The coronavirus

Options
1801802804806807939

Comments

  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,306
    wonder if AZ hadnt botched the initial trials , if there would be this level of contradiction amongst gov actions related to AZ?

    Governments give varying advice on AstraZeneca vaccine
    By MIKE CORDER
    38 mins ago

    THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — In Spain, residents now have to be over 60 to get an AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine. In Belgium, over 55. In the United Kingdom, authorities recommend the shot not be given to adults under 30 where possible, and Australia's government announced similar limits Thursday to AstraZeneca shots for those under 50.

    A patchwork of advice was emerging from governments across Europe and farther afield, a day after the European Union's drug regulator said there was a “possible link” between the AstraZeneca vaccine and a rare clotting disorder while reiterating the vaccine is safe and effective.

    Regulators in the United Kingdom and the EU both stressed that the benefits of receiving the vaccine continue to outweigh the risks for most people, and the EU agency maintained its guidance that the vaccine can be used in all adults. But experts fear the confusing messages about the vaccine could still dampen enthusiasm for it at a time when Europe and many other parts of the world are facing surging cases.

    Experts hammered home the rarity of the clots Thursday.

    “The risks appear to be extremely low from this very rare side effect," Anthony R. Cox, of the University of Birmingham’s School of Pharmacy, told the BBC. "I mean it’s the equivalent of the risk of dying in the bath, drowning in the bath, for example, it’s that rare, or a plane landing on your house.”

    Dr. Sabine Straus, chair of the EU regulator's Safety Committee, said the best data was from Germany, where there was one report of the clots for every 100,000 doses given, although she noted far fewer reports in the U.K. Still, that’s less than the clot risk that healthy women face from birth control pills, noted another expert, Dr. Peter Arlett. The agency said most of the cases reported were in women under 60 within two weeks of vaccination, though it was unable to identify specific risk factors based on current information.

    The EU is trying, but so far failing, to avoid different policies among its 27 nations, which all look to the European Medicines Agency for guidance. Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides called Wednesday evening for a coherent approach to ensure that “on the basis of the same set of evidence, similar decisions are taken in different member states.”

    News of the tiny risk already is already having an effect on some vaccination takeup. In Croatia, the government said that one in four people due to get an AstraZeneca shot Thursday didn't show up. Poland, too, has also seen people cancel or not appear for appointments to get the vaccine.

    European Commission spokesman Stefan De Keersmaecker said Thursday that the EMA’s findings were based on its stringent monitoring system and that should promote trust among the bloc’s 27 member states.

    “We want to avoid, of course, a vaccination hesitancy,” he said.

    Any such reluctance is worrying since experts say the shots are key to stamping out the coronavirus pandemic, but AstraZeneca's role is especially vital. The vaccine, which is cheaper and easier to store than many others, is critical to immunization campaigns in Europe and the U.K. and is also a pillar of the U.N.-backed program known as COVAX that aims to get vaccines to some of the world’s poorest countries.

    The top official with the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention insisted Thursday the AstraZeneca vaccine’s benefits outweigh its risks and that his group is not issuing new recommendations.

    He said the overarching message from the U.K. and EU regulators was clear.

    "The benefits outweigh the risks because these are very rare occurrences that they are picking up due to very strong surveillance systems that they have put in place,” John Nkengasong told a briefing. “So, I think these vaccines continue to be safe.”

    Africa’s target is to vaccinate 60% of its 1.3 billion people by the end of 2022 — a goal that could prove extremely hard to achieve without widespread use of the AstraZeneca vaccine.

    Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, whose country's vaccination program leans heavily on AstraZeneca's shot, announced that the Pfizer vaccine should now be adopted as the preferred vaccine for people under 50.

    “We’ve been taking the necessary precautions based on the best possible medical advice,” Morrison said. “It has not been our practice to jump at shadows.”

    Some EU nations were at pains to stress the safety and did not change their advice.

    The Polish state TV broadcaster used a headline declaring “AstraZeneca is safe” during its live report on the vaccine.

    The head of Italy’s drug regulator, Nicola Magrini, appealed for calm even as she said late Wednesday that Italy will now pivot from primarily using the AstraZeneca vaccine for people under 65 to using it on those over 60.

    Underscoring how such changing rules were causing confusion and anxiety, the governor of the Veneto region said Thursday that operators had fielded 8,000 calls about AstraZeneca in recent days. “Obviously there is some uneasiness spreading,” Luca Zaia told reporters.

