Open question: when to consider that the COVID-19 pandemic is over and no longer requires special measures?

How to stay healthy and prevent risks and consequences on your health and public health. occupational disease, industrial risks (asbestos, air pollution, electromagnetic waves ...), company risk (workplace stress, overuse of drugs ...) and individual (tobacco, alcohol ...).
Rajqawee
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1322
Registration: 27/02/20, 09:21
Location: Occitania
x 577

Re: Open question: when to consider that the COVID-19 pandemic is over and no longer requires special measures




by Rajqawee » 23/12/21, 15:24

ABC2019 wrote:well even if you protected all the people with comorbidities, you would have the remaining 20% ​​.. except that nothing prevents then that the number of cases continues to climb and multiply this number by 5 !! why do without 20% additional protection, if the risk of the vaccine is almost zero?

Well, uh, it actually is. This is what I just said. These people just don't go to the hospital much, if not statistically at all. So, vaccinated or not, it will have no impact on hospitalizations.

ABC2019 wrote:it is 2% of the number of admissions, but not occupied beds given the length of stay of hospitalized patients. On the other hand
* it is heterogeneous in space
* it is heterogeneous over time
* this was precisely achieved with unprecedented containment measures to AVOID congestion in hospitals. It is completely dishonest to take the pretext that it did not go too badly, to imply that it was not worth doing it! It's as if you were piling in a car to avoid a child and your passenger was telling you that it was not worth it to crash since you had avoided it!

So, in fact, the average length of stay of the covid is 13, X days. This is pretty much what we usually see in geriatrics (given the age of covid patients ...)
If you want the stat (for the OLS field), it's 2,4million days out of 69million, so 3,4%. Well, that doesn't change much.
It would still be necessary to prove that the said measures had some effect on the hospitalization of people. I imagine you have some supporting data:
- impact of the health pass on hospitalizations
- impact of the curfew on hospitalizations
- impact of confinements on hospitalizations
Because what I give you is always from the ATIH report. This report is great.

ABC2019 wrote:no that would be the case if they were rational but obviously they are not, so must be - unfortunately - a little more restrictive, insofar as their behaviors impose a cost on the whole society.

Again, counter psychology: what do you know about people's motivations for choosing care? On the other hand, you are right, the result is there: many people for whom the risk benefit is probably enormous do not get vaccinated. This strategy is therefore a big failure. People are dying of it. What a bunch of big nazes this government!
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Open question: when to consider that the COVID-19 pandemic is over and no longer requires special measures




by ABC2019 » 23/12/21, 16:05

Rajqawee wrote:
ABC2019 wrote:well even if you protected all the people with comorbidities, you would have the remaining 20% ​​.. except that nothing prevents then that the number of cases continues to climb and multiply this number by 5 !! why do without 20% additional protection, if the risk of the vaccine is almost zero?

Well, uh, it actually is. This is what I just said. These people just don't go to the hospital much, if not statistically at all. So, vaccinated or not, it will have no impact on hospitalizations.

you just said 82% with comorbidities, that leaves 18% with, it is not negligible.


ABC2019 wrote:it is 2% of the number of admissions, but not occupied beds given the length of stay of hospitalized patients. On the other hand
* it is heterogeneous in space
* it is heterogeneous over time
* this was precisely achieved with unprecedented containment measures to AVOID congestion in hospitals. It is completely dishonest to take the pretext that it did not go too badly, to imply that it was not worth doing it! It's as if you were piling in a car to avoid a child and your passenger was telling you that it was not worth it to crash since you had avoided it!

So, in fact, the average length of stay of the covid is 13, X days. This is pretty much what we usually see in geriatrics (given the age of covid patients ...)
If you want the stat (for the OLS field), it's 2,4million days out of 69million, so 3,4%. Well, that doesn't change much.
It would still be necessary to prove that the said measures had some effect on the hospitalization of people. I imagine you have some supporting data:
- impact of the health pass on hospitalizations
- impact of the curfew on hospitalizations
- impact of confinements on hospitalizations
Because what I give you is always from the ATIH report. This report is great.


What do you attribute the variations of R to then?


Image

but hey if we continue your logic, if neither the sanitary pass, nor the curfew, nor the confinements, nor the vaccines were used for nothing, your position. is that nothing should be done about the epidemic?


ABC2019 wrote:no that would be the case if they were rational but obviously they are not, so must be - unfortunately - a little more restrictive, insofar as their behaviors impose a cost on the whole society.

Again, counter psychology: what do you know about people's motivations for choosing care?

well I speak with them. For example, a friend over 65, overweight, told me that she was not getting the vaccine because she had a heart murmur and the vaccine scared her. Do you find it rational that she is more afraid of the vaccine than of the virus?

and obviously by declaring that we only vaccinate people at risk, we would reinforce the misconception that the vaccine is dangerous for others.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
Rajqawee
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1322
Registration: 27/02/20, 09:21
Location: Occitania
x 577

Re: Open question: when to consider that the COVID-19 pandemic is over and no longer requires special measures




by Rajqawee » 23/12/21, 16:12

The remaining 18% is therefore 18% of 2% hospitalization. Yes, it is negligible.

What do the curves show? That the more sick people there are, the more people who go to the hospital? FUCK WAOW.

For your 65-year-old friend, I think she might want to get the shot, but it's none of my business what she does. Does that allow you to deduce a generality for millions of people?

