Do you remember when they were at a minimal level twice before that?
That’s why they called it the third wave.
To prevent a fourth wave it makes sense to increase coverage as much as possible.
Indian variant needs two doses.
Well yeah,it’s not a big deal to require people to get vaccinated. It’s nothing new under the sun.
But the fact is that is NOT a requirement in the EU or US etc.
So not sure what you are getting worked up about.
1 Like
All I’m asking is that you demonstrate a measurable difference between 60% coverage and 99%, such that international laws must be dismantled or modified in pursuit of that goal. I’m not even asking that you pull up hard numbers. An estimate is fine.
Is it really that hard?
You’re the one saying it doesn’t matter. Well surely it does matter to go from 50 to 60 to 70%.
And the Indian variant needs two doses. One dose doesn’t work so well. Hence they are speeding up second dose.
Brian is not making an “argument.” He’s pointing out some basic facts that are surprisingly elusive to some folks here. Example: widespread vaccination in the UK caused the numbers of infections to almost collapse, ditto with deaths.
Why is this so hard for apparently clever (I would say OVERLY CLEVER) people to get? We’re in this together, and vaccines will provide one very important route out.
Guy
4 Likes
I’m asking you to quantify how much it matters.
Are you required to be vaccinated to enter the US or EU now?
This isn’t entirely true. Go and look at the charts. Deaths were in steep decline while vaccinations were at about 30-40%, with very few second doses. And then again, the vaccinations hasn’t had such a remarkable effect in the US. Some, but not nearly as noticeable. Why do you think that might be?
Because some of us have spent a lifetime working with data, signals, and statistics, and some of us haven’t?
I’m not arguing otherwise, and I’m really quite tired of being strawmanned. I’ve been as clear as I can possibly be. I’m asking why it is necessary for governments to ride roughshod over hard-won freedoms in order to achieve close-to-100% vaccine coverage at borders. Show me the facts.
I have no idea. I don’t think so. I’ve done a lot of travelling (including the US and various EU countries) without being asked about my vaccination status. I don’t even know what vaccinations I’ve had apart from BCG. As far as I’m aware only Yellow Fever is a “mandatory” vaccination. And the fact that it is mandatory does not give a blanket justification for any and all vaccine mandates.
Just because a COVID vaccination isn’t required now doesn’t mean it might not be in future. The fact that it’s even being seriously discussed in the halls of power is cause for concern.
So do you have those numbers to hand? Or are we saying that governments can do as they please without providing any objective justification?
True but at the same time it also happened last year. Not denigrating vaccines, there
is a case that could be made that infections decreased faster than last year. But looking at 2 months of data when you can look at a year plus leads to an incomplete analysis.
Yeah, that too. In fact the UK had about 5 months with very few COVID deaths in 2020. As in fact did many other countries. It would be foolish to say the vaccines were not a factor, but asserting that the vaccines saved humanity seems a big overreach.
no. just a COVID-19 test in last 3 days (negative of course)
I remember some countries requiring certain vaccines if you come from certain countries.
Also to immigrate to the USA or most other western countries, proof of MMR vaccines are required.
1 Like
By the way since Hong Kong is saying they are throwing out a bunch of vaccines since people of HK don’t want it, what about going to HK for vaccine tourism?
Because of lockdown, which you also think does nothing right?
1 Like
I’m going to get a T-shirt with “post hoc ergo propter hoc” on it.
“Lockdowns” affect patterns of transmission. They affect who gets infected and when; at best, they delay the inevitable. They cannot possibly have any impact on overall deaths, and the research bears this out. If you think this is not true, then how many lives do you believe were saved by lockdowns in the UK? Put a ballpark figure on it.
I have never argued that lockdowns don’t do anything. They do a lot of things. My position is:
(a) the benefits are so small that it’s debatable whether they even exist
(b) the potential benefits are contingent on the authorities using the “breathing space” to shore up medical capacity
(c) the benefits are dramatically outweighed by harms and
(d) there are better ways of achieving the desired result.
The problem is that (d) has been ignored through the entire crisis, with governments reaching for the lockdown lever without even bothering to consider what might offer greater benefits with fewer harms.
1 Like
Can we possibly get a “lockdown skepticism” thread and then divert all future posts regarding the dangers/merits of lockdown to that thread? I am quite tired of seeing this spam on the Coronavirus/Vaccine threads, and I doubt I am alone.
6 Likes
Me too.
1 Like
I agree with the sentiment, but “things I don’t understand or agree with” is not the usual definition of “spam”.
Well it just seems like you are against lock downs, and against vaccines. What are you for? Not having your personal freedom to spread covid willy nilly squashed, or what?
1 Like