Parasite Stress. Yes, that’s right folks- you heard it here first- Parasite Stress. For those unfamiliar to the term, it relates to the correlation between countries which are afflicted by society-wide fear over a parasite or pathogen and the way their politics shifts towards a more authoritarian model of politics. Put simply, the population begins to yearn for a strong authority to allay their fears and make them feel safe. And there is a definite correlation- which appears to be stronger in larger societies than smaller tight-knit societies. Here is an analysis comparing and contrasting two separate studies exploring the relationship between parasite stress and authoritarianism.
Of particular interest is this line from the discussion section: ‘If indeed parasite stress has unique causal implications for authoritarian governance, then disease-eradication programs may not only have direct consequences for human health, they may also have indirect consequences for individual rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms. (Thornhill and colleagues [7] noted that the democratic transitions in North America and Europe were preceded by dramatic reductions in the prevalence of infectious disease.)’
Most of us are familiar with the case for increased authoritarianism during the pandemic. We’ve witnessed it. We’ve all seen various countries around the world try to use government force and coercion to try and compel citizens to get vaccinated by varying degrees- ranging from discriminatory and unfair legislation governing employees to government mandates and passports meant to curtail any form of social life, and with some countries even going so far as to set-up internment camps, such as Australia. In many countries, unvaccinated citizens have become virtual lock-ins- unable to leave their house under any circumstances other than for very specific purposes.
The real tragedy of this situation is that although vaccines have proven extraordinarily effective at reducing personal risks from Covid, with some sources citing a reduced risk of death or hospitalisation from Covid by a factor of ten, since Delta the vaccines have proven to be really quite ineffective at limiting virus spread. Recently, the World Health Organisation issued an advisory stating that with Delta vaccinations only reduced the chances of catching or spreading Covid by around 40%. The fear was that vaccinations had lulled people into a false sense of security, and that the vulnerable in particular should continue to exercise caution in their daily routines. Meanwhile, a recent study in the UK concluded that if someone in a household contracts Delta, their housemates have a 25% of contracting Covid if double vaccinated, which rises to 38% if unvaccinated. For anyone familiar with network theory, this shows that whilst vaccines may be great at protecting oneself personally, they will at best prevent infection in a small minority of cases and in all probability only slow the rate of spread in any region, until the virus exhausts its currently available food supply.
But what does all this have to do with the War on Drugs, I hear you ask? Well, it’s all about the societally induced fear which both of these crises instilled, the prevailing corporate media ecosystem which thrives on panic porn and lives off stoking fear- then, as now- and in particular the way it incentivises politicians to appear strong and indominable in the face of the crisis- in other words, increasingly leaning towards authoritarianism. Many of my readers will be too young to remember the eighties and nineties- but it is fair to say that increasingly, and as time progressed, anyone who didn’t have a ‘Tough on Crime’ message was committing what was tantamount to political career suicide.
Many young people simply don’t understand. The nightly perp walks of young Black and Latino men being frogmarched into a Police Station. The ‘if it bleeds, it leads’ mentally which was particular prevalent in the visual medium- with nightly news similarly cutting to camera shots of police lights and ambulances at night gathered at the site of a shooting, with hefty bonuses conferred to anyone who get a shot of an injured man or woman gurneyed into the back of an ambulance. Even the previous Civil Rights leaders of beleaguered communities adopted the mantra of ‘Tough on Crime’- a position which many have now come to deeply regret. And, of course, the culmination of this particular period in media terms was Hillary Clinton’s famous speech on Super Predators:
Were there Super Predators? Of course. In any population there will be the psychopaths, or Dark Triad types, and they will be drawn to violence and mayhem like moths to the flame. But it is equally certain that huge numbers of poor young Black and Latino teenagers, who were in many ways simply going the period of youthful rebellion and vandalous aggression which is common to many, had this label unfairly applied to them. It ruined lives unnecessarily- sending many young men prematurely into the carceral state, and probably making many of them more dangerous in the long-run- through the corrosive influence of prison societies. For a large proportion, the shock, sharp shock of a little Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion paired with community resourcing would have been infinitely more appropriate and substantially less extravagant with the taxpayers money, in terms of court and prison costs. It worked wonders in Scotland- where the troubled youth in question was 99% ethnically white and the issue of race didn’t stand like a forty foot wall across the divide of political competition.
Such emotive banners as Race inevitably kill off the cool emotionally detached problem-solving required to empirically solve such thorny problems- this emotional detachment was singularly absent in America at the time, just as media hysteria has forced both sides of the political spectrum to make emotionally motivated unforced errors.
Back then, we didn’t even know that violence was a social contagion. It was only the seminal work of epidemiologist Gary Slutkin who had studied epidemics in Africa, who recognised the startling comparisons between disease outbreaks and the way in which violence at the city level can spread from area to area within a city, transforming previously safe communities into neighbourhoods where people fear to walk the streets at night. His work was pivotal to Scotland’s Public Health approach- which saw community resourcing paired with proactive policing, making the police officer an agent of transformative early interventional change, where previously punitive deterrence was the only option. It worked. Murder rates in Glasgow fell by 60%. Scotland went from being one of the most violent countries in Europe to one of the least.
And we didn’t even know that parasite stress was the key factor in this period of American decision until very recently. Because I only realised it yesterday and I’m telling you now. The resemblance is striking- just how easily we can be gulled into surrendering liberty. But the truly awful thing is it is never our liberty we want to surrender, but rather the liberty of others- a searing indictment of the safe, complacent and comfortable when they are confronted by fear.
The media stand as the true culprits in this charade of the morally bankrupt. They are the ones who are the marionette puppeteers, pulling our strings like accomplished masters, cynically playing to our worst fears, anxieties and inevitable anger at those who seem so recalcitrant that we can’t even be bothered to try to understand them or walk a mile in their shoes. God Damn them! They’ve inflicted unspeakable damage and suffering upon our countries for far too long, creating fault lines down the middle of families, destroying friendships and dividing great nations. Most ordinary folks are decent and forgiving of those with whom they happen to disagree- but release what is perceived to be existential threat into the water, and things can quickly turn ugly.
The fact that the media are themselves victims of their own propaganda is no excuse. Whilst it is undoubtedly true that the vaccines have saved lives in huge numbers and reduce individual risk increasingly for anyone over a certain age, they simply couldn’t abandon the notion that with Delta vaccines became largely ineffective at protecting them from catching the virus. Such was the state of terror into which they had worked themselves.
You see, when one cedes oneself to the illusion of incremental and overstated safety, whether the authoritarian comes in the form of a strongman or in the collectivist faith in institutions, it becomes all but impossible to pry oneself away from the blanket which affords oneself comfort. It may only be an illusion of safety in both of the two cases I’ve highlighted- a tiny incremental level of reduced risk in statistical terms (provided in the latter case they have themselves have been vaccinated). Even the supposedly smart people who man and run the media cannot allow themselves to abandon their anchor biases because it would mean abandoning the illusion of safety they have come to rely upon. The increased risk may be tiny but the fear is not- in fear and hysteria they sacrifice the liberty of others on the altar of superstition- like a phantasm or spectre from our primitive past.
In such ways liberty dies, as does so much we have long held dear and cherished in the West. All it takes is fear and anger at the other, and we let the petty authoritarian within us reign supreme.
The problem I now have with respect to Covid (you are right about the War on Drugs, and I think any non-war "war" terminology is absurd, just like our "non-war" stance on actual wars as police actions), is that can we trust any of the data we've seen?
It is now clear that cases, hospitalization and deaths related to Covid are all suspect. We know about tests finding Covid through many PCR rounds, and then we call them asymptomatic, but still suggest the person is "infected." Fauci just pointed out that children in hospitals with Covid is different from being hospitalized because of Covid. Clearly that applies to all hospitalization stats, not just for children. And that was pointed out before with respect to deaths, the "from/with" issue.
If we don't know the actual numbers, how do we know how much better/worse any mediation is? We still don't even know if it's true that you have a 1% chance of dying from Covid pre-vaccines if found to test positive or not, but it does imply that 99% get better anyway. If a risk is low, then a higher risk will sound much worse than it is.
The NYTimes says 835,000 have died from Covid in the US. That's over two years, so effectively 417,500 deaths per year. In a population of 330 million, the overall chance is just 0.1% But they also claim 59,400,000 cases (tested positive regardless of being sick or not) in those two years, resulting in 1.4% chance of death per case. But those 59 million cases were detected among 814 million tests given, suggesting people who get tested are only positive 7% of the time, and the chance of death after receiving a Covid test is also 0.1%.
I don't look at the CDC data- it has long since proven completely unreliable. I use the British Yellow Card system, ONS data and a wealth of information once supplied by Public Halth England and recently shifted to the UKHSA. The Israelis have been good- they were the ones who first highlighted myocarditis and pericarditis risks for the young, and a lot of the Danish data has been good as well.
The answer is- if you don't trust your own government, shop elsewhere! Also- don't use Google- they censor everything on Covid- I use DuckDuckGo! on almost everything Covid-related.
So the British data doesn't conflate "with/from" Covid in its numbers? I'm pretty sure it was something like South Africa or Israel that had stories that "from" was anywhere from 25-50% of their reported hospitalizations and deaths, meaning "from" could be much lower than the fearful stories. The US has no such from/with data and therefore this concern didn't come from the CDC.
And if so for your data, what is the rate of death (or even serious illness vs. simple hospitalization) for those who get a test (at costs to others most often)? For those who test positive? And for the general public (who has to get infected first and then die from it) regardless of whether tested or not? I'd be interested. The problem is comparing across countries is tricky if we don't have the same demographics (age, health/obesity/addicts, weather, wealth, density, types of jobs that allow remote work, etc.).
The numbers for the efficacy of masks are equally hard to find. The CDC previously reported a 3% efficacy, which is effectively 0 in a large population. I've heard as high as 10%, but again, how did they really test this? It's not actual science, but some statistical modeling using data that may not be accurate enough. After all, I presume in your country you see masks worn incorrectly routinely, or are ill fitting, or are removed as they lean in to tell you something, including those who now try to use N95 masks with beards or simple ear loops (where the filter isn't even used because air finds it easier to escape out the sides than through the filter).
They do conflate with from from- that is one basic flaw in the data which most countries don't seem to have made the effort to correct for. I largely agree with the rest of you comment, but don't have anything of value to add- apart from the fact that is important to look at all of the data, especially things like excess mortality. Also, much of the autumnal and winter season Covid cases, are traditionally taken up with flu, pneumonia and other respiratory conditions- so there is an extent to which Covid is simply replacing rather than adding.
Well, the PCR testing we did before couldn't really tell the difference between colds, flu and Covid, which may also explain some of that. I've often wondered how one virus can "replace" another, as if there were some coordination between viruses. It's been mentioned this can occur, but unless one virus kills you, it's hard to see how getting infected with one would keep you from getting infected by another unless they are so closely related that our immune response for one helps with the other. I understand the latest PCR test suites do better in teasing out infection types.
Even excess death can be a tricky stat because remediation efforts could have exacerbated matters. Like NY Governor Cuomo forcefully sent sick old people from the hospitals back to nursing homes; hospitals ventilated too quickly early on; border closings forced people from around the world to rush back to their home countries ensuring a pandemic; lockdowns forced people into their homes ensuring local epidemics, with people even being harassed for exercising outside (often alone or in cohabitating groups); children were forced home where they were less likely to help increase herd immunity; mask and vaccine mandates caused people to feel safer than they likely were in terms of spreading the disease; declaring people non-essential and using force and political division likely created resistance that clouded some people's self-interest decision-making; missed cases of child abuse and neglect, and general population depression, anxiety and lack of motivating work and production of useful things; increased drug abuse and perhaps over-eating; people driving instead of flying to avoid Covid risks; people delaying treatments in hospitals (anecdotally my mother-in-law died in 2021 from lymphoma, and she did avoid seeking treatment for a sore stomach because of her fear of Covid); even our focus on "essential" workers meant many old people were sent back to work in grocery stores and other retail businesses despite the massively higher risk for people 50 and older.