    Hungarian government minister Gergely Gulyas called the EMA announcement “a clear decision which is in line with the point of view of Hungarian authorities: AstraZeneca is reliable and provides protection.”

    German officials made clear that they will stick to their current recommendation — issued March 30 when concerns about the rare clots were already circulating — to restrict the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine to people over 60 in most cases, in line with larger European nations including Spain and Italy.

    “If we only had AstraZeneca as a vaccine and no alternative for the under-60s, then we would face considering … another possible result,” Health Minister Jens Spahn told WDR public radio on Thursday.

    ___

    Associated Press reporters around the world contributed.

    ___

    Follow AP’s pandemic coverage at:

    https://apnews.com/hub/coronavirus-pandemic

    https://apnews.com/hub/coronavirus-vaccine

    https://apnews.com/UnderstandingtheOutbreak


    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • gvn2fly1421
    gvn2fly1421 Posts: 935
    Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented  and where people obey them. 
    Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases.  Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable.  The virus is gonna virus.

    At one point do you end the lockdown?  If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that.  I know I would.  The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule.  So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
    No, it’s not inevitable when we have effective vaccines. 
    Can the virus still spread with vaccines?  

    Also, I can infer that your answer would be to lock everyone down until the vaccines were here, no?
  • gvn2fly1421
    gvn2fly1421 Posts: 935
    mrussel1 said:
    Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented  and where people obey them. 
    Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases.  Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable.  The virus is gonna virus.

    At one point do you end the lockdown?  If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that.  I know I would.  The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule.  So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
    You may not have heard,  but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.  
    You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.

    *For most healthy people.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    mrussel1 said:
    Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented  and where people obey them. 
    Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases.  Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable.  The virus is gonna virus.

    At one point do you end the lockdown?  If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that.  I know I would.  The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule.  So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
    You may not have heard,  but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.  
    You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.

    *For most healthy people.
    For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead.  Stop minimizing that very important fact.  All lives matter... remember?
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,449
    some people don't like evidence or science. and when you point them to it, they switch gears to conspiracy theories. it's not worth anyone's time to debate such nonsense. 
    Hugh, you mentioned New Zealand earlier.  Like New Brunswick, I know nothing about it.  Can you explain how they have handled covid so well?

    Also, care to give your opinion on how you would have handled it?
    you can't be serious you haven't heard of how New Zealand handled it. if you are, lockdowns + good leadership (which has a big effect on public buy-in) = success. simple as that. 

    I would have handled it similarly to how my province has, and we have a conservative PM, but he also listens to the science. they have made policy mistakes, but they have tried to correct them, (except helping the homeless, but that's another story). it's all about protecting the health care system, while also protecting our most vulnerable. that includes lockdowns when necessary, and when cases subside, open as much as you can to keep the economy going and people sane. it's a balancing act on the head of a pin. it ain't easy. 

    but doing nothing is absurd. 
    Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall




  • josevolution
    josevolution Posts: 31,541
    some people don't like evidence or science. and when you point them to it, they switch gears to conspiracy theories. it's not worth anyone's time to debate such nonsense. 
    Hugh, you mentioned New Zealand earlier.  Like New Brunswick, I know nothing about it.  Can you explain how they have handled covid so well?

    Also, care to give your opinion on how you would have handled it?
    you can't be serious you haven't heard of how New Zealand handled it. if you are, lockdowns + good leadership (which has a big effect on public buy-in) = success. simple as that. 

    I would have handled it similarly to how my province has, and we have a conservative PM, but he also listens to the science. they have made policy mistakes, but they have tried to correct them, (except helping the homeless, but that's another story). it's all about protecting the health care system, while also protecting our most vulnerable. that includes lockdowns when necessary, and when cases subside, open as much as you can to keep the economy going and people sane. it's a balancing act on the head of a pin. it ain't easy. 

    but doing nothing is absurd. 
    Not to derail but we can also point to how New Zealand about their gun control too unlike America they did something about it! The do nothing crowds suck!
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • gvn2fly1421
    gvn2fly1421 Posts: 935
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented  and where people obey them. 
    Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases.  Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable.  The virus is gonna virus.

    At one point do you end the lockdown?  If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that.  I know I would.  The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule.  So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
    You may not have heard,  but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.  
    You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.

