By Chris Trotter*
The beating of the Delta variant of Covid-19 and the issuing of “vaccination passports” are about to become mutually reinforcing. Leastways, that is how the proposition will be framed by the Government and its expert advisers. How will it go down with the voters? Like a treat! New Zealanders want out of their Covid nightmare. Accordingly, there will be precious little tolerance for any person or group perceived to be obstructing the exit.
The practical necessity for a vaccination passport has already been recognised by the airlines. As the world gradually opens up to international travel, purchase of air-tickets will be conditional on presenting proof of both vaccination and non-infection. Nobody expects to get on a plane without a government-issued Passport. Nobody should expect to get on a plane without a vaccination passport.
After all, tourists travelling to parts of the world where dangerous diseases are endemic are required to produce evidence of vaccination. Without such evidence they are simply not permitted to fly. International travellers have accepted these rules without demur for decades. That a vocal minority are now making a fuss over an identical requirement to present proof of vaccination against Covid-19 – condemning it as an unconscionable infringement of their personal liberty – demonstrates just how weirdly Covid is making some people think and act.
Others, even more out of sync with logic and ethics, are shrugging-off the international “No Jab-No Fly” rules, but objecting fiercely to the idea of having to present a vaccination passport domestically. The idea that citizens unable to present a valid vaccination passport might be refused entry to shops and offices, factories and sports stadia, strikes these Covid dissidents as entirely unacceptable.
That the introduction of domestic vaccination passports poses challenges is indisputable, but the suggestion that the rationales for mandating the vaccination of international travellers, and ordinary citizens, differ in any substantial way, is risible. Why are foreign governments insisting that people wishing to enter their country must present proof of vaccination and non-infection? Because they are committed to keeping their people safe. Why will your own government soon be requiring you to present a vaccination passport before entering a pub or a restaurant? The answer is exactly the same. Because it, too, is committed to keeping its citizens safe.
What these Covid dissidents should be required to explain is why they refuse to be vaccinated. Epidemiologists are united in their advice that the larger the percentage of vaccinated persons becomes, the greater the probability that, even in the unlikely event of becoming infected, a vaccinated person’s chances of becoming seriously ill are extremely low. What credible explanation for not being vaccinated could they possible offer?
They certainly cannot advance the idea that the vaccine (especially the Pfizer vaccine used in New Zealand) is unsafe. Tens-of-millions of doses have been administered worldwide without incident. The number of adverse reactions is so tiny that the English language struggles to produce the right word. Infinitesimal is a good start, but a better way to put it is to say that a person is much more likely to be struck several times by lightening than they are to experience serious negative side-effects from a Covid-19 jab.
At this point Covid dissidents could start mumbling about microchips, 5G and Bill Gates’ diabolical plans for world domination – thereby ruling themselves out of contention as persons whose objections warrant serious consideration. Or, they could simply assert their rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (1990). Section 11 of the Act clearly states that: “Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment.”
This is an important human right and the New Zealand Government is bound to uphold it. The problem for the Covid dissidents, however, is that no one – least of all the Government – is proposing to seize them by force, strap them to a chair, and inject them with a double-dose of the Pfizer vaccine. By issuing vaccination passports the state is merely declaring that if an individual asserts his or her right to refuse to accept this particular form of medical treatment, then the community will be empowered to assert its right to protect itself from those who refuse to take the fight against Covid-19 seriously.
On a personal note, and as someone heavily invested ideologically in the NZ Bill of Rights Act – most particularly its guarantees of freedom of thought and freedom of expression – my stance on vaccination passports stands open to challenge. By way of rejoinder, I would argue that no human right is absolute. As the familiar adage goes: “Freedom of Speech does not give one the right to cry ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre.” Those who refuse to be vaccinated in the midst of a global pandemic may, in my opinion, reasonably be accused of behaving with the same reckless disregard for the welfare (and rights) of others as the reprobate who shouts ‘Fire!’
It is possible, of course, that Covid dissidents may also have heavy ideological investments. Given that New Zealand is in the grip of an epidemiological crisis which can be ameliorated to a considerable degree by as many people as possible being vaccinated, it is difficult to conceive of any ethical ideological argument that could be mounted against vaccination. The only ideological system which fits the bill is Ayn Rand’s “Objectivism” – the extreme libertarian doctrine which repudiates entirely the notion that human-beings are obligated to help one another. Perhaps the most that can be said for these Objectivist objections is that although Rand’s followers are free to think such thoughts, the rest of humanity is equally free to protect themselves from their practical expression.
The only serious objection offered against the introduction of vaccination passports is that it could lead to a dangerous worsening in race relations. While Māori vaccination rates (particularly those of young Māori) lag behind the rest of the New Zealand population, the situation could easily arise of a big majority of the population happily flashing their vaccination passports at their places of work (“No Jab, No Job!”) and recreation – not to mention pharmacies and supermarkets – while young, unvaccinated Māori, lacking passports, are denied entry. That would be a recipe for real injustice – and big trouble.
A concerted effort must, therefore, be made by the Government, the Ministry of Health and Iwi service organisations of all kinds, to lift the rate of Māori vaccination as swiftly as possible. Indeed, one could reasonably argue that until this huge potential difficulty has been resolved – along with the problem of finding an effective means of addressing the needs of those with medical conditions that preclude vaccination – the roll out of vaccination passports should be delayed.
But, any delay cannot afford to be a long one. New Zealanders won’t stand for it. The Delta variant of Covid-19 has thrown the country’s hitherto highly effective “Elimination Strategy” into doubt. Aucklanders are wearying rapidly of Level 4 Lockdown. More and more, Kiwis are looking to vaccination for salvation. Realistically, that means 90% to 95% of the adult population (at the very least) getting the double (or triple) jab.
Moreover, once they’ve got it, and the vaccination passport to prove it, they will not want to see free-riders making a mockery of their public-spirited contribution to the general welfare. Aotearoa-New Zealand has never been a libertarian nation. Politically, Kiwis are much more likely to echo the words of the Roman statesman, Cicero, who famously declared:
Salus populi suprema lex esto
The safety of the people shall be the highest law.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
257 Comments
Hey you don't have to get the vaccination - we believe in your freedom of choice & we're of course kind! BUT without the vaccine passport...you won't be able to go to work, buy food, go to public places, go and travel...basically live life. But you've still got your freedom of choice.
Don't you believe in private property rights, and that businesses should have the right to bar entry to anyone they deem a risk to the health of their staff and customers?
The government could set up food banks for the unvaxxed, and special unvaxxed housing communities. Like modern day leper colonies.
Great idea. We could ask the unvaccinated to wear large, clearly visible badges. We may need to send them by train to unvaccinated "camps", to keep them away from the rest of us. Business should be allowed to exclude these people.
I've heard this one before somewhere.
That's what they did in the Bible to manage pandemics.
Luckily we now have vaccines, but some people want to keep living like it's 200 AD.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, they don't need to make a special badge, they just need to wear their tinfoil hat when they go out.
Great initiatives. Germany was I guess way ahead of its time with the gesundheitspass in the late 30's.
But of course the argument goes if you are vaccinated why are the unvaccinated a risk to you?
Because the vaccine is not perfect.
Unfortunate, but reality. So we have to deal with it.
If antivaxxers are refusing a vaccine because it's only very good, instead of perfect, then they have a very warped perception of risk and appropriate response.
No-one wants to get Covid or go through the horrific experience of a serious case. Even if you are vaccinated, you can still get a serious case of Covid, and some people who are vaccinated and get Covid do die. So certainly the unvaccinated people are a risk to everyone else in the community.
90% of any given pop without jab do not get cv19
98.5% of those who do get it do not die
People need some facts which I am afraid news are not keen on presenting
There have been 7 million cases in the UK to date, currently rising by about 35,000 a day. Deaths were once up to 1300 a day, yesterday’s figure was 56. Note the daily case rate! Death rate earlier in the pandemic before mass vaccination was @2% of those infected. Much, much lower now, 0.2%?, mainly unvaccinated people. Perhaps it’s a coincidence that the death rate plummeted after around 60% of the population got vaccinated. Just saying…
Or Delta came along and it isnt as deadly?
Or Delta is as deadly but the weakest were already killed by Alpha and earlier.
This is something I suspect, and it is quite likely Delta is deadlier. But have no idea how you could ever prove it?
From my wide reading, delta is deadlier in that it is much faster to replicate in the body, thus can more quickly overcome people's immune systems and also means hospital treatments need to begin sooner (less margin for error). The viral load many times may simply be more than the body, even with hospital treatments, can deal with.
So it's not so much that delta itself is necessarily deadlier than earlier strains, as in it doesn't have new or different ways of infecting the lungs that are worse. It's just that it can produce a stronger dose of those existing complications much more quickly than the old variants could.
Yeah, same conclusion I have drawn. I was more wondering how you prove the death rate is lower due to those susceptible having already died. As you also need to factor in the other changes in prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.
It was a flippant remark to Belle's latest unsubstantiated brainfart.
The latest data from the NHS on delta here shows significantly higher mortality for vaccinated people in both over and under 50. Page 22 and 23 specifically.
At best it doesn’t seem like the vax provides any protection against delta. At worst it looks like the vaccination increases risk.
Israel’s mortality rate is currently around 1 in 300k vs. Sweden which is 1 in 6.7million.
Israel study here: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full.pdf
Suggesting natural immunity 13x more effective
Israel Now looking to 4th booster shot.
I’m not an anti-vaxxer but none of the data I’m looking at here fills me with confidence about the vaccine. If people question the efficacy and don’t want to take it, that seems understandable to me.
I love it when people quote a single study (without the source url) and use that to justify not getting the vaccine. "I'm not an anti-vaxxer, but..." Reveals a complete lack of understanding of scientific method. Here's what the WHO says. The vaccine won't stop you getting Delta, but it will stop you dying. It's a coronavirus like the common cold, which means any immunity whether derived from a vaccine or the virus itself is temporary.
Yes, I have also read that the viral load in Delta actually drops markedly a mere 4 days into infection. Too late for the infected of course, but it means transmissibility is very low just days into your infected period.
Hmmm, so according to JHU the UK has has 7.2M known cases of Covid, in a popilulation of ~67M, and cases are currently surging and going to continue for a while. So your first figure is BS straight out of the gate.
And death is not the only bad outcome, but you already knew that.
Here is a fact from the Coronavirus update on today's Stuff Situation report: "More than 5.6 billion vaccine doses have been administered around the world."
I guess we should have been seeing people dropping like sprayed flies, if the vaccine was dangerous.
Seems people are ignoring when the EU and others over-reacted to the very low risk of blood clots from the Astra Zeneca vaccines, ultimately themselves doing more harm for the vaccination drive by dramatically and publically halting administration of the vaccine.