And then wait, this one is magnificent: "and obviously by declaring that one only vaccinates people at risk, one would reinforce the false idea that the vaccine is dangerous for the others."
So what, we vaccinate people for whom it is useless to motivate others?

You are probably right. This is also why we stuff everyone with anticoagulants, so those for whom it is useful are not afraid to take them.
1 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Open question: when to consider that the COVID-19 pandemic is over and no longer requires special measures




by ABC2019 » 23/12/21, 16:23

Rajqawee wrote:The remaining 18% is therefore 18% of 2% hospitalization. Yes, it is negligible.

no you are wrong. Because if those who did not have comorbidities were not protected by the vaccine, there would be many more. If people without comorbidities can be hospitalized, that means they are ALSO protected by the vaccine.

For your 65-year-old friend, I think she might want to get the shot, but it's none of my business what she does. Does that allow you to deduce a generality for millions of people?

she's not the only one

what do you think of him?

https://www.bfmtv.com/sante/martinique- ... 20165.html


And then wait, this one is magnificent: "and obviously by declaring that one only vaccinates people at risk, one would reinforce the false idea that the vaccine is dangerous for the others."
So what, we vaccinate people for whom it is useless to motivate others?

it is not useless, see above. They are ALSO protected by vaccination. And PLUS, not vaccinating them would support the misconception that the vaccine is dangerous.

The only way to justify not vaccinating them is to show that the risk benefit is negative, and I haven't seen a bit of an argument in this direction in everything you've written.

Rajqawee wrote:You are probably right. This is also why we stuff everyone with anticoagulants, so those for whom it is useful are not afraid to take them.


precisely, we do not do it because it is very clear to everyone that anticoagulants (which have many side effects) have a negative risk benefit for those who do not need them. It illustrates what I'm telling you.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 14821
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4301

Re: Open question: when to consider that the COVID-19 pandemic is over and no longer requires special measures




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 23/12/21, 16:28

The guy is in a state, it's scary !!! : Shock:
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Open question: when to consider that the COVID-19 pandemic is over and no longer requires special measures




by ABC2019 » 23/12/21, 16:30

GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:The guy is in a state, it's scary !!! : Shock:

are you talking about the unvaccinated trade unionist? yes it's scary, he's dead.

I'm fine, thank you, merry Christmas;).
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 14821
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4301

Re: Open question: when to consider that the COVID-19 pandemic is over and no longer requires special measures




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 23/12/21, 16:31

(Which trade unionist?) : Shock:
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Open question: when to consider that the COVID-19 pandemic is over and no longer requires special measures




by ABC2019 » 23/12/21, 16:37

he

ABC2019 wrote:what do you think of him?

https://www.bfmtv.com/sante/martinique- ... 20165.html

.


in fact you reply to my posts but you don't even read them : Cry: : Cry:
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Open question: when to consider that the COVID-19 pandemic is over and no longer requires special measures




by Janic » 23/12/21, 16:39

abcon
It is completely dishonest to take the pretext that it did not go too badly, to imply that it was not worth doing it! It's as if you were piling in a car to avoid a child and your passenger was telling you that it was not worth it to crash since you had avoided it!
mixture of times between had and would have. In general, we hit for an existing obstacle and not for an imaginary obstacle. However, believing in any effectiveness of the genetic pseudo vaccine is as ridiculous as believing in the effectiveness of slowing down on an obstacle that does not exist.

ABCon »23/12/21, 17:23

Rajqawee wrote:
The remaining 18% is therefore 18% of 2% hospitalization. Yes, it is negligible.
no you are wrong. Because if those who did not have comorbidities were not protected by the vaccine, there would be precisely much more.
Of course not! When we say "there would be " is that there is no certainty and no way to prove it. Compare only what is comparable and not compare cabbage and carrots
If people without comorbidities can be hospitalized, that means they are ALSO protected by the vaccine.
Funny, if my aunt had one we would call her my uncle ALSO, but she doesn't have any. Read your stupid sentence again!
it is not useless, see above. They are ALSO protected by vaccination. And PLUS, not vaccinating them would support the misconception that the vaccine is dangerous.
this is where you have to put a conditional: SI they are protected by vaccination and this is not the case, which gives certainty that they are not protected by vaccination, but by hygiene measures
The only way to justify not vaccinating them is to show that the risk benefit is negative, and I haven't seen a bit of an argument in this direction in everything you've written.
no need to justify a negative risk benefit, since it has not been verified over the long term, like any other drug. However, there are already victims who demonstrate its short-term danger. When not having seen, you systematically see nothing if it does not support your superstitious beliefs. = trash!
Last edited by Janic the 23 / 12 / 21, 16: 50, 1 edited once.
1 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Open question: when to consider that the COVID-19 pandemic is over and no longer requires special measures




by ABC2019 » 23/12/21, 16:45

Janic wrote: mixture of times between had and would have. In general, we hit for an existing obstacle and not for an imaginary obstacle. However, believing in any effectiveness of the genetic pseudo vaccine is as ridiculous as believing in the effectiveness of slowing down on an obstacle that does not exist.


an obstacle that does not exist? : Shock: : Shock:

well in fact I come to the only possible conclusion: Janic and I live in two parallel worlds which only intersect on this forum, which is a kind of bridge between two universes, hence the difficulty of understanding each other. It is not possible otherwise.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Health and Prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental risks "

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 213 guests