Vaccine

Apparently the definition of "more common" now means "always" to anti-vaxxers. It is "more common" that people will die from cancer, so don't get vaccinated or wear seat belts, right? It is "more common" for people to miss than hit when they shoot at people, so therefore the person lying face down with the bullet wound must have died "with" covid.

It is literally insane that these nut jobs can misrepresent what words mean from two sentences in a CDC report that specifically states that team sports increase the risk of transmission, strongly recommends that students get vaccinated and that unvaccinated wear mask at schools and explains with data why that is the case.
Sucker
 
So what Australia (and New Zealand) attempted was something every scientist has long known to be unworkable in modern times and highly threatening even if it were workable. To be sure, this idea of virus suppression (where does it go?) tempted policy makers the world over. Trump tried something similar in February and March of 2020, and only later came to see the errors of his ways. As bad as the US response has been, we’ve been mercifully spared the fanatical ideology of “zero Covid.”
 
Not so in Australia. They blocked outward and inward travel. They broadcast all kinds of messages about staying away from people. They closed businesses. Governments monitored social media for anyone straying too far from their assigned area. When they decided to lock down, they went all in. A nation that prided itself on its good government suddenly found itself managed like a vast prison colony.
 
By the summer of 2020, the country was cheering that they had somehow miraculously defeated the virus. Politicians claimed that Australia was the envy of the world. Their experts had shown the way! The US and the World Health Organization all said that Australia has done a great job. Fauci was full of praise.
 
That lasted for a few months. The data showing so few cases were helped by a low level of testing. It is actually impossible to know whether and to what extent Covid had been suppressed. Regardless, in the fall of 2020, positive tests began to rise. Then it came to the big cities of Melbourne and Sydney. The politicians took charge, and unleashed hell.
 
It’s been rolling lockdowns ever since. Protests were at first sporadic, and then more. The Prime Minister got involved and echoed the line of the local governors. The people who are protesting are being selfish, he said. The lockdowns will continue so long as the people are failing to comply, he said, echoing words of a prison guard.
 
Turns out the whole anti-vax movement is an evil plot by Howard Stern and Nancy Pelosi.

The idea is to trick Republicans into refusing the vaccine, thus giving Democrats a very slight edge in every swing district in the country. And you guys fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.


I think mini-EOTL was in on it, too.
It’s become almost comical in how irrational it [the series of Covid restrictions] is. The idea that I need to wear a mask when I walk into a restaurant, wear a mask, as I sit down at my seat, I am told by the restaurant, that I should only remove it when I’m eating and drinking, but then I’m removing it and sitting in a packed restaurant and lots of other people eating and drinking… At some point down the line, I feel like we’ve lost sight of the science here, and it’s become a lot more about signalling what political tribe you’re a part of.
 
Sir John Key pleads with his fellow New Zealanders to get realistic about Covid. A slice:

Some people might like to continue the North Korean option. I am not one of them. Public health experts and politicians have done a good job of making the public fearful, and therefore willing to accept multiple restrictions on their civil liberties, which are disproportionate to the risk of them contracting Covid. Another problem with the hermit kingdom model is that you have to believe the Government can go on borrowing a billion dollars every week to disguise that we are no longer making our way in the world.
 
It’s become almost comical in how irrational it [the series of Covid restrictions] is. The idea that I need to wear a mask when I walk into a restaurant, wear a mask, as I sit down at my seat, I am told by the restaurant, that I should only remove it when I’m eating and drinking, but then I’m removing it and sitting in a packed restaurant and lots of other people eating and drinking… At some point down the line, I feel like we’ve lost sight of the science here, and it’s become a lot more about signalling what political tribe you’re a part of.
Actually, in your case, it isn't the mask.

The restaurant should refuse to seat you indoors because you are not vaccinated. Unvaccinated people in high risk settings is a bad idea.

Enjoy your tiramisu outside.
 
Actually, in your case, it isn't the mask.

The restaurant should refuse to seat you indoors because you are not vaccinated. Unvaccinated people in high risk settings is a bad idea.

Enjoy your tiramisu outside.

Didn't Bruddah have it? If so, you are being very anti-science. If not, apologies.
 
If he did, when did he have it?

Well, if we are going to play that game its the same as the vaccines unless you are mandating boosters for everyone. There's still scant evidence but there is some to suggest that the vaccination antibodies decline faster than natural immunity antibodies. The more relevant question is probably how badly did you get it.
 
This statement of the problem reveals a gap between the way many economists think of the problem, and how politicians think of it. It is generally assumed, in blackboard economics, that a strong Pareto improvement—everyone is better off, and no one is worse off—is always unobjectionable. More importantly, it is simply assumed that even a weak Pareto improvement—at least one person is better off, and no one is worse off—is always easily implemented as public policy in a democracy. It’s actually the definition of “efficiency,” and efficiency is the goal of public policy.

But that’s clearly not true. A weak Pareto improvement, say giving any available person a vaccine dose if that dose would otherwise be thrown away, is precisely what many people object to. The idea that a benefit is undeserved implies that it should not be awarded, even if the alternative is literally dumping the benefit down the sink. The idea that public policy should be concerned first and foremost with preventing those undeserved harms, and confiscating unearned benefits from others, is the central premise of the new rendering of social justice and political responsibility. Nutzenschmerz is the denial of weak Pareto improvements to all members of the society, based on the insistence on a fanatically strict notion of desert. Any undeserved benefit is unjust; any cost incurred in correcting injustice is justified by the emotional group-think of Nutzenschmerz.

Apologies but I'm stretching to connect the Pareto principle to a parody of a PK shootout. Nonetheless, I agree Herr Sterling's face could clearly launch a thousand ships so to speak. I think its possible I missed a Barrington Declaration regarding concussion protocols. Maybe that's it. The tyranny of tiny bumps? That would explain it. That said I do think of Nutzenschmerz often, and fondly. The best Nutzenschmerz I ever had was in Heidelberg, a long time ago. As I recall it was in a little place off the Sofienstrasse in Altstadt. But like I said its been a long time and who knows if its still there.
 
Well, if we are going to play that game its the same as the vaccines unless you are mandating boosters for everyone. There's still scant evidence but there is some to suggest that the vaccination antibodies decline faster than natural immunity antibodies. The more relevant question is probably how badly did you get it.

Let's play ball!

For sure, but people who get "the jab" are more likely ok with getting boosters (I most definitely am). We know those that have been infected lose immunity over time. What's the recourse for those folks? Will they get a booster? Or suck down some freshly bottled covid saliva?
 
Back
Top