It's hard to tease out what helped versus made matters worse, and whether good precautions would have taken place or not without all the authoritarian measures taken (which clearly did not stop the spread, flattened curves, avoid hospital runs, or unite people around a shared tragedy).
What I meant by replace is that natural caution prevented the transmission of many more normal seasonal viruses- it's why we got super colds towards the end of last year- because people had lost their natural immunity. It was also a major contributor to hospitalisations WITH Covid- if you had some other non-viral respiratory condition you were pretty much certain to get Covid after being admitted to hospital.
Not closing down public transport for the duration was a major mistake- the internal dynamics of a cabin under acceleration and deceleration meant it was a uniquely powerful way of spreading the virus.
Interesting. In Seattle, public transportation seemed mostly unused, perhaps because we're more a car-place and our workers tend to be white collar and were able to work from home.
An example of what I mean by data quality is this bit on climate change and the weather. It's not saying climate change isn't real or not, or whether a given storm is worse because of climate change or not, just that the models and projections are only as good as the data itself:
Yes, I completely agree with you on the models. In the UK we've consistently seen huge overestimates of likely cases, hospitalisations or death. The basic problem is that they hugely overestimate both the vulnerable population and the efficacy of restriction measures. That's what happens when you build assumptions into the front end of a model.
In fairness, medical models you contain worst case scenarios, but why don't they include more middling predictions as well? Because the worst case is what they are asked for- mainly because behavioural economics units wrongly believe scaring people is an effective means of changing behaviour. It does work- at least initially- but repeated usage leads to catastrophe fatigue and fatally undermines trust in institutional integrity.
Anyway, about those assumptions- if you lower the estimates down from the 80% to 90% of those perceived as vulnerable built into most models and instead insert a range of between 20% and 30% then the models almost exactly match what occurs in the real world data. Some of this is doubtless behavioural, but they also drastically underestimate the levels of non-antibody resistance within the population.
I'm reminded of Robert Anton Wilson's line - they'll beg for the whip. The analysis of the psychology of safety and security is spot on.
I think what may be worth considering is responsibility and particularly responsibility to one's fellow citizens. To live in a society engenders not only the means to enjoy benefits not normally available to those outside society but also an acceptance of the curtailment of certain freedoms. This would include curtailment of freedoms which impinge on others freedoms. It might be stating the obvious but this aspect has been lost in the debate about COVID. Government exists to regulate societies and determine standards or laws which govern certain aspects of behaviour. It also needs to establish methods of compulsion and how frequently and severely they are applied. Government may seem onerous at times and heavy handed but none of the alternatives come anywhere near being as effective for ensuring a society functions.
Of course people have rights but it must be remembered that these rights are contingent on not impinging on others' rights. Thus the right not to wear a mask is fine as long as it doesn't lead to another person becoming infected with a potentially deadly disease. This applies to vaccination as well. It may well be that vaccination is not the panacea it is often made out to be but it HELPS. All these measures help in reducing risk of disease transmission and in risk management this is sometimes the best you can manage. The reason the disease continues to spread is those people who ignore or refuse the precautions. Healthcare professionals in particular have no right to be unvaccinated. They are dealing with ill vulnerable people. Therefore it is their responsibility to ensure that they reduce the risks.
What resistance to COVID vaccination and masks boils down to is selfishness and contraianism. It maskerades as individualism and freedom to choose but for those living in a society these sometimes have to be curtailed for the society to function effectively. This is the sad reality.
I largely agree with your sentiment and argument- up to a point. But most people tended to make the necessary adjustments with the advent of Delta. Up until then there was actually a pretty strong argument that double vaccination protected others, but the dynamics changed for two reasons. First, the effectiveness of vaccines at preventing virus spread dropped precipitously- to around 40% reduced chance of catching and spreading the virus, individually. Second, Delta was significantly more virulent, which is to say more infectious- and it was far more likely to jump previous 'air gaps' and transmit in areas like enclosed spaces, offices and shops regardless of almost all preventative measures in these areas (extremely good ventilation could still mitigate risk).
Unfortunately, there was a significant degree of confusion even amongst relatively informed and intelligent people as to the meaning of the word virulent. Many mistakenly though it meant stronger, when in actuality Delta was substantially milder. No, virulent meant it was all but impossible to contain the spread with the conventional measures which were put in place.
This was the point at which an empirical process of rational decision-making would have switched to advising the most vulnerable to voluntary adopt the policies advocated in the Great Barrington Declaration. It would have saved many more lives and allowed society to function more effectively. Basically anyone over 65 and with even mild comorbidities should have been told to try and limit their contacts with people in enclosed spaces to an absolute minimum indefinitely, or until an even milder variant displaced Delta (as is now happening), and anyone over 50 should have been told the same if their comorbidities indicated higher risk. In many cases the more obese and/or sedentary should have been told in no uncertain terms to go on a diet and exercise more.
This may sound harsh- but it is just facing facts. Most experts knew with the appearance of Delta that there was no conclusion to the pandemic other than Covid becoming endemic. It took McKinsey a while, and they were very careful with their words so they didn't upset people, politically- but they basically reached the conclusion that the pandemic months before they published in October of last year- I doubt you could find a single serious epidemiologist who wouldn't reach this conclusion with Delta, unless they were hopelessly beset by anchor biases.
Think about it- people in these categories could have still lived tolerable lives. They could have still gone out and walked the dog, socialised in the open air and even in some cases worked remotely. They could have entertained family members in gardens, on doorsteps or met in parks. All it would have really meant was that they couldn't meet with people in enclosed spaces if they wanted to their personal mitigate risk- so no visits to the shops at all, no indoor restaurants or working indoors. Such was the sane and rational approach with the advent of Delta.
But the over 65s enjoy an undue level of power and influence in our society. They are far more likely to vote and far more likely to switch parties or not vote if their usual party pisses them off- it's why the Tories in the UK will only abandon the triple lock on pensions in extremis and why no one in America will touch social security- even though our societies are desperately crying out for the redistribution of these resources more towards the young, especially in terms of generating opportunities and in the area of housing.
More importantly, on an collective individual level, in politics, wealth, power, influence, media, culture and almost every important aspect of public life other than in sport, the over 65s are massively overrepresented amongst the great and good. It's why society had such difficulty accepting the vaccines were about as useful as a chocolate fireguard in limiting virus spread, post-Delta. It is also why the unvaccinated were conveniently scapegoated as the main culprits for virus spread. Sure, at an individual level your risks were somewhat increased through contact with an unvaccinated person, but at the group level this wasn't really the case- just look at the wealthy, cosmopolitan areas where almost everyone is vaccinated- their figures on Delta transmission in terms of case numbers are barely different from other areas.
This is where we fundamentally disagree: 'This applies to vaccination as well. It may well be that vaccination is not the panacea it is often made out to be but it HELPS'
With Delta, vaccination only delays, it doesn't stop- in terms of virus spread. In fairness, there are the are exceptions- those already shielding in the manner prescribed by the Great Barrington Declaration who cohabit with family members, but I imagine we are talking about a tiny minority of the population. Of course, in some ways you are right- with the appearance of omicron we now have a much, much milder variant of the virus which will greatly improve the chances of survivability for the elderly or serous comorbid over fifties if they are fully vaccinated.
In many ways I should be agreeing with you- on a personal level. I cohabit with my mother- she is elderly, arthritic and somewhat senile but still functional. I am her primary caregiver. She is also on methotrexate for her arthritis, so she is somewhat immunosuppressed. I am one of the rare few who stands to benefit somewhat in terms of risks to her.
You see, we agree on the issue of social duty. It's why I was strongly in favour of vaccination as a means of protecting others pre-Delta, and remain so in terms of mitigating personal risk and reducing the burden on health services. But most people haven't looked at the differences between Delta and the previous variants. Many lack the Maths, or don't really understand human variability in terms of nodes and networks, or the high degree of risk that occurs with only two degrees of separation.
You may trust everyone you know in terms of behaving with natural caution, even when vaccinated. But what about the people they know? Do we really expect all of them to never go to crowded clubs, pubs and restaurants- or not work in retail, services, hospitality, production or warehouse distribution. This would have been the level of restriction required to protect the vulnerable IN ADDITION to 100% vaccinated- with the leakiness of the vaccines. I agree that with vaccines they still delay the virus, and they still offer an order of magnitude of protection from personal risk compared to the unvaccinated- but they don't really help in terms of ultimately reducing virus spread to the vulnerable- not over time and excepting a tiny portion of the population.
Governments should have advised switching to the Great Barrington Declaration within months of the appearance of Delta- but they simply couldn't, because it would have killed them politically, and many had already shopped for exactly the types of advisors who would shield them persisting with an incorrect narrative. I don't assign malign intent- self-deception and anchor biases can very often be a collective effort, given Pournelle's Law, but the fact is that advising the Great Barrington Declaration would have saved many more lives than persisting in the fiction that vaccines substantially limit virus spread with the advent of Delta.
These are the cold hard facts as I see them. We agree on the social duty aspect- but simply differ on who should have been asked to limit their liberty, in purely utilitarian (rather than ethical) terms.
I rather think your points are better applied to omicron. There the case you make is unanswerable but look at the reaction of governments. The South African medical experts who have more experience with the variant were basically ignored. In Japan, the government shut down all access into the country (it didn't work, the disease got in anyway). A case could be made for Delta being a real threat but not omicron and here we see the fear-mongering in full flow.
It's not that I don't think vaccines are a good thing, simply that any type of restriction placed on individuals who don't vaccinate is inhumane. Let's drill down to the detail level- many healthcare workers including doctors don't want to have vaccines because they have existing natural immunity which is considerably superior and longer-lasting than vaccinations.
Of course, there is an obvious argument that vaccination then infection is desirable, but the reverse is not true- for the simple reason that the added benefit of vaccination post-infection is very small, and we know that each subsequent exposure increases risks of side effects. it's common sense- high proportions of people experience of stronger reactions from subsequent vaccinations, and where there are small effect there are larger ones.
The second category is people with medical conditions which make vaccination inadvisable. This group may be small but not as small as many think. But no attempted mandate policies make distinctions on either of these fronts. In both cases the argument is stronger that the risks to the individual are higher than to society at large.
And this is why- if we assume a steady state with Delta and no appearance of omicron, then everyone was going to get exposed at some point within two years of Delta's emergence, unless they sequestered themselves in a log cabin for the duration. Even they they would face exposure upon re-entry to society, as we've already established that the chances of the pandemic becoming endemic were pretty much 100%, as we've already established- with Delta becoming much like seasonal flu, and with people's B and T cell immunity and natural immunity making the pathogen far less serious.
Plus, Delta wasn't as deadly as the original variant even though it was more virulent and spread more widely. And as we've already established most of the deaths were amongst the unvaccinated, and the costs to society within the vaccinated group certainly less than allowing people to use roads, or any number of activities which were previously everyday.
There is no argument which states that individuals in society have a responsibility to protect people who refuse to take responsible action. Quite the reverse- apart from very tightly constrained circumstances the State has absolutely no right whatsoever to intervene on behalf of the individual to save their health for their own sake.
To do so would concede that religious people have no right to refuse treatment on religious grounds- an absolute obscenity in terms of moral principles.
