Stizzla
Crew Member
I’m now testing this theory, you know, for scientific purposes! Cheers
All Things COVID-19
- Thread starter Sotally Tober
- Start date
- Status
Construction of Mickleham quarantine camp starts
Melbourne’s Centre for National Resilience – the new quarantine facility in Mickleham – is to open by the end of the year.
scar tissue
Active Member
The saddest thing is all the simple people who wont get vaccinated
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
the experts said from the beginning that anything over 70% was going to be a struggle.
Corey_lax
Crew Member
The worst part is that the unvaxxed think that they are a gigantic portion of the population. Sure there’s like 700,000 people, but it’s not a big piece of the pie. I’m getting tired of listening to my employees that spew out fake stats about how bad the vaccines are but then they crush two packs of cigarettes a day and probably crush 15 beer every night
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
WHO says Covid will mutate like the flu and is likely here to stay
WHO says Covid will mutate like the flu and is likely here to stay
Covid-19 could become endemic like the flu and circulate in the population at low levels.
I had a good laugh with this one the gull of the who to say if only we acted earlier lol.
Last edited:
BearCove
Crew Member
Who is controlling the WHO?WHO says Covid will mutate like the flu and is likely here to stay
WHO says Covid will mutate like the flu and is likely here to stay
Covid-19 could become endemic like the flu and circulate in the population at low levels.www.google.ca
I had a good laugh with this one the gull of the who to say if only we acted earlier lol.
Rain City
Crew Member
barkerfam
Well-Known Member
Well, I can’t give you the exact numbers you want. But I can tell you about one patient that I know well. 29 years old. Healthy as a horse. No co-morbidities. Chose to not get vaccinated. Has been on a ventilator for 4 weeks. Has a tracheostomy. Had a myocardial infarction yesterday, which he survived.
He is one of my good friends son-in-law.
the data you are using is old. The delta variant has changed the game. It is now affecting healthy people in their 40’s, 30’s, 20s and yes even kids.
my spine surgeon’s wife is a pediatric ED doc at seattle childrens. They have many hospitalized children due to Covid.
Covid is real. The vaccines are safe and effective for diminishing serious health problems.
barkerfam
Well-Known Member
No one can, because that’s not how DNA and mRNA work. This is not debatable. It is the definition of what these acronyms stand for. Biochemistry 101.
barkerfam
Well-Known Member
In WA state health care workers must be fully vaccinated by October 18th or they will be terminated.
cracked_ribs
Well-Known Member
Delta was the reason I shifted from "at my low risk level, I can afford to wait and see" to getting vaccinated. I don't think the numbers on the first strain really warranted that much concern on my end, since I'm pretty fit, work from home in a small town with no cases, my wife doesn't work and my kid is too young to be in school...but delta is a different situation. I don't think people have really seen the demographic shift in cases yet, that's the reason for the lack of concern. But I'm hearing the exact same thing from doctors I know in high caseload areas: much broader range of patients.
Hey that exact thing happened to me! I got sent home from the hospital with that exact injury and told to come back tomorrow or the next day and they would try to find space in an OR. I did eventually get the surgery but it required a couple of very unpleasant hours on buses as my foot flopped around.
Of course this was twelve years ago, it was just another day in Vancouver.
barkerfam
Well-Known Member
Attachments
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
OUCH!
cracked_ribs
Well-Known Member
You know for a long time I've been arguing for more nuance in the discussion of all this stuff and the changing situation with the delta variant is exactly the kind of thing that has always motivated me to argue for calm discussion with as much information as possible.
Now that the delta variant has emerged, and is more infectious, and attacks a broader range of people, all kinds of people who last year could absolutely afford to wait and see, like I did, are going to be at substantially increased risk. But I think the refusal by a lot of sources to have a calm and information-rich discussion and the insistence on treating the whole covid situation as though no nuance was necessary actually makes it a lot harder to take people out of the vaccine-hesitant category, and put them in the vaccinated category.
I'm lucky in that by a sheer fluke of my working life I have this whole network of friends who are fairly highly placed people in critical positions in military, law enforcement, and medical fields. I myself am very lowly placed in the field of amateur boat construction, but work I used to do just happened to put me in these weird circles, and as such I got personal advice from people like, say, this one friend working in a related research role at a very large medical institution in the US, who would see lab numbers all the time from their on-site testing facility. It was that guy who warned me that the viral loads of delta were literally a thousand times what they'd seen on the original strain and he had the data to prove it and the knowledge to explain it and he's a friend of mine and I know he wouldn't twist the information or omit aspects with the intent to shape my behaviour. He just warned me, because the situation was, in his opinion, changing, and risk levels were really increasing. I have always taken his opinions seriously, so I went out and got vaccinated a couple of days later.