    *For most healthy people.
    For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead.  Stop minimizing that very important fact.  All lives matter... remember?
    I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff.  The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary.  When did I ever say that? 

    As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020.  I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that.  I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion.  I believe in stricter gun laws.  ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!

    One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.

    OK, please do not derail off of that post...  Back to covid...
  • static111
    static111 Posts: 5,062
    Poncier said:
    Poncier said:
    You comment on PJNB's North Dakota vs New Brunswick comparison intelligently then I'll comment on this.
    Totally honest here, I have no idea on New Brunswick and anything covid related to them.  Will look into it.
    OK.

    As for your post. Within the video, it clearly states that testing is at a much lower rate in the states with lowering cases vs. the states with rising rates, very simple math there.
    Coupled with temperatures (remember last summer when the entire country had lower numbers) that's 2 very simple factors. Folks in the south can spend much more time outdoors in March/April than folks in the northeast and midwest. And its been proven that the virus spreads far easier indoors than it does outdoors.
    To add to your point, I live in Texas. We have no organized testing, so no testing no cases I guess Gov AButt was right.
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    some people don't like evidence or science. and when you point them to it, they switch gears to conspiracy theories. it's not worth anyone's time to debate such nonsense. 
    Hugh, you mentioned New Zealand earlier.  Like New Brunswick, I know nothing about it.  Can you explain how they have handled covid so well?

    Also, care to give your opinion on how you would have handled it?
    you can't be serious you haven't heard of how New Zealand handled it. if you are, lockdowns + good leadership (which has a big effect on public buy-in) = success. simple as that. 

    I would have handled it similarly to how my province has, and we have a conservative PM, but he also listens to the science. they have made policy mistakes, but they have tried to correct them, (except helping the homeless, but that's another story). it's all about protecting the health care system, while also protecting our most vulnerable. that includes lockdowns when necessary, and when cases subside, open as much as you can to keep the economy going and people sane. it's a balancing act on the head of a pin. it ain't easy. 

    but doing nothing is absurd. 
    It’s not possible that someone interested enough to engage in endless discussions about covid lockdowns has not heard about how New Zealand has dealt with the issue. That’s proof right there that this is all an attempt to wind people up and get them to waste their time. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • gvn2fly1421
    gvn2fly1421 Posts: 935
    some people don't like evidence or science. and when you point them to it, they switch gears to conspiracy theories. it's not worth anyone's time to debate such nonsense. 
    Hugh, you mentioned New Zealand earlier.  Like New Brunswick, I know nothing about it.  Can you explain how they have handled covid so well?

    Also, care to give your opinion on how you would have handled it?
    you can't be serious you haven't heard of how New Zealand handled it. if you are, lockdowns + good leadership (which has a big effect on public buy-in) = success. simple as that. 

    I would have handled it similarly to how my province has, and we have a conservative PM, but he also listens to the science. they have made policy mistakes, but they have tried to correct them, (except helping the homeless, but that's another story). it's all about protecting the health care system, while also protecting our most vulnerable. that includes lockdowns when necessary, and when cases subside, open as much as you can to keep the economy going and people sane. it's a balancing act on the head of a pin. it ain't easy. 

    but doing nothing is absurd. 
    Thanks Hugh for the response!

    Honestly, I have "heard" of some of the harsh lockdown measures that New Zealand had, but I do not truly know what they have done.  I was hoping for a broader explanation than "lockdown and good leadership".  I guess California was missing the "good leadership" since they locked down pretty hard?  

    I googled New Zealand and a few points stick out, the first being the population.  The population there according to the google is 4.9 million.  My home state of Tennessee is 6.8 million.  Secondly, the location.  Obviously an island nation secluded from the rest of the world to a degree.  Climate does vary it appears so you cannot point to a warmer year round climate.  The death rates for New Zealand and the US are the exact same.  

    I did look at case count too.  Did you know that they reported their largest case count in the past 4 months yesterday?  So have they successfully managed the virus?  Is Covid Zero your strategy?  Because it seems like no matter what any of these countries do, covid will still be around.

    As far as your strategy to defeating the virus, sounds great.  What province are you in?  

  • gvn2fly1421
    gvn2fly1421 Posts: 935
    some people don't like evidence or science. and when you point them to it, they switch gears to conspiracy theories. it's not worth anyone's time to debate such nonsense. 
    Hugh, you mentioned New Zealand earlier.  Like New Brunswick, I know nothing about it.  Can you explain how they have handled covid so well?