There's a lot of sound argument here but one or two points need further discussion. I note you're discussing the issue from an individuals point of view which is appropriate but doesn't seem to take into account how an individual's behaviour impacts on other separate individuals rights. The natural immunity argument is also scary - it does not preclude being a carrier. I don't believe any responsible medical institution can allow unvaccinated staff near patients. It may be a measure of compulsion is necessary but a responsible individual should take all available measures to protect those under their care. In certain situations individual rights need to be overridden. This is the only situation where I would argue for mandatory vaccination and precisely because of the unique nature of the environment.
My other thought relates to the numbers you quote. Indeed the bare probability is low but one cannot plan on that basis. One has to plan on the basis that the person next to one is highly infectious because the random factor needs to be taken into account. In fact, it is so random that one might be justified in allocating a higher risk factor than near numbers would suggest.
Here's my point in a nutshell. Vaccination reduces virus spread but not by much. However, the really salient point is that per capita of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated 90% of deaths which the unvaccinated inflict are amongst other unvaccinated- so whilst you may want to condemn the unvaccinated, what you are really witnessing is a very harsh and perverse sense of poetic justice.
Do you see the fallacy the media and public health are engaging in? They are, in the vast majority of instances peddling two mutually exclusive statements. First, they care that the unvaccinated are spreading the virus to the unvaccinated. Then they care about the death numbers, who are also, per capita, unvaccinated. It's insane, and fundamentally gulling a public not trained in Bayesian thinking.
Plus, even early on with Delta in the UK we knew that the average age of death of double vaccinated Delta patient was 85, and this was with a vaccine program based mainly on the somewhat inferior AZ vaccine. It's like Christ, how many more years do you want these already chronically medically compromised patients to live? Let the poor fuckers die in peace, with their families by their bedside.
No. The real motive behind all this is that Government has taken the responsibility upon itself to save its supposedly ignorant citizens for itself. Don't get me wrong- people should get vaccinated- but the best approach to doing this full disclosure of the facts- warts-n-all information which acknowledges the admittedly rare instances of side effects.
But they won't do this for a couple of reasons. First, liability issues- it would require court cases in the public spotlight and a small corporate bailout- because although many would probably take the NDA, there would be others who wanted to powers that be to pay in an entirely different fashion, especially when we consider that the Israelis information tells us that the rate of myocarditis amongst the under 25s is somewhere between 1 in 6,000 and 1 in 10,000, and we know that people are far less likely to take huge settlements when it comes to the deaths of their own kids.
The unvaccinated might have been an incredibly tiny increased risk to the vaccinated, but the real truth is that they needed a scapegoat for why case numbers were still high, when they had told everyone that the vaccines would stop the pandemic in its tracks. Setting aside the individual increased risk of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, you do realise that if you look at the proportions of people vaccinated vs. unvaccinated then roughly half of all virus spread with Delta in the US comes from the vaccinated?
The problem is most people haven't read the WHO advisory, and even if they did, they would be too lazy to do the Maths...
Vax 60% x 0.6*= 36
Unvax 40% x 1.0 = 40
* Reduced chance of Delta spread through vaccination.
Figures relate to the relative percentage of the American people vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Ive positioned it for myself as a risk management decision. Which is why I rail against rules that restrict activities like going to my gym when Ive taken the precautions and will live with the outcome Im comfortable with. Assuming we have the real story / inputs which I think we dont fully have. That is my biggest concern about government- you need good inputs to make good decisions.
The sad reality is that you are woefully ignorant as are most jabbers. mRNA jabs are NOT vaccines, at least not until the goalposts were moved and the definition changed. They are experimental treatments, nothing more. You are incredibly selfish to ask that that a handful of clueless bureaucrats are allowed to risk the deaths of many because they can't even collect accurate data. Your hero Fauci killed tens of thousands during the AIDS crisis and he has killed hundreds of thousands with his opposition to safe and effective treatments. The jabs are NOT safe. The evidence is becoming more and more clear everyday. You're living in a fantasy world. The jabs kill but you and the clown you call a president as well as the medical establishment deny their danger. They are now proving to create long term medical issues as well as causing numerous deaths. The reason the disease continues to spread is because of naive individuals like you. Even the CDC now admits jabbers like you are just as likely to spread Sars-2 as the unjabbed. The only masks that are of any significant value in reducing transmission are N-95s or equivalent IF worn properly.
I think the point is being missed. My aim was to highlight social responsibility and society and how these have an impact on the issue.
There are also a lot of red herrings and assumptions in your post. I'm not sure why you reference Faucci - I certainly didn't. You also mention President Biden (at least I assume you think I'm American). Not relevant at all.
I am interested in your statement that decisions are being taken by a handful of clueless bureaucrats. Can you perhaps expand on this (minus the invective of course)?
It is not socially responsible for a free citizen to be a sheep. Science does not support the mask foolishness and the risk/reward of the experimental mRNA therapeutic is inconclusive at best. There is no social responsibility to fall in line.
Living in Japan (as one does) I can observe a mask policy operating at first hand. Almost everyone wears masks in public and in confined spaces. The upshot is Japan has a lower infection rate than all of the other G7 countries. It is one of the measures which can be used very effectively to help protect against COVID. It's not the only one - there is no magic bullet here. Most people are vaccinated here which is another effective measure. The vaccines reduce the chance of infection which is good because the healthcare system is inadequate and the bureaucracy mediocre in the extreme.
There is a lot of rubbish out there on both sides of the argument. But, as I mentioned, in risk management, it is wise to take measures to reduce risks even if you can't eliminate them entirely. Masks are part of the physical protection regime even though they are a PITA. Social pressure ensures they are worn in sufficient quantity to have an effect. It should have occurred to you though that this is not an ordinary virus and as a result requires something a bit extra and multi-pronged to defeat it.
Observing people on both sides of the argument I have noted two salient points. The people who refuse to wear masks and get vaccinated are mostly selfish and manufacture all sorts of excuses to hide this basic fact. The people who advocate lockdowns and stricter measures are mostly closet authoritarians. Some people like to poke their noses into other peoples business.
It is socially irresponsible not to take measures to prevent yourself becoming infected and spreading the disease. You (general not specific you) don't have the right to determine other peoples' fate which can happen when you refuse to wear a mask or be vaccinated. Remember a lot of infection is passed on by the asymptomatic.
I hope you look to see my argument on the use of vaccines to promote the reduction of personal risk. I wouldn't want to be accused of being partisan on this subject. For the truly heterodox, that is the worst of all sins.
Look, although this comment wasn't addressed specifically to me, I think I am going to have to jump in here, in the interests of nuance and friendly discussion. I agree that the 'vaccines' aren't completely safe and we simply don't know enough about long-term risk, and this is one of those known unknowns which should have been weighed in the balance in the decision-making process.
There is also a strong argument to be made that we really though have thought twice about vaccinating anyone under the age of thirty, for the simple reason that if they are healthy their risks are only about 1 in 600,000 and compared to the known unknown factor we shouldn't have taken the gamble, In particular, there is stronger evidence to suggest that no one under 25 and healthy should have been vaccinated at all- given the substantially increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis below this threshold- which reliable Israelis sources have claimed are between 1 in 6,000 and 1 in 10,000, and subsequent studies have shown to be around the 80 per million ballpark.
There is also a good argument to made for the thirties age range- if we are talking about people who exercise on a regular basis, are not overweight, and fully dose up with vitamin D, given the now established link between vitamin D deficiency and hospitalisation.
But the risk reward ratio for anyone over forty supports double vaccination, even if we don't yet have enough data on the subject of boosters. I am 48, overweight (foodie and copious single malt drinker), male and white, which when crunched through a Covid calculator (helpfully provided by either Oxford or Cambridge, about six months into the pandemic) gives me about a 1 in 16,000 chance of death from Covid. With vaccination this risk falls to 1 in 160,000- so I am willing to weigh that risk against potential side effects and unknown future risks. That was my personal choice.
But at the same time I think there is the potential to fall down to rabbit hole when looking at sources like VAERS. First, we need apply the same ruthless logic to side effects as we do to claims of Long Covid and the difference between death FROM Covid or WITH Covid. To do otherwise would imply we are operating with exactly the same anchor biases we accuse those who still promote the narrative that vaccination substantially protects others.
First, how many of the cases on VAERS were serious, how many less so? Second, vaccination is a stressing agent which can provoke a pre-existing condition to emerge. This was the basic mistake that parents made when claiming the MMR vaccine caused autism- with the understandable layperson's mistake of attributing a 1 in 3.000 chance of triggering a fit and linking this, incorrectly, to a condition which already existed. So for example- somebody might have a pre-existing heart condition which is a ticking time bomb. The minor stress of vaccination (particularly the second one) would likely bring this condition to the fore- the reality is that person could have died or been rushed to hospital through the simply mechanism of eating a particularly rich meal over the course of the last couple of days and then trying to climb the stairs.
Look, I get you don't trust you government. I don't trust your government. Between the lies both Fauci and Trump told their performance has been piss poor and hardly worthy of trust. But let's look at the most extreme sources who have used the Yellow Card system data in the UK (which I believe make several errors in their analysis of data). One is UK Column. The Times has dismissed them as rapid anti-vaxxers, but I will suspend judgement for the moment.
They claim that there have been a total of 1,913 deaths from vaccination. Of these 1,176 are claimed as being from AZ, 24 from Moderna, 676 from Pfizer and 37 unspecified. Even if we credit all of these claims as plausible and dismiss none of them, then this would tend to argue for vaccination for anyone 40- because of the reduced risk from Covid death itself beyond this threshold. Now, I know where mind will naturally go- what about unreported cases- and I might agree with you apart from for one single fact.
The Tavistock Clinic. Medical professional after medical professional resigned from the clinic and made their concerns known to public about the treatment of transgender children- the fact that insufficient time was spent in the clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and the premature use of puberty blockers and premature gender reassignment surgeries and what has elsewhere become the almost universal usage of gender affirmation without even the most limited clinical diagnosis.
Dozens resigned in a multi-site which only employs 500 people, many of whom are non-medical personal. Many, many others raised internal concerns, both vocally and in writing, despite knowing that it would seriously compromise their future prospects. The first group sacrificed what were quite often lucrative six figure sterling salaries, as well as limiting the pension accrual which occurs substantially in the later years of a pensions term.
They stood against the loss of reputation in the polite affluent circles which support gender ideology, they sacrificed their careers and good names (at least temporarily), they knew full well they would be subject to the personal vilification, attacks and occasional death threats of activists. They knew those who insist upon everyone announcing their gender pronouns, would hound them to whichever workplace they settled, hassling their employer until they sacked them. But they did it anyway- all because of their concern that kids presenting themselves as transgender might not be- which when puberty is allowed to take its course, amounts to between 65% and 90% of cases.
It was a singular act of personal bravery and courage not seen anywhere else in the medical establishments of the Western world. One thirty year clinician even had the personal courage to go on a nationally popular morning show and submit himself to the worst of all accusations or smears- the crime of being a Christian, when he had faithfully discharged his medical duty for decades.
This, in combination with court cases brought by trans desisters, caused the British Government to call a moratorium on the use of puberty blockers, hormones or surgeries for the under 17s. Everywhere else in the Western world, people were cowed into craven submission. They capitulated without little more than a nod of protest. Of course, there were small numbers of doctors in the field who protested, but it never reached the high percentage level of critical mass to resist the ideology being spread by academia.
Such singular acts of personal medical integrity should be rewarded with medal and knighthoods conferred, but they knew full well walking into it that they were making substantial personal sacrifices and they did it anyway. Whatever you may think of universal healthcare, there can be no doubt that this ethos of public service within the NHS is not rare, it isn't even uncommon. It makes me incredibly proud to be a Brit, even though I play no part in this particular theatre of real life other than to observe and report it.
