Heart-disease risk soars after Covid, even with a mild case

> Australia and New Zealand were pretty much at the herd immunity threshold from vaccination.

This is false and shows you don't understand how the covid vaccines work, and you don't know what happened in Australia.

I live in Australia and we suffered some of the harshest lockdowns in the world. Cases were kept low because states closed their borders, not allowing anyone in. People were locked down in their homes, not allowing anyone out.

This went on for literally hundreds of days in some parts of the country, even those places with high vaccination rates.

We had strict curfews; we had 5km travel limits enforced by cops and "ring of steel" checkpoints. It was illegal to go the beach; it was illegal to take your kids to the park; it was lawful for cops to chase and attack people for not wearing masks outside. We had overzealous state premiers granting themselves new powers. We had propaganda campaigns of fear - our government hired young actors to die slowly on ventilators... (https://youtu.be/5v0Xc4dWYH4)... when the rest of world chose constructive public health messaging, we went for "shock and awe" to scare people into not going outside.

Yet, here you are claiming we had "herd immunity"! Do you realise that not everyone takes the vaccine at the same time, and that only a small proportion of vaccinated people at any given time have the full protection offered before the vaccine fades? That window of time being as little as 4 months? Herd immunity was never more than wishful thinking.

Post-viral conditions happen, yeah, but the percentages coming out of long COVID studies as well as the sheer number of anecdotes everyone has seems fairly novel. At the very least, even if there's a similar prevalence of these issues for COVID, the sheer amount of infections is going to mean this is a larger concern for COVID than other viruses.

> "Yes they were long, because for most of the pandemic we didn't have vaccines."

You're just repeating the Vic government's explanation for their unreasonably long lockdowns. If I wanted that, I'd go to the Vic gov website, or turn on commercial TV news.

Sounds like you fully support the harsh lockdown policies, and believe the explanation for the lockdowns comes from irrefutable scientific reasoning. But even the federal government was telling Victoria to back off with lockdowns. Not all experts agree with each other.

But the "united front" is important for public perception, so they did a lot of work to make sure the message was consistent, even if outdated. Consistency trumps validity in Australian politics.

Here's the problem: transmission remained high, even in highly vaccinated countries before Omicron. Then when Omicron landed, transmission went up again, making a mockery of advice that insisted transmission was reduced.

Reduction of severe illness is how the vaccines earn their green tick, not transmission reduction.

The Vic chief health officer is still insisting transmission can be "stopped" (he used that word the other day). That was his justification for why children still need to wear masks at school until they're vaccinated!

The reasoning is about "vaccine perception" not public health. Perhaps they're wanting to prepare people for a life of repeated, mandated jabs and checking in everywhere. The "vaccinated economy".

When Novak was booted out, it wasn't because he was a health risk. It was because "perception". Are you talking about the role perception plays in covid rules and regulations on your subreddit? Or is it just "anti-vaxxers bad, lockdowns good" kind of thing?

> "Those lockdowns ended because of vaccination."

No. The lockdowns ended because those making the rules decided to end the lockdowns. If it were because of vaccination, we'd be locked down again because double-dose vaccination is no longer considered good protection.

Underscoring the hypocrisy of the rules, your old and waned double vax from last year still gets you into hairdressers and restaurants, yet unvaccinated people are banned from those places. There would be zero risk difference, but because the government wants everyone vaccinated to the amount they dictate, the rules remain in place. Not because of science, but because of perception and behavioral control over the population.

Politicians and their side-kick health officers use blunt instruments like mandates because they don't know what else to do, so they throw kitchen sink and tell people it's science and "keeping people safe".