- Joined
- Jul 18, 2017
I can't believe the fascists in charge of Europe would open fire on mostly peaceful protestors.
Wuhan Coronavirus: Megathread - Got too big
- Thread starter JosephStalin
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2018
I can't believe we're funding bases there to defend the fascists from the Soviets Russians.
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2019
Covid: WHO says it is very worried about Europe surge
The health organisation's regional director warns of half a million more deaths by March without action.
www.bbc.co.uk
https://archive.md/N9q7D
Get fucked, WHO.
'Mask wearing could immediately help', yeah, no. Help identify the desirables from the undesirables, maybe.
'Covid is the number one cause of mortality' ? I find that hard to believe. Even when they're counting every person dying with a positive corona test as a corona death. I think I'd know a lot more people dead due to corona if so - don't know anyone. But suspected vaccine deaths? Suicide due to the lockdowns? I know people who have died.
'Mandatory vaccination measures should be seen as a last resort', yeah, I can hear the anticipatory glee behind these words. They should be seen as a massive breach of our human rights, and anyone advocating for them should be hanged.
Corona pass: 'not a restriction of liberty, rather it is a tool to keep our individual freedom'. The doublespeak is strong in this one. We shouldn't need any fucking tools to 'keep' our freedom. We are free.
Austrian Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg: 'if [the vaccinated] don't have access to an intensive care unit because they're blocked by those who are not vaccinated and got sick, so then they are affected as well'. Aren't most in hospital vaccinated now? How do you reconcile that one, Chancellor? Saying that, I guess they're there, though, because they caught corona from a filthy unvaxxed, clearly. My bad. Jab everyone, that's the solution. Don't take a leaf from Fauci's book, go one further -- six month old babies? Why not start younger? Jab em in utero. Only way to get out of this pandemic!
@Hoi Polloi - think I read that BJ doesn't want to bring in vaccine passports, but I feel it's only a matter of time. Articles, including this one, are always mention how there are no plans to bring it in right now, but it could come into force if the pressure on the NHS is too great. And how can that pressure get any better? People are suffering from vaccine injuries, there are so many non-corona conditions that have been missed or worsened due to cancelling of appointments or people being too afraid or thinking it's not important to go to the Dr when something's wrong, and there are staff shortages in part due to the unvaxxed being fired. We're heading into winter, as well. How can it get any better?
I hope I'm wrong.
Billy Beer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2021
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2021
Generally, employers in Canada aren't asking about vaccination status, but that can change overnight. The only ones outside of government employees which have been asking are usually any positions available in clinics, dentists' offices, vets, etc. That said, I can elaborate on what exactly people would run into with any employers who actually decide to start enforcing vaccination requirements. No, I am not a lawyer and most of this is just educated guesses. Mostly.
The obvious first action, if you don't mind risking being fired for some bullshit reason down the road, would be to tell the employer that you and others will report this to the relevant provincial organization enforcing labor standards or the human rights tribunal. This is the point at which you'd be most likely to succeed. If the employer calls your bluff, you're left dealing with government bodies and courts, and they are almost certainly going to lean on precedents which have overridden any right to religious freedoms in favor of public health and safety. This will end with you being told to get vaccinated because you are scum and killing all the cattle.
Canada is terrible.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2020
I'm surprised this is still up on YouTube:
BitChute Mirror:
www.bitchute.com
I saved the whole thing, of course, but it's 500+ meg.
BitChute Mirror:
Crimes or Cover-Up? Exposing the World’s Most Dangerous Lie
COVID-19 changed everything. The way we live our lives, how we operate our businesses, how we see each other. And now, the federal government is sinking its tendrils even deeper, threatening the fabric not only of our bodily autonomy, but of the rep…
I saved the whole thing, of course, but it's 500+ meg.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
It depends on your situation beforehand to some degree.
I already had COVID prior to getting the J&J, and I was asymptomatic the whole time. I'm confident that when it hits me again either A) my pre-existing T-cell memory & N-antibodies aren't affected by the vaccine B) even if they were somehow "erased", I handled COVID without issue the first time around, why would this time be any different?
Never, ever, ever kill yourself unless you are facing a (literal) slow and torturous death.
Suicide is in 99.9% of cases a form of surrender. Don't let them win.
There is always something to live for.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2016
Isn't a clear way to say your exemption is religious in nature to claim that God specifically told you not to receive this vaccine and that you frequently have conversations with God that guide your decisions?
benutz
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2020
Netherlands: Police fire warning shots at Covid protesters
Anger at Covid plans sparks riots in Rotterdam
Police in Rotterdam fired warning shots and used water cannon as protests turned violent.
www.bbc.com
Video on this page. I'm a dumb nigger and can't get any dl programs to work. Would be good if someone could archive.
