of its first lockdown, vaccinations rates, etc., etc. are likely to be very different to anywhere else. With respect to tolerating the risk, yes I do spend more time at home than previously. This makes sense for two reasons, the first is that it just makes sense to do so if it’s at all possible, and because of COVID I am able to do just that. The second reason is that I have yet to receive my booster (third) shot, so it’s prudent to be more careful than normal. Where I am I’ve not been able to get the booster shot because of damn stupid rules set by the authorities who require a certain set time between the initial shots and the booster, here that’s four months. And for similar bureaucratic reasons, the initial shots weren’t available earlier. Whilst it's likely that maximum antibody response will be achieved at four months or more, we simply don't have the luxury to be overly fussy with Omicron about. Moreover, it’s not for the want of trying, I told both my doctor and pharmacist on multiple occasions that if I couldn't get my booster very soon then I’d obtain it on the black market. I further suggested that they report me to authorities for both making such a suggestion, not to mention overly 'harassing' them and making a nuisance of myself. Of course, nothing happened, it was just water off a duck's back—and I'm still waiting (and looking for alternative sources). Again, my experience here only further demonstrates the enormous variation between counties, states and even towns in their differing approaches to dealing with COVID—like your comment about vaccine mandates being dead. Whether they’re dead or not clearly depends upon where one is. As you're well aware, Djokovic’s efforts to buck the system over vaccine mandates only brought him big trouble, and he’s likely to strike the problem again if he doesn't pull his head in and bow to the inevitable. The forthcoming French Open comes with new mandate that all players be vaccinated. As we’ve just witnessed, if anything, there are more vaccine mandates now than previously, and from what we've seen it's clear that some countries have become much less tolerant of difficult and recalcitrant people than previously. Like them or not, evidence suggests we're stuck with vaccine mandates for the foreseeable future. As for vitamin D, no I’ve not had my levels tested but I’ve been taking about double the normal dose for about a year now, so my levels won’t be low. BMI: I’m close to the middle of the normal range. Insulin: no, air: not yet but it's still early in the day.

by ls15 5y ago

hilbert42 5y ago

"The vaccines are not reasonably effective against transmission, especially for the current dominant strain, but also the previous ones. Vaccinated people are still infecting people..." Perhaps so, but those who are vaccinated shed less viral load, ipso facto it's less likely that another person would be infected. Same goes for masks: viral load is attenuated when someone with COVID breathes out, if an uninfected person nearby also has a mask then there's further viral load attenuation when he/she breathes in. Morever the attenuation is not just additive but rather it's multiplicative - and that's the big deal, it's why everyone should wear masks. It's the reason why they're often mandated for everyone. Even if vaccines are minimally effective in stopping the spread of the virus, if you then factor in masks then up goes the attenuation again (check the figures from recent research, there are quite a few papers around by now - and they'll all be saying essentially the same thing). If vaccinated people are infecting others then one needs to ask why. First, I'd suggest that almost none of the general public are wearing the effective N95/P2 masks (they are certified and type approved by regulation). Instead, most are wearing surgical masks which are nigh on useless for COVID, especially so when huge numbers of people wear them down around their chin - their mouths may be covered but the masks are essentially useless when their noses are exposed (one has to wonder what's wrong with these idiots, either they've room-temperature IQs or a death wish). Remember, surgical masks have no airtight seal as do N95/P2s, their original purpose was to catch spit and droplets that fall onto patients when a surgeon is talking and they work for that purpose. Frankly, the fact that governments have failed to give proper instruction/training to their citizens about proper mask usage and hygiene (by TV ads etc.) has been an unmitigated fucking disaster. If proper, effective masking had been employed then likely 30% of the 5.4 million who've already died to date would still be alive now. (I accept that early on there was a mask shortage, this was a significant problem but there are any number of proper certified masks now available.) Why do I care that others aren't wearing their masks properly? For the same reasons I mentioned earlier, which is when they fail to wear them in the correct and effective way then they also degrade my protection to unacceptable levels. "The absolute risk reduction of the vaccines is below 3%. [0] The guilt-tripping is not based on facts or science, but on fear, the flawed idea that you could eliminate risk from life, as well as lack of respect for other people's freedoms." Well, I'd suggest you're wrong with that 3% - damn lies and statistics taken out of context. Look at these realworld figures. Yes, there is breakthrough with vaccines but it's a no-brainer to be both fully vaccinated with booster and for those around you to