I am able to think that some Yellow Card cases were missed- to err is human. But I would be very surprised if total underreporting was over 20%, and still somewhat surprised if it was over 10%. Less than 1,000 deaths from vaccination at the upper limit, simply doesn't compare to the lives saved by vaccinated. Over course the media has switched to reporting case numbers for their scaremongering, but the fact remains that daily deaths have flatlined since the vaccination, and whilst natural immunity might get you a little part of the way to explaining the dramatic falls, it simply doesn't explain the tens of thousands of remaining lives saved through vaccination. One only has to look at the trendlines on worldometer for the UK to see the truth of it- at the daily death level.
Of course, I still completely agree with you on the subject of the efficacy of vaccinations in preventing virus spread- and you should look to my arguments on the matter elsewhere in this thread. Personally, I find the prospect of mandatory vaccination, force or coercion of any kind morally reprehensible and hinged upon a deeply flawed argument. So my views don't impinge upon your personal choices.
When we were going crazy in the west witnessing the most egregious imagery and fear inducing narrative of Covid whipped hysteria, my wife who was busy chatting merrily with friends in Thailand Covered the phone and in hushed tones and twinkling eyes informed me that Thailand had adopted their version of a reaction. They were locking down overnight.- As she told it.- No social mixing between 10pm -5am.
Thanks Ray. I enjoyed the experience. I believe I'm allied in perspective of consideration most closely with yourself and Geary, perhaps Louise (Possum).
It's amazing jumping into QC compared to FV as one is challenged almost constantly. One has to think a little harder. I prefer the adjustment of being centralised otherwise I am likely to collectivise more and more to the right. The psychology of the narrative is immensely identity based now and biases particularly pronounced. I come at it from a humanitarian perspective, not a political one.- It helps rationality.
I was actually very proud of you Ray. Is that wrong to use "pride" in another in such a way? I think not. We each have biases, but you used integrity and honesty in a very neutral sense and gave the appropriate concessions that we must include in our arguments to give any credibility to ourselves. We must recognise that people are basically the same and attempt always some common ground.
Did you know that some wonderful soul contributed 200$ to Stephanie very recently?
> It's amazing jumping into QC compared to FV as one is challenged almost constantly.
Mornin' Spencer:
It was sorta predictable that the Rebel Alliance would become an echo chamber. QC ... we hobble along, still I'd like more diversity of opinion and I'll never stop wanting you back. You have that magical trait: self-awareness.
As for Steph, we dolphins are always ready to help.
I don't think so- Scotland really was at the top of the league tables in Europe for violence, and was- the last time I checked- near the bottom. Of course, when I say violent crime (I wish I could write a phonic Scottish 'merrderr' here), I mean deaths from violence, as opposed to the incredible high numbers of fights and punch-ups from drinking, that seem a national sports for all Brits.
Haha I meant calling Scotland a country. I would call the UK and Germany countries. I’d call Scotland a semi-autonomous region within the country of the United Kingdom.
Well, they they of themselves as a country :) From the Grauniad 'So England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are the 4 constituent countries (nations) of the country (state) known as the United Kingdom.' But you are correct, they are a nation not officially recognised by the UN. They are, however, often recognised as a separate nation for data gathering purposes- such as in relation to violent crime figures and their relative position in Europe- so academically, one might call them a country.
The war ON drugs has become a war With Drugs, er, genetic manipulation. When your government and a criminal outfit like Pzizer decide it's okay to make you take something you might not want, then we are in a fascistic and utterly dystopian society. And it appears that the powerful professional and managerial class is okay with that. They will regret it.
So will the Democratic Party. Politicians never ask how much people care about a particular issue in their polls. It's a major oversight. The number of voters within their block who are strongly against vaccines (9%)- a large portion of whom are African Americans- will be telling in the midterms. Almost as harmful as their school closure policy- usually Dems score in the positive twenties on education, during the Obama years this rose to 29%- now they are down to single digit positive and declining.
Not really- as I amply demonstrated from authoritative sources like the WHO vaccination isn't particularly effective at preventing virus spread since Delta reared it's ugly head, although double vaccination is very good at reducing personal risk. Early on in the pandemic, I went on Covid risk calculating site provided by either Oxford or Cambridge. I am 48, male and overweight- at the time my personal risks were around 1 in 16,000. Since then I have been double vaccinated with Moderna, which cuts my odds of death to under 1 in 160,000. How many under thirties in America do you think know that their personal risks are about 1 in 600,000? I know this because this is the risk for an adverse reaction from Astra Zeneca, and the reason why the British government decided to opt for Moderna or Pfizer for the under thirties- because they couldn't justify the increased risk to young peoples lives unless they switched to much safer vaccines...
I respect your right to your opinion, and hope you will continue to read my work- but unlike most of the rest of the developed world's experts- American Public Health persists in propagating the incorrect notion that breakthrough cases are rare- which is partly due to the fact that the American government has continuously failed to provide cheap self-testing lateral flow tests as a precursor to PCR tests. Our lateral flow tests are free to pick up from any pharmacy. We deliver 1 million to homes each day and give away 10 million a week. The tests come in seven day packs.
As a consequence, we have picked up a huge number of asymptomatic and very mild cases which are weighted specifically towards the vaccinated. Believe it or not, this is actually a ringing endorsement of vaccination as a means of individual protection. You should follow Breaking Points on YouTube- their coverage on this subject has been excellent- a marked contrast to the corporate media who know their pay checks come from needlessly scaring people.
Of course, you are somewhat right in relation to hospital capacity issue- it is an unfolding tragedy that so many people mistrust American media and institutions to the extent that many have needlessly died. However, none of these institutional forces, whether in media or Public Health, have exactly covered themselves in glory since the start of the pandemic. In the UK our media has been alarmist in the main, but at least our Public Health opted for an honest warts-n-all approach so that anyone who was dubious could check the raw data.
As a consequence, we had one of the highest vaccine uptake rates in the world. However, as soon as our government started threatening young people with vaccine passports which meant that they couldn't go to club unless they were vaccinated, vaccine support dropped through the floor. We had a rate of vaccine uptake well over 90% for vaccination amongst adults, which dropped to just over 50% with the booster program.
Unlike many Americans we believe that government can and should help societies most vulnerable, We were the first in the world to offer our citizens universal healthcare and we are immensely proud of this fact. However, when it comes to civic libertarianism we are perhaps even more fierce in our believe that government should never use force or coercion against its citizens unless they are harming other citizens. With the inability of vaccination to stop, and perhaps only slightly slow, virus spread since Delta there really is no case for coercion with vaccinations.
Omicron is even worse in terms of its inability to prevent virus spread, but thankfully it is a much, much milder variant of the virus. Although our cases numbers have exploded, we have seen only a modest increase in hospitalisations, almost no increase in the use of mechanical ventilators and ICUs and daily deaths have only risen slightly. This mirrors the experience of South Africa where case numbers mushrooms but deaths and hospitalisations failed to rise beyond modest increases.
All of this mirrored the advice McKinsey gave America's business, finance and insurance industry as early as October of last year. Their advice was that it was increasingly likely that the most likely route out of the pandemic was through Covid becoming endemic. Although we may experience a slightly rocky road in the transition it is looking increasingly likely that omicron may be the perfect vehicle for wiping out the far more serious Delta variant. There is every indication that we may be seeing the end of the pandemic, although in order to be responsible I should state that it is still a little premature to claim this categorically.
It looks as though this may be the last time our hospitals will be put under heavy pressure from Covid, but obvious we will continue to experience the virus as a serious seasonal flu for at least a couple of years and possibly indefinitely. I hope I have done my best to allay you fears. But if not, here is an article from Bloomberg which basically says the same thing:
Just a niggle; I’m not sure very many people in America object to protecting the most vulnerable, unless you are referring to Democrat policies at state and federal level which resulted in massive death among our elderly and otherwise compromised.
I appreciate your perspective and evident research.
Well, there is a distinction here as to people's perceptions of their own personal risk. Public Health handled it poorly from the start. There was early work done by German geneticists which showed strong links between Neanderthal DNA and Covid resistance. Basically, they found that there were lots of segments of Neanderthal conferred resistance, but there was one sequence which basically meant that you could be Jocko Willink and you were going to hospital, and if you were at all unfit or overweight and over forty you would likely die. Most Europeans have between 2% and 7% Neanderthal DNA and it also prevalent in East Asians, but slightly less so in South Asians.
Neanderthal DNA is absent in African ancestry groups (apart from other groups in their ancestral tree). It's why the per capita death rate for Black British demographics was 300%, although to be fair around 20% of this can be attributed to socio-economics and urban grouping. Vitamin D deficiency was also a significant factor.
My point would be that most Americans simply didn't know that they were subject to a genetic lottery and the fact that this wasn't more broadly known or publicised continues to be matter of personal tragedy. I continue to believe that if more Americans been furnished with this knowledge, many more would have taken the personal decision to get the vaccines. It's not a failing confined to the CDC- many Public Health agencies around the world failed to promote and publicise this all important knowledge. They missed a golden opportunity and I really don't understand why this information wasn't made more available to the public.
It could possibly be because there might have been a rush in demand for genetic tests- which was currently deployed in other types of testing- however, this is tenuous theory at best- 'Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.'- Hanlon's razor.
You're not going to "most likely die" if you're "unfit or overweight and over forty}. The data is very clear that most survive. The mortality rate of select hospitalized Covid-19 patients in the U.S. dropped from 11.4% in March to below 5% in June
Sorry, perhaps I wasn't being clear. I only meant that in the context of if you had the specific and rare strand of Neanderthal DNA which massively increased risk of hospitalisation and death. That's why I called it a genetic lottery. It's also the primary reason why African ancestry groups were hospitalised and/or died at a rate 300% higher than whites per capita- there were dozens of segments of Neanderthal DNA which were beneficial to Covid inbuilt resistance- there was just the one segment which was a major, major liability.
African ancestry groups have no Neanderthal DNA- apart from through mixing with other groups- hence the higher death rate.
Untrue. Much of the so called overwhelming us due to staff shortages caused by a number of factors including dumping last year’s heros for not taking the experimental jab(a).
Great point, although I believe your loss of hospital staff through mandatory vaccination was slightly lower than in our social care sector, where the figure was 3%. Thankfully our government decided to defer the mandates for medical staff until after Easter. The other huge factor in our NHS has been staff absence through Covid. Unlike omicron this really does have the potential to turn into a major crisis.
To give you an idea of the impact of lost staff through forced vaccination, labour is like any other commodity- a 2% change in supply represents a major and substantive disruption. It's one of the reasons why many business interests were so keen on Tesla never succeeding- only a 2% fall in the demand for oil globally, could have led to a major collapse in oil prices, only getting worse as EVs increase market penetration.
I largely agree on this point, so you'll get no argument from me. However, many countries are falling to disclose that omicron is much, much less serious than Delta. Obviously the age demographics and obesity rates of European and other Western countries are somewhat different- but in South Africa the hospitalisation rate relative to Delta was 15% and the death rate relative to Delta was 3%. Most UK hospitalisation have been much milder and shorter with Omicron than with Delta, which is reflected in only a slight increase in the use of ventilators.
Yes, and every year we hear about hospitals being overrun, yet government controls how many hospitals are "allowed" to exist, and of course regulates the medical system so much that alternative are hard to find.
Why don't they just build field hospitals for Covid patients to keep them out of the routine care system? Who limits how many hospitals are allowed in any given area?