Some screenshots from video -
---
Europe's lockdown fury: Violence breaks out in Vienna as 10,000 protesters take to the streets and thousands more march in Amsterdam - hours after two people are SHOT in Rotterdam during clashes between activists and Dutch riot police
Europe's anti-lockdown hell: Violence breaks out in Vienna as 10,000 …
archived 20 Nov 2021 19:02:25 UTC
- Violence erupted in Vienna today as 10,000 protesters took to the streets after new lockdown was announced
- Two people were shot during an 'orgy of violence' amid anti-lockdown protests in Rotterdam Friday evening
- Police confirmed the injuries to the rioters, but did not clarify what type of ammunition was used against them
- Protesters also gathered in Amsterdam, the southern town of Breda to demonstrate against measures today
- The Netherlands entered a partial lockdown on Saturday, sparking a furious backlash against the government
- Austria on Friday reimposed a full winter lockdown and neighbouring Germany warned it may soon follow suit
First German states cancel all Christmas markets over virus
The German states of Bavaria and Saxony on Friday cancelled all their Christmas markets and unveiled drastic curbs on public life as the country scrambles to contain soaring coronavirus infections.
'The situation is very, very serious and difficult,' Markus Soeder, premier of the southern state of Bavaria, said as he also announced a shutdown of clubs, bars and night service at restaurants.
The eastern state of Saxony unveiled similar measures and went even further by closing all sporting and cultural venues, banning tourism, public consumption of alcohol and barring the unvaccinated from non-essential shops and hairdressers.
Austrian protest today in Vienna/Wien -
Protest in Amsterdam, Netherlands today -
Attachments
Last edited:
Super-Chevy454
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
I guess some folks at Youtube are afraid to spark a Streisand effect.I'm surprised this is still up on YouTube:
BitChute Mirror:
Crimes or Cover-Up? Exposing the World’s Most Dangerous Lie
COVID-19 changed everything. The way we live our lives, how we operate our businesses, how we see each other. And now, the federal government is sinking its tendrils even deeper, threatening the fabric not only of our bodily autonomy, but of the rep…
I saved the whole thing, of course, but it's 500+ meg.
That video is also mirrored on Odysee.
Crimes or Cover-Up? Exposing the World’s Most Dangerous Lie
Join BlazeTV with promo code FAUCILIED for $25 off: https://blazetv.com/glenn COVID-19 changed everything. The way we live our lives, how we operate our businesses, how we see each other. And now, the...
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2018
You have better luck declaring that you sexually identify as a virus, that vaccines are the holocaust, viruses are people too and don't kill other people, and all this coronapanic is a antiviralic conspiracy created by the alt right gamergaters.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2021
A kiwi reporter puts a spin on the diminishing efficacy of the vaccines, and how it's a good thing,
Since the TrUsT tHe sCIEncE argument is getting very weak (although it's still woven in the article)
www.stuff.co.nz
Since the TrUsT tHe sCIEncE argument is getting very weak (although it's still woven in the article)
Covid-19 NZ: Why the vaccines' imperfections matter
This is a very common refrain. The vaccines are not perfect, therefore what’s the point of getting vaccinated? So, why does this happen?
Confirmation bias: a hardwired part of human psychology, which can make us particularly vulnerable to online misinformation and disinformation.
The Covid-19 vaccines are incredibly effective but not perfect. Explainer Editor Keith Lynch explores how this lack of certainty can scramble the human brain.
In a recent interview American NFL player Aaron Rodgers spoke about why he had not been vaccinated.
One of his comments was: “If the vaccine is so great, then how come people are still getting Covid and spreading Covid and, unfortunately, dying from Covid?”
Rodgers also claimed an NFL doctor told him it’s impossible for a vaccinated person to get or spread Covid. The NFL has denied this.
This is a very common refrain. The vaccines are not perfect, therefore what’s the point of getting vaccinated?
Immunologists have wrestled with the challenges of communicating the benefits of ‘partially effective’ vaccines for some time, Dr Fran Priddy, clinical Director of Vaccine Alliance Aotearoa New Zealand told me.
It is, of course, correct that two doses of the Pfizer vaccine doesn’t offer total protection and that protection wanes over time. A person can catch Covid-19 if they are vaccinated. They can pass it on. They can still die. But the evidence is very clear: the likelihood of any of this eventuating post-immunisation is significantly reduced.