I realise they were in an incredibly difficult situation, but I posit that they made the wrong choice, with the data they had.
It seems very unlikely that the authorities would somehow be covering up vaccine side effects happening on a vast scale, given how they over-reacted last time.
Now the last refuge for anti-vaxxers on the side-effect bandwagon is "you don't know what will happen long term! you don't know what will happen if you take 2-3 boosters of mRNA vaccine!".
Yes Australia had the same question with Astra Zeneca. That caused quite some interruption to their program and undoubtedly planted the seeds for the hesitant to swing over to anti vax. Obviously contributed to the slow vaccination rate which has caught them on the hop.
This question has been answered so many times that it is beyond unreasonable for you to not understand it at this point. I really do lose faith in human intelligence when I see questions like this.
We are heading down a bad pathway. Someone mentioned Stasi a few days ago. I can already hear people calling for vaccine papers to be produced to enter premises, work, travel, and get food.
Scarily we have already implemented this for people to get in/out of Auckland.
Maybe we should simplify and make the unvaxxed have a prominent sticker or badge on there clothing at all times, it will make them easier to identify.
You have to have a licence to drive, to travel overseas, be a dentist. All because people need to kept safe. What’s the difference with a vaccination ‘passport’? You still have the choice not to get vaccinated.
But at what point does it become discriminatory? No access to x, y, z because you aren't vaccinated against a, b, or c.
and the a, b, or c, is where it gets really tricky. What vaccines are required?
- No Chicken Pox vaccine when I was a kid. Do I need it now?
- I had x brand vaccine instead of y brand? What one counts?
- I have had ones in addition to the standard NZ ones, should I get extra benefits?
- Do overseas vaccines count?
Here is some very interesting USA (the libertarian center of the world) Supreme Court case history.
Not when businesses are compelled by H&S laws. In a free market, businesses would chose whether to enforce such restrictions and customers would chose whether to comply or shop elsewhere. However, when the State says to businesses, "if you don't comply with H&S laws, not only will your company be liable but also the directors will have personal liability", that's effectively business acting as an extension of the State.
The govt knows they cannot mandate certain things but it can force businesses to do the dirty work for them.
Businesses dodge every societal/moral obligation they can. Left to their own devices, they are quite happily stuffing the planet. Without which we aren't in business.
Unless business grows a conscience slash matures, business needs to be rule-curtailed.
End story.
We will never have truly free markets until we stop using fiat currencies. A return to a hard money society will mean a return to good times.
Bitcoin fixes this.
End story.
It’s not new internationally. In the 1970s you had to have a smallpox vaccination to work in customs areas our airports etc. In the 1980s NZ issued a little yellow book evidencing cholera, typhoid vaccination. Without that you simply could not gain access to many countries. Whatever the laws were that dictated that they surely can be re-invoked. Have to be in fact. But in terms of national criteria, workplace etc that indeed looks like a brewing barrel of snakes. For the greater good obviously the likely clarion cry. Who though determines what is the greater and what is good for each and every individual to obey. Perhaps the good Dr Baker is essentially correct in suggesting NZ look to China and their methods and measures for social dictates of this need.
The smallpox vaccine is a vaccine. It gives immunity. The covid "vaccine" doesn't. It is a hastily concocted brew foisted on a gullible populace for political and commercial purposes. At best it could be called a temporary symptom suppressor.
A vaccine wouldn't need ongoing booster shots. This is going to become another example of where the supposed solution becomes the problem.
Most vaccines require boosters. Very few are one and done.
Flu vaccine requires annual doses.
Basically you're just using a "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy to claim the COVID vaccine isn't one and so normal vaccine rules don't apply.
The flu vaccine, like the Covid vaccine, is a bit hit-or-miss.
Why force a hit-or-miss vaccine on the population? Covid isn't like smallpox, which is very dangerous to all - young and old.
The COVID vaccine is not hit or miss.
Nice to see that you explicitly do not care about old people. Nevermind that delta seems to be more virulent amongst young people than alpha and earlier strains were.
Also no one is being forced. Just persuaded, and living with the consequences of their choice.
Actually, the efficacy of the Covid vaccine is very narrow in terms of the protein that it affects. It does not provide full sterylization immunity and causes the spike protein to mutate through evolutionary pressure. It is no coincidence that the delta strain came to the fore once vaccinations were widespread.
The delta strain was first detected in October in India in 2020, before any vaccines had been tested or administered in India.
It has long been suggested that delta has some capacity for vaccine evasion. Survival of the fittest - if all of the competing strains are severely curtailed, the one that is least curtailed will begin to dominate.
You are right, most vaccines require boosters. But there are still fundamental differences between
a) A "vaccine" that requires a shot then <strike>one</strike> <strike>two</strike> three boosters within 12 months, and still allows for medically significant transmission.
vs
b) a vaccine that requires two shots over 20-30 years and removes the possibility of transmission almost entirely for that period.
No one has given 3 boosters for COVID over a 12 month period.
not yet. Current max is three - but that does not diminish my point? Would you want three flu jabs per year?
Either way further jabs (4 and even 5) are being discussed in numerous jurisdictions overseas.
It is looking likely that Pfizer is at best a temp measure. Something to quickly roll out to an unvaccinated population to cover them until a better vaccine can be found.
Rather have a jab a month than Covid.
Pretty close. Israel - the forerunner on the whole matter - Is Preparing for Possible Fourth Covid Vaccine Dose
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-12/israel-preparing-for…
As per their standards, I don't consider anyone vaccinated if they only had 2 shots (and 3 on 4 months time)
The flu "vaccine" is also a temporary symptom suppressor. The manufacturers have team with big tech media and political entities to increase their profits a thousand fold then divide up the loot.
Proper vaccines took on average 12 years to develop. The vast majority were rejected. This one goes through in 10 months. Without FDA approval at first. Then suddenly with an FDA approval so obviously shonky and corrupt it disappeared from MSM within a week.
Then after granting emergency use Hahn left the FDA to join Flagship Moderna funders.
Scott Gottlieb left the FDA also to join the Pfizer board.
Nice work if you can get it.
"Then suddenly with an FDA approval so obviously shonky and corrupt it disappeared from MSM within a week"
As far as I understand they approved Comirnaty ... which the US doesnt use (because its liability exempt) ... while extending EUA on Pzifzer (essentially same thing) through part trials 2023 which liability exemption still exists ... nice wee legal sleight of hand
You should spell that out again Jim. In big block letters. So it isnt missed. Most important thing said in this thread.
You should spell that out again Jim. In big block letters. So it isnt missed. Most important thing said in this thread.
An interesting article here:
Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.”
The term “vaccine” also got a makeover. The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”
Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254111268.html#stor…
I'll skip scorning your assertion that the covid vaccine is 'a hastily concocted brew foisted on a gullible populace for political and commercial purposes'.
As others have, I'll point out that the flu vaccine needs to be administered anew every year because of the continually mutating virus, and that even then the flu vaccine's effectiveness some years is quite low ... but better than not being vaccinated: according to Wikipedia, in 2004 only 10%, in 2010 60%, in 2019 39%.
The current vaccine effectiveness wanes on the same virus strains, nothing to do with mutations.
Better vaccines may be developed, of course.
Reading the comments here, I would put money on 70% vaccination of over 12s tops. No issues with freedom of choice, after all, freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose…
This is a very peculiar echo chamber. Also many commenters on interest.co.nz (wisely?) choose not to participate in COVID-related comment sections.
You mean like annual influenza boosters?
I’m not sure what is more concerning... your flawed statement or the number of upticks said flawed statement received.
Thanks for exposing your complete and utter ignorance of how vaccines work. And the 18 'thumbs up' for highlighting how common this is.
Agree, in fact lockdown should be redirected now from geograhic areas to an individual's status/condition. No vaccine, no freedom.
Ideally, however that's impossible to enforce, even if you had tracking bracelets on all of the unvaxxed.
Soooo many things to raise. To start, Please explain what material difference exists in contracting any virus from an unvaccinated versus vaccinated carrier, serious question, it has and will happen, if none then why the crusade? Next, what status assigned those who have contracted the virus and gained natural protection?, still social pariahs?
And the plan forward if the drive for vaccine uptake ultimately proves of limited use? Do we stick to our guns and section off a portion of the population as untouchable? Hypothetical of course, because it is also likely that it will work just fine.
We already have a racial divide, if white and decline vaccine you have no excuse and are vilified. Not so other races it seems, rather, government is at fault for not explaining well enough. The flow on could be an exemption maybe? You know, like how they don't attract the same penalties if not licensed to drive or have roadworthy cars in certain parts of the country, all very low key, but otherwise the optics are politically unpalatable.
In any case the strongest motivator for getting jabbed was always going to be to avoid travel restrictions, for those that would travel of course.
To start, Please explain what material difference exists in contracting any virus from an unvaccinated versus vaccinated carrier, serious question
I'm not aware of a study into this, however it is known that if your infection starts with a lower viral load, it is less likely to be as severe or last as long. Studies have shown that vaccinated people have lower viral counts in their nostrils than unvaxxed, and are generally less infectious over all, and have fewer symptoms like sneezing and coughing that would pass it on.
So you are more likely to catch it from someone unvaxxed, and more likely to get a worse case if you do then from someone who is vaxxed.
Next, what status assigned those who have contracted the virus and gained natural protection?, still social pariahs?
There aren't many of these people in NZ. Potentially if these people are still antivaxx even if they've had COVID, an antigen test could give them a different coloured vaxx card.
Where is your link to that brainfart...the vaccinated have lower viral counts in their nostrils.
This study is indicative: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01316-7
It's not where I originally saw it though, it was a graph on twitter, and I find it exceptionally difficult to re-find tweets you've seen previously. I will try and find it for you later today.
Published 29th March. Old and out if date. Think Delta
A more recent and maybe more comprehensive study on viral loads
https://www.ndm.ox.ac.uk/files/coronavirus/covid-19-infection-survey/fi…
"With Delta, infections occurring following two vaccinations had similar peak viral burden to those in unvaccinated individuals"
Here you go Belle: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.20.21262158v1
Results The delta variant (B.1.617.2) was identified in the majority of cases. Despite similar Ct-values, we demonstrate lower probability of infectious virus detection in respiratory samples of vaccinated HCWs with breakthrough infections compared to unvaccinated HCWs with primary SARS-CoV-2 infections. Nevertheless, infectious virus was found in 68.6% of breakthrough infections and Ct-values decreased throughout the first 3 days of illness.
Conclusions We conclude that rare vaccine breakthrough infections occur, but infectious virus shedding is reduced in these cases.
Published August 21, hopefully that meets your standards of freshness.
The right-hand graph in Figure 1 of the full text at the link provided shows that vaccinated people have consistently lower viral loads than unvaccinated.