be of the same status. With proper mask protection as well then one has a much better chance of either not catching the virus or only getting mild symptoms. https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/covid-19-breakthrough-data https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/covid-19-breakthrough-data HN's comments link: https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/covid-19-breakthrough-data https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/covid-19-breakthrough-data https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29956681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29956681 Why are people like you so damn negative about this and so deliberately intent in disrupting society when it's in such a state of stress? Why are so many of you so intent in trying to undermine and sabotage the rest of us when we're doing our darndest to try and protect ourselves from this cursed disease? You are forcing us to fight on two fronts and it's damn inconsiderate and selfish of you to do so. You may not care about your own lives but reasonable people are normally considerate of others. And why are you continually whingeing about your so-called freedoms and rights in this terrible time with millions of people dying, especially when it takes so little effort to comply with the mask and vaccination rules? After all, the majority of us are doing our best to follow the best scientific advice available. And science is by far our best option and way out of this unholy mess. Sure, the science is not perfect but then it's still early days for research (and what we've achieved in only a couple of years has been truly phenomenal). Even my valid points about well accepted practices that countries have adopted during pandemics from centuries back right up to the present you've dismissed and poo-pooed and even tried to parallel them with the workings of a witch hunt when they're nothing of the sort. Counties have adopted these practices/solutions during pandemics because they've found that through centuries of experience that they provide the best practical outcomes. No one ever said they were perfect, we've always known they're not. It would be interesting to contemplate the outcomes if the tables were turned and instead we were dealing with the polio epidemic of the 1950s and '60s. I wonder if the anti-vaxxers and naysayers would be so inconsiderate and disruptive. I seriously doubt it, and I'd pretty much bet they'd be vaccinated in a flash. One look at young kids dying, or paralyzed and unable to breathe and having to be kept alive in iron lungs often for the rest of their lives; or with legs so paralyzed that they were barely able to walk with crutches, then I'd reckon they would quickly change their minds. Well, lived through that time and it was horrible, a kid in my class died and two others were left with paralyzed legs and unable to walk without the aid of crutches, we were always wondering if we'd be next. When the Salk vaccine arrived in the 1960s it was welcome with open joy. There weren't any recalcitrant mobs marching down the street demanding their freedoms and rights. Any such action would have been unthinkable. Instead no one opted out except for a very small minority on religious grounds but they'd long done so for other medical procedures. There was no messing about either, my school of just under 1,100 kids was completely vaccinated between the midmorning break and lunchtime. https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/remembering-australia-s-polio-scourge https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/remembering-australi... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_lung https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_lung

ls15 5y ago
> Well, I'd suggest you're wrong with that 3% - damn lies and statistics taken out of context. Look at these realworld figures. Yes, there is breakthrough with vaccines but it's a no-brainer to be both fully vaccinated with booster and for those around you to be of the same status. With proper mask protection as well one has a much better chance of either not catching the virus or only getting mild symptoms. That was a paper from the Lancet.. Have you seen the hospitalization rate by vaccination status from Denmark? That's real world data for you. Similar pictures from Scotland. Vaccine mandates are dead, because there is no scientific basis for them. If you cannot tolerate the remaining risk, then your best option is to stay at home. You cannot ask society to remove every ever so small risk from life for you. Besides of the fact that all the vaccines will not do that for you. You need to do your own part. Did you get your vitamin D level checked? How is your BMI, could you lose some weight maybe? Do you need to take insulin? If so, please get your levels checked. Did you get enough fresh air today? Stay healthy.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- hilbert42 5y ago
