Novak Djokovic's Visa Cancelled by Australian Minister for Immigration

But a more tangible insight into why you're wrong and why vaccines do work is to look at statistics for hospitalization in intensive care: these days, the vast majority of ICU cases of COVID are unvaccinated patients. Given that most people are vaccinated, it should be the other way around if there was no difference between vaccinated or unvaccinated. This is a much stronger argument than speculating what a growth graph should or should not look like with or without vaccines.

The point I'm making here is that the data is contradictory, which means there is a need to investigate. Trials didn't show any impact on hospitalization or death (because it's so rare, they were too small to get significance). That means the data on them is confounded. For example, in the UK the data shows that pregnancy makes you more likely to be admitted to ICU with COVID but less likely to die. A biological effect? No, of course not. Rather, hospital staff have a lot of discretion on who they send to ICU or not, and they prefer to spend resources on women who are pregnant.

In many countries, the intensive care units have not been in the situation where they had to triage, so the selection effects you report have not been necessary there. And even if, no hospital would make the decision on who to assign to an ICU based on their vaccination status, but based on the medical needs. The fact that we see dramatically less vaccinated people in ICUs is most plausibly explained by the effectiveness of the vaccines.

Perhaps so, but those who are vaccinated shed less viral load, ipso facto it's less likely that another person would be infected. Same goes for masks: viral load is attenuated when someone with COVID breathes out, if an uninfected person nearby also has a mask then there's further viral load attenuation when he/she breathes in. Morever the attenuation is not just additive but rather it's multiplicative - and that's the big deal, it's why everyone should wear masks. It's the reason why they're often mandated for everyone.

Even if vaccines are minimally effective in stopping the spread of the virus, if you then factor in masks then up goes the attenuation again (check the figures from recent research, there are quite a few papers around by now - and they'll all be saying essentially the same thing).

If vaccinated people are infecting others then one needs to ask why. First, I'd suggest that almost none of the general public are wearing the effective N95/P2 masks (they are certified and type approved by regulation). Instead, most are wearing surgical masks which are nigh on useless for COVID, especially so when huge numbers of people wear them down around their chin - their mouths may be covered but the masks are essentially useless when their noses are exposed (one has to wonder what's wrong with these idiots, either they've room-temperature IQs or a death wish).

Remember, surgical masks have no airtight seal as do N95/P2s, their original purpose was to catch spit and droplets that fall onto patients when a surgeon is talking and they work for that purpose.

Frankly, the fact that governments have failed to give proper instruction/training to their citizens about proper mask usage and hygiene (by TV ads etc.) has been an unmitigated fucking disaster. If proper, effective masking had been employed then likely 30% of the 5.4 million who've already died to date would still be alive now. (I accept that early on there was a mask shortage, this was a significant problem but there are any number of proper certified masks now available.)

Why do I care that others aren't wearing their masks properly? For the same reasons I mentioned earlier, which is when they fail to wear them in the correct and effective way then they also degrade my protection to unacceptable levels.

"The absolute risk reduction of the vaccines is below 3%. [0] The guilt-tripping is not based on facts or science, but on fear, the flawed idea that you could eliminate risk from life, as well as lack of respect for other people's freedoms."

Well, I'd suggest you're wrong with that 3% - damn lies and statistics taken out of context. Look at these realworld figures. Yes, there is breakthrough with vaccines but it's a no-brainer to be both fully vaccinated with booster and for those around you to be of the same status. With proper mask protection as well then one has a much better chance of either not catching the virus or only getting mild symptoms.

https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/covid-19-breakthrough-data

HN's comments link: https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/covid-19-breakthrough-data https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29956681

Why are people like you so damn negative about this and so deliberately intent in disrupting society when it's in such a state of stress? Why are so many of you so intent in trying to undermine and sabotage the rest of us when we're doing our darndest to try and protect ourselves from this cursed disease? You are forcing us to fight on two fronts and it's damn inconsiderate and selfish of you to do so.

You may not care about your own lives but reasonable people are normally considerate of others.

And why are you continually whingeing about your so-called freedoms and rights in this terrible time with millions of people dying, especially when it takes so little effort to comply with the mask and vaccination rules? After all, the majority of us are doing our best to follow the best scientific advice available. And science is by far our best option and way out of this unholy mess. Sure, the science is not perfect but then it's still early days for research (and what we've achieved in only a couple of years has been truly phenomenal).

Even my valid points about well accepted practices that countries have adopted during pandemics from centuries back right up to the present you've dismissed and poo-pooed and even tried to parallel them with the workings of a witch hunt when they're nothing of the sort. Counties have adopted these practices/solutions during pandemics because they've found that through centuries of experience that they provide the best practical outcomes. No one ever said they were perfect, we've always known they're not.

It would be interesting to contemplate the outcomes if the tables were turned and instead we were dealing with the polio epidemic of the 1950s and '60s. I wonder if the anti-vaxxers and naysayers would be so inconsiderate and disruptive. I seriously doubt it, and I'd pretty much bet they'd be vaccinated in a flash.

One look at young kids dying, or paralyzed and unable to breathe and having to be kept alive in iron lungs often for the rest of their lives; or with legs so paralyzed that they were barely able to walk with crutches, then I'd reckon they would quickly change their minds.

Well, lived through that time and it was horrible, a kid in my class died and two others were left with paralyzed legs and unable to walk without the aid of crutches, we were always wondering if we'd be next.

When the Salk vaccine arrived in the 1960s it was welcome with open joy. There weren't any recalcitrant mobs marching down the street demanding their freedoms and rights. Any such action would have been unthinkable.

Instead no one opted out except for a very small minority on religious grounds but they'd long done so for other medical procedures. There was no messing about either, my school of just under 1,100 kids was completely vaccinated between the midmorning break and lunchtime.

https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/remembering-australi...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_lung