So is your quote confirming the quote above from Cowpat or at odds with it Lanthanide?
My quote, from a different study, is at odds with the one provided by Cowpat. Also Cowpat's quote is simply saying "the peak" is the same. But it doesn't say what happens either side, or how long the peak/plateu lasts for.
Lathanide you repeated in another reply "Unvaccinated people have higher viral loads when contracting delta than vaccinated people. This likely means they are more infectious and will pass it on to others "
The large study I have linked disagrees. I have provided a quote ( word for word) from that study . Have you quoted something from the small study which you have provided as you state?.
24,000 healthcare workers is not a small study, sorry.
I already provided the quote above.
So as there is contrary science - that is studies which can be ignored, or disputed according to ones perspective, is it any wonder that some Joe Bloggs in the street is confused?
Cutting edge science is confusing. Especially when the problem being studied is not amenable to reliable and repeated experiments under ideal conditions.
This shouldn't be surprising to anyone with an education.
But many in the population have limited literacy skills - no fault of their own. The problem when you only surround yourself with those who do not struggle with literacy is that you become disconnected from those that do.
The study you have provided , states and I quote "A total of 161 fully vaccinated HCWs diagnosed with COVID-19 by PCR were included in this study." 161 individuals is a very small study . perhaps you should take time to read it before you continue to misstate fact.
I provided you a link to another study
"During the Alpha-dominant period from 1 December 2020 to 16 May 2021 (Figure S1), nose and throat RTPCR results were obtained from 384,543 individuals aged 18 years or older (221,909 households) at 2,580,021 visits (median [IQR] 7 [6-8]), of which 16,538 (0.6%) were the first PCR-positive in a new infection episode. During the Delta-dominant period from 17 May to 1 August 2021, results were obtained from 358,983 individuals (213,825 households) at 811,624 visits (median [IQR] 2 [2-3]), 3,123 (0.4%) being the first PCR-positive. Characteristics at included visits are shown in Table S1."
Nah.
Vaccination passports for domestic purposes can **** right off. It's unworkable and unenforceable and a complete waste of everybodys time.
Vaccinated people still contract and spread the virus and this means that everybody is going to be exposed to it eventually. Nobody is made any more "safe" in the long run.
The forward thinking UK has seen sense and ditched the idea. Only the most mentally deranged want more nanny state.
Wilful stupidity. The perfect expression of the “I’m all right Jack” mentality which infests this country. Too many people insist on asserting their “right” to be self-centred while ignoring their responsibilities as a citizen to contribute to the general welfare of the community in which they live. Such attitudes deserve our contempt.
Wasting your life queuing and showing your papers to some security nazi doesn't contribute anything useful to the general welfare of the community.
It's theatre.
Nobody is made any more "safe" in the long run.
People who are vaxxed have significantly less severe illness. That's the point.
Vaccine passports act as a stick to encourage people to get vaccinated. They also do offer some peace of mind and protection to staff and other customers.
I'm pretty certain the event industry is going to use vaccination passports, because their business can only operate at level 1 and people will choose not to attend unless they know a passport is required.
Vaccinate passports will simply encourage people to not go out to pubs and restaurants and shops.
Nobody wants to live in a police state. Nobody wants to queue outside every premises you might engage in commerical activity with so some dropkick bouncer can check your papers and grant you permission to enter.
It's all theatre for the dumbest of people. If you want personal safety from the wu flu then choose to get vaccinated. Whether or not a minority of people around you are vaccinated is not going to make the slightest difference. The virus is going to sweep through the population regardless.
I broadly agree with you that on the long term with current vaccines and treatments it may not matter.
However more effective vaccines and treatments are on the horizon. If vaccine passports mean people can avoid getting COVID in the meantime, until better vaccines and treatments are available, that seems sensible.
I think domestic passports will only be used where bouncers/ticket checkers already exist - eg for bars, events and airlines.
Domestic passports will be used anywhere that is politically convenient, and before long, they will be used to trace and control the population.
Commit some infractions, the government will withdraw your papers. Before you know it we have a form China's social credit system.
**** no!
Holy shit that's some next level paranoia.
Yep I won't be going to pubs or restaurants or shops if I've got to show my vax pass (once I get my doses shortly).
I'm already avoiding physical stores in L2(.5) as I can't be bothered dealing with the Covid hypochondriacs who look at you as if you've come into their house and peed on the floor when you accidentally brush past them in the cafe queue, or you take too long to drink your coffee with your mask off. I went out for a coffee the other day and it was such a lame experience that I won't be doing it again, will just make at home with my coffee machine instead.
On Saturday night I was meant to be going to the pub with some friends, but in the end we decided to buy some beers and order some pizza in at home - far cheaper and a more pleasant atmosphere than dining out.
Normally for father's day we do a breakfast out, but once again making breakfast at my dad's place with the family was a far more enjoyable experience and a cost-saving to boot.
It will only get worse if you have to queue up and have some aggressive, power-tripping bouncer demanding to see your papers to go and have a pint, or go out for a romantic dinner in town.
And will the true Covid hypochondriacs even go out when a vax passport is rolled out? I doubt it. Most of the ones I know are still doing weird stuff like disinfecting their mail even after being vaxxed. They are so terrified it will be tricky to get them to partake in society at all.
Will be fascinating to see the economic and societal impacts either way.
The covid hypochondriacs are funny creatures.
Try coughing a couple of times for extra amusement.
Illegal raves will be back. It will be quite exciting. Heading out to some secret warehouse location, partying away until the covid police turn up and try to shut you down. It will be like the 90's all over again. Apparently prohibition style Speakeasies popped up all over New York during lockdown as well - turns out that making it illegal for people to do something just makes it more appealing.
Except you'll probably be filing an ACC claim the next morning. Geriatrics trying to recapture their youth!
According to this BBC article on the UK's now-dropped vax passport plan, many sectors of the event industry led the charge against Covid passports as they believed they would decimate business:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58535258
Those I know in the event industry here are in two minds. Some feel that passports would give people confidence to return to events, whereas others seem quite worried that passports will result in decreased patronage (as you exclude a certain % of potential customers who are not vaxxed, and many vaccinated people seem eager to avoid passport-required events and spaces too).
Really? As a double jabbed person, you'd have to be a neurotic fool to be worried about the presence of unvaccinated people around you. Either that or the vaccine is actually useless. In other countries, it's been the opposite to what you describe. Especially festivals for young people. There is a token effort to enquire about your vaccination status but no enforcement.
Brutus, the real concern is the long term impacts if you catch even a light dose of COVID. We are still learning about these, but what information there is is that it is not pretty. Even colds and flu are leaving a legacy cough from an irritation in the lungs/throat, but COVID seems to be having a much worse impact associated with blood clots. Again while you may survive the experience, the outcomes may not be as rosy as you would wish.
Anti vaxxers meant I dropped off Facebook. Don't miss it one bit!
"I would argue that no human right is absolute". I'd suggest some of the human rights are actually privileges. If you attribute something as a human right its almost impossible to withdraw it. Privileges on the other hand can be withdrawn. It is a privilege to be treated in a hospital? CT has not mentioned withdrawal of hospitalisation for those who don't have a vaccine passport. It needs to go this far.
"Salus populi suprema lex esto" Although you could drive a barge pole through this expression for many other situations, it is reasonably apt for this Covid vaccine situation.
I don't think one should focus on the Maori or Pasifika excessively to the extent that they are pushing as being left out of the loop. If its only the young not getting vaccinated they are the least likely to be affected by the Covids.
You sound very worried maybe you need a special chill pill. If you have been double vaccinated what is your worry, leave people to make own decisions.
Other people choosing not to get vaxxed may flood hospitals, depriving those who made the choice to get vaxxed of the health care they need.
A very real worry, as it has happened overseas and many innocent people have died because of the selfish choice of antivaxxers (many of whom also died).
Welllll as an idea re flooding the hospitals...Maybe the government could have spent the last 18 months increasing our ICU capacity and actually increasing the pay for nurses to attract competent and skilled staff that can actually use it. Instead of just resting on their laurels and not fixing what was broken in the first place...??
Instead they just freeze pay rates and make our medical system even more vulnerable.
Other countries have much higher ICU capacities and still have had flooded hospitals and innocent people die due to selfish antivaxxers.
Also you can buy ICU beds from equipment manufacturers. You can't buy the trained doctors and nurses to run them off the shelf.
If there was an easy fix to the hospital problem, sure, we should use it.
Hey, actually, THERE IS an easy fix to the hospital problem!
It's called a vaccine.
So what proportion of NZs population would you take as a reasonable, acceptable level of vaccination before we would drop all covid restrictions completely and return to pre pandemic life? And dont give me a bullshit 100% answer.
And are you going to take the view of Israel, that the previously acceptable level of 2 jabs was enough to be considered vaccinated, until it wasnt, and force people to get constant boosters otherwise they would no longer be considered vaccinated?
So what proportion of NZs population would you take as a reasonable, acceptable level of vaccination before we would drop all covid restrictions completely and return to pre pandemic life?
As many people as possible.
And are you going to take the view of Israel, that the previously acceptable level of 2 jabs was enough to be considered vaccinated, until it wasnt, and force people to get constant boosters otherwise they would no longer be considered vaccinated?
If that's what the science suggests is required so that we can "drop all covid restrictions completely and return to pre-pandemic life", yes.
As many people as possible.
That's not a real answer, Jacinda.
It is a real answer, with real, genuine pubic health messaging reasons behind it. Just because you don't understand them, doesn't mean it isn't real.
The world is complex. Pandemics are complex. Human behaviour is complex. Not everything can, or should, be boiled down to single numbers, just because some people demand that they should be.
Also as stated several times. I don't work in government and never have, so I'm not Jacinda.
It's not a real answer, it's a platitude spouting by Jacinda, word for word, with political reasons behind it.
I understand perfectly why Jacinda does it. To weasel out of actually answering the question. However countries including many of our closest allies have been quite happy to provide quantitative guidelines for opening up.
What I don't understand is why you defend the indefensible?
Go watch when Chris Bishop questioned David Skegg about it a few weeks ago over zoom, before Collins had a meltdown about Zoom. David gave all the detailed reasonings behind it.
I wondered what her alias was on here. :)
Makes sense now.
So that is how she spends her days while Kindergartens are closed
"Welllll as an idea re flooding the hospitals...Maybe the government could have spent the last 18 months increasing our ICU capacity and actually increasing the pay for nurses to attract competent and skilled staff that can actually use it. Instead of just resting on their laurels and not fixing what was broken in the first place...??
Instead they just freeze pay rates and make our medical system even more vulnerable."
