General Corona Virus Discussion

   #841  

Crasher

Professional User
Professional VCDS User
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
1,674
Reaction score
1,513
Location
Nottingham, England
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=21420
Anyone wanna take a stab at explaining Sweden?
The pop group The Stranglers had a go "only country where the clouds are interesting"

 
   #842  

DV52

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
5,469
Reaction score
5,917
Location
Melbourne, Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=194404
Personally I want the risk of me being infected by a medical practitioner to be minimised, but IMHO compulsion is never right so my suggestion is that medical practitioners should be required to reveal to their patients whether they have been fully vaccinated and for the patient to have to right to choose to be treated by another practitioner if they are unhappy with the vaccination state of the practitioner - this would retain the right of choice for both practitioner and patient.
Dave: that's exactly the point - well said!!

Yours is just one of countless examples of the complex interplay of vaccination in a modern functioning society. Some folk tend to myopically believe that the decision to get vaccinated (or not) is purely a personal freedom. But of course it is not (your example being a case in point).

Modern communities operate as a whole unit and whilst individualism is to be encouraged in normal circumstances, a pandemic necessarily enforces a re-think of the degree of allowable personal freedoms. It's simply naive in the extreme for un-vaccinated folk to believe that their decision does not impact on the rights of the rest of the community to live in a place where the risk of infection is mitigated.

IMO, that's why vaccination should be viewed as a "social license" rather than simply as a personal medical certificate. Yes, it would be far better not to have this license - but we don't live on a planet that is free of the pandemic (yet).

Don
 
Last edited:
   #843  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
41,504
Reaction score
29,435
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
Covid vaccinations work and are very effective at reducing infections, [...]

So lets stop debating that question unless you are prepared to sit down and do true statistically valid analysis and not quote newspaper headlines based on random variation in carefully selected data
Uhm, no. There's NO correlation between levels of vaccination and the spread of COVID. Here's an analysis on of the data from 68 countries and 2947 counties in the USA:

Note that this is not a newspaper headline, but a paper on the NIH's website. Most "newspapers" would rather you didn't know this.

-Uwe-
 
   #844  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
41,504
Reaction score
29,435
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
   #845  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
41,504
Reaction score
29,435
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
I don't want to make any wrong assumptions... what do YOU think is significant about that graph? What's #awkward about it?

I'm not sure of the source, but since you seem to have accepted it as credible, we're going to be talking about it a lot.
The inverse correlation between the coercive "NPI" measures that were taken (that I've loudly opposed all along) and the excess mortality. Sweden had almost none.

-Uwe-
 
   #846  

DV52

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
5,469
Reaction score
5,917
Location
Melbourne, Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=194404
Uhm, no. There's NO correlation between levels of vaccination and the spread of COVID. Here's an analysis on of the data from 68 countries and 2947 counties in the USA:
\\
hmmm......... from NewScientist
"People who are fully vaccinated against covid-19 are far less likely to infect others, despite the arrival of the delta variant, several studies show"

And I'm sure that we can provide countless more reference sources to substantiate our respective position!!

Truth is that "dueling hyperlinks" do little to persuade anyone in this debate - look back in this thread and notice how often responders use hyperlinks and how ineffectual the technique has been in progressing either side's position!!
Most "newspapers" would rather you didn't know this.
I've never understood this way of reasoning!

I agree that to varying degrees, the line between facts and opinion in "most newspapers" can be somewhat blurred these days and that readers need to exercise judgement - but I've always found the conviction and the absolute finality in statements like the one above to be almost religious in their basis (no offense to anyone of faith reading this)

Why would "Most "newspapers" .....rather you didn't know this"?

Don
 
Last edited:
   #847  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
41,504
Reaction score
29,435
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
Why would "Most "newspapers" .....rather you didn't know this"?
Perhaps because they, like most of the other traditional media, are "Brought to you by Pfizer"?


-Uwe-
 
   #848  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
41,504
Reaction score
29,435
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
And I'm sure that we can provide countless more reference sources to substantiate our respective position!!
Probably. And that means things are by no means certain, yet some people wish to make their position mandatory for everyone...

-Uwe-
 
Last edited:
   #849  

DV52

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
5,469
Reaction score
5,917
Location
Melbourne, Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=194404
Perhaps because they, like most of the other traditional media, are "Brought to you by Pfizer"?
Uwe: With due respect for someone whose intellect and business acumen I greatly admire - I'm flabbergasted by your reasoning!! So what?

Of course EVERY news service in EVERY city in EVERY country on this fragile blue planet is funded through advertisements. It would be an utterly futile quest and a complete waste-of-effort to seek news from a service that is not funded in some way by other companies in general and via the big pockets of big companies in particular.

