Ahkchually, the final tally isn't done yet.
Covid: the shape of things to come
- Thread starter LostHighway
- Start date
Help Support Kitchen Knife Forums:
- Status
riba
Senior Member
That's unfortunately not true.
Masks only lower the rate at which covid spreads (still useful ofc), and vaccines are not working for 100% either.
Though I am sympathetic towards the message
Last edited:
riba
Senior Member
Here, the expectation is that there will be insufficient ICU capacity later this year. I think in 'normal' circumstances one should use something like QALY to assess priority.
With the choice of no vaccination however, that seems not fair.
Though of course one's other decisions (thinking of diet, substance abuse, exercise, etc) also influence health.
With the choice of no vaccination however, that seems not fair.
Though of course one's other decisions (thinking of diet, substance abuse, exercise, etc) also influence health.
Vaccination is already mandated for a bazillion things. And NO vaccine prevents a disease 100%. What vaccines do is reduce the pool of potential infections enough that the virus in question can't spread and can't form variants. Salk's polio vaccine was maybe 65% effective, but once everyone had it, it killed polio all the same in developed countries. Here, we have safe, effective vaccines that are much more effective than that, but, thanks to political tomfoolery (on one side) and general bad faith on the part of certain influential people (most of whom got the vaccines but spread FUD about them for ratings), half the population doesn't want them for absolutely non-existant reasons. They don't allow tracking, they don't magnetize you, they don't cause any diseases, the science wasn't rushed, and now, Pfizer's shot is fully approved (so no more hiding behind that stupid trope) and the others are weeks away.
The same people who cry about not wanting to be forced to have a vaccine or forced to wear a mask in public because FREEDOM are generally the same ones who are absolutely against the freedom of, say, immigration, and would certainly be against people driving cars without a driver's licence and insurance - which are also things that exist for the public good.
It would be one thing if any anti-vax types were following your plan above of staying home and eating MRE's, but they aren't: they are engaging with others and therefore vastly increasing the risk to others, plus, they are increasing the load on the health care system, making it more likely that people who don't have their heads wedged firmly up their own asses can't receive necessary care in case of a problem.
And don't even get me started on guns - your comment above that "you" not pointing "your" gun at someone harms nobody ignores how many people are shot and killed each year accidentally or with someone else's gun (borrowed, found or stolen). Simply owning a gun increases the risk of gun-related incidents, and literally all of the science backs that up.
Michi
I dislike attempts to rewrite history
The biggest contributing factor to gun-related injuries and deaths are—surprise, surprise—guns.
Reduce the accessibility of guns and there are fewer incidents. It really is amazing, isn't it?
I KNOW, right? It's so very stunning.
And what's great is we actually have a real-life, recent experiment on what happens to gun violence when the government does a gun buy-back combined with stricter laws. This won't surprise you to find out that it's... Australia. You guys just did this a few years back and, my god this data is shocking, gun violence and gun deaths dropped sharply.
France gives real time daily updates on the covid situation through the app we all have on our phones with our vaccination certificates and test results. To note: we still are under a strict indoor mask mandate everywhere in the country, school is about to start back up again (kids went all year last year except for a couple of weeks).
We are at 72.3% vaccinated.
397/100K people who are unvaccinated tested positive
50/100K people who are vaccinated tested positive
28/million unvaccinated entered reanimation
2/million vaccinated entered reanimation
Hospitals are at 44% capacity
95.5% of our cases are Delta
Our case rate peaked a couple of weeks ago and is now dropping
Here, we have a relatively strict vaccine mandate in place: anybody who wants to go to a gym, restaurant, club, bar, museum, public building or who works in one of those things has to be vaccinated (and show proof) or has to be tested every 2 days until they are vax'ed. There is some protest against this mandate, of course, but we went from like 35% vax'ed to 73% vaxed in a month thanks to the mandate. And it's absolutely positively showing results.
We are at 72.3% vaccinated.
397/100K people who are unvaccinated tested positive
50/100K people who are vaccinated tested positive
28/million unvaccinated entered reanimation
2/million vaccinated entered reanimation
Hospitals are at 44% capacity
95.5% of our cases are Delta
Our case rate peaked a couple of weeks ago and is now dropping
Here, we have a relatively strict vaccine mandate in place: anybody who wants to go to a gym, restaurant, club, bar, museum, public building or who works in one of those things has to be vaccinated (and show proof) or has to be tested every 2 days until they are vax'ed. There is some protest against this mandate, of course, but we went from like 35% vax'ed to 73% vaxed in a month thanks to the mandate. And it's absolutely positively showing results.
riba
Senior Member
My guess is that the concern is that things are moving from the left pocket to the right pocket. It is not likely that gun violence and gun deaths are going down when removing guns. But you'd have to look at the total amount of violence and deaths (probably can scope this better) to see whether it made an impact.