Yet for a cohort of people, ‘exceedingly good at stopping serious illness and death’ and ‘very good at stopping infection’ is not good enough. The imperfection of the Pfizer vaccine has helped nurture vaccine hesitancy both here and overseas.
Ambiguities are inherent in an awful lot of conversations about health. And uncertainties are a stone-cold guarantee when a novel, or new, coronavirus runs rampant in an unprecedented and terrifying manner. Once it seemed the pandemic would end one way, and then Delta came along.
So, what is it about imperfections and uncertainties that scramble the human brain? Why is it, for some, that vaccine imperfection is analogous with ineffectiveness? Let’s explain.
The vaccine, as American medical news website Stat put it, “flirted with perfection”. Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla told the publication: “When I heard the over 90 per cent efficacy [following the clinical trials], I felt I was living a dream.”
At that time, the reduction in risk in people getting Covid – it was called efficacy during the trials – was the key descriptor of performance and indeed the thing most media focused on. The reason for this was quite simple: it was what the early clinical trials studied.
All of this was perfectly reasonable, by the way. A study to measure relatively uncommon outcomes like people dying or going to hospital would have been significantly more challenging, US publication Vox explained in a piece titled: “We’re not looking at the most important statistic”.
In the Phase 3 vaccine trials, Pfizer enrolled 43,661 people and essentially waited to see how many symptomatic infections occurred in two groups. Of 170 who tested positive for symptomatic Covid-19, 162 were in the group of people given the placebo and only eight were given the vaccine.
To study death and hospitalisations, which are relatively rare, you’d simply need a lot more participants. (That’s not to say Pfizer did not keep an eye on hospitalisations or deaths. It did, and the results were excellent.)
It’s also worth keeping in mind that while good clinical trials will do what they can to reflect what will happen in the real world, there are always imperfections, and it may be that results aren’t necessarily replicated precisely in real life.
This is why the government is rolling out vaccine boosters.
Keep in mind though that studies and real world data show two vaccine doses are remarkably good at preventing death and serious illness. A UK analysis focused on the Delta variant found, for example, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is 96 per cent effective against hospitalisation after two doses.
That first study I mentioned above also looked at waning effectiveness against hospitalisation. It found that the vaccines’ held up against serious infection for a longer period. (But there have been reports in Israel suggesting “some reduction in effectiveness against hospital admissions has been observed among older people”.)
We’ve also reported on the decoupling of case numbers and deaths which is evident in the UK. You can see how case numbers have remained high in the UK but in a highly vaccinated population, deaths have not followed.
Another recent study, which has been cited by some to discredit the vaccines, also found “fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings”.
But again, this doesn’t mean the vaccines are useless – far from it. As that study explains, the vaccine reduces the risk of an infection in the first place, and accelerates how quickly that viral load disappears.
The reality is, talking about the vaccines is invariably messy – as is anything when imperfection leaks in. You, for example, may well think the traffic light system is much messier than the alert level system.
That’s perfectly reasonable but remember the alert level system was created to achieve a binary or “perfect” goal: no Covid. An alternative that allows some Covid is obviously going to be much less elegant and induce a touch of head scratching.
With that in mind, it’s very easy to see how such an array of information is incredibly dizzying for some people, particularly when the Pfizer vaccine was initially said to be “flirting with perfection”.
What we have, in a nutshell, are excellent vaccines that hugely reduce the risk of serious illness and death. But they are not perfect.
“So that shapes peoples' perceptions of vaccines – either they work or they don't.”
(Remember, Priddy notes, that the vast majority of people have accepted these ‘imperfect’ but excellent vaccines.)
And it may be that the early reporting on efficacy was unintentionally counterproductive. There’s no reason to doubt the efficacy results in November last year, but we’re in uncharted waters with this pandemic. Things change. Most importantly, the public did not know the incredibly infectious Delta variant, which has changed everything, was around the corner. And it may well be that three, not two, jabs was always the optimal dosage.
Dr Amanda Wallis, a research lead at Umbrella, suggests that if people expected perfection from a vaccine, some may well be less trustful and therefore less likely to get vaccinated when new information comes to light.
“This might explain why some people are more vocal about the vaccine’s limitations now, given that some people had such high hopes for it being close to perfect.”
On this point, Dr Olivia Wills, a behavioural economist, at the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) agrees.
