(04-21-2023, 09:56 AM)shawny date Wrote:Thanks for correcting my math error however it doesn’t change my point. Covid in that age group is very very rare and the closing of playgrounds schools etc were not remotely in line with the risk on that age demographic. Spin it any way you want that’s a fact!

(04-21-2023, 11:33 AM)LP link Wrote:COVID being rare in that demographic isn't a fact it's a fantasy, you have confused mortality rates and virulence.

The people caring long term for their COVID affected children, children who were otherwise healthy prior to the virus, won't share your perspective, they might even find it slightly abhorrent!

PS: So happy to hear you want higher rates of Under 30s dying before you bother to act!

(04-21-2023, 12:15 PM)shawny link Wrote:???

(04-21-2023, 07:33 AM)PaulP link Wrote:The strategy of being more rather than less cautious, the strategy of trying to protect everyone, with an emphasis on those most vulnerable, even if it meant that the relatively healthy among us had to be inconvenienced (perhaps even highly inconvenienced) is completely bang on IMO. Covid wasn't a known quantity. It's hard to plan for a shifting and initially unknown target and keep everyone happy.

Of course, like most, I never enjoyed lockdowns, working from home, travel restrictions, schooling from home etc., but it was the right approach IMO.

(04-21-2023, 01:05 PM)Thryleon link Wrote:I was fine with it, until I saw how the mandates were applied to people.

It was very much get vaccinated or else.

They lost me and many others in some circumstances that you just had to witness to believe.  Imagine staring at a 20 year nurse 6 months pregnant offering to start maternity leave early and only return to work fully vaccinated and instead tear up her employment contract.

Needless to say, she won't be back.  Nurse educator in cardiology and ICU lost to the system for a vaccine that provides very limited personal protection vs a high risk pregnancy given her age.  I know which I'd choose, because sometimes you have to play the percentages.

(04-21-2023, 08:56 PM)PaulP link Wrote:No doubt one man's circumspect, cautious approach is another man's hysterical overreaction. I get that. You will always have fallout, exceptions to the norm and hard luck stories in situations like this. It's unavoidable. If you want to roll the dice, you take whatever fate has in store for you. You can look at Sweden for example, and their more relaxed approach was certainly not without some measure of success - but as always, both God and the Devil reside in the detail :

https://theconversation.com/did-swedens-controversial-covid-strategy-pay-off-in-many-ways-it-did-but-it-let-the-elderly-down-188338

You can look at another country that took a similar approach, the US, and it's a very different story.

(04-21-2023, 10:15 PM)Baggers link Wrote:I recall that when we all (warning: another tired Navy story!) lined up for a barrage of inoculations at recruit school (HMAS Cerberus) there was an expectation that a small number of blokes would react badly, some even hospitalised, and would subsequently not be able to join. We received yellow fever, TB, smallpox and another I forget all in one go. Apparently a few young blokes per year would end up in a critical condition or worse.

The point of this missive is that there was one inoculation (vaccination) where every one had a test for tolerance... a tiny injection under the skin of the forearm (underside) to test reaction (think it was smallpox, maybe TB). If a small watery blister came up in a few days you would good to go for the major injection. If not, you were discharged as the major injection would be very problematic. I wonder if a tiny, test dose could be used for Covid variants and other future nasty viruses to ascertain some level of suitability?