The only news services that I'm aware-of that don't use this business model are State run institutions (like those in China). Shirley you would not advocate that because of the pivotal role of the free-press in properly functioning western democracies - news services should be banned from receiving advertising revenue from conglomerates like Pfizer? Would you be any less concerned about the risk of "puppet-masters" (political ones) if news services in the Western world were funded by the elected government via taxes?

And also, in a healthy capitalist system, is it any surprise that businesses (large, or small) increase their advertising spend in times of greater demand? Wouldn't Ross-Tech do likewise if faced with the same buyer dynamic in the competative diagnostic cable market?

Wow, I'm not sure how to respond - of course, ALL the big pharmaceutical companies are spending heaps on advertising in the present time. If I was a shareholder and this didn't happen in a pandemic - I would demand the CEO's head!

Again, with due respect and IMO, it's drawing a very long bow indeed to hold-up these increased advertising expenditures as the basis for believing that "they don't want you to know"!
Probably. And that means things are by no means certain, yet some people wish to make their position mandatory for everyone...
Again Uwe, I agree 100% with the construct that the hard won rights of citizens in democratic societies are sacrosanct and every diminution of personal freedom warrants proper justification. Even you must acknowledge that in the situation where a society is threatened by an infection that is spread by human contact and where vaccination is used as the means of herd immunity, it's necessary and its reasonable for those seeking to enjoy the benefits of that society to be ALL vaccinated?

If you don't believe this, then you are advocating that the right of an individual to choose not to be vaccinated (and to still enjoy the benefits of the community) transcends the rights of everyone else in the community to pursue a semblance of normality!

It's not logical, nor is it practically possible in combating this type of infection to say on one hand that everyone is entitled to make their own decision about vaccination and at the same time for the community to rely on artificial herd immunity to mitigate the risk of infection. These are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive options!!
 
Last edited:
   #850  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
41,504
Reaction score
29,435
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
Of course EVERY news service in EVERY city in EVERY country on this fragile blue planet is funded through advertisements.
Right, and a cardinal rule is, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you", especially when you're close to starvation, which much of the "old" media is. Now go look at just how how much of their advertising revenue comes from the pharma industry, with Pfizer leading the pack, and then perhaps you'll begin understand why they won't run stories that counter the pharma-approved narrative; they simply can't afford to lose that revenue.

Even you must acknowledge that in the situation where a society is threatened by an infection that is spread by human contact and where vaccination is used as the means of herd immunity, it's necessary and its reasonable for those seeking to enjoy the benefits of that society to be ALL vaccinated?
I don't accept either of the premises in this question.

1) I do not believe that society is threatened by this "pandemic". Think about this for a bit: Would you have noticed that there's a "pandemic" if it weren't for the continuous hype? If the news reports had been, "There's a virus going around that's hard on old people, and some of the sickest, most frail old people are succumbing to it, but if you're under 70, and not obese or diabetic, you really don't have much to worry about.?" Because that's a far more realistic assessment of the situation than what we've been fed, but of course that wouldn't have gotten the Bad Orange Man out of office, and it wouldn't have allowed governments assert previously unimaginable power and control over their populations.

2) It is quite clear now that the vaccines that are currently available are incapable of getting us to herd immunity.

If you don't believe this, then you are advocating that the right of an individual to choose not to be vaccinated (and to still enjoy the benefits of the community) transcends the rights of everyone else in the community to pursue a semblance of normality!

Ah yes, the vaccinated need to be protected from the unvaccinated by forcing the unvaccinated to take a vaccine that doesn't protect the vaccinated, right? :rolleyes:

-Uwe-
 
   #851  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
41,504
Reaction score
29,435
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
Serious smack-down of the OSHA mandate:

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
FILED November 12, 2021
...
For these reasons, the petitioners’ motion for a stay pending review is GRANTED. Enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s “COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard” remains STAYED pending adequate judicial review of the petitioners’ underlying motions for a permanent injunction.

In addition, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that OSHA take no steps to implement or enforce the Mandate until further court order.


Full document:

-Uwe-
 
   #852  

DV52

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
5,469
Reaction score
5,917
Location
Melbourne, Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=194404
Right, and a cardinal rule is, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you", especially when you're close to starvation, which much of the "old" media is. Now go look at just how how much of their advertising revenue comes from the pharma industry, with Pfizer leading the pack, and then perhaps you'll begin understand why they won't run stories that counter the pharma-approved narrative; they simply can't afford to lose that revenue.
Oh my goodness - Shirley you aren't serious?