But the number of people who have a guy like that is really small, and to have several guys in my life like that is just really lucky, because I don't work in medicine or anything. So once things changed, I was easy to convince because I had trusted sources.
And this, I think, is the problem when the common sources - not the official sources, I'll say, because here in BC I haven't found them to be very alarmist or inclined to obfuscate, but the common sources, like the overwhelming majority of the media, don't allow for reasoned debate. I think by taking the approach of "we need to tell you what we need to tell you so you do what you're supposed to" you really erode trust not among the people who are naturally inclined to play ball, but among the naturally skeptical. Delta is different, and now, even if you're 25, or 35, or 45, and in good shape...there is a way higher chance than there used to be that you'll get really sick. You're actually at substantial risk. But how do you convince someone who is 35, in good health, and works somewhere that a bunch of people got the last round and nobody felt worse than the morning after a camping trip with the boys, but was told repeatedly that the last round was apocalyptic, that THIS time, they need to listen because THIS time, you're really telling them the truth?
Last fall, if you didn't have comorbidities, you weren't really old, you weren't vitamin D deficient, you were in good health...you know what? It was true that you had overwhelming odds of not getting very sick. That's true. There were occasional cases where really healthy people got extremely sick, but it was super rare. That's absolutely true.
This fall, I think it won't be that way. I think this season will be worse. I recommend vaccination to every adult because of the delta strain. But I think there's a serious consequence to telling people, who in many cases saw asymptomatic or barely symptomatic covid with their own eyes, that it wasn't primarily a disease of certain, already weakend groups. It really contributes to skepticism in subsequent rounds, because you've eroded your credibility. This is a classic public health mistake, actually: out of every field in medicine, public health is the most inclined to select behavioural results and tailor data to get the results they want. In fact that's basically the whole idea behind public health: we want you to wash your hands, so here's information we can put out that we discovered in testing makes people more likely to wash their hands. But nothing happens in a vaccuum. If you blow your handwashing load by putting out all the most gnarly, disgusting information early on, and only half the people who hear it start washing their hands...and then a bunch of the non-washers notice that they aren't really any sicker than the washers, now what? You have just created a group that is going to be both information-resistant if things change, and you-resistant if you come up with more ideas. I think that's a huge part of the bulk of vaccine-hesitant people. They were told it couldn't have come from a lab, and people who thought it did were conspiracy theorists. They were told masks don't help. They were told to stay inside. They were told that Sturgis would be a super-spreader event, but BLM protests were good for public health. They were told shutting down travel from China wouldn't help and was racist. Of course there's skepticism about the narrative. How does anybody square that stuff? Of course a bunch of it was wrong. None of that is from the BC CDC, of course: from day one I've said I thought Bonnie Henry was doing a great job and I'm a big fan of her approach and have a ton of respect for her. But if you're getting your news from most mainstream sources instead of just straight numbers from the CDC and doing your own risk math, and that's the overwhelming majority of people...you heard all that. That's the lack of vaccuum, right there. That's the environment you're working in when you have to convince people that this time, there's a very different risk and it's worse, a lot worse.
There will always be a hard core group of anti-vaxxers and you'll never crack that wall because you can't wake up a person who's pretending to be asleep. You can't talk to a person who refuses to hear you. But there's a much larger group of fence sitters and as I've said from the beginning of this whole mess, if you won't allow reasoned discussion about actual risk profiles and the only form of information transfer you'll accept is max volume warning sirens, that doesn't reach the people who heard the sirens, looked, and discovered the fire wasn't actually the way you said it was.
I think part of the reason it's easy to get to 70% but hard to get to 90% is that there are lots of naturally skeptical people, who have a not-totally-unwarranted distrust of authorities, of media, and of general herd mentality, and you can get to lots of them but not by screaming "hOrSE PasTE!" over them every time they start to ask a question, but by actually committing to an honest review of the information as it comes in. That's certainly the thing that worked for me: the conditions genuinely changed when delta emerged, I got good information about the new conditions, re-assessed my personal risk, and opted for the small theoretical risk of vaccine side effects over the (IMO) now much higher risk of covid.
I think a lot of people could be convinced in the same way and for the same reasons I was...but not without full and frank discussions, which will never happen on any platform that thrives on conflict to generate traffic. That's why I've been pretty active in this discussion all along, actually. It's somewhere that a lot of different opinions have been expressed, somewhere local where we might only be separated by one or two degrees of distance, and somewhere that's tolerated a lot of debate without devolving into total hostility.