And now for a little levity, something completely different:
ABBOTT AND COSTELLO’S ‘WHO’S BEEN VACCINATED?’
....
Copied from a friend.
I love comedy!!!
My favorite line from the Soundcloud page where this was uploaded:
"Hilarious! Looking forward to more humor from you soon, Phil."
ntxt
juice
Doesn't even buy knives
While this is true, we never had the fetishisation of guns and overall gun culture that the US has (not to mention the sheer NUMBER of guns in society), so it's something of an apples/oranges comparison, unfortunately. As an example, almost our entire gun stocks (OK, my bad) were long rifles, and almost no handguns.
It certainly helped, but it was never a very significant problem in the first place, so there's no *massive* drop to point to.
No, it's exactly that removing guns removes gun violence and gun deaths. Gun incidents go way down when removing guns. There have been a ton of full on scientific studies on Australia's recent-ish gun buyback and stricter laws. Accidental gun injuries and deaths dropped precipitously, as did suicides. Other crime dropped somewhat (though admittedly marginally) but deaths and injuries from other crime dropped a fair amount - it's a lot harder and more "personal" to kill or injure someone with your fists or a knife than a gun.
Obviously true on the fetishism and the types of guns, but studies show that, even with that, gun accidents and suicides dropped massively, and other crime got less lethal.
I’m all for gun control and laws that keep guns out of the hands of people that will do harm with them. But here in the US you are not going to get very many people to hand over their guns, at least not the people you want to do it.
I’ve been to Australia and loved it there. I look up to who you are as a society. I’m sure you have your fair share of idiots but after the last 5 years, seeing what’s been going on here, it can’t possibly be as many as we have. And I mean that from the bottom ofmy heart.
I’ve been to Australia and loved it there. I look up to who you are as a society. I’m sure you have your fair share of idiots but after the last 5 years, seeing what’s been going on here, it can’t possibly be as many as we have. And I mean that from the bottom ofmy heart.
shotsfired
Member
tested every 2 days, how long for a result?
user 16756
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2015
- Messages
- 2,645
- Reaction score
- 3,941
Imguessing a rapid antigen test? If so, about half an hour, I hear.
Last edited:
CA_cook
Well-Known Member
CUE Health and some others have a nucleic acid amplification (NAA) test that runs in 20 minutes. You can do it at home as well. So these days there is no technical barrier for rapidly testing people, just the cost, and this test is not that expensive either.
Luftmensch
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2017
- Messages
- 2,316
- Reaction score
- 3,186
I dunno @Michi... Guns dont kill people...
... Bullets do an awfully good job though. I dont know what all the fuss in America is about. Blah... Blah... Blah... second amendment... Blah... Blah... Blah... it doesn't say anything about the right to bear loaded arms. Just outlaw ammunition..... or tax each bullet $1000
Yes and no... it depends how long your memory is and what you are pointing at. Australia had a run of mass shootings prior to Port Arthur [ref]:
We have not had one since. That is a massive drop!
Just to put Port Arthur into context... 35 people were killed and another 19 were wounded. This occured in 1996. As bad as America is, it wasnt until 2016 (20 years later!) that a single event surpassed Port Arthur. This happened in the Orlando nightclub shooting. Of course, the 2011 Norway attacks and 2017 Las Vegas shootings completely changed the scale.
On the other hand... you are right. We had declining firearm deaths prior to the reforms. There is no control group - so it is hard to easily determine whether the revised laws contributed to the long term trend which was already improving. Experts (see link above) tend to think the gun reforms accelerated the trend.
Whatever the answer... I believe the laws cemented an attitude to firearms within the community at a critical time. Hopefully we can sustain that culture. Although countries like Australia are probably safer than they have ever been, I get the impression there is greater potential for motivated individuals to cause mass damage to communities... Perhaps I am wrong and I am just a victim of government propaganda? Either way I can certainly see the internet's role in radicalising people and providing blueprints for violence. You can also imagine how the gun control discussion might have gone down in a post-facebook, post-twitter world.
For Americans in the peanut gallery. Australia's success in gun control was because it was bipartisan. Even more remarkably, our prime minister at the time was a conservative. It goes to show, when both sides of the isle cooperate, laws which benefit the masses (at the cost of a smaller, more vocal constituency) can be implemented effectively. Surely there is a valuable less there for the present...
See: Chris Rock - Bullet ControlI dunno @Michi... Guns dont kill people...
... Bullets do an awfully good job though. I dont know what all the fuss in America is about. Blah... Blah... Blah... second amendment... Blah... Blah... Blah... it doesn't say anything about the right to bear loaded arms. Just outlaw ammunition..... or tax each bullet $1000
Yes and no... it depends how long your memory is and what you are pointing at. Australia had a run of mass shootings prior to Port Arthur [ref]:
We have not had one since. That is a massive drop!