I hate to disagree with you here, mate- but Dry Paint is essentially correct on the fact the trained medical staff is the key limiting capacity. In the UK, we refurbed and built a load of Nightingale Hospitals at huge expense to the taxpayer- which then largely stood vacant because of a lack of trained medical personnel. You are right- government is bloody useless- but just not in the way you think in this instance.
Of course, the situation is somewhat different is the US. The US armed forces maintain a large medical workforce during peacetime, whereas although we maintain the Royal Army Medical Corps, most of our wartime medical capacity is driven by reserves. So the possibility of field hospitals may be situational by country.
No worries about disagreeing since so much of my writings are musings.
Field hospitals are a way to create more beds. It seems MOST (a vast majority?) Covid infections don't require specialized care, and in fact, perhaps during a pandemic, you don't have a right to such care any more than you would after a major earthquake or war-time attack? Being overwhelmed during an emergency doesn't mean you have to harm everyone to try to avoid that (and fail as we hear with hospitals being overrun again), but rather those who get sick are triaged and not given the best possible care at any expense.
How many Covid patients even paid for their treatments? Zero?
And my point on trained medical staff is ENTIRELY the result of government licensing and restrictions. They do not allow for much competitive medical care, drug treatments, or even building of hospitals. At least here, you have to prove other hospitals won't suffer if you try to enter and compete? That's anti-competitive and reduces supply. Same with licensing that restricts new entrants. I'd bet your lack of trained medical personnel is a direct result of laws that preclude who can practice, who can get into medical schools, and how much they can be paid, etc.
I agree with most of your points, other than in relation to doctors. People need to be at least in the top 2% to become competent doctors. I was only told this second hand and wasn't furnished with source material- but a user on another forum told me the further that one goes below the basic requirement for MCAT scores the higher the likelihood of future medical malpractice.
Of course, this doesn't mean you're wrong about the licensing being a gimmick, but more that there is a very limited pool for people who are capable- plus, those at the very top end of cognitive spectrum tend to have a plethora of pretty decent future career choices. More should be done to make sure that of this type don't fall through to cracks, or end up doing jobs beneath their capabilities.
Years ago in the UK we had a train driver who won Mastermind. What a waste of raw talent!
True, but to care for a person with Covid doesn't require you be the sharpest person in the world. In fact, most doctors and medical personnel are just practitioners, not scientists.
Nobody at Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Tesla, Oracle, IBM, etc. need to be licensed and they have accomplished so much that affects our world. Same for all government workers and politicians.
We will have to agree to disagree on this one. The major issue is diagnostics and prescriptions. If you don't look at the totality of symptoms and order the right tests people can die. Doctors also have to be very careful about drug interactions, and how specific side effects from a drug will effect a particular condition.
The average doctor has to be smarter than the average coder or engineer, although obviously if the software engineer is working at the structural level and earning $250K then they are going to be smarter than most doctors other than surgeons and a few specialisms.
Surgeons have the highest average IQ of any profession- with the possible exception of higher level mathematicians and physicists- insufficient distinction is made between grad students and research assistants in these fields and theoreticians proper.
The problem I now have with respect to Covid (you are right about the War on Drugs, and I think any non-war "war" terminology is absurd, just like our "non-war" stance on actual wars as police actions), is that can we trust any of the data we've seen?
It is now clear that cases, hospitalization and deaths related to Covid are all suspect. We know about tests finding Covid through many PCR rounds, and then we call them asymptomatic, but still suggest the person is "infected." Fauci just pointed out that children in hospitals with Covid is different from being hospitalized because of Covid. Clearly that applies to all hospitalization stats, not just for children. And that was pointed out before with respect to deaths, the "from/with" issue.
If we don't know the actual numbers, how do we know how much better/worse any mediation is? We still don't even know if it's true that you have a 1% chance of dying from Covid pre-vaccines if found to test positive or not, but it does imply that 99% get better anyway. If a risk is low, then a higher risk will sound much worse than it is.
The NYTimes says 835,000 have died from Covid in the US. That's over two years, so effectively 417,500 deaths per year. In a population of 330 million, the overall chance is just 0.1% But they also claim 59,400,000 cases (tested positive regardless of being sick or not) in those two years, resulting in 1.4% chance of death per case. But those 59 million cases were detected among 814 million tests given, suggesting people who get tested are only positive 7% of the time, and the chance of death after receiving a Covid test is also 0.1%.
I don't look at the CDC data- it has long since proven completely unreliable. I use the British Yellow Card system, ONS data and a wealth of information once supplied by Public Halth England and recently shifted to the UKHSA. The Israelis have been good- they were the ones who first highlighted myocarditis and pericarditis risks for the young, and a lot of the Danish data has been good as well.
The answer is- if you don't trust your own government, shop elsewhere! Also- don't use Google- they censor everything on Covid- I use DuckDuckGo! on almost everything Covid-related.
So the British data doesn't conflate "with/from" Covid in its numbers? I'm pretty sure it was something like South Africa or Israel that had stories that "from" was anywhere from 25-50% of their reported hospitalizations and deaths, meaning "from" could be much lower than the fearful stories. The US has no such from/with data and therefore this concern didn't come from the CDC.
And if so for your data, what is the rate of death (or even serious illness vs. simple hospitalization) for those who get a test (at costs to others most often)? For those who test positive? And for the general public (who has to get infected first and then die from it) regardless of whether tested or not? I'd be interested. The problem is comparing across countries is tricky if we don't have the same demographics (age, health/obesity/addicts, weather, wealth, density, types of jobs that allow remote work, etc.).
The numbers for the efficacy of masks are equally hard to find. The CDC previously reported a 3% efficacy, which is effectively 0 in a large population. I've heard as high as 10%, but again, how did they really test this? It's not actual science, but some statistical modeling using data that may not be accurate enough. After all, I presume in your country you see masks worn incorrectly routinely, or are ill fitting, or are removed as they lean in to tell you something, including those who now try to use N95 masks with beards or simple ear loops (where the filter isn't even used because air finds it easier to escape out the sides than through the filter).
They do conflate with from from- that is one basic flaw in the data which most countries don't seem to have made the effort to correct for. I largely agree with the rest of you comment, but don't have anything of value to add- apart from the fact that is important to look at all of the data, especially things like excess mortality. Also, much of the autumnal and winter season Covid cases, are traditionally taken up with flu, pneumonia and other respiratory conditions- so there is an extent to which Covid is simply replacing rather than adding.
Well, the PCR testing we did before couldn't really tell the difference between colds, flu and Covid, which may also explain some of that. I've often wondered how one virus can "replace" another, as if there were some coordination between viruses. It's been mentioned this can occur, but unless one virus kills you, it's hard to see how getting infected with one would keep you from getting infected by another unless they are so closely related that our immune response for one helps with the other. I understand the latest PCR test suites do better in teasing out infection types.
Even excess death can be a tricky stat because remediation efforts could have exacerbated matters. Like NY Governor Cuomo forcefully sent sick old people from the hospitals back to nursing homes; hospitals ventilated too quickly early on; border closings forced people from around the world to rush back to their home countries ensuring a pandemic; lockdowns forced people into their homes ensuring local epidemics, with people even being harassed for exercising outside (often alone or in cohabitating groups); children were forced home where they were less likely to help increase herd immunity; mask and vaccine mandates caused people to feel safer than they likely were in terms of spreading the disease; declaring people non-essential and using force and political division likely created resistance that clouded some people's self-interest decision-making; missed cases of child abuse and neglect, and general population depression, anxiety and lack of motivating work and production of useful things; increased drug abuse and perhaps over-eating; people driving instead of flying to avoid Covid risks; people delaying treatments in hospitals (anecdotally my mother-in-law died in 2021 from lymphoma, and she did avoid seeking treatment for a sore stomach because of her fear of Covid); even our focus on "essential" workers meant many old people were sent back to work in grocery stores and other retail businesses despite the massively higher risk for people 50 and older.
It's hard to tease out what helped versus made matters worse, and whether good precautions would have taken place or not without all the authoritarian measures taken (which clearly did not stop the spread, flattened curves, avoid hospital runs, or unite people around a shared tragedy).
What I meant by replace is that natural caution prevented the transmission of many more normal seasonal viruses- it's why we got super colds towards the end of last year- because people had lost their natural immunity. It was also a major contributor to hospitalisations WITH Covid- if you had some other non-viral respiratory condition you were pretty much certain to get Covid after being admitted to hospital.
Not closing down public transport for the duration was a major mistake- the internal dynamics of a cabin under acceleration and deceleration meant it was a uniquely powerful way of spreading the virus.
Interesting. In Seattle, public transportation seemed mostly unused, perhaps because we're more a car-place and our workers tend to be white collar and were able to work from home.
An example of what I mean by data quality is this bit on climate change and the weather. It's not saying climate change isn't real or not, or whether a given storm is worse because of climate change or not, just that the models and projections are only as good as the data itself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqNHdY90StU
Of course the data and imperial college models showed this for Covid predictions quite well.
Yes, I completely agree with you on the models. In the UK we've consistently seen huge overestimates of likely cases, hospitalisations or death. The basic problem is that they hugely overestimate both the vulnerable population and the efficacy of restriction measures. That's what happens when you build assumptions into the front end of a model.
In fairness, medical models you contain worst case scenarios, but why don't they include more middling predictions as well? Because the worst case is what they are asked for- mainly because behavioural economics units wrongly believe scaring people is an effective means of changing behaviour. It does work- at least initially- but repeated usage leads to catastrophe fatigue and fatally undermines trust in institutional integrity.
Anyway, about those assumptions- if you lower the estimates down from the 80% to 90% of those perceived as vulnerable built into most models and instead insert a range of between 20% and 30% then the models almost exactly match what occurs in the real world data. Some of this is doubtless behavioural, but they also drastically underestimate the levels of non-antibody resistance within the population.
Geary, good thing your blog isn't called The Omicron Inflection.
Just wait until we get to the end of the Greek Alphabet after several more variants…
Theta omicron delta- 2029!
If we do get an Omega Variant, you can rename your site “The Omega Infection.”
I'm reminded of Robert Anton Wilson's line - they'll beg for the whip. The analysis of the psychology of safety and security is spot on.
I think what may be worth considering is responsibility and particularly responsibility to one's fellow citizens. To live in a society engenders not only the means to enjoy benefits not normally available to those outside society but also an acceptance of the curtailment of certain freedoms. This would include curtailment of freedoms which impinge on others freedoms. It might be stating the obvious but this aspect has been lost in the debate about COVID. Government exists to regulate societies and determine standards or laws which govern certain aspects of behaviour. It also needs to establish methods of compulsion and how frequently and severely they are applied. Government may seem onerous at times and heavy handed but none of the alternatives come anywhere near being as effective for ensuring a society functions.
Of course people have rights but it must be remembered that these rights are contingent on not impinging on others' rights. Thus the right not to wear a mask is fine as long as it doesn't lead to another person becoming infected with a potentially deadly disease. This applies to vaccination as well. It may well be that vaccination is not the panacea it is often made out to be but it HELPS. All these measures help in reducing risk of disease transmission and in risk management this is sometimes the best you can manage. The reason the disease continues to spread is those people who ignore or refuse the precautions. Healthcare professionals in particular have no right to be unvaccinated. They are dealing with ill vulnerable people. Therefore it is their responsibility to ensure that they reduce the risks.
What resistance to COVID vaccination and masks boils down to is selfishness and contraianism. It maskerades as individualism and freedom to choose but for those living in a society these sometimes have to be curtailed for the society to function effectively. This is the sad reality.
