I just find it sad that there is a way that people can be protected but they don’t take it up - I don’t care who is allowed to travel and who isn’t, I want everyone to get the best possible outcomes out of life.
As an American, it’s not the EUs job to manage the…. Less than rational amongst us over here. If the US government doesn’t have the backbone to enforce strict mask and vaccine mandates, it seems only logical and right that other countries will do things like this.
It's the same everywhere. There is a 40-10% in every country which won't get the vaccine.
It's not their fault, there is some mechanism inside their brains which makes them highly skeptical of everything.
And there are so many of them because back in the days it was an evolutionary advantage to be skeptical of everything. Back when humans lived in groups of hundreds to thousands and were routinely attacked by other groups of hundreds to thousands.
It is probably an evolved trait. Imagine a scenario in which we had 100% adoption of a choice and the choice killed the population.
Contrarians keep the species alive and sometimes they die and sometimes they don't.
Some people don't want blankets, Syphilis (multiple times to multiple groups Guatemala and Tuskegee)), or other government help.
Is the vaccine one of those? Probably not, but I can understand the skeptical faction.
People want and need to go back to travel. Especially between US-China-EU
If it was for me I'd allow everybody, but given that majority rules and the majority is made up of vaccinated people , and the aforementioned majority doesn't want these people near them in their 12hrs plane trip...then it's a perfect scenario to let the skeptics enjoy the dodged bullet in their home country
Denmark isn't enforcing strict mask and vaccination mandates. What do you think the EU should do to manage that? The US is hardly a policy outlier, and backbone or lack thereof is not the issue.
Denmark has a high vaccination rate and has kept their case rate under control and their death rate almost insignificant even during COVID. They are handling every aspect of this quite a bit better than the US is.
Here is a graph of case rates of them, the US, and a few others [1]. Here's death rates [2].
Delta is past its high point in the US. This is just a retaliation because the Biden administration promised to allow EU visitors again and they didn’t do it.
Sorry to be a downer but I'm having a hard time being optimistic about the situation. My prediction is that pretty much every child in America will contract delta within the next month.
The approach towards vaccinations and masking in schools has been absurd. I'm so disappointed that the FDA haven't prioritized vaccinations for kids. Now a ton of kids are going to die unnecessarily.
While I share you disappointment with the FDA for acting so slowly in approving vaccines for children, children are being hospitalized for Covid at only a rate of about 1 per 100K per week, and deaths are extremely rare (0 to 0.03% of cases).
The federal government has funded point of care covid screening, which is probably the single most effective way to limit spread in schools. It's the fault of local school boards that they haven't used the money.
This, in reality, has little to with the increase of Delta cases in the US.
It's more about the lack of reciprocity from the US after the EU opened up for travel from the US. The rise of Delta cases in the US is just a convenient excuse to fix the inbalance.
I don't get why the US would not reciprocate because US coronavirus levels are so high travelers from the EU would serve more to dilute it than add to it if anything.
Yeah, and the list of banned countries is totally stupid too.
The list is short and doesn't ban countries with way more infections than the listed ones. People can travel from all over Africa for example, but not Europe.
Yeah it bans only Shengen area of Europe, excluding some EU countries (Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria), the rest of the Balkans, and non-EU Eastern European countries (like Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova).
It makes zero sense and it's not nearly as flexible as the EU, which adds and removes countries from the ban list frequently.
It's less about fairness or even effectiveness, and more about the art of the possible, to be honest. Restricting travel from France to Germany or Florida to New York would probably be _far_ more effective in controlling covid (though, even then, not all that effective; once covid is present it mostly spreads internally in practice) than US<->EU restrictions, but it's obviously far less politically feasible.
I feel like there's a large element of theatrics around covid travel restrictions (except for zero-covid-strategy countries, but those are rare); it's something that's relatively easy to do, so, even though it probably isn't particularly useful in most cases, it gets done.
Ireland's mandatory hotel quarantine is a nice example; it currently largely applies to countries which people rarely travel to Ireland from anyway (Brazil being the main exception). It does _not_ apply, and never has applied to, say, the UK; despite the UK having very high rates right now, travel between the UK and Ireland is far too common for it to be feasible. But at the time it was introduced, the vaccine programme was slow due to supply issues, and the government wanted to be seen to be doing _something_, so...
The Council of the European Union voted on Monday to recommend reinstating a ban on non-essential travel from the United States due to its high rate of COVID-19 infections.
My point was that if someone says the stated reason and real reason for something are different, citing the stated reason is not a valid rebuttal to that claim.
Please, stop being emotional about policies and try to offer data if you are so sure about it being a "convenient excuse", don't engage in baseless speculation.
EU also took some back some tariffs they put up as reactions to tariffs Trump put up. Biden smiled, said thanks and left the Trump tariffs in place.
US is acting in self interest, EU sometimes has problems with that. We are also good at acting in self interest, but sometimes we are very naive about others doing it.
and just because you disagree with them, doesnt mean you are right as well. Sure, you can say "I disagree with you". you can even do one better "I disagree with you, and here is evidence to back my claim...". However, you didnt do that, you just attacked them.
I disagree with you, and here is evidence to back my claim (the first line of the article): The Council of the European Union voted on Monday to recommend reinstating a ban on non-essential travel from the United States due to its high rate of COVID-19 infections.
