[Fiend]

Talking about vaccines, at what point will it become mandatory to have a vaccine passport to shop in supermarkets etc??

(Asking for a friend ofc...)

[SA Chris]

I expect it will likely be the case for non-essential travel, not sure about shopping.

[Oldmanmatt]

Talking about vaccines, at what point will it become mandatory to have a vaccine passport to shop in supermarkets etc??

(Asking for a friend ofc...)

It won’t.

I reckon, the vaccines will begin to take effect, then the disease becomes a piece of background Muzak; gradually dropping down the page in the headlines.
Possibly a small third wave, attenuated by Summer, an updated vaccine program in the Autumn; by this time next year, we’ll have forgotten about drastic ideas like Vaccine passports to go to the cinema.
It will probably become mandatory for some travel regions and destinations, much like there are already such conditions for some places. Probably for places that struggle to control the disease, rather than those who have suppressed it, with a requirement in both directions, if you get what I mean.

I recall the absolute certainty, in the Mid East, after 9/11, that Iraq was about to be carpet bombed into the worlds biggest parking lot. So many American companies evacuating their staff and shuttering offices, from Dubai. Something like saying “They’re going to bomb Berlin, so we must evacuate the London office”.
 

[Loos3-tools]

  with OMM

cheers for the replies about the vaccine chaps

[Oldmanmatt]

with OMM

cheers for the replies about the vaccine chaps

Really? I thought you we’re expecting an apocalyptic resurgence of super Covid? Or mass death through vaccine reactions? (Not that I managed to work out how you squared the latter with your previous “Covid is fake/exaggerated (whatever)” stuff).

I’d already mentally renamed you “Private Frazer” and ascribed the appropriate Highland accent to all your posts...

[Oldmanmatt]

Actually, I do have a question.
Background.

I was reading recently about death amongst young adults during the 1918 Influenza pandemic.
Only 10-15% of deaths were caused by Influenza, the majority were attributed to subsequent aggressive Bacterial Pneumonia.
It’s posited, that the use of Aspirin to treat Influenza symptoms actually precipitated the subsequent agression/hyper immune response to the Pneumonia.
https://watermark.silverchair.com/49-9-1405.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAApgwggKUBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggKFMIICgQIBADCCAnoGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQM_XgFcutFCD5rwUb2AgEQgIICS9B6KhfOyxdlyU9RZN765xHEeF7D7oS4xFc9bDiBSoBrxJsTV4ckAcHmwhgLNI5IEkOUMaW18MeNKjYyXGE17xkM41NeD88KlspWzaqLiWNlRW8T-H_kGDJH8JqbL40pfY0cvpkI0nEFLmvKsuO1wbhdHzCDqAGiW6aUj_xz1vqca0seyFnDNGcRYq49VcFQCrPret4PasT4s6XYwC7BfWhqmePZoInr93x0Z5BGdUPOxOA6xvp7zuZrYRFBXQiMdo74Xaz2FvzQfyVk9CYkEq5U-y4K9Epii0U40nJ8xD79nfL1Sq_fEYM3X917x_J_9ux4hyw29xbpVT_Ockeb4VZ3rai4F5zuR5OyUcz3zDJRfeHluSj1BLJV0IFr3zpxVzA0Z41L_n7FPZYLxcoU3YepiHvJdWf9UIQ4s-YU34gU4zRHzjMVUI_vUIdY27k5pj0BavARtRb1mfRA84xvrSKgDPNlZyOvZCSxXXqpnPTvzGAYqSyX4PuZ2FwdWgxw5_TxNNTeBJI6m0wvu0wEEUvvQtAn5_6H_gUy4MLPBuONP0PU8MRcJ5tiSRChSieU2RXkk_lyRV-YgnPs3u8KwZm0ozw-OhWF7HGLsi2Lufx8uclyNecdEOAKJIQzr7WtW73h8irOLKL0Cnr3H51y74GZZpWZMK5ohZRcvQF2X-sim3ycWnbk4NhdR7LCwQoyCAlG39KhQp2n7Qhxmr5Yhifb5sh3_Bqb-Xm9kVu9nL7h9teX6bR3iPox6I3Q81FmYq9Q4jkXdyXNNOzu

Wow, long link, sorry.

