571–580 of 766 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The UK is not an island.
How so? It's a body of land surrounded by a body of water!
You're probably thinking of Great Britain by itself, which is the island containing the main parts of the countries of Scotland, England, and Wales.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Denmark where I live, a large proportion of infected people are age 20-29, and I wonder if it would make sense to vaccinate them first when you get to "rest of the population". Even though they have a smaller risk of getting seriously ill, that could be an effective way to lower transmission. That is: 1. Immunize the age group that is dominating in the hospitalization statistics, then 2. Immunize the age group is…
From a sheer infection control standpoint it makes a sense to vaccinate hypermobile social superspreader nodes first. Anyone who comes into contact with lots of people is going to be responsible for more onward infection chains than a reclusive grandma. The butterflies among the young are probably key drivers of spread. Take them out of the susceptibility picture and everyone benefits.
HN-ians like to model stuff, and i get that. To do it properly we need to know how many "young"(active ppl) there are, how many old with lung problems, the rates of propagation in and between those, and probably other stuff. But the goal is to keep the deaths down, and my opinion is that by far the smartest way is to first vaccinate the vulnerable people and those who deal with them directly (nurses, etc.). There's also a lot of points about practicality. For example; If i get infected not much happens (i'd just have to isolate myself, even with heavier symptoms). But if my mother gets those severe symptoms she would need to go to the hospital, if she would live at all.
Even if the math says it's better to vaccinate the young ones first, i'd still argue that it's overall safer to vaccinate the vulnerable ones first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a high level overview and global perspective, what the OP is saying, or meant , is that comparatively speaking UK is much better than possibly 80% of developed countries. Not to say NHS is without flaws, far from it. But if you step outside and look around the world many are surprised how awful public health services and logistics can be. So to put it another way, It is not that NHS is good, it is just the other…
What you're missing is that amongst a certain class of Brit, and across much of the West, relentless and savage cultural self-criticism has become the norm, and a currency used for in-group signalling. Even when people in the UK should be celebrating, as literally the first country in the world to develop an approved C19 vaccine in record breaking time, and enjoy the privilege of a free health system that can roll it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it is fear mongering. While the health institutes have access to the data, I don't. I don't think anyone on hacker news can make many intelligent statements about side effects, yet, though the press releases claim that they are similar to what is typical of other vaccines.
Why would you personally need access to the data unless you actually think the government would allow people to take a dangerous vaccine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People are dying now But not a lot. That's what's fascinating. At least in the US, over 95% of fatalities are people over 55. We're at 200k ~ 300k deaths for the year in the US (and I think there is reason to believe this is an overestimate, not an underestimate). That's lower than heart disease and cancer (500~600k yearly). I doubt we'll even approach those numbers by March. Science is slow because it needs to be…
> At least in the US, over 95% of fatalities are people over 55 I'll never understand people who say this, thinking it somehow proves their point or something. My parents are nearly 60, and easily have 20 more years of time with me and their grandkids. Why are we okay with that?
We can provide support specifically to those at risk, while also respecting the liberty and freedom of everyone else. Someone with an autoimmune disease or who is 65 can choose not to go to a pub and simply not interact with the rest of the world using technology. At the same time, the pub owner should be allowed to make a damn living.
I don't understand why this is so complicated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's your alternative to an NHS style system?
Mandatory health insurance. Look at the Swiss type system or really more or less any modern healthcare system. Pro-NHS Brits love to compare it exclusively to the USA, but most countries do far better than both.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not want the vaccine, but it might be mandatory here in Eastern Europe. My family member was tested positive, and I lived with him, we were under quarantine. No symptoms, ever! I do not want to the vaccine, damn it.
I don't want to have to be sober to drive my car on public roadways, and yet, here I am, acknowledging that I have some basic responsibility for the safety of people around me. This approach is incredibly selfish. Would you pursue it if you were held responsible for consequences of that behaviour, as drunk drivers are?
The government forcing you to take an injection is literally not your choice. Not to mention, we know drunk driving impairs people and increases risk. There are tons of studies that show that (they also show sleep deprivation is worse than alcohol for driving, but that's not illegal ... probably because it's not measurable, or it's hard to gauge intent).
This vaccine has been rushed through the process with zero long-term Longitudinal studies. A drug company can yell 95% effective all they want, but the fact is, this is a HUGE unknown. The vast majority of normal scientists in other fields cannot do this research themselves and there aren't even any published papers yet we can look at.
This is a bad argument. You want some more bad arguments? Look at the Buck SCOTUS decision which lead to forced serialization, or the SCOUTS decision that lead to Japanese internment camps. You know what those two decisions were dependent on? Jacobson. The vaccine case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A better analogy would be living in a nice comfortable house, which is much better than nearly all other houses - but then someone spots a problem with the chimney and starts comparing it to other houses’ chimneys, some of which have better chimneys, some of which have better chimneys but a worse overall house, and some of which are fantasy chimneys that could theoretically exist if only we all spent a bit more time…
Not quite. A substantial number of people in the UK live in poverty - between 20 and 25% [0]. This has been made worse by terrible political decisions, such as Brexit [0]. Specifically, austerity and political decisions (not limited to corruption) is linked to 130,000 preventable deaths [1]. Those same "budget cuts" for austerity exist while money is sent to "consultants" to "help fix things". Not everyone in the UK…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> At least in the US, over 95% of fatalities are people over 55 I'll never understand people who say this, thinking it somehow proves their point or something. My parents are nearly 60, and easily have 20 more years of time with me and their grandkids. Why are we okay with that?
Then why not protect them specifically? Give money to isolate them if they don't live in their own homes. Provide grocery delivery services. Let them make the choice. There are some old people who are 70 and say "I want to live my life" and so let them go out and do whatever and assume the risk themselves. We can provide support specifically to those at risk, while also respecting the liberty and freedom of everyone…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's one of the possibilities I had in mind when I started the thread. Look at my top level comment so see what I asked exactly.
The answer to that is two-fold, of course. In the US and UK any hold-up is going to be blamed on the government, while in the EU it’ll be blamed on some nebulous, far away EU institution which is not elected anyway. Second one country might care more about a lot of people dying unnecessarily (besides the burden on the economy) than another. Clearly the EU has no issue with it and prioritizes theatrics instead. Again,…
wat?