The simple prospect of "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" doesn't mean that EVERY (or most) editor in EVERY (or most) newspaper in EVERY (or most) city in EVERY (or most) part of this planet has abandoned his/her moral compass in favor of capitalist yoke of the evil puppet-masters!

And to substantiate the implied conspiracy in your position, the corruption of the "pharma-approved narrative" would need to extend to private medical print media and to independent journals and to sovereign drug authorities and to government medical agencies and to hospitals around the world and to international aid organizations and to statistical research companies and to...................!!!

Again, I honestly don't know how to respond to the basic thesis in your response. But, if the degree of corruption and manipulation in western news services is so endemic that a fundamental pillar of western democracies is broken (i.e. the free-press is no longer "free") - then we and our children have a much bigger problem than fighting a pandemic which is apparently no worse than the common flu, but with greater hype!!

Wow - this is the stuff of revolution and it is a fundamental indictment of the ability of capitalism to co-exist with the pivotal function of the free-press in a modern democracy

For the record- whilst I acknowledge the accountability of everyone in a democracy to be vigilant, I don't believe that news services in 21st century western-democracies have descended into the pit of corruption that is implied by your response. Yes, a very odd red-headed countryman of yours did highlight the term "fake-news" - but the increasing use of this term certainly doesn't mean that "they don't want you to know"

Don
 
   #853  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
41,504
Reaction score
29,435
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
The simple prospect of "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" doesn't mean that EVERY (or most) editor in EVERY (or most) newspaper in EVERY (or most) city in EVERY (or most) part of this planet has abandoned his/her moral compass in favor of capitalist yoke of the evil puppet-masters!
Not "every", but for the most widely disseminated "mainstream" media outlets, including the bigger social media outlets, it certainly does mean something like that.

You may also wish to do some digging into media ownership and concentration thereof.

And to substantiate the implied conspiracy in your position, the corruption of the "pharma-approved narrative" would need to extend to private medical print media and to independent journals
No, there are plenty of alternate sources that haven't abandoned their moral compass, but they aren't widely read, and it's not necessary to convince everyone.

Wow - this is the stuff of revolution and it is a fundamental indictment of the ability of capitalism to co-exist with the pivotal function of the free-press in a modern democracy
What we have is more cronyism than capitalism. In capitalism, if you put a product on the market, you have liability if the product does not perform as advertised, or if it causes harm. Governments world-wide have granted the pharma industry a complete shield from liability for these "vaccines". Do you think Pfizer, Moderna, et al would be selling this stuff if they were actually liable for damages when people were injured by them, or if the governments that are paying for them could get their money back if they ended up ineffective after a matter of months?

This sort of cronyism isn't anything new though. Governments also absolved the banking industry from the obvious malfeasance that caused the "great recession" back in 2008/2009 and papered it over.

-Uwe-
 
   #854  

DV52

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
5,469
Reaction score
5,917
Location
Melbourne, Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=194404
@Uwe: Our discussion may appear at first blush to be off-topic, but it isn't because it clearly goes to the heart of our respective views about the democratic health (rather than the medical health) of western communities - which in truth is a much more fundamental question!!

If my views are shared by those who support the need for vaccination of ALL citizens - then we are in a totally different place to those who hold your views and the divide would appear to be totally irreconcilable (because the fundamentals are different and we are really arguing about different things).

Don
 
   #855  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
41,504
Reaction score
29,435
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
Austria orders lockdown for those not vaccinated against COVID-19

Interior Minister Karl Nehammer said, however, that there will be thorough checks by the police.

ZRLqmnh.png


"Impfen macht frei!"

-Uwe-
 
   #857  

jyoung8607

FoRT
Verified
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
2,754
Reaction score
4,450
Location
Cincinnati, OH
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=25607
Really? Yet you keep coming back to the gun analogy? :rolleyes:

-Uwe-

I do, and doing so isn't a bad faith argument. It is an absurd argument intended to illustrate the absurdity of your own.

If your argument is less absurd, it should be trivial for you to highlight a lot of important ethical differences. You're not doing so.

I'll even start you off: if I recklessly discharge a weapon toward you or your family, and score a hit, it doesn't make you do the same toward others.

If you're unable to process a gun-themed analogy/scenario just because it's about guns, I'll happily accept a different one from you. Criteria:
  • A voluntary action of mine which has consequences for you
  • Needs to have in your opinion a definable X% chance of injury or illness on your part
  • Needs to have in your opinion a definable Y% chance of death on your part
You pick the scenario and we'll switch to it. You'll never hear a gun analogy from me again. Do be aware that, in this scenario, I'll be resetting the values of X and Y according to "what we know" in the Uwe Ross sense of knowing things, because freedom.
 