Anyway...

The pattern of spread etc associated with the 1918 Flu, got me looking at the Columbian Exchange, which again, in part, was an Influenza epidemic across South/Central American (obviously complicated by several other concurrent epidemics such as Small Pox).

I realised the commonality is the vulnerability of older people. If the Aspirin hypothesis is borne out, then the 1918 pandemic should have hit the older victims much harder and disproportionately. That both 1918 and Covid 19 are just accelerated Colombian Exchanges.


So, younger and more agile immune systems can deal drastically better with novel pathogens.

Given how these things are massively accelerated by modern transportation, are we already at the point where it’s no longer a “Novel” pathogen?

Can we expect, younger people exposed to the virus, to develop longer lasting immunity than occurs in older adults?

Or will the youngsters just simply become more vulnerable as they age?

Edit:

Not convinced that link to the PDF is working properly, here’s the link to the html, where you can link to the PDF.
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/49/9/1405/301441

[Loos3-tools]

with OMM

cheers for the replies about the vaccine chaps

Really? I thought you we’re expecting an apocalyptic resurgence of super Covid? Or mass death through vaccine reactions? (Not that I managed to work out how you squared the latter with your previous “Covid is fake/exaggerated (whatever)” stuff).

I’d already mentally renamed you “Private Frazer” and ascribed the appropriate Highland accent to all your posts...

Nah, I believe covid is real and a horrible illness for some, I just don't agree with how its been handled by the politicians, technocratic philanthropists and their unpleasant fauci chums and respective media outlets. As usual it stinks of money, power, control and opportunism

[slab_happy]

What would you prefer? A more Bolsonaro response?

[mrjonathanr]

Dan, you speak about these groups as if there’s one big coordinated conspiracy, rather than a bumper crop of self interested politicians and a lot of other people playing their roles with a bit more integrity.

One step away from mentioning the Rothschilds, one more from going full QAnon. It’s tedious.

[Loos3-tools]

Nah, that’s your addition. I’m saying that the idea that anyone from Fauci to Vallance, Biden to Boris or Gates to Gates actually gives a genuine fuck about people’s health is a total illusion.

[mrjonathanr]

Then you struggle to discern. 

[Bonjoy]

I'm surprised you can believe in such a black and white idea of good and evil people. You can't know the motivation of other people, only infer from their actions and words. Don't you think it's more plausible that even the worst people (and your list is a broad spectrum including people who are plausibly altruistic by most people's reading)do generally care to some extent about other people at some basic primal level?

[Loos3-tools]

I'm surprised you can believe in such a black and white idea of good and evil people. You can't know the motivation of other people, only infer from their actions and words. Don't you think it's more plausible that even the worst people (and your list is a broad spectrum including people who are plausibly altruistic by most people's reading)do generally care to some extent about other people at some basic primal level?

I never called them evil. I’m simply saying they are not motivated by the health and well being of the worlds population. It is about power, control and money. That’s exactly the opposite of a black and white view. It’s saying motivations are complex and when you look the broader context of these peoples behaviour if global, national or individual health  was a primary concern things would have been very different a long time ago.

Just to add with regards to caring for others on a basic primal level. I’d say no, not at the expense of their primary self serving motivations. That’s not to say they don’t feel, they just don’t feel bad about others suffering.

[Bonjoy]

That's not the same as them not 'giving a fuck', i.e. no regard for others' wellbeing in any context, even if personally costless.

[andy popp]

It is about power, control and money. That’s exactly the opposite of a black and white view. It’s saying motivations are complex

No, that's a childlike, cartoonish way of understanding of people and the world. There's no complexity when you automatically reduce everything to two base motives.

[Loos3-tools]

Freud might disagree

[slab_happy]

Freud was a cokehead who thought that all women secretly want to have penises.

[andy popp]

Freud was a cokehead who thought that all women secretly want to have penises.

Exactly.

[slab_happy]

Nah, that’s your addition. I’m saying that the idea that anyone from Fauci to Vallance, Biden to Boris or Gates to Gates actually gives a genuine fuck about people’s health is a total illusion.

Don't know if that's a reply to me or mrjonathanjr, but you haven't answered my question.