Just to put Port Arthur into context... 35 people were killed and another 19 were wounded. This occured in 1996. As bad as America is, it wasnt until 2016 (20 years later!) that a single event surpassed Port Arthur. This happened in the Orlando nightclub shooting. Of course, the 2011 Norway attacks and 2017 Las Vegas shootings completely changed the scale.
On the other hand... you are right. We had declining firearm deaths prior to the reforms. There is no control group - so it is hard to easily determine whether the revised laws contributed to the long term trend which was already improving. Experts (see link above) tend to think the gun reforms accelerated the trend.
Whatever the answer... I believe the laws cemented an attitude to firearms within the community at a critical time. Hopefully we can sustain that culture. Although countries like Australia are probably safer than they have ever been, I get the impression there is greater potential for motivated individuals to cause mass damage to communities... Perhaps I am wrong and I am just a victim of government propaganda? Either way I can certainly see the internet's role in radicalising people and providing blueprints for violence. You can also imagine how the gun control discussion might have gone down in a post-facebook, post-twitter world.
For Americans in the peanut gallery. Australia's success in gun control was because it was bipartisan. Even more remarkably, our prime minister at the time was a conservative. It goes to show, when both sides of the isle cooperate, laws which benefit the masses (at the cost of a smaller, more vocal constituency) can be implemented effectively. Surely there is a valuable less there for the present...
Clip from his documentary:
Quite true. We don't imprison or sue J.A. Henckels just because some yahoos might have committed a knifepoint robbery.
Ignorant foreigners need to study much harder before pontificating on US jurisprudence. I'll be nice and do your homework for you this time around: Attempting to deny or burden the technological means of expressing a right constitutes infringement of a right.I dont know what all the fuss in America is about. Blah... Blah... Blah... second amendment... Blah... Blah... Blah... it doesn't say anything about the right to bear loaded arms. Just outlaw ammunition..... or tax each bullet $1000
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/460/575
But this has what to do with COVID again? Oh, right...
I'll bring things back on topic: I wonder if "vaccination" never was the correct word to use?
Last edited:
juice
Doesn't even buy knives
But that's the thing, apart from the hysteria around terms like "mass shootings" (and yes, your example given is entirely correct) very few Australians overall were killed with guns before the buyback, so it's hard to determine trends (as you say). Most people in the US killed with firearms aren't killed in "mass shootings" either so it's a poor metric to use to determine effectiveness, but it does make for good headlines.
Yeah, it did an excellent job. Helped massively, as you note, by the bipartisanship.
user 16756
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2015
- Messages
- 2,645
- Reaction score
- 3,941
wack.
my unpopular personal opinion on guns in the US:
the existing level of harm (~40k deaths per annum) done by guns in the US is unfortunate but acceptable; guns are useful tools worth having around, and i prefer to be able to purchase them with minimal hassle and oversight. however, if my family died in a shooting, maybe i'd be singing a different tune. i'm not above hypocrisy. hard to know without living through certain realities.
gun control in the US consists of half-measures that do little good if any. their primary effects are appeasement of uninformed gun control advocates and inconvenience of responsible gun users.
strong legislation comparable to that seen in oz could eventually yield beneficial harm-reduction results, but it would take some time. and even if outlawed outright, there will always be a substantial firearm reservoir accessible to criminals. still, it's hard for me to imagine that gun death wouldn't drop precipitously. i don't see such legislation happening in the US in my lifetime, and i say this with great thanks in spite of the benefits i believe it would bring.
the most sensationalized and oft-discussed type of gun violence is, of course, mass shootings. i don't think that any gun control in the US likely to happen in the foreseeable future (i.e. half-measures) will appreciably reduce this type of violence. this is a special type of thoroughly premeditated crime. such criminals are determined. so what if they have to drive to another state or get creative somehow? sadly, they'd find a way to do accomplish their mission. meanwhile, responsible gun users pay the price. and even if they did not have access to firearms, there are many other -- and arguably superior -- ways to achieve mass killings (e.g. IEDs).
i am generally opposed to increasing gun control in the US, half-measures or otherwise. but on that subject, if i could request one thing, it would be deregulation of suppressor fabrication and possession. i would like to see them no longer be NFA items, and i would like to see their use encouraged or even required in some contexts. who wouldn't want to increase the peace of those around them?
however, i concede that we will eventually have very strict gun control even in the US because that's just the way the world's heading. i take comfort in knowing it won't be a complete waste. something good will be gained. hopefully i won't be around to see it, though
the existing level of harm (~40k deaths per annum) done by guns in the US is unfortunate but acceptable; guns are useful tools worth having around, and i prefer to be able to purchase them with minimal hassle and oversight. however, if my family died in a shooting, maybe i'd be singing a different tune. i'm not above hypocrisy. hard to know without living through certain realities.