So there you go, that's my summary: I totally understand the vaccine-hesitant, I totally agree that the mainstream narrative has been wrong most of the time, I totally agree that in general authorities can't be trusted, and I totally agree that this entire situation is almost certainly the result of really questionable research being carried out at the behest of the exact people now tasked with saving us and they're continuing to lie about their role in it and for a million reasons everyone should totally have their BS detector set to max.
BUT: on the basis of very good information from legitimate experts I personally know and trust - one of them was the only person I told when my wife was pregnant, I didn't even tell my family, I mean this is someone I trust absolutely - the situation HAS changed, it IS worse, delta IS different, and I really think being vaccinated heading into this fall and winter is STRONGLY advisable.
And anyone who wants to go back and look at my 9 million posts in this thread will agree, I haven't been cheerleading for vaccination. But when the risk changes, I change with it.
Now that the delta variant has emerged, and is more infectious, and attacks a broader range of people, all kinds of people who last year could absolutely afford to wait and see, like I did, are going to be at substantially increased risk. But I think the refusal by a lot of sources to have a calm and information-rich discussion and the insistence on treating the whole covid situation as though no nuance was necessary actually makes it a lot harder to take people out of the vaccine-hesitant category, and put them in the vaccinated category.
I'm lucky in that by a sheer fluke of my working life I have this whole network of friends who are fairly highly placed people in critical positions in military, law enforcement, and medical fields. I myself am very lowly placed in the field of amateur boat construction, but work I used to do just happened to put me in these weird circles, and as such I got personal advice from people like, say, this one friend working in a related research role at a very large medical institution in the US, who would see lab numbers all the time from their on-site testing facility. It was that guy who warned me that the viral loads of delta were literally a thousand times what they'd seen on the original strain and he had the data to prove it and the knowledge to explain it and he's a friend of mine and I know he wouldn't twist the information or omit aspects with the intent to shape my behaviour. He just warned me, because the situation was, in his opinion, changing, and risk levels were really increasing. I have always taken his opinions seriously, so I went out and got vaccinated a couple of days later.
But the number of people who have a guy like that is really small, and to have several guys in my life like that is just really lucky, because I don't work in medicine or anything. So once things changed, I was easy to convince because I had trusted sources.
And this, I think, is the problem when the common sources - not the official sources, I'll say, because here in BC I haven't found them to be very alarmist or inclined to obfuscate, but the common sources, like the overwhelming majority of the media, don't allow for reasoned debate. I think by taking the approach of "we need to tell you what we need to tell you so you do what you're supposed to" you really erode trust not among the people who are naturally inclined to play ball, but among the naturally skeptical. Delta is different, and now, even if you're 25, or 35, or 45, and in good shape...there is a way higher chance than there used to be that you'll get really sick. You're actually at substantial risk. But how do you convince someone who is 35, in good health, and works somewhere that a bunch of people got the last round and nobody felt worse than the morning after a camping trip with the boys, but was told repeatedly that the last round was apocalyptic, that THIS time, they need to listen because THIS time, you're really telling them the truth?
Last fall, if you didn't have comorbidities, you weren't really old, you weren't vitamin D deficient, you were in good health...you know what? It was true that you had overwhelming odds of not getting very sick. That's true. There were occasional cases where really healthy people got extremely sick, but it was super rare. That's absolutely true.
This fall, I think it won't be that way. I think this season will be worse. I recommend vaccination to every adult because of the delta strain. But I think there's a serious consequence to telling people, who in many cases saw asymptomatic or barely symptomatic covid with their own eyes, that it wasn't primarily a disease of certain, already weakend groups. It really contributes to skepticism in subsequent rounds, because you've eroded your credibility. This is a classic public health mistake, actually: out of every field in medicine, public health is the most inclined to select behavioural results and tailor data to get the results they want. In fact that's basically the whole idea behind public health: we want you to wash your hands, so here's information we can put out that we discovered in testing makes people more likely to wash their hands. But nothing happens in a vaccuum. If you blow your handwashing load by putting out all the most gnarly, disgusting information early on, and only half the people who hear it start washing their hands...and then a bunch of the non-washers notice that they aren't really any sicker than the washers, now what? You have just created a group that is going to be both information-resistant if things change, and you-resistant if you come up with more ideas. I think that's a huge part of the bulk of vaccine-hesitant people. They were told it couldn't have come from a lab, and people who thought it did were conspiracy theorists. They were told masks don't help. They were told to stay inside. They were told that Sturgis would be a super-spreader event, but BLM protests were good for public health. They were told shutting down travel from China wouldn't help and was racist. Of course there's skepticism about the narrative. How does anybody square that stuff? Of course a bunch of it was wrong. None of that is from the BC CDC, of course: from day one I've said I thought Bonnie Henry was doing a great job and I'm a big fan of her approach and have a ton of respect for her. But if you're getting your news from most mainstream sources instead of just straight numbers from the CDC and doing your own risk math, and that's the overwhelming majority of people...you heard all that. That's the lack of vaccuum, right there. That's the environment you're working in when you have to convince people that this time, there's a very different risk and it's worse, a lot worse.