You don't seem to be in favour of lockdowns, masks or vaccines, so what government strategy would you like? No restrictions, just let the virus run?

Speculating about people's motives is pretty much irrelevant to that.

Look, I'm as cynical as the next person; I think a lot of the belated UK government response has been driven not by altruism but by "oh shit, if THAT many people die it'll look bad and we might lose the next election". There are more than a few politicians whose disregard for the lives of others hits a level that I would consider sociopathic.

But even if you think they're all part of one big cabal co-ordinating everything, the leaders of different countries have reacted to covid with a range of different policies.

Forget why they do it. What do you think they should have done?

[Loos3-tools]

Freud was a cokehead who thought that all women secretly want to have penises.

Exactly.

Topic split?

That is an over simplification, you can trace back a significant proportion of modern psychological therapies including CBT, CFT, counselling etc to their origins in Freuds work and his influences. A great example of polarised thinking. It reminds me of the feminist attack on attachment theory and Bowlby based on the idea that infant attachment focused on a maternal figure was part of an unconscious desire to repress women.

[Bonjoy]

I suspect Andy was making an offhand generalisation to illustrate a point, in response to your simplistic dismissal of all individuals involved in the global response to Covid.

[Will Hunt]

On that note I don't think it's possible to persuade Dan of anything without altering his core worldview which seems to be one of ultra cynicism - that power of any sort is absolutely corrupting and that people and institutions with power are fundamentally rotten.

Thus the vaccine programme and lockdown measures are necessarily nefarious because they are organised by  government, the pharmaceutical companies, the NHS trusts, private donors etc etc etc who are all bad.

[Oldmanmatt]

Freud was a cokehead who thought that all women secretly want to have penises.

Exactly.

Topic split?

That is an over simplification, you can trace back a significant proportion of modern psychological therapies including CBT, CFT, counselling etc to their origins in Freuds work and his influences. A great example of polarised thinking. It reminds me of the feminist attack on attachment theory and Bowlby based on the idea that infant attachment focused on a maternal figure was part of an unconscious desire to repress women.

Dude, babies and bath water, again.

Almost all of Freud’s pet hypotheses are now discredited.

Although, I think he’d have quite a bit to say about you.

You make glib oversimplifications and dismissively rude assessments of others opinions and statements, followed by hyperbole and further straw arguments to assert (again) both your perceived moral superiority, greater understanding and intellect.
You plant the glib shit, as a trap, to spring the “devastating” thought that you dreamed up in the shower this morning; when you get slapped down.
Often, that point is only tangentially related to the topic in hand and is usually nothing more than a poorly crafted insult to the majority of contributors here.

You seem to think you sound clever, yet, to most of us, you appear to be deeply troubled and confused.

It’s odd to hear an adult converse this way. It’s an approach I tend to associate with the pretentious, 19/20 year old wazzocks I recall holding forth on their latest drivel in student bars; mainly hoping to attract groupies and become some sort of intellectual guru.
I’m sure you don’t mean to sound like that, but that’s what you are conjuring in my mind.

You certainly keep hijacking treads and pulling them off into your little rants about how awful we all are.

Might I suggest you purchase a mirror and spend a little time looking in it?

[Loos3-tools]

I suspect Andy was making an offhand generalisation to illustrate a point, in response to your simplistic dismissal of all individuals involved in the global response to Covid.

My dismissal does seem simplistic, polarised or black and white positions is a good way to think about it. When considering the motives of say Billy Goats, I'd contextualise that in terms of his history and then in terms of developmental psychology. Who is this man, how did his personality develop, why is he involved in the world in this way? Split or polarised all good all bad thinking is a personality characteristic related to developmental / attachment experiences. This will provide lifelong motivations for his behaviour. The world is now his narcissistic supply. In my cynical opinion this is on balance not so good.

With regards his philanthropy consider dirty drinking water and lack of good sewerage systems and the consequent diseases it generates. Billy Goats foundation does describe some involvement in making this better. I'm pretty sure it doesn't take an army of scientists to sort this problem out so why hasn't he done it? and why has he developed a toilet that turns excrement into drinkable water? A better metaphor for the behaviour of these characters I could not come up with

[SA Chris]

Forget why they do it. What do you think they should have done?

You may have to "go Paxman" on this one.