Maybe Alan Gibb shouldn't have destroyed what was a perfectly fine public health system back in 1992 and then successive neoliberal governments stripped value out of it? An extreme right-wing ideology has brought us to this place. In the meantime, educate yourself.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/415774/icu-beds-increase-as-ministry-tries-to-triple-capacity
The same can be said for people who drink,smoke,overweight take drugs but they are still people are you going to stop them for going places or using hospitals, we all pay taxes for this service sound like you could use a little help.time to stop trying to oppress people.
Those are not infectious communicable diseases for which an effective vaccine exists.
Also the rate of issues cause by those problems are at a fairly steady state in the population at large and the hospitals are set up with capacity to cope with that ongoing rate.
The hospitals are not set up with surge capacity large enough to deals with COVID.
And some of the people who are prevented being treatment sir to the unvaxxed will be people who smoke, drink and are obese.
Trying to draw false equivalence between hospital users is not a reason to decline an effective, free vaccine.
The point is this country has freedom of choice if governments start taking that away we will end up like China as we have seen in history if you start telling citizens what to do or making it hard to live this is called tyranny. People have the right to do what they like with own body, no one is trying to make you not take the vaccine. Live and enjoy life, be careful of what you wish for if you give your liberty’s away the path only goes down. (Most people understand the vaccine is a good way to protect themselves and family I just do not agree with making people take it )
The government is not strapping people down and injecting them.
People in society are allowed to choose who they interact with. You know, personal choice and freedom of association, things the Chinese government likes to assert control over.
Society has standards, like wearing clothes in public. Vaccination is another standard that society may choose to impose.
Edit: in fact, society already DOES impose many vaccination standards, in some countries its required to attend schools and to fly internationally to some places.
Flying internationally is a choice - just as vaccination is currently. If you want to fly, then you will need to meet the criteria for doing so, or you chose not to fly.
Lanthanides It seems that you would be happy if the government put some rabbit ears on you and put you in a lab cage at night. People have the right to choose to take vaccine or not, if you don’t like this feel free to live in a country which holds your views.
Lanathanide, for which an effective vaccine exists. According to Oxford language dictionary pfizer is not a vaccine? vaccine: a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against.
immunity: the ability of an organism to resist a particular infection
Looks like some folks, govts and agencies are taking some creative license in calling what they have been jabbing folks with, a vaccine. This has caused confusion among some folks.
No true Scotsman logical fallacy again.
A point Cas Ob lost on so many. It aint a vaccine.
With covid, obese people are a huge risk to the health system.
In the name of public safety, the solution is clearly to ensure the vaccine passport also excludes those with a BMI over 25.
We should also stipulate that land whales are not fit for public office.
That should do wonders for increasing the quality of goverment.
Is it a privilege to be treated in a hospital? No, it is a right. Health and Disability Commissioner (Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights) Regulations 1996
Right 4
Right to services of an appropriate standard
(1) Every consumer has the right to have services provided with reasonable care and skill.
(2) Every consumer has the right to have services provided that comply with legal, professional, ethical, and other relevant standards.
(3) Every consumer has the right to have services provided in a manner consistent with his or her needs.
(4) Every consumer has the right to have services provided in a manner that minimises the potential harm to, and optimises the quality of life of, that consumer.
(5) Every consumer has the right to co-operation among providers to ensure quality and continuity of services.
Exactly, but you will find that these rights only extend to the level the country can afford it. I hope you are not in need at any time, as you may find you are waiting in line - as many people already are - to receive these rights.
I simply commented a fact. I made no comments or otherwise about vaccination.
Many people are already waiting in line to receive these rights.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/126295148/200-children-on-denta…
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/126341812/sdhb-takes-steps-to-a…
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/126308406/opioid-addicts-waitin…
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/southern-district-health-board-to-outsour…
So - if you think about it, this is exactly why I made my comment.
Having a whole lot more people requiring hospital treatment because of acute or long Covid will not improve waiting times for anyone.
Dunedin hospital only has around 8 ICU beds. That is unlikely to be enough for even vaccinated people if we had a real outbreak in the South, and I don't believe that vaccinated covid infected people should take priority over any one else that needs ICU if they don't have covid.
Evidently you either have never seen DNR on a bed notes in hospital and do not understand resource limits on public largesse or are rather naive
Don't care too much about vaccine passports for international travel as the precedent there is well-established anyway (and I think countries should have the right to refuse entry for whatever reason they see fit).
Completely disagree with vaccine passports for domestic use. All it will do is cause division in society, breed resentment, stir up more aggressive conspiracy theories (you think Covid conspiracies are bad now, wait until people have to be vaccinated to partake in modern society), and possible risk disorder in the form of protest and violence as seen in countries like France.
Is a few % extra vaccine uptake really worth the risk to social cohesion?
What's more, presumably if there's domestic vaccine passports, then businesses will be responsible for enforcing them? Unless we want the cops going around doing the whole "Ihre papiere, bitte" routine. Why should some minimum wage hospo worker have to place themselves at risk of harm when they are forced to deny service to someone without their vaccine passport?
That is before you get to the impacts on business. Will domestic passports really see people flooding back into hospitality venues etc? The only people I know in real life who favour domestic vax passports are the types who are so afraid of Covid that they refuse to leave the house during lockdowns, sanitise their Countdown deliveries etc - are they going to suddenly feel comfortable going out when they know everyone is vaccinated around them? Probably not if Covid can still circulate.
Also wait until the triple-vaxxed start demanding the double-vaxxed lose their vax passport privileges.
If there is a domestic vax passport, when will we pull it like Denmark have announced once a certain threshold is hit? Or will we still be scanning in to stores in 20 years time?
And before anyone accuses me of being a rabid anti-vaxxer, I'm booked in for mine thank you very much.
Bravo, just look at Israel, no longer considered vax with only 2 jabs. When the governments can, and do, just shift the goal posts, thats when you have to start worrying as a citizen.
What percentage of the double-jabbed (or soon-to-be-double-jabbed) who are in favour of vaccine passports will suddenly not be so enthusiastic when they realise their privileges will be revoked for not taking the third booster, and then the fourth, and so on?
Some would gladly queue up for a daily booster shot if it was offered, but I suspect much of the population was sold on the idea they would get their two jabs and then life could return to normal.
As they say, its gona get interesting when the thrice jabbed start hating on the deuce jabbed. And the fourth and fifth jabbed call out the thrice jabbed. What say you then Chris?
What about when superior vaccines are available?
Will people with 2nd gen vaccines (that don't require endless booster shots) get to demand that the "unclean" Pfizer-passport holders are denied access to public services?
I'm going to "vax max" and get as many as I can from as many brands as possible, just so I can demand that everyone else is locked up at home ... that way I'll never have to queue at the petrol station or fight for a park in town.
A lot of fiery rhetoric in this article, but no real analysis of the facts around the virus and the vaccine that are increasingly relevant.
It also ignores the countries around the world who have passed through this crisis and are now dropping their emergency mandates.
And just "living with" tens to thousands of deaths a day.
Coronavirus COVID-19 (2019-nCoV) (arcgis.com)
Deaths 270,173 over the last 28 days.
So 9,650 deaths a day ACROSS THE ENTIRE WORLD! out of a population off 7,890,000,000
Average daily deaths is 163,898 How Many People Die Each Day (worldpopulationreview.com)
So from these estimates that is about 5.9% of the daily death rate due to Covid, not to mention the underlying health issues many of those deaths would have had. With the peak being well behind us, at what point does the cost benefit analysis of continued restrictions just not make sense? Dying is part of life and we cant stop it.
Novel viruses killing people when we have an effective vaccine for them is not a normal part of life.
Lots of causes of death have been reduced and prevented due to technology improvements. This is another one.
Let's give up sanitation and indoor plumbing in New Zealand, people dying from diahorrea is part of the normal human experience going back thousands of years. It will barely make a blip in global death rate.
That's how stupid your argument sounds.
Where are you going to get the "facts" from Brutus ? Its now pretty much impossible to trust any source you care to name. The level of knowledge and accurate information out there is no better than what Chris Martinsen was putting on video before this pandemic even got going.
If you ever wondered whether you'd resist the Nazis, or willingly comply Mr Trotter - it's clear you'd be fully signed up.
"Papiere, Bitte "
Disgusting.
Well put npc. I didnt realise until today I am now referred to as a dissident.
I pay my taxes. I earn export income for the country. I provide food and lots of it for the people in this country as well.
According to Chris Trotter, (aptly named, oh how aptly named with Animal Farm up front in my conciousness these days), I am opposing the official policy of an authoritarian state, according to the dictionary.
An Authoritarian State. Chris Trotters preferred policy for the Labour Govt
Dissident...me.
The frightening thing. Judith has drunk the kool aid too.
It's fine, it's for your own good you see, it's to "keep you and your whanau safe" from the virus Juden and their "hate speech".
We know it when we see it. Aroha.
Is there any documented evidence of a significant number of people believing the 5G or microchip conspiracy?
I have observed people reading too much into some parts of endless studies and data trying to figure out if we are getting the whole truth from the media but the go to conspiracies by the MSM appear to another fabrication.
And another question are we all OK with having Israel's case and death statistics here? or do you believe our government has a plan to avoid that outcome?
Conspiracies evolve over time. I don't think many people are seriously believing the 5g conspiracy any more, but some cell sites around the world were destroyed by angry mobs.
Also many people just believe multiple conspiracy theories at once, and upon questioning are not likely to admit to believing all of them, especially the sillier ones.
> destroyed by angry mobs
Vandalised by lone nutjobs. Let's not make mountains out of molehills, here.
Documented? I remember a couple towers being attacked here but arrests or other evidence proving the connection with the conspiracy (and thus more than few people involved) was missing.
The media is still pushing these as the main conspiracies and CT uses them as the examples. If there's no basis for this, then its just more misinformative narrative pushing by the MSM.
Can you show me documentation where the MSM is pushing them as the "main conspiracies" please. Something published in the last 2 months.
Is CT's column not enough that he still believes it. Its still Siouxsie's go to example of disinformation. You know they still in use it as a placeholder when desired.
Your arguing for the sake of arguing, I don't think it's beneficial for me or possibly anyone to reply to you unless you have read the comment fully and are trying to be constructive.
You are right Tim. The msm just love to quote chips in the vax, 5g theories etc. They call ivermectin horse drench. And by simply naming people as antivaxxers it is denigrating people.
Its done to differentiate us, to create friction. This has gone too far, and the consistent wording used in media is too same same to believe otherwise.
Chris has fallen for it completely. As npc said. We now know which way he would have jumped in the 1930s and 40s. Shame
Ivermectin is a horse treatment, and people are talking about it in that way because humans are buying medicine made for horses and using it themselves, because all of the supplies of it made for humans are either out of stock or require prescriptions which these people cannot access.
Ok, so no examples of it being "pushed" as the "main conspiracy theory". Just some people using it as an example of a conspiracy theory.