I largely agree with your sentiment and argument- up to a point. But most people tended to make the necessary adjustments with the advent of Delta. Up until then there was actually a pretty strong argument that double vaccination protected others, but the dynamics changed for two reasons. First, the effectiveness of vaccines at preventing virus spread dropped precipitously- to around 40% reduced chance of catching and spreading the virus, individually. Second, Delta was significantly more virulent, which is to say more infectious- and it was far more likely to jump previous 'air gaps' and transmit in areas like enclosed spaces, offices and shops regardless of almost all preventative measures in these areas (extremely good ventilation could still mitigate risk).
Unfortunately, there was a significant degree of confusion even amongst relatively informed and intelligent people as to the meaning of the word virulent. Many mistakenly though it meant stronger, when in actuality Delta was substantially milder. No, virulent meant it was all but impossible to contain the spread with the conventional measures which were put in place.
This was the point at which an empirical process of rational decision-making would have switched to advising the most vulnerable to voluntary adopt the policies advocated in the Great Barrington Declaration. It would have saved many more lives and allowed society to function more effectively. Basically anyone over 65 and with even mild comorbidities should have been told to try and limit their contacts with people in enclosed spaces to an absolute minimum indefinitely, or until an even milder variant displaced Delta (as is now happening), and anyone over 50 should have been told the same if their comorbidities indicated higher risk. In many cases the more obese and/or sedentary should have been told in no uncertain terms to go on a diet and exercise more.
This may sound harsh- but it is just facing facts. Most experts knew with the appearance of Delta that there was no conclusion to the pandemic other than Covid becoming endemic. It took McKinsey a while, and they were very careful with their words so they didn't upset people, politically- but they basically reached the conclusion that the pandemic months before they published in October of last year- I doubt you could find a single serious epidemiologist who wouldn't reach this conclusion with Delta, unless they were hopelessly beset by anchor biases.
Think about it- people in these categories could have still lived tolerable lives. They could have still gone out and walked the dog, socialised in the open air and even in some cases worked remotely. They could have entertained family members in gardens, on doorsteps or met in parks. All it would have really meant was that they couldn't meet with people in enclosed spaces if they wanted to their personal mitigate risk- so no visits to the shops at all, no indoor restaurants or working indoors. Such was the sane and rational approach with the advent of Delta.
But the over 65s enjoy an undue level of power and influence in our society. They are far more likely to vote and far more likely to switch parties or not vote if their usual party pisses them off- it's why the Tories in the UK will only abandon the triple lock on pensions in extremis and why no one in America will touch social security- even though our societies are desperately crying out for the redistribution of these resources more towards the young, especially in terms of generating opportunities and in the area of housing.
More importantly, on an collective individual level, in politics, wealth, power, influence, media, culture and almost every important aspect of public life other than in sport, the over 65s are massively overrepresented amongst the great and good. It's why society had such difficulty accepting the vaccines were about as useful as a chocolate fireguard in limiting virus spread, post-Delta. It is also why the unvaccinated were conveniently scapegoated as the main culprits for virus spread. Sure, at an individual level your risks were somewhat increased through contact with an unvaccinated person, but at the group level this wasn't really the case- just look at the wealthy, cosmopolitan areas where almost everyone is vaccinated- their figures on Delta transmission in terms of case numbers are barely different from other areas.
This is where we fundamentally disagree: 'This applies to vaccination as well. It may well be that vaccination is not the panacea it is often made out to be but it HELPS'
With Delta, vaccination only delays, it doesn't stop- in terms of virus spread. In fairness, there are the are exceptions- those already shielding in the manner prescribed by the Great Barrington Declaration who cohabit with family members, but I imagine we are talking about a tiny minority of the population. Of course, in some ways you are right- with the appearance of omicron we now have a much, much milder variant of the virus which will greatly improve the chances of survivability for the elderly or serous comorbid over fifties if they are fully vaccinated.
In many ways I should be agreeing with you- on a personal level. I cohabit with my mother- she is elderly, arthritic and somewhat senile but still functional. I am her primary caregiver. She is also on methotrexate for her arthritis, so she is somewhat immunosuppressed. I am one of the rare few who stands to benefit somewhat in terms of risks to her.
You see, we agree on the issue of social duty. It's why I was strongly in favour of vaccination as a means of protecting others pre-Delta, and remain so in terms of mitigating personal risk and reducing the burden on health services. But most people haven't looked at the differences between Delta and the previous variants. Many lack the Maths, or don't really understand human variability in terms of nodes and networks, or the high degree of risk that occurs with only two degrees of separation.
You may trust everyone you know in terms of behaving with natural caution, even when vaccinated. But what about the people they know? Do we really expect all of them to never go to crowded clubs, pubs and restaurants- or not work in retail, services, hospitality, production or warehouse distribution. This would have been the level of restriction required to protect the vulnerable IN ADDITION to 100% vaccinated- with the leakiness of the vaccines. I agree that with vaccines they still delay the virus, and they still offer an order of magnitude of protection from personal risk compared to the unvaccinated- but they don't really help in terms of ultimately reducing virus spread to the vulnerable- not over time and excepting a tiny portion of the population.
Governments should have advised switching to the Great Barrington Declaration within months of the appearance of Delta- but they simply couldn't, because it would have killed them politically, and many had already shopped for exactly the types of advisors who would shield them persisting with an incorrect narrative. I don't assign malign intent- self-deception and anchor biases can very often be a collective effort, given Pournelle's Law, but the fact is that advising the Great Barrington Declaration would have saved many more lives than persisting in the fiction that vaccines substantially limit virus spread with the advent of Delta.
These are the cold hard facts as I see them. We agree on the social duty aspect- but simply differ on who should have been asked to limit their liberty, in purely utilitarian (rather than ethical) terms.
I rather think your points are better applied to omicron. There the case you make is unanswerable but look at the reaction of governments. The South African medical experts who have more experience with the variant were basically ignored. In Japan, the government shut down all access into the country (it didn't work, the disease got in anyway). A case could be made for Delta being a real threat but not omicron and here we see the fear-mongering in full flow.
It's not that I don't think vaccines are a good thing, simply that any type of restriction placed on individuals who don't vaccinate is inhumane. Let's drill down to the detail level- many healthcare workers including doctors don't want to have vaccines because they have existing natural immunity which is considerably superior and longer-lasting than vaccinations.
Of course, there is an obvious argument that vaccination then infection is desirable, but the reverse is not true- for the simple reason that the added benefit of vaccination post-infection is very small, and we know that each subsequent exposure increases risks of side effects. it's common sense- high proportions of people experience of stronger reactions from subsequent vaccinations, and where there are small effect there are larger ones.
The second category is people with medical conditions which make vaccination inadvisable. This group may be small but not as small as many think. But no attempted mandate policies make distinctions on either of these fronts. In both cases the argument is stronger that the risks to the individual are higher than to society at large.
And this is why- if we assume a steady state with Delta and no appearance of omicron, then everyone was going to get exposed at some point within two years of Delta's emergence, unless they sequestered themselves in a log cabin for the duration. Even they they would face exposure upon re-entry to society, as we've already established that the chances of the pandemic becoming endemic were pretty much 100%, as we've already established- with Delta becoming much like seasonal flu, and with people's B and T cell immunity and natural immunity making the pathogen far less serious.
Plus, Delta wasn't as deadly as the original variant even though it was more virulent and spread more widely. And as we've already established most of the deaths were amongst the unvaccinated, and the costs to society within the vaccinated group certainly less than allowing people to use roads, or any number of activities which were previously everyday.
There is no argument which states that individuals in society have a responsibility to protect people who refuse to take responsible action. Quite the reverse- apart from very tightly constrained circumstances the State has absolutely no right whatsoever to intervene on behalf of the individual to save their health for their own sake.
To do so would concede that religious people have no right to refuse treatment on religious grounds- an absolute obscenity in terms of moral principles.
There's a lot of sound argument here but one or two points need further discussion. I note you're discussing the issue from an individuals point of view which is appropriate but doesn't seem to take into account how an individual's behaviour impacts on other separate individuals rights. The natural immunity argument is also scary - it does not preclude being a carrier. I don't believe any responsible medical institution can allow unvaccinated staff near patients. It may be a measure of compulsion is necessary but a responsible individual should take all available measures to protect those under their care. In certain situations individual rights need to be overridden. This is the only situation where I would argue for mandatory vaccination and precisely because of the unique nature of the environment.
My other thought relates to the numbers you quote. Indeed the bare probability is low but one cannot plan on that basis. One has to plan on the basis that the person next to one is highly infectious because the random factor needs to be taken into account. In fact, it is so random that one might be justified in allocating a higher risk factor than near numbers would suggest.
Here's my point in a nutshell. Vaccination reduces virus spread but not by much. However, the really salient point is that per capita of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated 90% of deaths which the unvaccinated inflict are amongst other unvaccinated- so whilst you may want to condemn the unvaccinated, what you are really witnessing is a very harsh and perverse sense of poetic justice.
Do you see the fallacy the media and public health are engaging in? They are, in the vast majority of instances peddling two mutually exclusive statements. First, they care that the unvaccinated are spreading the virus to the unvaccinated. Then they care about the death numbers, who are also, per capita, unvaccinated. It's insane, and fundamentally gulling a public not trained in Bayesian thinking.
Plus, even early on with Delta in the UK we knew that the average age of death of double vaccinated Delta patient was 85, and this was with a vaccine program based mainly on the somewhat inferior AZ vaccine. It's like Christ, how many more years do you want these already chronically medically compromised patients to live? Let the poor fuckers die in peace, with their families by their bedside.
No. The real motive behind all this is that Government has taken the responsibility upon itself to save its supposedly ignorant citizens for itself. Don't get me wrong- people should get vaccinated- but the best approach to doing this full disclosure of the facts- warts-n-all information which acknowledges the admittedly rare instances of side effects.
But they won't do this for a couple of reasons. First, liability issues- it would require court cases in the public spotlight and a small corporate bailout- because although many would probably take the NDA, there would be others who wanted to powers that be to pay in an entirely different fashion, especially when we consider that the Israelis information tells us that the rate of myocarditis amongst the under 25s is somewhere between 1 in 6,000 and 1 in 10,000, and we know that people are far less likely to take huge settlements when it comes to the deaths of their own kids.
The unvaccinated might have been an incredibly tiny increased risk to the vaccinated, but the real truth is that they needed a scapegoat for why case numbers were still high, when they had told everyone that the vaccines would stop the pandemic in its tracks. Setting aside the individual increased risk of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, you do realise that if you look at the proportions of people vaccinated vs. unvaccinated then roughly half of all virus spread with Delta in the US comes from the vaccinated?
The problem is most people haven't read the WHO advisory, and even if they did, they would be too lazy to do the Maths...
Vax 60% x 0.6*= 36
Unvax 40% x 1.0 = 40
* Reduced chance of Delta spread through vaccination.
Figures relate to the relative percentage of the American people vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Ive positioned it for myself as a risk management decision. Which is why I rail against rules that restrict activities like going to my gym when Ive taken the precautions and will live with the outcome Im comfortable with. Assuming we have the real story / inputs which I think we dont fully have. That is my biggest concern about government- you need good inputs to make good decisions.
The sad reality is that you are woefully ignorant as are most jabbers. mRNA jabs are NOT vaccines, at least not until the goalposts were moved and the definition changed. They are experimental treatments, nothing more. You are incredibly selfish to ask that that a handful of clueless bureaucrats are allowed to risk the deaths of many because they can't even collect accurate data. Your hero Fauci killed tens of thousands during the AIDS crisis and he has killed hundreds of thousands with his opposition to safe and effective treatments. The jabs are NOT safe. The evidence is becoming more and more clear everyday. You're living in a fantasy world. The jabs kill but you and the clown you call a president as well as the medical establishment deny their danger. They are now proving to create long term medical issues as well as causing numerous deaths. The reason the disease continues to spread is because of naive individuals like you. Even the CDC now admits jabbers like you are just as likely to spread Sars-2 as the unjabbed. The only masks that are of any significant value in reducing transmission are N-95s or equivalent IF worn properly.
