You claim it as a right but the whole issue of rights, let alone whether this is one of them, is debatable within a democracy.

The cost/benefit issue is not a matter of fact because some are only considering the cost/beneift to themselves while some are considering it for society. Also some are more paternalist - DS for example would force vaccine on people if it was good for them, I wouldn't (in practice we do with flouride). [Even this is a gross simplification of a complex issue]

Name what benefit society gets for vaccinating under 30 year olds in the era of delta? Facts:

1. Vaccine don't stop covid spread and everyone is going to get it anyway
2. Vaccinating 100 million under 30s is far more expensive than their (minor) medical care for covid for the handful that end up hospitalized

You talk about societal benefit but there is none for vaccinating under 30s, in fact it's a net societal cost.

I don't think people have grasped what delta means. You might have had a case to make for the old covid where it actually could achieve herd immunity with vaccines, but all of your "societal benefit" are pure chezlaw fantasy now with delta around.

That's irrelevent to whether it's facism or not. Democracies get stuff wrong sometimes (or a lot)

But you seem to confuse herd immunity with slowing spread. Also, as I'm sure you saw I was one if the first pointing out that delta could probably not be stopped from spreading. That doesn't mean there's no benefit in slowing it down

If you're claiming as a certainty that the spread cannot be slowed then I think you're really pushing it.

What is the benefit in slowing it down? You live in a fantasy world chez.

If all the old people are vacced, everyone who wants the vacc has been able to get it, everyone is going to get it eventually and the hospitals are far from overwhelmed, what is the point of slowing spread? Seems a bit spastic, no? The vaccination quality of natural infection far exceeds the vaccination quality of vaccines, so the best way to protect the population going into winter is natural infection provided people aren't dying en masse - which they're not. They're going to get it anyway.

I'm pleased to see you acknowle that the spread can be slowed

I totally agree that the more this is true then the weaker the case for restrictions on the unvaccinated.

So the argument for restrictions is much stronger in Australia/NZ than in the UK at the moment. That may change if boosters/tweaked shots become needed.

This is also a strong argument. I pointed it out in another thread. You may also recall me at the outset of the pandemic supporting the timing case. Much better to have the peaks in the summer if they can't be avoided. So we might be more inclined to support restictions on the unvaccinated as winter appraoches?.

But it's just all stupid nonsense chez. The UK went from 50 to 700 per million cases in 6 weeks in a 70% immune, heavily vaccinated population. Where is the slowing of spread????? It looks exactly like far less vaccinated countries for spread. Then it peaked all on its own near the previous peaks.

You're getting all worked up about utterly meaningless differences in R. It's the same with masks - people get so worked up about "slowing the spread" but they mean jack **** for that in real world terms as dozens of graphs show - in fact the false sense of security from experts lying and misleading increases spread.

Have a little common sense, chez.

I'm fine thanks. You've accepted that it's better to have cases in the summer. Hence you can't also claim that slowing the spread cannot help.

So we're back to a claim that the spread cannot be slowed. As I said before - if that's you're claim then I think you're pushing it.

It's currently summer, chez. Do you I need to spell this out for you?

We can compare the rates of increase in heavily vaccinated countries like the UK vs very low vacc countries. The graphs/rates of R look identical! So how are vaccinations slowing the spread?

This is like the masks "slowing the spread" stupidity while cases went rapidly vertical in mask mandate countries (the same rate as non-mask-mandate countries) - you don't look at the raw data with common sense.

Where we live, sure but this was a matter of principles and in any case it will soon be be winter where the principle may make sound practice.

I'm not going to argue with you about slowing the spread. If you want to insist that it can't be done then I'll will leave you to it. My point remains that this falls within perfectly reasonble and standard democratic boundaries where we are fully entitled to disagree and even be wrong.

Good points in there.

Yeah, it's another example of the experts doing tremendous damage with their idiocy and incompetence. Lockdowns are terrible for child development (but at least very arguably needed at certain points), but mask wearing is just peak stupid and is proof that experts are scum/best ignored. We communicate with our faces and children need it for cognitive and emotional development and it has ZERO benefit for people to wear masks. It's the cognitive flaw of fuzzy thinking like chezlaw's ("they help slow the spread so we should use them!") that creates this insanity.

lol at dragging me into that TS.