“Given that other familiar vaccines work by completely stopping the disease (for example, measles and smallpox), it’s easy for us to ‘anchor’ on to the idea and expect it from the Covid vaccine too. We rely on mental shortcuts like anchoring all the time, but even more in times of stress or uncertainty.
“This anchor sets up an expectation of perfection in our brains, which the vaccine has not been able to keep up with as the virus mutated. Despite overwhelming evidence for reductions in hospitalisation and death, we can feel this failure to meet expectations as a loss, and it can amplify other existing concerns around the vaccine.”
A number of other psychologists at Umbrella also offered some other perspectives on why the human mind struggles with uncertainty. I’ll summarise below:
The report notes that earlier study found there may be “advantages to not communicating uncertainties” but it asked what happens if people are told something and then things change?
“When uncertainties do exist, can ignoring them backfire and eventually lead to worse outcomes?”
To do this, the study’s participants were told to imagine a public health expert making a vaccine announcement.
The first group was told the following: “I can confirm that the vaccine is 60 per cent effective. This means that, although the vaccine might not work for everyone, there is a very good chance that it will work for you. This vaccine will significantly drive down the infection rate and we will be able to remove the restrictive measures we put in place to combat the virus.”
The second was told: “The vaccine is between 50 and 70 per cent effective. The reason I can’t give a more precise estimate is because the data we have doesn’t allow that. There might be some things we don’t know yet about the vaccine, but this is the best available option. Although it might not work for everyone, there is a chance it will work for you. This vaccine will hopefully drive down the infection rate and we may be able to remove the restrictive measures we put in place to combat the virus.”
Then a week later everyone was told new research had emerged showing the vaccine is actually closer to 40 per cent effective.
The researchers thought the following would happen: The people who were told the vaccines were definitely 60 per cent effective were likely to get upset when that new information came to light.
“We posit that communicating uncertainty makes people more likely to expect information to change over time and therefore less surprised and disappointed when confronted to new and conflicting information,” the authors wrote.
“On the other hand, communicating with unwarranted certainty may be perceived as intentionally misleading.”
The study found just that - the people who were given certainties were less likely to get vaccinated when the new information came to light.
While noting limitations with the study, the authors said the findings support calls for greater “acknowledgements of uncertainty in communications relating to Covid-19”.
In a separate piece for British magazine The Psychologist Eleonore Batteux, one of the authors, suggested that people want to believe the future is predictable. The alternative is uncertainty and therefore worry.
What follows, she writes, is that politicians communicate with certainty because that’s what people want.
The same appears to be true here, former National government press secretary Ben Thomas told me. While complexity and uncertainty is baked into New Zealand politics, politicians still prefer to communicate in a manner that’s punchy, digestible and certain.
Politicians, Thomas says, like to portray a sense of being in control. And the public generally wants to view every issue - even Covid-19 - as being solvable by the Beehive.
Most of the time our political leaders can navigate through uncertainty. They can, for example, just pass a law (problem solved) or introduce a policy and explain it away when it doesn’t work out.
But the pandemic is very different. For instance, when Delta arrived, the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said she wanted a sharp and short lockdown for Auckland. Days earlier, before we even knew of Covid’s infiltration she said New Zealand would be sticking with elimination.
The government had nothing to do with the emergence of the incredibly infectious Delta variant, which has radically changed the dynamics of this pandemic. It’s certainly not its fault the vaccines’ effectiveness wanes somewhat.
All of this uncertainty, however, makes effective communication incredibly challenging.
And it’s not only politicians. Traditional reporting styles typically employed by media in New Zealand aren’t necessarily always the best format to acknowledge there are very few guarantees with Covid-19.
So what does all this mean then? Well, uncertainty is an inescapable fundamental of the pandemic. But that uncertainty doesn’t mean our response – particularly vaccination – is futile.
Think of it this way, Priddy suggests. “Seat belts reduce your risk of death or injury but aren't perfect. Or maybe tooth brushing – it definitely reduces your risk of things like cavities, gum disease and bad breath, but it’s not 100 per cent effective.” Does any of this mean seat belts and toothbrushes are pointless?
As part of the case, epidemiologist Dr Simon Thornley, suggested among other things that the Pfizer vaccine is ineffective at stopping transmission of the Delta variant
You can read the full judgement here but the conclusion from Justice Francis Cooke who considered the evidence is definitive.
“I do not accept the applicants’ challenge that the vaccine is experimental, unproven, unsafe and that it has little effect on transmission.
“I am satisfied that the vaccine is safe and effective, is significantly beneficial in preventing symptomatic infection of Covid-19 including the Delta variant, and that it significantly reduces serious illness, hospitalisation and death.”