   #858  

jyoung8607

FoRT
Verified
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
2,754
Reaction score
4,450
Location
Cincinnati, OH
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=25607
The inverse correlation between the coercive "NPI" measures that were taken (that I've loudly opposed all along) and the excess mortality. Sweden had almost none.

-Uwe-
Okay.

I'm still not sure of the origin and credibility of this data, especially considering what some doofus on Twitter *thinks* is #awkward about it, but if it's accurate, I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised to have you agree with it. It's a comprehensive demolition of everything you've ever typed about COVID-19.

Free registration required: https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/94965

Nonetheless, life looks normal in Sweden these days, too. Mozhu Ding, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, told MedPage Today that people actually stopped social distancing and wearing masks (Sweden never mandated the latter) "way before the restrictions were lifted."

Nearly 80% of people in Sweden ages 16 and up are fully vaccinated, with about 84% getting at least one dose, she said. [jy: as of early October]

"Because of the high trust in the governmental agencies and institutions, the Swedish population got vaccinated en masse," Ding added. "Lifting restrictions is simply the government holding up its side of the bargain."

In Stockholm, many companies have returned to in-person work, and restaurants "are now fully packed and people eat happily together and chat without a worry. On the subway, mask wearers are few and sometimes get looks because it can be assumed that one didn't vaccinate and thus needs the protection."

While trust in officials' initial response to the pandemic may have wavered, trust in the country's vaccination program did not.

"Every Swede has the benefits of having free healthcare and a solid welfare package that they can call upon if they fell ill," Ding said. "Swedes have a genuine feeling that the social institutions are working for them and not exploiting them. Trust in government agencies and the healthcare system is a big part of Sweden's vaccination drive."

"Currently, people are experiencing the freedom that comes with getting vaccinated," she added. While that can change "if there are frequent breakthrough infections that erode confidence in vaccines," that's not currently observed and Sweden plans to introduce third doses to vulnerable populations.

Things Sweden has that the USA doesn't::
  • Highly efficient and effective socialized medicine
  • A social safety net that lets sick people stay home for a couple weeks while still feeding their children
  • A vaccination rate dramatically higher than the USA, without a mandate
  • A return to 2019-like normalcy
What they don't have, as a nation and a culture... is time for your nonsense.

Your graph shows it's perfectly possible to get back to normal, as all the Scandinavian countries have accomplished, provided you don't have a large population of people taking vaccine advice from porn stars, Internet-doctoring, bleating about #NoNewNormal when it's trivially within reach, actually comparing themselves with Jews in the Holocaust, and openly talking about murdering people who are trying to make the situation better. No mandates needed, because they're not idiots.

Free bonuses:

You wanted *current* all-causes mortality data. July wasn't good enough, you wanted a couple more months. Now you have it.

Norway had lockdowns and now has a >90% vaccination rate. Mortality went down. So we're all done talking about lockdown suicides and vaccine deaths.

The saddest thing, the thing that makes me actually physically angry (and I'm sure the triggered cracks are coming) is that I know I've completely wasted my time typing this up. I know this isn't going to make a single fucking bit of difference to your God-given right to have an opinion. At this point I'm just morbidly curious to see exactly how you'll handwave away your imminent violent reversal on your own graph's reliability and applicability. Who knows, maybe one day I'll finally nail this Jell-O to a tree. Probably not. But I can dream.
 
Last edited:
   #859  

DV52

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
5,469
Reaction score
5,917
Location
Melbourne, Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=194404
You think?
Fred: Alas, I wish that we were better acquainted - so I'm not sure how serious your question is? But on the assumption that yours was not a whimsical response - yes I do!!

And my basis for my position is predicated on the belief of the importance of a free-press to a healthy functioning democracy! Putting aside for the moment the question about the meaning of "free", the role of the press absent interference from governments and other vested interests is pivotal to our system of habitation. In truth not only must the press be "free", it must also be seen to be free.

So, whilst it's reasonable and proper for the press to have different views about the facts that they print (hopefully with minimal opinions), if citizens in a modern democracy have no trust in the independence of the free-press -then yes, it is indeed the stuff of revolution!!

Seeing that you asked the question - do you not agree? And if you do agree - do you consider it likely in your part of the planet?

Don
 
Last edited:
   #860  

DV52

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
5,469
Reaction score
5,917
Location
Melbourne, Australia
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=194404
Last edited:
Top