What are they supposed to do instead, list every single conspiracy theory? Not talk about any of them? Cycle through conspiracy theories in each thing they publish?
You know that merely talking about conspiracy theories makes them more popular, right?
OK, I could not help my self. Lanthanide, you seem to be driven to have the last comment on the "arguments" you start so you can think you have won. You don't think before you start these with almost undefendable positions and when you take positions that are obscure enough that there is no MSM narrative to fall back on (which no one can be bothered to deal with just for you) you resort to increasing erratic and arbitrary points trying to drag something that might have been interesting down into pointlessness.
The unnecessary strict and arbitrary test (2 months) you came up with means nothing if not fulfilled and if you though about it Siouxsie publishes her disinformation graphics all the time.
I don't look forwards to your inevitable reply.
Most antivax arguments I have read fall on 2 categories
1) Natural immunity is superior to vaccine induced immunity
2) Vaccine induced hospitliations/deaths are under reported by shady government people.
No one ever has any real evidence to back up the claims. Certainly not something pair reviewed.
I am yet to read about micorchips & 5g but keep hearing about it on the news.
Well:
1) this is bang on, but also the fact that having natural immunity is not considered as being "vaxxed" by the government
https://twitter.com/100trillionUSD/status/1437042903382208513?s=20
2) Yes the odd person dies from the vaccine, these are statistically insignificant and can be ignored. Some people will always react to somethings, and with the number being administered it is bound to happen.
I think the biggest issue is the discrimination based around you Vax passport. You can be vaccinated and still oppose the segregation based on you vaccination status. I mean, after all if you are vaccinated then why do you care if someone else hasnt been? If you get it (and anyone who leaves NZ is very likely to get it at some stage) then thats what getting the vaccine was for.
Any nutjob that believes the 5g or microchip shit is beyond help, and should be ignored. Why microchip everyone when we all voluntarily carry around cellphones with us all day, and willingly input all our personal data into it?
I think it is sort of an attempt to lump in everyone who doesn't buy into the "war on covid" as a conspiracy theorist. If you are against people being imprisoned for catching covid (which they are) or you are against level 4 lockdowns as you believe that house arrest for an entire population is not a practical way of managing the virus you are some nutjob conspiracy theorist. The logical fallacy is "appeal to the extremes".
I think moving forward this country will be much more polarised, divisive place. Its a shame the current govt is going down that road.
i know of two people who had a stroke/tia after second dose ... one within the hour
Doctors ... "no - wasnt linked to jab"
oh well. Thats that then
What this writer is proposing and promoting is totalitarianism!
Remember totalitarianism is embraced by the people first, and exploited by corrupt leaders second.
The German people, happily helped round up the Jews, and Gypsy, and handicapped, referring to them in exactly the same way the pro-vax majority are starting to talk about any anti-vax person!
Beware the slide!
No need. The final solution for anti vaxxers will be a Darwin award.
Exactly, so why not let them make their own decisions, and they will live, or die, with the consequences? No need to force it on people.
E_BCj8XWYAQGxBf (1129×476) (twimg.com)
"The higher rates among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated between ages 40 and 79 would seem to indicate that the vaccinations, themselves, are making people more vulnerable....
hmmm
not all so black and white eh?
I'd describe it as utilitarianism. Greatest good for the greatest number. And I'm completely on board with that.
struck several times by lightening
Yo-yo dieting is actually quite common, Chris! A small correction may be required here :)
The problem is, many goernments will not drop these emergency mandates even once the threat is over.
Look at the Netherlands for example:
https://twitter.com/100trillionUSD/status/1437042903382208513?s=20
93% has antibodies against covid, but the system doesnt recognise people who have actually had it and hence have much better antibodies as being protected.
I applaud Sweden and Denmark for lifting their covid limitations and pray the rest of the world follows their lead.
Maybe because the "threat" is actually economic
A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Systemic Collapse and Pandemic Simulation - The Philosophical Salon
"Joining the dots is a simple enough exercise. If we do so, we might see a well-defined narrative outline emerge, whose succinct summary reads as follows: lockdowns and the global suspension of economic transactions were intended to 1) Allow the Fed to flood the ailing financial markets with freshly printed money while deferring hyperinflation; and 2) Introduce mass vaccination programmes and health passports as pillars of a neo-feudal regime of capitalist accumulation. As we shall see, the two aims merge into one....
In financial markets powered by cheap loans, any increase in interest rates is potentially cataclysmic for banks, hedge funds, pension funds and the entire government bond market, because the cost of borrowing increases and liquidity dries up. This is what happened with the ‘repocalypse’ of September 2019: interest rates spiked to 10.5% in a matter of hours, panic broke out affecting futures, options, currencies, and other markets where traders bet by borrowing from repos. The only way to defuse the contagion was by throwing as much liquidity as necessary into the system – like helicopters dropping thousands of gallons of water on a wildfire. Between September 2019 and March 2020, the Fed injected more than $9 trillion into the banking system, equivalent to more than 40% of US GDP.
The mainstream narrative should therefore be reversed: the stock market did not collapse (in March 2020) because lockdowns had to be imposed; rather, lockdowns had to be imposed because financial markets were collapsing. With lockdowns came the suspension of business transactions, which drained the demand for credit and stopped the contagion. In other words, restructuring the financial architecture through extraordinary monetary policy was contingent on the economy’s engine being turned off. Had the enormous mass of liquidity pumped into the financial sector reached transactions on the ground, a monetary tsunami with catastrophic consequences would have been unleashed.
Meanwhile the UK is ditching vaccine passports:
England vaccine passport plans ditched, Sajid Javid says - BBC News
A small list of chemicals that were thought to be safe at the time, therefore thou shall not question the science?
DDT
Asbestos
Arsenic
Creosote
Dursban
Lead paint & nails
None of these chemicals were vaccines. Your comparison is not applicable.
Have you thought that you are saying something like we know people have been killed crossing the road, so it is unsafe to cross roads? There is a level of risk in most things we do - but the risk is small, and generally we accept that.
For instance, forget about Chris Trotter's being "struck by lightning" - every time we take a car out on the road we have a statistical chance of dying - 320 died on the roads in New Zealand last year - we all know people die in crashes, but we don't stop driving. Having a vaccine with a known track record of almost negligible serious outcomes over many, many millions of doses is similar to that.
Very good article CT. More an more lately I enjoy reading your work. And just like in many of your other articles you overlook the odd point.
A strong argument in this debate is people's health, and you mentioned the potential racist accusations from Maori over the vaccination programmes. Health, as I have argued before, is largely a consequence of choice. Very few are genuinely lumbered with the genetics that cripple our health. So Maori, or any others to argue that not being vaccinated as being unfair or racist, need to look at themselves in the mirror. I am fully vaccinated, and when the opportunity came up I not only reached out to get the vaccination, but took myself there to do it too. I did not expect the vaccination team to come to me. Nor did I expect that because I am of European extraction, that the person I would be talking to was white skinned. Indeed the person who in the end took my details for the first vaccination and gave me the needle, despite her Kiwi accent was of African extraction, and I felt perfectly satisfied with her calm professionalism, and importantly the skill and resulting lack of pain when the needle went in. I doubt the service and care could have been better irrespective of who delivered the service.
So ultimately if Maori are going to be what they want to be, they need to reach out, organise it and take themselves there, and not wait for the world to come to them.
We already have an inadequate hospital service that cannot cope with ordinary demand for surgery and often patients need to be discharged earlier than is ideal, to fit in even more serious, new cases. Imagine if any new resources put into the Health system at vast cost are swallowed up in future in dealing with out of control Covid cases? This would make getting hospital care very difficult for the entire population - whatever their health need. It would also be an enormous drain on public money that would take that money from providing services in another area of need. The costs of long Covid would also be very high - to individuals and the community providing necessary Health care to people who can no longer work or operate normal lives.
I believe that we all have the freedom to choose whether to get a vaccination - more and more opportunities to do so are being offered but no-one has to get that vaccine. However, that those anti-vaxxers should expect to have their access to community resources and opportunities reduced, to protect both themselves and others from infection. The latest CDC research in USA has said those who are not vaccinated are 11 times more likely to die of a Covid infection - so if we get to the point where a particular ethnic group is dying in greater numbers than the rest of the community, then maybe the anti-vaxxers will see merit in curtailing opportunities for themselves after all.
I wish they where Randian Objectivists, that way they could stick to their idological bent and not clog hospital beds when infected. As it stands we'll have months of sob stories about "I should have got vaccinated but I believed some codswallop on the internet. Woe is me!"
Government need to make clear we are going in one direction as a society and everyone needs to get aboard before the departure time. Announce a firm border reopening date and provide guidelines for the non-vaccinated as to how to become social hermits.
Agree Squishy Ayn Rands Objectivism was what drove Alan Greenspan's doctrine on his financial decisions and history has shown that to be a massive mistake arguably the beginning of the financial mess we are in now . I hope the government makes its decisions regarding the safety of its populace in the interests of the best medical outcome for all and not pander to extremist views by internet experts .
Chris, 10% of pop get it (CV19) in uk and usa
Of that 10% only 1.6% die
6% of deaths in world are down to air pollution
Is world doing anything about that or a myriad of other causes of death which action and dollops of cash might be reasonably expected to be dealt?
In retrospect the rich world’s reaction to such a paltry killer (1968 one killed 4m out of much smaller twirls pop and 1918 one killed around 9000 just in Auckland by the way) May be seen as mass media induced hysteria
Yesterday a 13 year old died in NZ after receiving her vaccine. “Uneventful” eh? Barely made news on tv. Meanwhile epidemiologist in USA doing study of vaccines and kids featured at length on Sunday programme last night and no mention of report in aThe Guardian yesterday of USA study showing teenage boys 4 times more likely to have serious reaction to vaccine than they are to catching CV19. Telling people who are NOT infected and have a negative test that they cannot get out of NZ without the vaccine is a form of blackmail and ridiculous. Vaccination does not stop you getting CV19 nor does it stop spreading of it. It substantially reduces chance of going to icu and dying. You are well over top
Correction, acc to worldometer this morning there have been 0.2% of those with CV19 infection who have died
I had a look for news about the "13 year old "you have mentioned. I found this:
"An unfounded rumour began circulating online on Saturday night that an Auckland Year 13 student had died after receiving the vaccine."
And Bloomfield said he would have been informed immediately of such an incident, and he had not been. The Yr 13's school principal also said the death was from another cause.
"Director-general of health Dr Ashley Bloomfield added that if there was "any possibility" of such a link, a health professional would have reported it. No such report had been made."
Maybe
Maybe not
Thankfully the Principal has cleared it up for us.
"Yesterday a 13 year old died in NZ after receiving her vaccine. “Uneventful” eh? Barely made news on tv."
Mike, I'm really disappointed to see this repeating of blatant misinformation from you. Not cool man.