There was also evidence presented during the case about the possibility of asymptomatic spread of disease in highly vaccinated countries contributing to high case numbers.
Justice Cooke’s response to this is quite telling: “Such possibilities do not mean that vaccination does not inhibit transmission,” he wrote. “It just means there are uncertainties.”
The Covid-19 vaccines are incredibly effective but not perfect. Explainer Editor Keith Lynch explores how this lack of certainty can scramble the human brain.
In a recent interview American NFL player Aaron Rodgers spoke about why he had not been vaccinated.
One of his comments was: “If the vaccine is so great, then how come people are still getting Covid and spreading Covid and, unfortunately, dying from Covid?”
Rodgers also claimed an NFL doctor told him it’s impossible for a vaccinated person to get or spread Covid. The NFL has denied this.
This is a very common refrain. The vaccines are not perfect, therefore what’s the point of getting vaccinated?
Immunologists have wrestled with the challenges of communicating the benefits of ‘partially effective’ vaccines for some time, Dr Fran Priddy, clinical Director of Vaccine Alliance Aotearoa New Zealand told me.
It is, of course, correct that two doses of the Pfizer vaccine doesn’t offer total protection and that protection wanes over time. A person can catch Covid-19 if they are vaccinated. They can pass it on. They can still die. But the evidence is very clear: the likelihood of any of this eventuating post-immunisation is significantly reduced.
Yet for a cohort of people, ‘exceedingly good at stopping serious illness and death’ and ‘very good at stopping infection’ is not good enough. The imperfection of the Pfizer vaccine has helped nurture vaccine hesitancy both here and overseas.
Ambiguities are inherent in an awful lot of conversations about health. And uncertainties are a stone-cold guarantee when a novel, or new, coronavirus runs rampant in an unprecedented and terrifying manner. Once it seemed the pandemic would end one way, and then Delta came along.
So, what is it about imperfections and uncertainties that scramble the human brain? Why is it, for some, that vaccine imperfection is analogous with ineffectiveness? Let’s explain.
Remind me how we started talking about the vaccines
In mid-November last year Pfizer announced how effective its vaccine was at preventing Covid-19. That number was extraordinary: the vaccine prevented 95 per cent of symptomatic cases in the clinical trial.The vaccine, as American medical news website Stat put it, “flirted with perfection”. Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla told the publication: “When I heard the over 90 per cent efficacy [following the clinical trials], I felt I was living a dream.”
At that time, the reduction in risk in people getting Covid – it was called efficacy during the trials – was the key descriptor of performance and indeed the thing most media focused on. The reason for this was quite simple: it was what the early clinical trials studied.
All of this was perfectly reasonable, by the way. A study to measure relatively uncommon outcomes like people dying or going to hospital would have been significantly more challenging, US publication Vox explained in a piece titled: “We’re not looking at the most important statistic”.
In the Phase 3 vaccine trials, Pfizer enrolled 43,661 people and essentially waited to see how many symptomatic infections occurred in two groups. Of 170 who tested positive for symptomatic Covid-19, 162 were in the group of people given the placebo and only eight were given the vaccine.
To study death and hospitalisations, which are relatively rare, you’d simply need a lot more participants. (That’s not to say Pfizer did not keep an eye on hospitalisations or deaths. It did, and the results were excellent.)
It’s also worth keeping in mind that while good clinical trials will do what they can to reflect what will happen in the real world, there are always imperfections, and it may be that results aren’t necessarily replicated precisely in real life.
What’s changed?
We now know the Pfizer vaccine’s effectiveness at stopping Covid-19 transmission wanes over time. One study found the vaccine’s effectiveness against infections declined from 88 per cent during the first month after full vaccination to 47 per cent after five months. Another study (supported by Pfizer) found a gradual decline in vaccine efficacy.This is why the government is rolling out vaccine boosters.
Keep in mind though that studies and real world data show two vaccine doses are remarkably good at preventing death and serious illness. A UK analysis focused on the Delta variant found, for example, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is 96 per cent effective against hospitalisation after two doses.
That first study I mentioned above also looked at waning effectiveness against hospitalisation. It found that the vaccines’ held up against serious infection for a longer period. (But there have been reports in Israel suggesting “some reduction in effectiveness against hospital admissions has been observed among older people”.)
We’ve also reported on the decoupling of case numbers and deaths which is evident in the UK. You can see how case numbers have remained high in the UK but in a highly vaccinated population, deaths have not followed.