    Also, care to give your opinion on how you would have handled it?
    you can't be serious you haven't heard of how New Zealand handled it. if you are, lockdowns + good leadership (which has a big effect on public buy-in) = success. simple as that. 

    I would have handled it similarly to how my province has, and we have a conservative PM, but he also listens to the science. they have made policy mistakes, but they have tried to correct them, (except helping the homeless, but that's another story). it's all about protecting the health care system, while also protecting our most vulnerable. that includes lockdowns when necessary, and when cases subside, open as much as you can to keep the economy going and people sane. it's a balancing act on the head of a pin. it ain't easy. 

    but doing nothing is absurd. 
    It’s not possible that someone interested enough to engage in endless discussions about covid lockdowns has not heard about how New Zealand has dealt with the issue. That’s proof right there that this is all an attempt to wind people up and get them to waste their time. 
    See my post below where I address your vary concern.  Can you give a broader scope of what New Zealand has done and how that would be effective in the US and Canada?

    I am not trying to "wind people up".  I know I came in like a wrecking ball and that was on me.  I guess I lose credibility from the get go.  But honest discussion like the last couple of pages only moves us all forward and hopefully helps us look at things differently.  Whats the old saying, "Believe half of what you see and less of what you hear".

    And to bring up people "wasting their time", seriously?  You have 11,000 posts on a message board, looks like you have plenty of time.
  • Merkin Baller
    Merkin Baller Posts: 12,753
    some people don't like evidence or science. and when you point them to it, they switch gears to conspiracy theories. it's not worth anyone's time to debate such nonsense. 
    Hugh, you mentioned New Zealand earlier.  Like New Brunswick, I know nothing about it.  Can you explain how they have handled covid so well?

    Also, care to give your opinion on how you would have handled it?
    you can't be serious you haven't heard of how New Zealand handled it. if you are, lockdowns + good leadership (which has a big effect on public buy-in) = success. simple as that. 

    I would have handled it similarly to how my province has, and we have a conservative PM, but he also listens to the science. they have made policy mistakes, but they have tried to correct them, (except helping the homeless, but that's another story). it's all about protecting the health care system, while also protecting our most vulnerable. that includes lockdowns when necessary, and when cases subside, open as much as you can to keep the economy going and people sane. it's a balancing act on the head of a pin. it ain't easy. 

    but doing nothing is absurd. 
    It’s not possible that someone interested enough to engage in endless discussions about covid lockdowns has not heard about how New Zealand has dealt with the issue. That’s proof right there that this is all an attempt to wind people up and get them to waste their time. 
    See my post below where I address your vary concern.  Can you give a broader scope of what New Zealand has done and how that would be effective in the US and Canada?

    I am not trying to "wind people up".  I know I came in like a wrecking ball and that was on me.  I guess I lose credibility from the get go.  But honest discussion like the last couple of pages only moves us all forward and hopefully helps us look at things differently.  Whats the old saying, "Believe half of what you see and less of what you hear".

    And to bring up people "wasting their time", seriously?  You have 11,000 posts on a message board, looks like you have plenty of time.
    For me you lost credibility when you wanted to talk about Hunter Biden in April of 2021. 


    That was when I knew everything I needed to know.   
  • tbergs
    tbergs Posts: 10,396
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented  and where people obey them. 
    Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases.  Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable.  The virus is gonna virus.

    At one point do you end the lockdown?  If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that.  I know I would.  The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule.  So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
    You may not have heard,  but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.  
    You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.

    *For most healthy people.
    For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead.  Stop minimizing that very important fact.  All lives matter... remember?
    I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff.  The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary.  When did I ever say that? 

    As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020.  I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that.  I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion.  I believe in stricter gun laws.  ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!

    One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.

    OK, please do not derail off of that post...  Back to covid...
    I'm going to derail because this is the weirdest scenario to me. Did you vote in 2016?
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • gvn2fly1421
    gvn2fly1421 Posts: 935
    some people don't like evidence or science. and when you point them to it, they switch gears to conspiracy theories. it's not worth anyone's time to debate such nonsense. 
    Hugh, you mentioned New Zealand earlier.  Like New Brunswick, I know nothing about it.  Can you explain how they have handled covid so well?