Active cases in world: 18.5m
Pop of earth 7.85b
Pandemic simply means it is present everywhere not that it is a terrible plague
Deciding not to be vaccinated is, to my mind, morally wrong in a country with socialised medicine, because you are essentially prepared to 'free load' on the rest of the population who pays for your treatment, should you need hospitalisation.
Perhaps we would be better determining that in future (once everyone has had the opportunity to vaccinate), hospitalisation should become user-pays for the unvaccinated who require hospital admission for COVID-related treatment.
I can't figure out why in the US, for example, the insurance companies haven't yet said to the customers: no vaccine - no insurance cover for COVID-related illness.
Likewise being obese.
Let's make healthcare entirely user pays for the selfish land-whales.
We see how that works in the US...
I have wondered a little about the rabid anti 'anti vaxxers'.
I have a totally unproven theory. But Chris Trotter would fit my profile.
My profile being the rabid anti 'anti vaxxers' are actually just self serving as they are more likely to be old overweight, type 2 diabetics. Now before all you aav's out there lose the plot completely I fit that profile almost. The latest level four got me beavering away in the kitchen and it shows.
Anyway just saying the AAVs are just concerned for their own welfare. They dont really care that the young in our society really dont benefit from being jabbed with an experimental drug. And to suggest children get it is the height of self interest.
Oh Belle. Based on that logic (i.e., exposure to an unknown-over-time is wrong), there is a huge argument that social media is the biggest experimental drug on the planet, which society has happily and willingly hoisted upon its children.
Well I dont disagree with you over social media. You didnt cover the context. The question is who is it thats the most rabid anti anti vaxxer, and is it through fear the young and the unvaxxed will lead to them getting covid? Is 'them' the old, overweight and diabetic? I cant see behind the comments on social media. But I do know who Chris Trotter is.
Perhaps a poll is in order along with an announcement of each persons co morbidities. Lets see if being an anti anti vaxxer is deranged self interest.
(At the rate I have put on weight this year, my theory is up the boohai)
Thing is, is all self-interest deranged, or is just some self-interest deranged? I don't get the meaning of "deranged self-interest".
Obesity is complex and often a result of poverty or near poverty.
Treating obesity is generally not at all simple as more often than not there are psychological drivers.
Reducing your risk for covid is incredibly simple and is completely funded. I am on board with Kate's reasoning here.
I'm not seriously suggesting we withhold healthcare for the land whales.
I'm following the vaccine passport argument reductio ad absurdum.
The anti-vaxx people also have psychological drivers.
I'm following the vaccine passport argument reductio ad absurdum.
Yes, it is definitely absurd that you're drawing a false equivalence between an infectious, deadly disease and a lifestyle choice and treating them as if they're identical and have all the same risks and controls available.
COVID: infectious, very deadly amongst some groups of the population, health system not set up to deal with it as it is a novel virus, very effective and freely available vaccine available.
Obesity: not infectious, deadly amongst some groups of the population over the long term (typically 5-10+ years to be obese to develop serious health impacts), health system is set up to deal with it as it is a well-known and studied risk factor in our community, no simple and easy intervention available to reliably treat the issue amongst all people affected.
You'll probably find that the weight loss industry has made 100x as much in profits selling diets, exercise guides and equipment etc as the vaccine developers for COVID have.
Since you are very slow on the uptake, or being deliberately obtuse, I will spell it out clearly for you.
Obesity Worsens Outcomes from COVID-19
Adults with excess weight are at even greater risk during the COVID-19 pandemic:
- Having obesity increases the risk of severe illness from COVID-19. People who are overweight may also be at increased risk.
- Having obesity may triple the risk of hospitalization due to a COVID-19 infection.
- Obesity is linked to impaired immune function.2,3
- Obesity decreases lung capacity and reserve and can make ventilation more difficult.4
- A study of COVID-19 cases suggests that risks of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, and death are higher with increasing BMI.5
- The increased risk for hospitalization or death was particularly pronounced in those under age 65. 5
- More than 900,000 adult COVID-19 hospitalizations occurred in the United States between the beginning of the pandemic and November 18, 2020. Models estimate that 271,800 (30.2%) of these hospitalizations were attributed to obesity.6
Children diagnosed with obesity may suffer worse outcomes from COVID-19. In a study of COVID-19 cases in patients aged 18 years and younger, having obesity was associated with a 3.07 times higher risk of hospitalization and a 1.42 times higher risk of severe illness (intensive care unit admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death) when hospitalized.7
That's directly from the CDC.
So please, educate us about why society should apparently not tolerate the burden that the unvaccinated place on the health system, but then should tolerate the burden caused by the "lifestyle choices" of the obese that contract covid?
Obese people are more likely to vote Labour is not going to cut it.
If people have a moral responsibility to get vaccinated, the same moral responsibility should apply to have a healthy weight.
If people have a moral responsibility to get vaccinated, the same moral responsibility should apply to have a healthy weight.
No, that doesn't follow, sorry, because the intervention for COVID (vaccine) is very cheap, easy and effective.
The intervention for obesity (weight loss industry) is expensive and does not work equally for everyone. There are some very effective medical interventions to fight obesity, ie bariatric surgery, but unfortunately it's not cheap and not everyone is eligible for, and it takes up a huge amount of hospital resources so we wouldn't be able to give everyone who was eligible the intervention, whereas the COVID vaccine does not put nearly as much pressure on the health system and so it is possible to give it to everyone who needs it without bankrupting the health system.
If the treatment for obesity was a vaccine similar in effectiveness and cost to the COVID vaccines, then it would be directly comparable and I would agree with you.
It isn't, so they aren't.
Also see Kate's reply below at 13th Sep 21, 12:19pm.
There is an easy, cheap and effective cure for obesity too that puts no pressure on the health system.
It's simply eating less and moving more.
We can just ban fat people along with the unvaccinated from entering shops as a "stick" as you mentioned earlier.
The only obstacle is psychological. Easy. Similar to the psychological obstacle of forcing untrusting people to inject themselves with an experimental vaccine.
https://www.oecd.org/health/obesity-update.htm
The statistics would suggest that, for the vast majority of people, it is a choice.
Wow.
Indeed. Our position is a disgrace.
I was mostly amazed by the shallowness of your argument.
I suppose you will say cancer is a choice next. After all, if you live a completely joyless, puritan life, you're much less likely to get cancer, therefore anyone gets cancer chose to live in a way that was different to minimizing their chances of cancer, so they actively made a choice to get cancer.
Do you suppose the people in the countries near the bottom of the list like Switzerland, Italy, Norway or Japan are living completely joyless, puritanical lives? Far from it. They simply tend to make better lifestyle choices.
As a society we are letting our people down by pretending that obesity should be accepted.
If the profound links between cancer and obesity are unclear to you, then you may educate yourself here:
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/obesity/obes…
Obese people are dangerously burdening our health system with covid AND cancer. All the more reason to check BMI before we allow people into shops, restaurants and airports.
Do you suppose the people in the countries near the bottom of the list like Switzerland, Italy, Norway or Japan are living completely joyless, puritanical lives? Far from it. They simply tend to make better lifestyle choices.
Or maybe they live in a culture that enables them to make 'better lifestyle choices'.
There's really no point arguing with you on this, since the existence of a multi-billion weightloss industry is clear evidence that there are not simple, cheap and effective methods for the wider public at large to lose weight, yet you persist in saying that there are.
Society needs to change, and when it does, obesity rates will go down.
Just like if society were to change to accept the COVID vaccine, COVID rates would go down.
Society needs to change, and when it does, obesity rates will go down.
This is correct and that change can start by banning them from shops and restaurants. Everybody in the team of five million needs to play their part to be "covid safe" for our whanau. Show your BMI passport please!
Why, have you analysed the prevalence of these factors in each of those nations - and determined they are not applicable?
It's both, but also neither. From the conclusion of factor number 2:
It’s important to note that these factors are generally not made by choice of either the mother or baby yet seem to be linked to the child’s obesity risk.
Additionally, forming healthy dietary and exercise habits during childhood may be the most valuable prevention against obesity and lifestyle-related diseases.
But number 5, leptin resistance, is the only one that can be totally detached from free will. Most of the other factor pre-dispose people to certain behaviours or outcomes. A predisposition is not causality however - it leaves room for individual choice/free will to determine the final result. It's just harder to make those choices, but the choices can be made, apart from leptin resistance:
Trying to exert willpower against the leptin-driven starvation signal is almost impossible for many people.
If it was as cheap, effective and easy as you claim, the weight loss industry would not exist. It does exist, urgo you are plainly wrong.
Very few people who are morbidly obese freely choose to be that way, and the vast majority of people who are overweight or obese would like to easily lose weight if they could.
Like if there was a vaccine for obesity that was as effective and cheap as the COVID vaccine is, they would use it.
It's why the pharmaceutical companies put huge money into trying to find drugs that will help with weight loss, which mostly have not been successful so far. Turns out trying to limit and interfere with one of the body's primary instincts, in a safe and controlled way, is hard.
I bet if we checked BMI before letting people into shops and restaurants or flights the obesity epidemic would rapidly improve.
It's a great idea. It's for the good of public health!
Again, as I have told you multiple times if there was as easy an intervention for obesity as there is for COVID in the form of vaccine, I would agree with you.
There isn't, so I don't.
There is. Do exactly what you propose with unvaccinated people. Don't let them into sources of food like shops and restaurants.
Yes but the point is that despite the antivaxxers and the obese having psychological drivers, the solution to the risks presented to society from both situations is on one hand immediate and funded (vaccinate), and on the other hand extremely expensive with low long term success rates.
If there was an immediate long term fix to obesity, people would take it, as generally people don't want the outcome, they are just stuck in the habits. The only thing anyone cares about for covid is the outcomes and they are easily addressed (vaccinate!)
Yip. Very simple really. Brock just wants to sneer and poke fun at people, instead of having an honest debate about facts and evidence.
Exactly right regards obesity, Solve_it. It is an invalid comparison.
How is this any different from being obese, ethically?
With enough co morbidities from lifestyle choices you outcome risk from exposure will be worse than being unvaccinated.
Not a valid comparison at all. Obesity is in many cases not a choice. We were able to freely offer bariatric surgery to everyone who wanted it, we'd be in a much better place in that regard. And, if we provided all healthy foods free-of-charge and conversely, all unhealthy (high carb, high saturated fat, high sugar) foodstuffs were a user-pay system of commerce, again we'd be in a much better place in that regard.
So, yes there are many ways to solve our obesity problem. I'd far rather my taxpayer dollars were spent on that, as opposed to treating the unvaccinated for COVID-related illnesses.
And I'm sure health insurance providers would happily develop an insurance product for those unvaccinated that want to insure themselves against user-pay treatment for COVID-related illness.