They’re not perfect then?
Yes, you’d be right to point out that 47 per cent effectiveness against infection six months on is not 100 per cent for all time. You’d also be right to point out that a potential drop off in the vaccine’s effectiveness against severe illness in older people is concerning.Another recent study, which has been cited by some to discredit the vaccines, also found “fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings”.
But again, this doesn’t mean the vaccines are useless – far from it. As that study explains, the vaccine reduces the risk of an infection in the first place, and accelerates how quickly that viral load disappears.
The reality is, talking about the vaccines is invariably messy – as is anything when imperfection leaks in. You, for example, may well think the traffic light system is much messier than the alert level system.
That’s perfectly reasonable but remember the alert level system was created to achieve a binary or “perfect” goal: no Covid. An alternative that allows some Covid is obviously going to be much less elegant and induce a touch of head scratching.
With that in mind, it’s very easy to see how such an array of information is incredibly dizzying for some people, particularly when the Pfizer vaccine was initially said to be “flirting with perfection”.
What we have, in a nutshell, are excellent vaccines that hugely reduce the risk of serious illness and death. But they are not perfect.
Why do we struggle with uncertainty?
The reason some people equate vaccine imperfection with pointlessness, Priddy suggests, may be because there are plenty of vaccines administered to children that are almost entirely effective and last pretty much for life; the measles inoculation, for instance.“So that shapes peoples' perceptions of vaccines – either they work or they don't.”
(Remember, Priddy notes, that the vast majority of people have accepted these ‘imperfect’ but excellent vaccines.)
And it may be that the early reporting on efficacy was unintentionally counterproductive. There’s no reason to doubt the efficacy results in November last year, but we’re in uncharted waters with this pandemic. Things change. Most importantly, the public did not know the incredibly infectious Delta variant, which has changed everything, was around the corner. And it may well be that three, not two, jabs was always the optimal dosage.
Dr Amanda Wallis, a research lead at Umbrella, suggests that if people expected perfection from a vaccine, some may well be less trustful and therefore less likely to get vaccinated when new information comes to light.
“This might explain why some people are more vocal about the vaccine’s limitations now, given that some people had such high hopes for it being close to perfect.”
On this point, Dr Olivia Wills, a behavioural economist, at the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) agrees.
“Given that other familiar vaccines work by completely stopping the disease (for example, measles and smallpox), it’s easy for us to ‘anchor’ on to the idea and expect it from the Covid vaccine too. We rely on mental shortcuts like anchoring all the time, but even more in times of stress or uncertainty.
“This anchor sets up an expectation of perfection in our brains, which the vaccine has not been able to keep up with as the virus mutated. Despite overwhelming evidence for reductions in hospitalisation and death, we can feel this failure to meet expectations as a loss, and it can amplify other existing concerns around the vaccine.”
A number of other psychologists at Umbrella also offered some other perspectives on why the human mind struggles with uncertainty. I’ll summarise below:
- The intolerance for “imperfection” in the vaccines may be related to a broader “intolerance of uncertainty”, a common feature of anxiety, which is when people struggle with the idea that nothing in life is certain or perfect.
- When things are uncertain and that uncertainty makes us anxious or uncomfortable (for example, “I could get vaccinated and still get Covid”), our mind comes up with reasons as to why we can't, or shouldn't have to engage with the uncertainty (“the vaccine isn’t perfect, therefore it’s not worth getting”).
- And finally, when uncertainty strikes, another common reaction is that people often go and search for more information in the mistaken belief that information is the path to certainty. The short term benefit would be a reduction in anxiety, but long term it creates more uncertainty/anxiety because you just can't get 100 per cent certainty in an uncertain world. This can fuel a vicious cycle.
But if we talked about uncertainty all the time wouldn’t that just confuse people?
Maybe. Or maybe not. A recent UK paper, that is yet to be peer-reviewed, looked to explore the impacts of imperfection - particularly the “negative consequences of failing to communicate uncertainties” when it comes to the Covid-19 vaccines.The report notes that earlier study found there may be “advantages to not communicating uncertainties” but it asked what happens if people are told something and then things change?
“When uncertainties do exist, can ignoring them backfire and eventually lead to worse outcomes?”
To do this, the study’s participants were told to imagine a public health expert making a vaccine announcement.
The first group was told the following: “I can confirm that the vaccine is 60 per cent effective. This means that, although the vaccine might not work for everyone, there is a very good chance that it will work for you. This vaccine will significantly drive down the infection rate and we will be able to remove the restrictive measures we put in place to combat the virus.”