I think the point is being missed. My aim was to highlight social responsibility and society and how these have an impact on the issue.
There are also a lot of red herrings and assumptions in your post. I'm not sure why you reference Faucci - I certainly didn't. You also mention President Biden (at least I assume you think I'm American). Not relevant at all.
I am interested in your statement that decisions are being taken by a handful of clueless bureaucrats. Can you perhaps expand on this (minus the invective of course)?
It is not socially responsible for a free citizen to be a sheep. Science does not support the mask foolishness and the risk/reward of the experimental mRNA therapeutic is inconclusive at best. There is no social responsibility to fall in line.
Living in Japan (as one does) I can observe a mask policy operating at first hand. Almost everyone wears masks in public and in confined spaces. The upshot is Japan has a lower infection rate than all of the other G7 countries. It is one of the measures which can be used very effectively to help protect against COVID. It's not the only one - there is no magic bullet here. Most people are vaccinated here which is another effective measure. The vaccines reduce the chance of infection which is good because the healthcare system is inadequate and the bureaucracy mediocre in the extreme.
There is a lot of rubbish out there on both sides of the argument. But, as I mentioned, in risk management, it is wise to take measures to reduce risks even if you can't eliminate them entirely. Masks are part of the physical protection regime even though they are a PITA. Social pressure ensures they are worn in sufficient quantity to have an effect. It should have occurred to you though that this is not an ordinary virus and as a result requires something a bit extra and multi-pronged to defeat it.
Observing people on both sides of the argument I have noted two salient points. The people who refuse to wear masks and get vaccinated are mostly selfish and manufacture all sorts of excuses to hide this basic fact. The people who advocate lockdowns and stricter measures are mostly closet authoritarians. Some people like to poke their noses into other peoples business.
It is socially irresponsible not to take measures to prevent yourself becoming infected and spreading the disease. You (general not specific you) don't have the right to determine other peoples' fate which can happen when you refuse to wear a mask or be vaccinated. Remember a lot of infection is passed on by the asymptomatic.
I hope you look to see my argument on the use of vaccines to promote the reduction of personal risk. I wouldn't want to be accused of being partisan on this subject. For the truly heterodox, that is the worst of all sins.
Look, although this comment wasn't addressed specifically to me, I think I am going to have to jump in here, in the interests of nuance and friendly discussion. I agree that the 'vaccines' aren't completely safe and we simply don't know enough about long-term risk, and this is one of those known unknowns which should have been weighed in the balance in the decision-making process.
There is also a strong argument to be made that we really though have thought twice about vaccinating anyone under the age of thirty, for the simple reason that if they are healthy their risks are only about 1 in 600,000 and compared to the known unknown factor we shouldn't have taken the gamble, In particular, there is stronger evidence to suggest that no one under 25 and healthy should have been vaccinated at all- given the substantially increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis below this threshold- which reliable Israelis sources have claimed are between 1 in 6,000 and 1 in 10,000, and subsequent studies have shown to be around the 80 per million ballpark.
There is also a good argument to made for the thirties age range- if we are talking about people who exercise on a regular basis, are not overweight, and fully dose up with vitamin D, given the now established link between vitamin D deficiency and hospitalisation.
But the risk reward ratio for anyone over forty supports double vaccination, even if we don't yet have enough data on the subject of boosters. I am 48, overweight (foodie and copious single malt drinker), male and white, which when crunched through a Covid calculator (helpfully provided by either Oxford or Cambridge, about six months into the pandemic) gives me about a 1 in 16,000 chance of death from Covid. With vaccination this risk falls to 1 in 160,000- so I am willing to weigh that risk against potential side effects and unknown future risks. That was my personal choice.
But at the same time I think there is the potential to fall down to rabbit hole when looking at sources like VAERS. First, we need apply the same ruthless logic to side effects as we do to claims of Long Covid and the difference between death FROM Covid or WITH Covid. To do otherwise would imply we are operating with exactly the same anchor biases we accuse those who still promote the narrative that vaccination substantially protects others.
First, how many of the cases on VAERS were serious, how many less so? Second, vaccination is a stressing agent which can provoke a pre-existing condition to emerge. This was the basic mistake that parents made when claiming the MMR vaccine caused autism- with the understandable layperson's mistake of attributing a 1 in 3.000 chance of triggering a fit and linking this, incorrectly, to a condition which already existed. So for example- somebody might have a pre-existing heart condition which is a ticking time bomb. The minor stress of vaccination (particularly the second one) would likely bring this condition to the fore- the reality is that person could have died or been rushed to hospital through the simply mechanism of eating a particularly rich meal over the course of the last couple of days and then trying to climb the stairs.
Look, I get you don't trust you government. I don't trust your government. Between the lies both Fauci and Trump told their performance has been piss poor and hardly worthy of trust. But let's look at the most extreme sources who have used the Yellow Card system data in the UK (which I believe make several errors in their analysis of data). One is UK Column. The Times has dismissed them as rapid anti-vaxxers, but I will suspend judgement for the moment.
They claim that there have been a total of 1,913 deaths from vaccination. Of these 1,176 are claimed as being from AZ, 24 from Moderna, 676 from Pfizer and 37 unspecified. Even if we credit all of these claims as plausible and dismiss none of them, then this would tend to argue for vaccination for anyone 40- because of the reduced risk from Covid death itself beyond this threshold. Now, I know where mind will naturally go- what about unreported cases- and I might agree with you apart from for one single fact.
The Tavistock Clinic. Medical professional after medical professional resigned from the clinic and made their concerns known to public about the treatment of transgender children- the fact that insufficient time was spent in the clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and the premature use of puberty blockers and premature gender reassignment surgeries and what has elsewhere become the almost universal usage of gender affirmation without even the most limited clinical diagnosis.
Dozens resigned in a multi-site which only employs 500 people, many of whom are non-medical personal. Many, many others raised internal concerns, both vocally and in writing, despite knowing that it would seriously compromise their future prospects. The first group sacrificed what were quite often lucrative six figure sterling salaries, as well as limiting the pension accrual which occurs substantially in the later years of a pensions term.
They stood against the loss of reputation in the polite affluent circles which support gender ideology, they sacrificed their careers and good names (at least temporarily), they knew full well they would be subject to the personal vilification, attacks and occasional death threats of activists. They knew those who insist upon everyone announcing their gender pronouns, would hound them to whichever workplace they settled, hassling their employer until they sacked them. But they did it anyway- all because of their concern that kids presenting themselves as transgender might not be- which when puberty is allowed to take its course, amounts to between 65% and 90% of cases.
It was a singular act of personal bravery and courage not seen anywhere else in the medical establishments of the Western world. One thirty year clinician even had the personal courage to go on a nationally popular morning show and submit himself to the worst of all accusations or smears- the crime of being a Christian, when he had faithfully discharged his medical duty for decades.
This, in combination with court cases brought by trans desisters, caused the British Government to call a moratorium on the use of puberty blockers, hormones or surgeries for the under 17s. Everywhere else in the Western world, people were cowed into craven submission. They capitulated without little more than a nod of protest. Of course, there were small numbers of doctors in the field who protested, but it never reached the high percentage level of critical mass to resist the ideology being spread by academia.
Such singular acts of personal medical integrity should be rewarded with medal and knighthoods conferred, but they knew full well walking into it that they were making substantial personal sacrifices and they did it anyway. Whatever you may think of universal healthcare, there can be no doubt that this ethos of public service within the NHS is not rare, it isn't even uncommon. It makes me incredibly proud to be a Brit, even though I play no part in this particular theatre of real life other than to observe and report it.
I am able to think that some Yellow Card cases were missed- to err is human. But I would be very surprised if total underreporting was over 20%, and still somewhat surprised if it was over 10%. Less than 1,000 deaths from vaccination at the upper limit, simply doesn't compare to the lives saved by vaccinated. Over course the media has switched to reporting case numbers for their scaremongering, but the fact remains that daily deaths have flatlined since the vaccination, and whilst natural immunity might get you a little part of the way to explaining the dramatic falls, it simply doesn't explain the tens of thousands of remaining lives saved through vaccination. One only has to look at the trendlines on worldometer for the UK to see the truth of it- at the daily death level.
Of course, I still completely agree with you on the subject of the efficacy of vaccinations in preventing virus spread- and you should look to my arguments on the matter elsewhere in this thread. Personally, I find the prospect of mandatory vaccination, force or coercion of any kind morally reprehensible and hinged upon a deeply flawed argument. So my views don't impinge upon your personal choices.
Cool one Geary.
When we were going crazy in the west witnessing the most egregious imagery and fear inducing narrative of Covid whipped hysteria, my wife who was busy chatting merrily with friends in Thailand Covered the phone and in hushed tones and twinkling eyes informed me that Thailand had adopted their version of a reaction. They were locking down overnight.- As she told it.- No social mixing between 10pm -5am.
So much for Thailand's hospitality and tourism sectors, then!
Yes and some 10% of their GDP comes directly from tourism. It filters well into the lower socio-economic group.
Hi Miya! Missing you over on QC.
Thanks Ray. I enjoyed the experience. I believe I'm allied in perspective of consideration most closely with yourself and Geary, perhaps Louise (Possum).
It's amazing jumping into QC compared to FV as one is challenged almost constantly. One has to think a little harder. I prefer the adjustment of being centralised otherwise I am likely to collectivise more and more to the right. The psychology of the narrative is immensely identity based now and biases particularly pronounced. I come at it from a humanitarian perspective, not a political one.- It helps rationality.
I was actually very proud of you Ray. Is that wrong to use "pride" in another in such a way? I think not. We each have biases, but you used integrity and honesty in a very neutral sense and gave the appropriate concessions that we must include in our arguments to give any credibility to ourselves. We must recognise that people are basically the same and attempt always some common ground.
Did you know that some wonderful soul contributed 200$ to Stephanie very recently?
X.
> It's amazing jumping into QC compared to FV as one is challenged almost constantly.
Mornin' Spencer:
It was sorta predictable that the Rebel Alliance would become an echo chamber. QC ... we hobble along, still I'd like more diversity of opinion and I'll never stop wanting you back. You have that magical trait: self-awareness.
As for Steph, we dolphins are always ready to help.
Phew! OutSTANDING, Sir Geary!
Cheers, and Happy New Year, belatedly.
Likewise, "old chap!"
“ Scotland went from being one of the most violent countries in Europe to one of the least.”
Was that a Freudian skip…?
Sometimes I can't see obvious flaws in my own text.
Me too. I meant Freudian slip not skip.
Lol
I don't think so- Scotland really was at the top of the league tables in Europe for violence, and was- the last time I checked- near the bottom. Of course, when I say violent crime (I wish I could write a phonic Scottish 'merrderr' here), I mean deaths from violence, as opposed to the incredible high numbers of fights and punch-ups from drinking, that seem a national sports for all Brits.
Haha I meant calling Scotland a country. I would call the UK and Germany countries. I’d call Scotland a semi-autonomous region within the country of the United Kingdom.
Well, they they of themselves as a country :) From the Grauniad 'So England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are the 4 constituent countries (nations) of the country (state) known as the United Kingdom.' But you are correct, they are a nation not officially recognised by the UN. They are, however, often recognised as a separate nation for data gathering purposes- such as in relation to violent crime figures and their relative position in Europe- so academically, one might call them a country.