There will always be a hard core group of anti-vaxxers and you'll never crack that wall because you can't wake up a person who's pretending to be asleep. You can't talk to a person who refuses to hear you. But there's a much larger group of fence sitters and as I've said from the beginning of this whole mess, if you won't allow reasoned discussion about actual risk profiles and the only form of information transfer you'll accept is max volume warning sirens, that doesn't reach the people who heard the sirens, looked, and discovered the fire wasn't actually the way you said it was.
I think part of the reason it's easy to get to 70% but hard to get to 90% is that there are lots of naturally skeptical people, who have a not-totally-unwarranted distrust of authorities, of media, and of general herd mentality, and you can get to lots of them but not by screaming "hOrSE PasTE!" over them every time they start to ask a question, but by actually committing to an honest review of the information as it comes in. That's certainly the thing that worked for me: the conditions genuinely changed when delta emerged, I got good information about the new conditions, re-assessed my personal risk, and opted for the small theoretical risk of vaccine side effects over the (IMO) now much higher risk of covid.
I think a lot of people could be convinced in the same way and for the same reasons I was...but not without full and frank discussions, which will never happen on any platform that thrives on conflict to generate traffic. That's why I've been pretty active in this discussion all along, actually. It's somewhere that a lot of different opinions have been expressed, somewhere local where we might only be separated by one or two degrees of distance, and somewhere that's tolerated a lot of debate without devolving into total hostility.
So there you go, that's my summary: I totally understand the vaccine-hesitant, I totally agree that the mainstream narrative has been wrong most of the time, I totally agree that in general authorities can't be trusted, and I totally agree that this entire situation is almost certainly the result of really questionable research being carried out at the behest of the exact people now tasked with saving us and they're continuing to lie about their role in it and for a million reasons everyone should totally have their BS detector set to max.
BUT: on the basis of very good information from legitimate experts I personally know and trust - one of them was the only person I told when my wife was pregnant, I didn't even tell my family, I mean this is someone I trust absolutely - the situation HAS changed, it IS worse, delta IS different, and I really think being vaccinated heading into this fall and winter is STRONGLY advisable.
And anyone who wants to go back and look at my 9 million posts in this thread will agree, I haven't been cheerleading for vaccination. But when the risk changes, I change with it.
The sad thing is I don't think people are well-read or willing to put the time in to do their own research. A lot of people get their information from facebook, Instagram or friends who get their information from the same. A lot of people just read the headlines and we know headlines often don't represent an issue and often don't even match up to the article.
The key to being informed is taking the time to read and understand issues at the core facts level. However, society has an insanely short attention span nowadays. Which is why it really is easy to spread misinformation. Create a few memes/text overlays on pictures post to social media and that is what people will see/read. Sadly, your post above is too long to hold the attention of most.
The key to being informed is taking the time to read and understand issues at the core facts level. However, society has an insanely short attention span nowadays. Which is why it really is easy to spread misinformation. Create a few memes/text overlays on pictures post to social media and that is what people will see/read. Sadly, your post above is too long to hold the attention of most.
tubber
Well-Known Member
I inferred from this that you think other vaccine-hesitant people are able to match your level of intellect, critical-thinking and articulation and will, through open debate, change their minds and get the jab. The vast majority cannot think like you do.
Some years ago, the government switched from half day kindergarten to full day. Why? Because there were too many disadvantaged kids entering school completely ill-prepared. In other words, in the opinion of the Ministry of Education, some people are too busy, but mostly too dumb to raise kids in an ideal way.
Chances are Dr. Bonnie's team, without saying it publically, fear that too many of the anti-vax and vaccine-hesitant
crowd are also too dumb to do the right thing and need some motivation (no passport = no travel, restaurants, etc.).
It's an arrogant approach, but there just too many knuckle draggers.
- Status