The second was told: “The vaccine is between 50 and 70 per cent effective. The reason I can’t give a more precise estimate is because the data we have doesn’t allow that. There might be some things we don’t know yet about the vaccine, but this is the best available option. Although it might not work for everyone, there is a chance it will work for you. This vaccine will hopefully drive down the infection rate and we may be able to remove the restrictive measures we put in place to combat the virus.”
Then a week later everyone was told new research had emerged showing the vaccine is actually closer to 40 per cent effective.
The researchers thought the following would happen: The people who were told the vaccines were definitely 60 per cent effective were likely to get upset when that new information came to light.
“We posit that communicating uncertainty makes people more likely to expect information to change over time and therefore less surprised and disappointed when confronted to new and conflicting information,” the authors wrote.
“On the other hand, communicating with unwarranted certainty may be perceived as intentionally misleading.”
The study found just that - the people who were given certainties were less likely to get vaccinated when the new information came to light.
While noting limitations with the study, the authors said the findings support calls for greater “acknowledgements of uncertainty in communications relating to Covid-19”.
In a separate piece for British magazine The Psychologist Eleonore Batteux, one of the authors, suggested that people want to believe the future is predictable. The alternative is uncertainty and therefore worry.
What follows, she writes, is that politicians communicate with certainty because that’s what people want.
The same appears to be true here, former National government press secretary Ben Thomas told me. While complexity and uncertainty is baked into New Zealand politics, politicians still prefer to communicate in a manner that’s punchy, digestible and certain.
Politicians, Thomas says, like to portray a sense of being in control. And the public generally wants to view every issue - even Covid-19 - as being solvable by the Beehive.
Most of the time our political leaders can navigate through uncertainty. They can, for example, just pass a law (problem solved) or introduce a policy and explain it away when it doesn’t work out.
But the pandemic is very different. For instance, when Delta arrived, the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said she wanted a sharp and short lockdown for Auckland. Days earlier, before we even knew of Covid’s infiltration she said New Zealand would be sticking with elimination.
The government had nothing to do with the emergence of the incredibly infectious Delta variant, which has radically changed the dynamics of this pandemic. It’s certainly not its fault the vaccines’ effectiveness wanes somewhat.
All of this uncertainty, however, makes effective communication incredibly challenging.
And it’s not only politicians. Traditional reporting styles typically employed by media in New Zealand aren’t necessarily always the best format to acknowledge there are very few guarantees with Covid-19.
So what does all this mean then? Well, uncertainty is an inescapable fundamental of the pandemic. But that uncertainty doesn’t mean our response – particularly vaccination – is futile.
Think of it this way, Priddy suggests. “Seat belts reduce your risk of death or injury but aren't perfect. Or maybe tooth brushing – it definitely reduces your risk of things like cavities, gum disease and bad breath, but it’s not 100 per cent effective.” Does any of this mean seat belts and toothbrushes are pointless?
Anything else?
Well, yes. Recently four former Aviation Security Service employees challenged a public health order requiring them to be vaccinated.As part of the case, epidemiologist Dr Simon Thornley, suggested among other things that the Pfizer vaccine is ineffective at stopping transmission of the Delta variant
You can read the full judgement here but the conclusion from Justice Francis Cooke who considered the evidence is definitive.
“I do not accept the applicants’ challenge that the vaccine is experimental, unproven, unsafe and that it has little effect on transmission.
“I am satisfied that the vaccine is safe and effective, is significantly beneficial in preventing symptomatic infection of Covid-19 including the Delta variant, and that it significantly reduces serious illness, hospitalisation and death.”
There was also evidence presented during the case about the possibility of asymptomatic spread of disease in highly vaccinated countries contributing to high case numbers.
Justice Cooke’s response to this is quite telling: “Such possibilities do not mean that vaccination does not inhibit transmission,” he wrote. “It just means there are uncertainties.”
benutz
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2020
Children as young as FIVE could be offered Covid vaccines in 'Spring jab campaign' according to 'leaked NHS plan'
Children as young as FIVE could be offered Covid vaccines according t…
archived 20 Nov 2021 19:03:38 UTC
- Secret NHS plans leaked claiming Covid jabs could soon be offered to under-11s
- Health chiefs fear that Covid could continue to be a threat to Brits until 2024
- Rolling out Covid jabs to children aged 5-11 could be one way to tackle the virus
- But the UK's regulator's would need to approve the jabs for this age group first
- England's chief medical officer said this week that any decision is a long way off
""Secret"" plans. Fear. Continue to be a threat till 2024. Rolling out. Need to approve.