You might win an award for most strawmen in fewest words with that line

Lol, if you knew how much I am not in favour of a lot of government in the private life but you have so many unfounded assumptions about everything , I’m not surprise you do here.
But I always favour choices over unilateral policies , like being against obligatory vaccination or anti abortion laws.
But I do belief in self responsibilities when freedom of choices increases when some things are based on nothing more than wishes instead of scientifically facts .

As for these rest , the debunk will be too much work , equaling a cell to a human being is an example , yeah no wonder your lost in science …

You contradict yourself in your own post. You favor choices except when those choices are stupid, then you're fine with mandating them (by your own words). So you don't favor choices at all, really. It's like someone claiming they favor free speech until it's offensive to others...yeah buddy, I don't think you get the concept.

Who's equating a cell to a human being? Be less silly maybe?

OK cite me where i mandate it ?
keep strawmen people....


What you do not seem to realize is at some point government need to make decisions in a democracy and those decisions will always restrict the freedom of someone for the contribution to society in general.
And what factors should be taken into account to make those decision ?
Scientific evidences is one right ?
it is the base of the entire judicial concept no ?

ie: drunk driving.
is it scientifically proven driving drunk increases danger for the driver or its surrounding ?


Now when you come to policies based on god beliefs, anti waxxer ,etc.
i strongly do not support any policies, affecting millions of peoples, coming from those ideologies not backed by anything but by beliefs, but i certainly do not restrict them to follow what they want to either....

freedom speech -> could i go on every social medias and radio show and claiming we must kill someone and invite people to do so ?
obv at some point there is a limit.

LOL First it was 8 months, now 5 months.

How long before it's down to every 3 months?

Tooth, as Ron DeSantis loses court case after court case trying to impose gov't forced interactions between citizens and business, do you think the courts are helping to spread fascism?

Do you think the anti-fascism position is gov't control over business interactions with consumers?

Show us that you actually know what fascism is as opposed to you saying 'if i don't like a rule that makes it fascist'.

I must agree there .
It’s not by giving freedom of choice it becomes fascist just because sometimes bad consequences happens ….

I used drunk driving specifically because it affect travel .

As much you cannot travel driving drunk , not travelling because you don’t want to be vaccinated as some ressemblance because in both cases you can endanger others that are not vaccinated adequately yet .

But it’s not obligatory to get a vaccine and that is what’s important .
Freedom of choices is preserve .
There is no facism in there.

But let’s say all people that wanted to be vaccinated are , and still restrictions apply than I would have serious problems with those restrictions not being alleviate.

Was waiting for bobbyJ to chime in on this.

Look they are now recommending the booster at 5 months... proof I was right all along, the vaccines don't work! Well, except for all those people not dying.

It was always waning against Delta at 5 months. 8 months was too long and I'm pleasantly surprised to see the govt actually using data to make decisions for a change. Will probably save a substantial number of elderly people from dying needlessly.

Peru, which has the highest relative death count, C19 has killed 1 in every 160 people there.

Sobering.

So, less than 1% then.

Where did I say they don't work? It's how long they work for that is the problem. As long as you are happy getting a booster wth no published safety data every 5 months that is fine.

Speaking of Peru, here's another interesting meta-analysis of IVM clinical trials. Peer reviewed.

https://journals.lww.com/americanthe...ment_of.7.aspx

We don't know if it's every 5 months. It could be one booster and done. It could be boosters every year or 2 after the first one. It could be a new mutation resists the current vaccines and we will need to develop something completely new that is targeted to the new strain.

This is the nature of developing vaccines during a global pandemic, with a mutating virus. I guess you were expecting one and done, and perfect lifelong protection against all strains? Would have been nice but unfortunately that is not the reality.

Such an epically dumb statement, so over flowing with pure unadulterated essence of derp.

That is 2 million+ dead in USA if the same ratio as Peru.

Yea whatever though, less than 1%.