    Also, care to give your opinion on how you would have handled it?
    you can't be serious you haven't heard of how New Zealand handled it. if you are, lockdowns + good leadership (which has a big effect on public buy-in) = success. simple as that. 

    I would have handled it similarly to how my province has, and we have a conservative PM, but he also listens to the science. they have made policy mistakes, but they have tried to correct them, (except helping the homeless, but that's another story). it's all about protecting the health care system, while also protecting our most vulnerable. that includes lockdowns when necessary, and when cases subside, open as much as you can to keep the economy going and people sane. it's a balancing act on the head of a pin. it ain't easy. 

    but doing nothing is absurd. 
    It’s not possible that someone interested enough to engage in endless discussions about covid lockdowns has not heard about how New Zealand has dealt with the issue. That’s proof right there that this is all an attempt to wind people up and get them to waste their time. 
    See my post below where I address your vary concern.  Can you give a broader scope of what New Zealand has done and how that would be effective in the US and Canada?

    I am not trying to "wind people up".  I know I came in like a wrecking ball and that was on me.  I guess I lose credibility from the get go.  But honest discussion like the last couple of pages only moves us all forward and hopefully helps us look at things differently.  Whats the old saying, "Believe half of what you see and less of what you hear".

    And to bring up people "wasting their time", seriously?  You have 11,000 posts on a message board, looks like you have plenty of time.
    For me you lost credibility when you wanted to talk about Hunter Biden in April of 2021. 


    That was when I knew everything I needed to know.   
    Again, can you not look at the current political landscape and just laugh?  That video was funny and it is still freakin funny.  But you are one of the ones I refer to as "too far gone".  Show me on this doll where El Hombre Naranja touched you?
  • gvn2fly1421
    gvn2fly1421 Posts: 935
    tbergs said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented  and where people obey them. 
    Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases.  Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable.  The virus is gonna virus.

    At one point do you end the lockdown?  If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that.  I know I would.  The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule.  So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
    You may not have heard,  but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.  
    You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.

    *For most healthy people.
    For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead.  Stop minimizing that very important fact.  All lives matter... remember?
    I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff.  The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary.  When did I ever say that? 

    As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020.  I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that.  I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion.  I believe in stricter gun laws.  ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!

    One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.

    OK, please do not derail off of that post...  Back to covid...
    I'm going to derail because this is the weirdest scenario to me. Did you vote in 2016?
    Absolutely.
  • Merkin Baller
    Merkin Baller Posts: 12,753
    lol
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,449
    some people don't like evidence or science. and when you point them to it, they switch gears to conspiracy theories. it's not worth anyone's time to debate such nonsense. 
    Hugh, you mentioned New Zealand earlier.  Like New Brunswick, I know nothing about it.  Can you explain how they have handled covid so well?

    Also, care to give your opinion on how you would have handled it?
    you can't be serious you haven't heard of how New Zealand handled it. if you are, lockdowns + good leadership (which has a big effect on public buy-in) = success. simple as that. 

    I would have handled it similarly to how my province has, and we have a conservative PM, but he also listens to the science. they have made policy mistakes, but they have tried to correct them, (except helping the homeless, but that's another story). it's all about protecting the health care system, while also protecting our most vulnerable. that includes lockdowns when necessary, and when cases subside, open as much as you can to keep the economy going and people sane. it's a balancing act on the head of a pin. it ain't easy. 

    but doing nothing is absurd. 
    Thanks Hugh for the response!

    Honestly, I have "heard" of some of the harsh lockdown measures that New Zealand had, but I do not truly know what they have done.  I was hoping for a broader explanation than "lockdown and good leadership".  I guess California was missing the "good leadership" since they locked down pretty hard?  

    I googled New Zealand and a few points stick out, the first being the population.  The population there according to the google is 4.9 million.  My home state of Tennessee is 6.8 million.  Secondly, the location.  Obviously an island nation secluded from the rest of the world to a degree.  Climate does vary it appears so you cannot point to a warmer year round climate.  The death rates for New Zealand and the US are the exact same.  

    I did look at case count too.  Did you know that they reported their largest case count in the past 4 months yesterday?  So have they successfully managed the virus?  Is Covid Zero your strategy?  Because it seems like no matter what any of these countries do, covid will still be around.