Decision is a long way off.
See how they gaslight us, psycholigally abuse us? Telling us what they are going to do to us before they do it, knowing full well that we know damn well they are going to do it, no matter what they say. It's a little game they play.
Secret plans are reportedly being drawn up which will see Covid jabs being rolled out to children as young as five in the coming months
Not so secret then is it.
At present, vaccines are not being offered to any child younger than the age of 12.
While US health officials gave the final sign-off to the Pfizer vaccine for use in five to 11-year-olds at the beginning of November, with doses to be administered at a third of the amount given to teenagers and adults.
And earlier this week, the JCVI recommended that children should wait at least 12 weeks after catching Covid to get their jab.
The body said there is evidence the longer gap reduces the risk of myocarditis, a type of heart inflammation reported in a small number of children after vaccination.
Today's change to the guidance only applies to healthy children aged 12 to 17, who previously only had to wait a month after infection to get jabbed.
Jesus fucking christ. Myocarditis. Five year olds. Knowingly. Willingly being done.
---
Covid in Scotland: Warning of passport extension or more restrictions
Covid in Scotland: Warning of passport extension or more restrictions…
archived 20 Nov 2021 19:04:56 UTC
A final decision on whether to extend certification will be made on Tuesday.
But a new evidence paper claims that to "suppress the virus further" there is a choice between limiting social contacts or requiring passports at more hospitality venues.
Any extension to the scheme would start on 6 December.
'It may convince those who are currently indifferent'
That's the idea. Raped a girl last night I met in a nightclub. She wasn't keen on getting it at first, but I broke her nose and gave her a black eye. She was indifferent, but I convinced her.
Faceless people. Whitoid in minority in majority whitoid country. Gotcha!
---
Covid: WHO says it is very worried about Europe surge
Covid: WHO says it is very worried about Europe surge - BBC News
archived 20 Nov 2021 19:05:59 UTC
Dr Kluge said mandatory vaccination measures should be seen as a "last resort" but that it would be "very timely" to have a "legal and societal debate" about the issue.
"Before that, there are other means like the Covid pass," he said, adding that this is "not a restriction of liberty, rather it is a tool to keep our individual freedom."
Legal debate. Last resort. Covid pass. MANDATORY VACCINATION.
Austria on Friday became the first European country to announce that Covid-19 vaccination would become a legal requirement. The new rules are set to come into force in February, as details of how the measure will be enforced are still being discussed.
details of how the measure will be enforced are still being discussed
Austrian Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg said it was a difficult decision to take in a free society, but that the jabs were "the only exit ticket we have to break this vicious circle".
"It's a problem for the whole society because even those that are vaccinated, if they don't have access to an intensive care unit because they're blocked by those who are not vaccinated and got sick, so then they are affected as well," Mr Schallenberg told the BBC.
English motherfucker. Do you speak it?
Perhaps he's had a stroke. Perhaps I've had a stroke. Because that just sounds like fucking bullshit to me.
It's a problem for the whole society
Because they care so much, about the whoooole of society. It's a 'problem'. And problems require ""solutions"" don't they? A final solution, perhaps?
details of how the measure will be enforced are still being discussed
What a (interesting) time to be alive.
ETA: ninja'd by fhqwhgads. Sorry 'bout that. Bit burned out and tired today.
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2020
So this is the European version of the "fiery but mostly peaceful" BLM riots.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2020
Yes, except BLM was rioting on behalf of a thug overdosing in the presence of a police officer and Euros are resisting the globohomo and are thus an Extreme Danger to Our Democracy
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2017
Oh no, these are super bad nazi riots out to overthrow freedom(tm) because they are going against TPTB.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Moving out to a village in the countryside might work for you - quite a few places out West aren't bothering with this shit at all, but admittedly that'd be a total crapshoot
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2020
This is the Great Reset, the powers that be want total control of humanity, including our bodies. This is why there is all the coercing and now talk of forcibly injecting people, this is medical rape. I will kill anyone that comes at me with these injections. I hope you guys are waking up, at some point weather you want to or not these injections will be forced on us all. God save us.
ddw
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2021
all this talk reminds me of daria where the principal says something like "anyone who doesn't go to the voluntary school event gets a week of detention" did high schools actually do that kind of stuff in the 90s?
diroama
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2019
In England everything is as normal atm. Covid passports in Scotland. Not sure about Wales. Might change of course.
- Status