I see
The war ON drugs has become a war With Drugs, er, genetic manipulation. When your government and a criminal outfit like Pzizer decide it's okay to make you take something you might not want, then we are in a fascistic and utterly dystopian society. And it appears that the powerful professional and managerial class is okay with that. They will regret it.
So will the Democratic Party. Politicians never ask how much people care about a particular issue in their polls. It's a major oversight. The number of voters within their block who are strongly against vaccines (9%)- a large portion of whom are African Americans- will be telling in the midterms. Almost as harmful as their school closure policy- usually Dems score in the positive twenties on education, during the Obama years this rose to 29%- now they are down to single digit positive and declining.
Not really- as I amply demonstrated from authoritative sources like the WHO vaccination isn't particularly effective at preventing virus spread since Delta reared it's ugly head, although double vaccination is very good at reducing personal risk. Early on in the pandemic, I went on Covid risk calculating site provided by either Oxford or Cambridge. I am 48, male and overweight- at the time my personal risks were around 1 in 16,000. Since then I have been double vaccinated with Moderna, which cuts my odds of death to under 1 in 160,000. How many under thirties in America do you think know that their personal risks are about 1 in 600,000? I know this because this is the risk for an adverse reaction from Astra Zeneca, and the reason why the British government decided to opt for Moderna or Pfizer for the under thirties- because they couldn't justify the increased risk to young peoples lives unless they switched to much safer vaccines...
I respect your right to your opinion, and hope you will continue to read my work- but unlike most of the rest of the developed world's experts- American Public Health persists in propagating the incorrect notion that breakthrough cases are rare- which is partly due to the fact that the American government has continuously failed to provide cheap self-testing lateral flow tests as a precursor to PCR tests. Our lateral flow tests are free to pick up from any pharmacy. We deliver 1 million to homes each day and give away 10 million a week. The tests come in seven day packs.
As a consequence, we have picked up a huge number of asymptomatic and very mild cases which are weighted specifically towards the vaccinated. Believe it or not, this is actually a ringing endorsement of vaccination as a means of individual protection. You should follow Breaking Points on YouTube- their coverage on this subject has been excellent- a marked contrast to the corporate media who know their pay checks come from needlessly scaring people.
Of course, you are somewhat right in relation to hospital capacity issue- it is an unfolding tragedy that so many people mistrust American media and institutions to the extent that many have needlessly died. However, none of these institutional forces, whether in media or Public Health, have exactly covered themselves in glory since the start of the pandemic. In the UK our media has been alarmist in the main, but at least our Public Health opted for an honest warts-n-all approach so that anyone who was dubious could check the raw data.
As a consequence, we had one of the highest vaccine uptake rates in the world. However, as soon as our government started threatening young people with vaccine passports which meant that they couldn't go to club unless they were vaccinated, vaccine support dropped through the floor. We had a rate of vaccine uptake well over 90% for vaccination amongst adults, which dropped to just over 50% with the booster program.
Unlike many Americans we believe that government can and should help societies most vulnerable, We were the first in the world to offer our citizens universal healthcare and we are immensely proud of this fact. However, when it comes to civic libertarianism we are perhaps even more fierce in our believe that government should never use force or coercion against its citizens unless they are harming other citizens. With the inability of vaccination to stop, and perhaps only slightly slow, virus spread since Delta there really is no case for coercion with vaccinations.
Omicron is even worse in terms of its inability to prevent virus spread, but thankfully it is a much, much milder variant of the virus. Although our cases numbers have exploded, we have seen only a modest increase in hospitalisations, almost no increase in the use of mechanical ventilators and ICUs and daily deaths have only risen slightly. This mirrors the experience of South Africa where case numbers mushrooms but deaths and hospitalisations failed to rise beyond modest increases.
All of this mirrored the advice McKinsey gave America's business, finance and insurance industry as early as October of last year. Their advice was that it was increasingly likely that the most likely route out of the pandemic was through Covid becoming endemic. Although we may experience a slightly rocky road in the transition it is looking increasingly likely that omicron may be the perfect vehicle for wiping out the far more serious Delta variant. There is every indication that we may be seeing the end of the pandemic, although in order to be responsible I should state that it is still a little premature to claim this categorically.
It looks as though this may be the last time our hospitals will be put under heavy pressure from Covid, but obvious we will continue to experience the virus as a serious seasonal flu for at least a couple of years and possibly indefinitely. I hope I have done my best to allay you fears. But if not, here is an article from Bloomberg which basically says the same thing:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-07/omicron-may-mark-end-of-pandemic-south-african-researchers-say
I hope it gives you peace of mind, and hope you don't take umbrage at my spirited defence of my position.
Just a niggle; I’m not sure very many people in America object to protecting the most vulnerable, unless you are referring to Democrat policies at state and federal level which resulted in massive death among our elderly and otherwise compromised.
I appreciate your perspective and evident research.
Well, there is a distinction here as to people's perceptions of their own personal risk. Public Health handled it poorly from the start. There was early work done by German geneticists which showed strong links between Neanderthal DNA and Covid resistance. Basically, they found that there were lots of segments of Neanderthal conferred resistance, but there was one sequence which basically meant that you could be Jocko Willink and you were going to hospital, and if you were at all unfit or overweight and over forty you would likely die. Most Europeans have between 2% and 7% Neanderthal DNA and it also prevalent in East Asians, but slightly less so in South Asians.
Neanderthal DNA is absent in African ancestry groups (apart from other groups in their ancestral tree). It's why the per capita death rate for Black British demographics was 300%, although to be fair around 20% of this can be attributed to socio-economics and urban grouping. Vitamin D deficiency was also a significant factor.
My point would be that most Americans simply didn't know that they were subject to a genetic lottery and the fact that this wasn't more broadly known or publicised continues to be matter of personal tragedy. I continue to believe that if more Americans been furnished with this knowledge, many more would have taken the personal decision to get the vaccines. It's not a failing confined to the CDC- many Public Health agencies around the world failed to promote and publicise this all important knowledge. They missed a golden opportunity and I really don't understand why this information wasn't made more available to the public.
It could possibly be because there might have been a rush in demand for genetic tests- which was currently deployed in other types of testing- however, this is tenuous theory at best- 'Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.'- Hanlon's razor.
You're not going to "most likely die" if you're "unfit or overweight and over forty}. The data is very clear that most survive. The mortality rate of select hospitalized Covid-19 patients in the U.S. dropped from 11.4% in March to below 5% in June
Sorry, perhaps I wasn't being clear. I only meant that in the context of if you had the specific and rare strand of Neanderthal DNA which massively increased risk of hospitalisation and death. That's why I called it a genetic lottery. It's also the primary reason why African ancestry groups were hospitalised and/or died at a rate 300% higher than whites per capita- there were dozens of segments of Neanderthal DNA which were beneficial to Covid inbuilt resistance- there was just the one segment which was a major, major liability.
African ancestry groups have no Neanderthal DNA- apart from through mixing with other groups- hence the higher death rate.
Untrue. Much of the so called overwhelming us due to staff shortages caused by a number of factors including dumping last year’s heros for not taking the experimental jab(a).
Great point, although I believe your loss of hospital staff through mandatory vaccination was slightly lower than in our social care sector, where the figure was 3%. Thankfully our government decided to defer the mandates for medical staff until after Easter. The other huge factor in our NHS has been staff absence through Covid. Unlike omicron this really does have the potential to turn into a major crisis.
To give you an idea of the impact of lost staff through forced vaccination, labour is like any other commodity- a 2% change in supply represents a major and substantive disruption. It's one of the reasons why many business interests were so keen on Tesla never succeeding- only a 2% fall in the demand for oil globally, could have led to a major collapse in oil prices, only getting worse as EVs increase market penetration.
I largely agree on this point, so you'll get no argument from me. However, many countries are falling to disclose that omicron is much, much less serious than Delta. Obviously the age demographics and obesity rates of European and other Western countries are somewhat different- but in South Africa the hospitalisation rate relative to Delta was 15% and the death rate relative to Delta was 3%. Most UK hospitalisation have been much milder and shorter with Omicron than with Delta, which is reflected in only a slight increase in the use of ventilators.
Yes, and every year we hear about hospitals being overrun, yet government controls how many hospitals are "allowed" to exist, and of course regulates the medical system so much that alternative are hard to find.
Why don't they just build field hospitals for Covid patients to keep them out of the routine care system? Who limits how many hospitals are allowed in any given area?
I hate to disagree with you here, mate- but Dry Paint is essentially correct on the fact the trained medical staff is the key limiting capacity. In the UK, we refurbed and built a load of Nightingale Hospitals at huge expense to the taxpayer- which then largely stood vacant because of a lack of trained medical personnel. You are right- government is bloody useless- but just not in the way you think in this instance.
Of course, the situation is somewhat different is the US. The US armed forces maintain a large medical workforce during peacetime, whereas although we maintain the Royal Army Medical Corps, most of our wartime medical capacity is driven by reserves. So the possibility of field hospitals may be situational by country.
No worries about disagreeing since so much of my writings are musings.
Field hospitals are a way to create more beds. It seems MOST (a vast majority?) Covid infections don't require specialized care, and in fact, perhaps during a pandemic, you don't have a right to such care any more than you would after a major earthquake or war-time attack? Being overwhelmed during an emergency doesn't mean you have to harm everyone to try to avoid that (and fail as we hear with hospitals being overrun again), but rather those who get sick are triaged and not given the best possible care at any expense.
How many Covid patients even paid for their treatments? Zero?
And my point on trained medical staff is ENTIRELY the result of government licensing and restrictions. They do not allow for much competitive medical care, drug treatments, or even building of hospitals. At least here, you have to prove other hospitals won't suffer if you try to enter and compete? That's anti-competitive and reduces supply. Same with licensing that restricts new entrants. I'd bet your lack of trained medical personnel is a direct result of laws that preclude who can practice, who can get into medical schools, and how much they can be paid, etc.
I agree with most of your points, other than in relation to doctors. People need to be at least in the top 2% to become competent doctors. I was only told this second hand and wasn't furnished with source material- but a user on another forum told me the further that one goes below the basic requirement for MCAT scores the higher the likelihood of future medical malpractice.
Of course, this doesn't mean you're wrong about the licensing being a gimmick, but more that there is a very limited pool for people who are capable- plus, those at the very top end of cognitive spectrum tend to have a plethora of pretty decent future career choices. More should be done to make sure that of this type don't fall through to cracks, or end up doing jobs beneath their capabilities.
Years ago in the UK we had a train driver who won Mastermind. What a waste of raw talent!
True, but to care for a person with Covid doesn't require you be the sharpest person in the world. In fact, most doctors and medical personnel are just practitioners, not scientists.
Nobody at Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Tesla, Oracle, IBM, etc. need to be licensed and they have accomplished so much that affects our world. Same for all government workers and politicians.
We will have to agree to disagree on this one. The major issue is diagnostics and prescriptions. If you don't look at the totality of symptoms and order the right tests people can die. Doctors also have to be very careful about drug interactions, and how specific side effects from a drug will effect a particular condition.
The average doctor has to be smarter than the average coder or engineer, although obviously if the software engineer is working at the structural level and earning $250K then they are going to be smarter than most doctors other than surgeons and a few specialisms.
Surgeons have the highest average IQ of any profession- with the possible exception of higher level mathematicians and physicists- insufficient distinction is made between grad students and research assistants in these fields and theoreticians proper.
In the US a certificate of need is required to open a new hospital. Big hospitals often object to new competition leaving rural areas underserved.
That's awful, especially given the window to save lives is just as dependent on time to hospital as it is to speed of EMT response.