gun control in the US consists of half-measures that do little good if any. their primary effects are appeasement of uninformed gun control advocates and inconvenience of responsible gun users.
strong legislation comparable to that seen in oz could eventually yield beneficial harm-reduction results, but it would take some time. and even if outlawed outright, there will always be a substantial firearm reservoir accessible to criminals. still, it's hard for me to imagine that gun death wouldn't drop precipitously. i don't see such legislation happening in the US in my lifetime, and i say this with great thanks in spite of the benefits i believe it would bring.
the most sensationalized and oft-discussed type of gun violence is, of course, mass shootings. i don't think that any gun control in the US likely to happen in the foreseeable future (i.e. half-measures) will appreciably reduce this type of violence. this is a special type of thoroughly premeditated crime. such criminals are determined. so what if they have to drive to another state or get creative somehow? sadly, they'd find a way to do accomplish their mission. meanwhile, responsible gun users pay the price. and even if they did not have access to firearms, there are many other -- and arguably superior -- ways to achieve mass killings (e.g. IEDs).
i am generally opposed to increasing gun control in the US, half-measures or otherwise. but on that subject, if i could request one thing, it would be deregulation of suppressor fabrication and possession. i would like to see them no longer be NFA items, and i would like to see their use encouraged or even required in some contexts. who wouldn't want to increase the peace of those around them?
however, i concede that we will eventually have very strict gun control even in the US because that's just the way the world's heading. i take comfort in knowing it won't be a complete waste. something good will be gained. hopefully i won't be around to see it, though
though i know this wasn't specifically directed my way, wow, very timely comment coinciding with mine. saying that i don't care that people die is a little hyperbolic. each death is tragic. but fair enough. i arguably said as much in my post just after yours.
and to reiterate, i don't think strong gun control is without merit, but i would prefer that it be effective so that we gain something for what we lose.
Last edited:
user 16756
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2015
- Messages
- 2,645
- Reaction score
- 3,941
well, perhaps.
but I am only being honest about my perception. an unwillingness to make even the smallest of sacrifices says to me "I dont care". if you support doing something re covid then maybe that doesnt apply to you.
but I will say this is always the natural reaction. nothing is more offensive to us than an unpleasant truth. but that is the truth I see about anti-vaccine screed types from their actions. and I can say I care far less about the feelings of those offended by my observation than those waiting outside ICUs in several states right now because of anti-vaxx people taking up all the beds.
Dave accused me of being unpleasant, but does such behavior deserve anything else?
i'm no anti-vaxxer. i am thankful for vaccine technology (including mRNA tech) and am chomping at the bit for my third dose.
i am hypothetically in support of doing something about CoViD above and beyond what we're doing now, but i don't have the solution. i can think of things that would probably help, but idk how realistic they are to implement. and the thing is, i think that we should have been battling infectious disease way before covid (including less lethal coronaviruses we've always known, seasonal flu, the common cold, ...). a silver lining to all of this is increased awareness and conscientiousness. i haven't been sick since before covid.
speaking of unpleasant truths... covid's a big deal, sure. but we have much bigger problems, and all of them are bound to a HUGE problem that no one wants to talk about: overpopulation. how do we gracefully yet rapidly drop the population down to a stable 1-2 billion without crashing our infrastructure and economy? how could we do it with reverence for humanity? how would we have to change and grow as a society to secure a sustainable future? what would a post-scarcity society even feel like? i'd give up a lot more than guns and toys for that.
i am hypothetically in support of doing something about CoViD above and beyond what we're doing now, but i don't have the solution. i can think of things that would probably help, but idk how realistic they are to implement. and the thing is, i think that we should have been battling infectious disease way before covid (including less lethal coronaviruses we've always known, seasonal flu, the common cold, ...). a silver lining to all of this is increased awareness and conscientiousness. i haven't been sick since before covid.
speaking of unpleasant truths... covid's a big deal, sure. but we have much bigger problems, and all of them are bound to a HUGE problem that no one wants to talk about: overpopulation. how do we gracefully yet rapidly drop the population down to a stable 1-2 billion without crashing our infrastructure and economy? how could we do it with reverence for humanity? how would we have to change and grow as a society to secure a sustainable future? what would a post-scarcity society even feel like? i'd give up a lot more than guns and toys for that.
If the others listened when all the folks who defend the rights and liberties of citizens spoke softly, perhaps there'd be no call for endless screaming?
What hypocrisy on whose part do you speak of? There might be a lot of different kinds of people who defend freedom, many of whom might be stating different things.
One doesn't have to be an "anti-vaxxer" or seek others' deaths to despise lawless and overweening power grabs from governments.
- Status