    As far as your strategy to defeating the virus, sounds great.  What province are you in?  

    the population size of NZ is brought up time and again by anti-lockdowners as being non-comparable. why is that? Because as far as I know, every successful society in the first world has the same infrastructure in place relative to their population size. so what makes NZ different from the US? so population SIZE shouldn't matter theoretically. 


    sure, there are geographical differences and culture differences. But when you have the POTUS telling people to NOT mask, to NOT worry about how it will magically disappear, that means something. people listen to their leaders, for better or worse. had trump acted like a responsible leader, even an adult for that matter, I believe the situation would be much worse. 
    Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall




  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,449
    and I'm in Manitoba btw, since you asked. 
    Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall




  • gvn2fly1421
    gvn2fly1421 Posts: 935
    some people don't like evidence or science. and when you point them to it, they switch gears to conspiracy theories. it's not worth anyone's time to debate such nonsense. 
    Hugh, you mentioned New Zealand earlier.  Like New Brunswick, I know nothing about it.  Can you explain how they have handled covid so well?

    Also, care to give your opinion on how you would have handled it?
    you can't be serious you haven't heard of how New Zealand handled it. if you are, lockdowns + good leadership (which has a big effect on public buy-in) = success. simple as that. 

    I would have handled it similarly to how my province has, and we have a conservative PM, but he also listens to the science. they have made policy mistakes, but they have tried to correct them, (except helping the homeless, but that's another story). it's all about protecting the health care system, while also protecting our most vulnerable. that includes lockdowns when necessary, and when cases subside, open as much as you can to keep the economy going and people sane. it's a balancing act on the head of a pin. it ain't easy. 

    but doing nothing is absurd. 
    Thanks Hugh for the response!

    Honestly, I have "heard" of some of the harsh lockdown measures that New Zealand had, but I do not truly know what they have done.  I was hoping for a broader explanation than "lockdown and good leadership".  I guess California was missing the "good leadership" since they locked down pretty hard?  

    I googled New Zealand and a few points stick out, the first being the population.  The population there according to the google is 4.9 million.  My home state of Tennessee is 6.8 million.  Secondly, the location.  Obviously an island nation secluded from the rest of the world to a degree.  Climate does vary it appears so you cannot point to a warmer year round climate.  The death rates for New Zealand and the US are the exact same.  

    I did look at case count too.  Did you know that they reported their largest case count in the past 4 months yesterday?  So have they successfully managed the virus?  Is Covid Zero your strategy?  Because it seems like no matter what any of these countries do, covid will still be around.

    As far as your strategy to defeating the virus, sounds great.  What province are you in?  

    the population size of NZ is brought up time and again by anti-lockdowners as being non-comparable. why is that? Because as far as I know, every successful society in the first world has the same infrastructure in place relative to their population size. so what makes NZ different from the US? so population SIZE shouldn't matter theoretically. 


    sure, there are geographical differences and culture differences. But when you have the POTUS telling people to NOT mask, to NOT worry about how it will magically disappear, that means something. people listen to their leaders, for better or worse. had trump acted like a responsible leader, even an adult for that matter, I believe the situation would be much worse. 
    I don't know why that is as far as bringing up population and I damn sure do not know what makes New Zealand different from the US, but I do know if I am herding cattle, I would certainly rather herd 1 cow opposed to 65 cattle (5 mil vs 330 mil).  While their covid cases are currently low, they just posted their biggest number since January of active cases, so again, was anything accomplished by hard lockdowns?  Virus gonna virus.

    Not to derail this thing cause every time I bring up Fauci everyone loses their minds, but our very own lead doctor in this was telling people not to mask up back in March of last year.  While Trump certainly had his blunders during this, I do not put it all on him.  He had a team, in my best Trump voice, "The best doctor and medical team a pandemic has ever faced" so to blame solely him is a bit disingenuous.  
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented  and where people obey them. 
    Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases.  Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable.  The virus is gonna virus.

    At one point do you end the lockdown?  If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that.  I know I would.  The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule.  So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
    You may not have heard,  but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.  
    You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.

    *For most healthy people.
    For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead.  Stop minimizing that very important fact.  All lives matter... remember?
    I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff.  The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary.  When did I ever say that? 

    As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020.  I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that.  I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion.  I believe in stricter gun laws.  ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!

    One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.

    OK, please do not derail off of that post...  Back to covid...
    You're focused on the throw away line.  The point still stands which you didn't address.  It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities.  But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead.  The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy.  So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors. 
This discussion has been closed.