  My earlier post was already too long. If I had then tried to quantify what I said by examining instances of the effect of COVID and various of vaccines on the virus over range of different counties then it would have been too long to post. My response, therefore, is just a summary of what I have observed. I’d add that I’m a professional—although not a medico—so I’m used to reading scientific papers and journals and I reckon since the advent of COVID I’ve almost doubled my reading. I've read papers on almost every aspect of the disease and that includes some that are of a highly technical nature which have challenged my comprehension thereof. Simply, I’ve been covering COVID in considerable detail and I believe I'm reasonably well informed. “That was a paper from the Lancet.” When I said ”damn lies and statistics taken out of context.” I meant it. In fact, The Lancet article is almost the quintessential example of what I was talking about: someone cites a very reputable source to prove a point and then expects everyone to take its findings as gospel, or readers are bamboozled with the science and then don't question any further—these outcomes being the original objective. I've known The Lancet for years and have read articles from it in the past, and I'm well aware that it's an authoritative source of information. Moreover, I have no doubt that when The Lancet published the article the information therein was both authoritative and up to date—the trouble is that it was published on April 20, 2021—some nine months ago! (Here, your objective may not have been to deliberately mislead but one sees so many instances of this tactic that it's hard not to believe that most of them are nothing other then a deliberate ploy to deceive.) The information the article contains is now nigh on useless—it's nothing other than ancient history, thus it can no longer be relied upon for fact and authoritative information, as the COVID situation has changed vastly from the time of its publication. For starters, we've developed better methods of treating the disease, we’ve had time to evaluate booster shots—and probably the most important factor of all, which is that we’ve seen the subsequent emergence of COVID's most contagious strains to date—Delta and Omicron—and they have altered everything. I’m far from the smartest person around but I’m certainly smart enough not to be conned or mislead this easily whether deliberately or otherwise. When presented with a link like that or when reading scientific papers the first thing I check is the paper's submission date, I then check the publication date. However, what this demonstrates is that in this highly polarized climate over COVID, people have very few qualms about twisting or distorting the truth—or exaggerating for the point of emphasis: as the saying goes ‘if the facts don't agree with one's own worldview then alter them to suit’. Unfortunately, it's this widespread propensity to not to bother checking the accuracy of source material, or to cheat and be loose with the facts that’s been one of the most significant and substantial reasons for why our response to the COVID pandemic has been—and still is—in so much of a schemozzle. Re: hospitalization rate by vaccination status in Denmark, I have now read various docs and I’ve nothing further to add other than Denmark’s response to COVID, like almost every other country or different location across the globe, has had a very different response to the disease when compared to many other places. And that’s happened for any number of reasons: the time of its first lockdown, vaccinations rates, etc., etc. are likely to be very different to anywhere else. With respect to tolerating the risk, yes I do spend more time at home than previously. This makes sense for two reasons, the first is that it just makes sense to do so if it’s at all possible, and because of COVID I am able to do just that. The second reason is that I have yet to receive my booster (third) shot, so it’s prudent to be more careful than normal. Where I am I’ve not been able to get the booster shot because of damn stupid rules set by the authorities who require a certain set time between the initial shots and the booster, here that’s four months. And for similar bureaucratic reasons, the initial shots weren’t available earlier. Whilst it's likely that maximum antibody response will be achieved at four months or more, we simply don't have the luxury to be overly fussy with Omicron about. Moreover, it’s not for the want of trying, I told both my doctor and pharmacist on multiple occasions that if I couldn't get my booster very soon then I’d obtain it on the black market. I further suggested that they report me to authorities for both making such a suggestion, not to mention overly 'harassing' them and making a nuisance of myself. Of course, nothing happened, it was just water off a duck's back—and I'm still waiting (and looking for alternative sources). Again, my experience here only further demonstrates the enormous variation between counties, states and even towns in their differing approaches to dealing with COVID—like your comment about vaccine mandates being dead. Whether they’re dead or not clearly depends upon where one is. As you're well aware, Djokovic’s efforts to buck the system over vaccine mandates only brought him big trouble, and he’s likely to strike the problem again if he doesn't pull his head in and bow to the inevitable. The forthcoming French Open comes with new mandate that all players be vaccinated. As we’ve just witnessed, if anything, there are more vaccine mandates now than previously, and from what we've seen it's clear that some countries have become much less tolerant of difficult and recalcitrant people than previously. Like them or not, evidence suggests we're stuck with vaccine mandates for the foreseeable future. As for vitamin D, no I’ve not had my levels tested but I’ve been taking about double the normal dose for about a year now, so my levels won’t be low. BMI: I’m close to the middle of the normal range. Insulin: no, air: not yet but it's still early in the day.