So it's morally or ethically more acceptable because it's harder to deal with? (Actual question I'm not educated on this)
I'm not sure I can see any other differences. There is plenty we could do about obesity if the obese believed it was amoral (but that's hypothetical).
In answer to your first question, I see morbid obesity as matters of circumstance, more so than choice, as per this explanation.
To vaccinate against disease or not is a matter of informed choice.
Obesity is not a matter of morality of the individual, but in many ways, it is a matter of the morality of the society we live in.
I'm not sure anything on that list establishes causality for adult obesity or would not be fixed by prohibition. I do think in theory we could compel people into healthy diet and excise where you could prove they would be physically healthier but this is morally not justifiable. (I am thinking a full ban on fast food would just be the start and we could follow that up with BMI checks before entering a restaurant (like vax passports))
To the extent we get informed choice about the vaccine, I believe it is possible to educate about health diet and excise habits and the benefits. It's just the solution is much more difficult but fundamentally they are the similar compelling people to do something they really don't want to do for the benefit of society.
and when those pesky side effects for booster number 7 kick in?
I assume you are happy for those choosing to be part of the trials to pay their way?
They're charging higher premiums for unvaccinated customers, Kate.
Wow, that's interesting. I have a son living in the US and he hasn't mentioned this. He agrees with me that the unvaccinated should be charged higher premiums - given the country's fundamentalist/'freedom'-orientated aversion to socialised medicine.
Existing and future Charity hospitals may take non vaccinated covid patients Kate - tough if you don't live in an area with one. After all there are many out there now who are unable to be vaccinated for medical grounds. Wonder how they feel reading all the generalized 'if you aren't vaccinated, you won't be treated, or will have to pay for your own treatment', comments on here. Not necessarily referring to your comment, but I wonder how close to breaching the proposed 'Hate Speech' law some of these no vaccine/no medical assistance comments would be......
There are actually very few indeed who can't be vaccinated on medical grounds.
The reason why very few cannot use medical grounds for not getting jabbed....the research has not been done on anything. If you take blood pressure pills, had leukemia, are pregnant, nothing. Zip. Go to medsafe and read the pfizer application. Its as plain as day.
Absolutely, those unable to vaccinate on medical grounds would be exempted from the user-pay policy. It's not a no medical assistance proposal at all - it's a user-pay proposal, and we have user-pay principles throughout our legislation.
Socialised medicine, such as we have here in NZ is (to my mind) needs to be protected at all costs. Part of that protection is not to overload the system unnecessarily. Costs for unpreventable diseases and accidents etc. is already such a juggling act for governments. I just think where a vaccine exists, choice should be up to the adult individual - whereas the MMR vaccine in childhood should be mandatory. Depending on how COVID (and zoonotic diseases more generally) develop, once we have a vaccine for children it might become similarly as accepted throughout society as the MMR one is now.
Meantime, given the communicability of COVID, we have to safeguard the future of socialised medicine in our country.
George Gammon did an excellent reasoned video on vaccine passports and social credit scores last week.
I'm pro-vaccination and am myself vaccinated, but I do believe in examining all sides of the argument, and I wonder why Chris doesn't bother to do that. It's more than ideological and to lump them all (or suggest that it's mostly ideological, e.g. left vs right or liberal vs conservative, race vs race, educated vs uneducated, etc) is not treating the subject and the people involved with respect or seriousness.
What I've found out so far is that there are sub-groups and quite a number have legitimate concerns. Some of course are more on the fringes (the microchip, flat earth, 5G and New World Order crowd) but like UFOs, I find those fun and entertaining and not worth being offended or riled up by. But those legitimate ones we should listen to and take seriously, so that we remain a democratic and free society.
Why are quite a number vaccine hesitant? Let's start from the more legitimate to the least, and if I have left out any others, please feel free to add:
1. Those who have already gotten Covid and have a high level of immunity - perhaps even higher than those who are only vaccinated but had not been infected previously
2. Those who feel with the high mutability of covid-19, there's almost 100% chance you'll get it anyway, irregardless of whether you're vaccinated or not (yes, the effects would be less severe if you're vaccinated), and if your natural immunity as a result protects you better (and if you are generally healthy), then you might as well let things play out and get it
3. Those who seen legal and moral objections to the way the vaccinations are being almost forced on them
4. Those who - either by word of mouth or actual medical experience - say that there are alternative methods of treatment and even prevention, which the governments, media and big pharma are reluctant to talk about
5. Those with health issues and are concerned they may suffer negatively from the vaccines (or at least the current batches)
6. Those who object on moral ground on how the vaccines were created involving fetal tissue
7. Those with a healthy level of skepticism of government over-reach, corporate profiteering and lack of transparency. Let's be honest - the government's there to spend money, corporations are there to get your money and the media is in large part influenced by advertisers which include corporations (such as banks and big pharma)
8. Even among Maori, there are those who view the vaccinations (and the government) with suspicion and rather than being left out or left behind, they are hesitating for historical and personal reasons
9. Those who wonder how and why a bunch of vaccines could have been developed in such a short time for something so global in scale and seriousness
10. Those waiting for a vaccine such as Novavax with a tried and true methodology for its creation instead of the lesser known mRNA vaccines
11. Those who just don't know who to believe because they can see points on both side that make sense
12. Those with an unhealthy level of cynicism
13. Those who are making excuses not to get jabbed by a needle :-)
But we should always keep in mind and be wary of those profiteering from the arguments on both sides AND stirring up those arguments, often by generalising and simplifying views into bite-sized click-baity chunks for the masses to consume. These could be quacks (fake doctors or nurses), some real health professionals enjoying the limelight, politicians, corporations, social media personalities, and some members of media.
Just like war, there are parties who benefit and those who suffer. We should always examine and debate the legitimacy and moral grounds of any actions before we commit to them. There have been plenty of examines of false grounds on which governments have taken actions which later turned out to be detrimental - Iraq, and Libya are two such examples.
lets look at number 3
Doctors in NZ have been notified that presribing Ivermectin will get them struck off ...
Aussie doctors (were) fine to use it ... UK are researching it etc
whats up? why the closed science book? Arent they in the health game? Or are they in the drug biz game?
image-1-940x524.png (940×524) (paulcraigroberts.org)
courtesy John Hopkins UNi
A number of asian countries have also prescribed ivermectin as PART of the treatment for covid infection. I think it may be because those countries are more familiar with the drug and therefore less hesitant about using it (it was invented by a Japanese, BTW), even if it is in a way that is different from its intended use. But there are many drugs which turned out to be useful for different uses - e.g. viagra and asprin for heart conditions. :-)
Agree - Ivermectin is actually derived off naturally occuring bacteria ... i think its the free of charge bit below that is hard to swallow
Ivermectin, ‘Wonder drug’ from Japan: the human use perspective (nih.gov)
"It was quickly discovered to be ideal in combating two of the world’s most devastating and disfiguring diseases which have plagued the world’s poor throughout the tropics for centuries. It is now being used free-of-charge as the sole tool in campaigns to eliminate both diseases globally. It has also been used to successfully overcome several other human diseases and new uses for it are continually being found. This paper looks in depth at the events surrounding ivermectin’s passage from being a huge success in Animal Health into its widespread use in humans, a development which has led many to describe it as a “wonder” drug"
@Big Jim It's been around for 40 years, should hope it'd be free by now!
This is the part that people should be paying attention to: "It has also been used to successfully overcome several other human diseases and new uses for it are continually being found. "
Narrowing our options Jim.
However, they simply cannot get all the Avermectins off the market as they are used in farming on a daily basis.
Ivermectin does not work against Covid, except in huge toxic doses in the lab.
Vaccines do work, and are extremely safe.
Prevention is better than cure.
Standard propaganda.
which african lab are you referring to
@kiwichas That old saying is true BUT in the case of Covid and its continual mutation, in the long term there may never be a prevention - just cure. Vaccines won't prevent 100% but it will lessen the severity of the illness if it hits.
For the current batch of vaccines, they were meant for SARS-Covid2 aka Covid19 but there have been a (growing) number of mutations/variants now which are more infectious than the original and the vaccines may not be enough to prevent infection by those variants.
It's not useless to get vaccinated but we should not be under the illusion that vaccination equals prevention/immunity.
Sadly viruses are very hard to cure, there are a few slightly effective antivirals for certain viruses only; there are plenty of well proven vaccines, so prevention is your main option.
I think you covered the whole shebang really well Tiger.
Very objective view and well put, I've been fully vaccinated - but still likely fall into the 3) and 5) category
I believe the focus has been on COVID where the overall birds eye context is missing, there are bigger health issues that threaten NZer lives than COVID and are far more deadly based on ACTUAL deaths not 'modelled' deaths
you just need to read death stats to see that, i.e. heart disease 5,800 ppl p.a., vehicle accident 350 p.a. normal flu 550 p.a.
Yet we are being driven into this government and media focused state of fear and paranoia based decision making which is myopic and narrowly focused. which is always prejudice and usually the grey space where laws are changed and rights are slowly eroded/ taken away...
Too many examples to note of governments doing this historically and even more recently within NZ, hence the scepticism
You have left out a sizeable group that I have most sympathy with - those with a major pre-existing health condition that already makes their hold on life precarious. They may wonder if a vaccine dose may push them "over the edge". For these people, this is a very valid concern. However, these people will not be the ones clamouring to get into bars and mass gatherings in the future. They are also unlikely to be planning overseas travel.
I find that there is a significant group who think they are too sick to get vaccinated.They are very willing to have the vaccine when I explain that it is safe and that they are the cohort that would benefit the most.They feel much more confident and secure after being vaccinated, many have been over-isolating out of fear.
@Mack13 You're right, those who do have health issues and do have valid concerns, they should be included. I'll edit my original post and add them in...
On another note, I know some people who are very elderly - one is 76 and has diabetes and high blood pressure and takes daily insulin jabs, the other (my mom) is 84 and fit as a 25 yr old. Both had no after effects of the jabs other than a little soreness in the arm.
So to summarise CT thoughts:
Since Maori % wise have the highest number of Covid dissenters, then we should delay introducing the Vaccine passport for all the benefits to the greater good it gives, just so we don't disadvantage unvaccinated Maori from spreading it in the community, and the effect it has on their own health (being a higher risk group) and/or get labelled as being racist.
I'm glad that none of this applies to non-Maori Covid dissenters.
Be aware Dale the difference between a dissenter and a dissident. The first is a nonconformist. Chris used the second, one who actively goes against an authoritarian government.
Usually I would not even notice the difference. However this is Chris Trotter. He will understand the difference and he specifically used the word dissident to describe a person who would not get this experimental jab.
I am appalled. I think he should apologise. Interest should think twice about pursuing this divisiveness. No good will come of this.
The issue is there Belle, and it will not go away. In fact, it is likely to become of more interest and concern. It is something that each of us needs to consider carefully. Are we an anti-vaxxer? If so, are we a dissident? Or are we a dissenter? Why? Why not? What is our real reasoning? Vague talk of "divisiveness" only pushes issues under the rug.
The dissenters or dissidents are being swept under the rug by naming us as such. It demeans our argument? You may have a point. Should I be proud to be a dissident? I just dont want to be labelled for my views on a stupid jab I am not interested in having. I feel the world has gone mad arguing over this when much more important things are going on. 'Divide and conquer'. That should have been the name of this article.
Thanks for the clarity on that.
But no surprise that if you disagree with a Labour Govt. you are a dissident and by default, they are an authoritarian Govt. Sort of hand in glove.
Agreed. The use of the term dissident cannot be unintentional here.
According to Oxford: "a person who opposes official policy, especially that of an authoritarian state."
And we know what happens to dissidents in many countries. They get arrested. They get jailed. They get disappeared. They get tortured.
I think it is very odd someone who knows his language and his history as well as Chris Trotter should write an article choosing that word to describe fellow New Zealanders who wish to take a different road for their health.
Odd. No. Calculated?
New book out by Dr Richard Fleming--Is Covid 19 a Bio-Weapon? He opines that rather then relying on the pseudo vaccines there are known treatments for inflammation that are being suppressed that could be/should have been routinely used to treat Covid 19 patients and there would significantly less death toll. He expects trials at the Hauge in years ahead.
This passport idea has dangerous implications, The author is clearly a pro-passport protagonist portraying views on human rights that are contradictory
The comment “Freedom of Speech does not give one the right to cry ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre, well actually the Bill of rights does exactly that, people have the right to yell 'Fire'; whether that is socially acceptable or responsible is a different question
Having rules such as no jab/ no job or no passport/ no flying in basic terms is discriminatory which again breaches another human right... the ideologies are intertwined
Compared to actual mortality rates COVID in NZ is near the bottom of the list, if we were serious about saving lives we would spend hundreds of billions on preventing heart disease or other heath issues with extremely high mortality rates
Not so fun fact, 1 person dies from heart disease every 90mins (straight from the heart foundation website) that's 5,840 people p.a.
Where's the context?
There is no context. It is possible that less than 5,840 a year would have died from Covid if we had just let it rip. The number of covid deaths would have also decreased significantly year by year but I bet the numbers dying from heart disease continues to increase year by year. Just imagine if the money spent on covid had been spent elsewhere, hospitals, roads, schools and improving everyones overall fitness. This has been a campaign based on fear and the people have just accepted it.
Always trust the science. I am vaccinated, I think many anti-vaccers are nutters but I am not sure if I will vaccinate my kids.
Guardian News paper in the UK is reporting that the risks of heart complaints in boys is higher from the vaccine than from Covid. UK Joint committee for vaccination and immunisation says science does not support the vaccination of children against COVID given the balance of risks. Why is this not being discussed in NZ. The suppression of debate fuels distrust.
UK Joint committee for vaccination and immunisation says science does not support the vaccination of children against COVID given the balance of risks.
Because the studies are underway right now to determine the risks and rewards. Until the studies are complete, the answer is going to be that the balance of risks is unknown.
Why is this not being discussed in NZ.
Because the studies are underway right now to determine the risks and rewards. Until the studies are complete, the answer is going to be that the balance of risks is unknown.
The suppression of debate fuels distrust.
Nothing is being suppressed. The data is not yet available.
Have you read the article? I suggest you google it. "boys more at risk from Pfizer Jab than covid" Guardian UK. This is a reputable news source. The JCVI is a well respected committee of scientists. We must debate based on facts not fear or political agenda.
This article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-risk-from-pf…
Interesting reading. It is not what I thought you were talking about in my reply above, which is vaccinating children under 12. This is for teenagers 12-15.
Just because something isn't being talked about here, doesn't mean it is "being suppressed".
I couldn't get the link to work. Thanks for doing that. Normally the NZ media is quick to pick up stories from the UK. I am just surprised that no Journalist has run with this. Vaccine debate is often shut down on radio talk back and has become polarised between pro and anti - vaccers. My understanding is that the Vaccine reduces viral load but vaccinated individuals can still spread the virus. Therefore the vaccine is primarily protecting the individual (rather than wider society) and reducing the chance of them using up a hospital bed (which is of wider benefit). As the risk to 12-15 year olds from COVID 19 is incredibly low, it does make me wonder what the rationale is for vaccinating them, unless they have underlying medical issues.
So anti-vaxers are "Nutters" but your hesitant on vaccinating your kids ? Says it all really. Sorry to keep having to bring this up but I suspect that there are some intelligent people in the group that don't want the vax as it currently exists. Some of us live healthy lifestyles, are not overweight, don't smoke, don't take drugs, don't drink to much and have done their own risk assessment and decided to take a pass .I have lived my whole life not running in the "Herd" and I intend to keep it that way. Get the vaccine if you think your at risk of being hospitalised but don't force it on me.
I said many are nutters, not all. I agree that people should have the freedom to choose. Those that think it is a cover for the insertion of micro chips - are nutters.
have done their own risk assessment and decided to take a pass.
Unvaccinated people have higher viral loads when contracting delta than vaccinated people. This likely means they are more infectious and will pass it on to others (not yet proven, but a reasonable hypothesis).
By saying "I'm alright, mate", they're putting themselves in a situation where they are more likely to first catch COVID and then to pass COVID on to others who may not be "alright mate", even if they've been vaccinated, because unfortunately the vaccines aren't perfect. If these fit healthy people are vaccinated, then we already know they're less likely to catch it in the first place, meaning they can't pass it on, and if they did catch it, it seems likely they would still be less likely to pass it on.
Yes, it'd be great if the vaccines were perfect and everyone who took them became immune, then the fit healthy people could make solely a personal choice and leave other vulnerable people to be covered by their own vaccinations. But we don't live in that reality, we have to live with the situation as it stands, and that is that the vaccines aren't perfect.
So everyone should get vaccinated, and if you're really that healthy and fit, you're even less likely to get side-effects from the vaccine. And (hypothesizing) if you do get side effects from the vaccine, then perhaps you would be one of the people who would have fallen seriously ill with COVID.
With about 5.6 billion doses of various vaccines administered worldwide, we already know the death and complication rate of COVID is far far far far far far higher than the death and complication rate of vaccines.
Some of us live healthy lifestyles, are not overweight, don't smoke, don't take drugs, don't drink to much and have done their own risk assessment and decided to take a pass .
And still get Covid and get long-term complications or die,or occupy a hospital bed that someone else should be in.A bit selfish.
The bug is not fair and does not care.
Life is not fair, you can be super fit and still have a near death experience with covid while joe average who doesn't know what the inside of a gym looks like can get it and not even know he had it. Shit happens.
So get vaccinated,why not, why are you so scared of the vaccine??
The risk/benefit ratio is hugely in favour of the vaccine.
As usual in life, things are more nuanced than a simple vaccine/not vaccine dichotomy. For me it was as important a choice as whether or not to invest in tobacco companies or companies that use slave labour or produce land mines or sponsor terrorism.
Some people are hesitant to use the vaccine on ethical, nay moral grounds, namely the use of aborted foetal cell lines in the production or the testing of the vaccines. Astra Zeneca used it in both testing and production. Pfizer's vaccine only used cell lines in the testing of the vaccine, not the production. (Incidentally, the Novavax vaccines fall into the same camp as Pfizer, so no issues with a booster from there either)
I'm pro-vaccine, but I may have been labelled vaccine hesitant if the government had bought AZ instead of Pfizer for NZ, because I draw the line at testing. Some will disagree this is an issue, but I probably think they're **censored** anyway.
Those who have this sort of hesitancy are (wrongly) put in the same camp as the anti-5G camp or the mind control lizard chip wackos. It's just not that simple.
This is literally the first time I've seen anyone have moral issues around the way the vaccine was created as a reason to be hesitant about receiving one.
The usual reason is that it's "brand new technology that has not been proven yet".
You must run in different circles. =)
I'm pro-GMO, pro-Roundup, pro-technology, pro-meat, pro-technology, pro-5G, pro-freedom of speech, pro-boxing, pro-business, pro-vaccine. Also pro life. ^^ Of course a lot of pro-life people got the AZ vaccine, while others draw the line at a different place, but it may partly explain vaccine hesitancy in the US.
The cost of a lockdown can be estimated. The probability of a lockdown and its length can be estimated for any given vaccination rate. So why not promise the South Island level-1 or level-0 once their vaccination rate reaches 90% (excluding children under a specific age).
The vaccination rate will never hit 90%. We will be lucky to hit 70%. Effectively we will never hit this either if booster shots become the norm and new strains emerge like they already are. There is a distinct possibility that in 10 years time we will look back and the whole lockdown and vaccination attempt will have been a complete waste of time.
I get the flu shot every year - after having contracted what might well have been SARS-1 overseas... hence, I don't want any flu!!!!!
I can foresee COVID-related variants needing to become a once-a-year as well. But not sure why you'd see that as a waste of time?
Chris misses a major point - opposition to a vaccine passport domestically is not the same as being opposed to vaccines. I'm vaccinated and I oppose a vaccine passport domestically on principle, with perhaps an exemption for visiting a rest home or a hospital. Those who want to travel will need some to comply with the laws of the lands they visit. People should be free not to be vaccinated. As a vaccinated person Covid, especially Delta, is not scary(i.e. concerning) to me any more
I think the key word there is scary, whether valid or not
Get vaccinated or role the dice. If you get snake eyes you could be done. There are people out there that still believe the world is flat so do we really want to waste tax payers money on understanding their thinking. No point getting it once you are critically sick.
Is this a form of Darwinism?
Now that its apparent that vaccination requires not just one (or two) shots, but a constant never ending 6 monthly vaccination schedule, I am not so keen to be vaccinated and join this merry go round. If it was "one and done" sure - but I'm not signing up to be injected with spike proteins every 6 months. Show me the safety studies done on people who have been forced to constantly be producing spike proteins from their cells? Prove to me that the blood clot and heart inflammation disorders don't get worse every time you get an injection until eventually you just stroke out in the street one day. So I plan on not getting vaccinated unless and until I absolutely have to (eg. to get on a plane), in order to minimise as much as possible the number of vaccinations that I will have to have in my lifetime. My chance of dying from this disease is less than 1% - my chance of dying from repeat vaccinations is presently unknown.
Johnson & Johnson's 1 shot viral vector vaccine might be what you are looking for;
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/janssen.html
Bit of a shame we cannot purchase this here. I can quite understand why the Government funded-programme would be a single type (no choice), but it would have been good to get additional vaccines approved for purchase in NZ for those who would like to make their own choice.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.