The decision, which is non-binding and will ultimately be up to individual member states to implement, comes after weeks of EU officials criticizing the Biden administration for not lifting U.S. restrictions on travel from Europe.
> Why it matters: The decision, which is non-binding and will ultimately be up to individual member states to implement, comes after weeks of EU officials criticizing the Biden administration for not lifting U.S. restrictions on travel from Europe.
Everyone on the flight to a country that requires testing and vaccination will have to show tests and vaccine records to even board the plane. Some countries even require a second test on arrival, with such measures in place it shouldnt matter what percentage of the population is vaxxed. Full country bans are nothing but politicking and tit for tat pettiness between countries. We shouldve lifted restrictions on Europeans long ago, our list of restricted and allowed countries has no correlation to the actual safety of the countries. We allow fully unrestricted travel with tests from other countries that went through waves when Europe was low, like Mexico and Colombia. I've viewed countrywide bands as stupid since the beginning, the majority of Americans do not have passports, those who travel abroad are middle class and up or those with family origins abroad and are law-abiding people used to complying with travel requirements.
I think a travel ban in the beginning would have made sense, but only on the condition that it was for stocking up on resources (masks, beds, etc.) so that the load could be handled when opened up. and of course it would have a non extendable timeline to reach those goals. But at this point, any ban is egregious.
They did the same for Canadians even. Our border is open to vaccinated Americans. They've chosen to keep theirs closed, even although we're at much higher risk from them then they are from us.
Political stuff I guess. In lieu of doing something useful, they need to look like at least they're doing something.
I'm not salty about it though, it's good for our economy.
As much as it pains me not to be able to travel to Europe, it's totally fair since the US isn't allowing Europeans in either.
At this point, travel bans are just politics. If we are only allowing vaccinated individuals in, the idea of a foreigner contributing to increased danger to our society is just nonsense.
A lot of people have been transiting through Serbia lately since it's not part of the EU. The arrivals area was packed shoulder to shoulder when I was there last month.
Do you guys have direct flights to US? I was thinking about Croatia for the same reason, but all flights from there to US seem to require layover in London or Paris, which makes them useless (even few hours at EU or UK airport is enough to "taint" the whole trip).
Wouldn't the EU allow for citizens to return from travel, regardless of whether it was an essential trip or not? The bans are essentially just entry visa restrictions that the airlines are enforcing. Finding a seat on a plane might be difficult because of reduced demand but essential people would still need to travel so there should be something available.
Not EU citizens, citizens of a specific country. If you're from Slovakia and there is no direct flight from the US, and the other EU countries ban entry from the US, it's at discretion of individual countries to let you through (or not).
I didn't find it really that big of a hassle. Sure - it added maybe a few hours of complication to my two week vacation but it wasn't that bad. Definitely would go through that rather than not have the option at all.
I travelled last week (from Ireland to Spain and back again); I had to fill in a couple of forms ahead of time and show slightly more barcodes/qr codes than usual (vaccine cert and each country's travel locator thingy), but really it wasn't too bad.
The locator forms are weirdly _inconsistent_, though; the Spanish one asks for seat number and incorporates the vaccine cert; the Irish one isn't interested in seat number and you have to show the vaccine cert separately. I'm somewhat surprised this hasn't all been standardised.
Antimaskers and antivaxxers frequently talk about their "freedoms" in the abstract. Here is an example where I am concretely losing my freedom to travel, because a portion of the populace refuse to take basic precautions.
This isn't the case where the actions of the group are harmless to me. Unvaccinated people and antimaskers are creating a more dangerous environment for me through their actions and inactions.
Not necessarily. The number of COVID infection cases related to new variants among the vaccinated population is increasing. That's why I'm back to wearing a mask again.
If everyone had been vaccinated as soon as the vaccine was available to them, and were using good mask and hand-washing hygiene, it might not have come to this.
No. I don't know if the winky face is to denote sarcasm, but it seems like it should still be noted that because so many people who could be vaccinated are refusing to get vaccinated, vaccinated people and people who can't get the vaccine still have to worry about a greater chance of catching a variant strain and also hospitals not being able to care for them (for any reason) because they're being bogged down treating preventable disease.
Variant strains are going to happen regardless of what we do, just like with the flu. This is an invalid argument that people keep using in ignorance. It's like people honestly believe the world was going to achieve 100% vaccination rate.
You are making an extraordinary claim when you state that the vaccine does not prevent spread.
Additionally, the flu vaccine becomes ineffective year after year expressly because of variant strains arising from unvaccinated people failing to take precautions like wearing masks, socially distancing during epidemics, and avoiding school and work while infectious.
The vaccines don't reliably prevent spread. That is hardly an extraordinary claim, it's an established scientific fact. Fortunately the vaccines are still very effective at preventing deaths.
Are you looking for 100% effectiveness? That's not how anything in the world works. If I can reduce the probability of spreading infection, that is a clear benefit to society. If enough people reduce the probability of spread enough, we can reach a point where for all practical purposes, the virus is gone.
No one is realistically looking for 100% effectiveness. However the vaccines don't reduce spread enough to eliminate the virus. Eventually we'll all be exposed. The main benefit of the vaccines is preventing deaths.
This is a fallacious line of reasoning that is incredibly vulnerable to slippery slope and moving goalposts.
While the saying is true that "your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins," that argument falls apart when you try to apply it beyond one-on-one interactions with direct consequences into group generalities and indirect/indeterminable consequences, such as "creating a more dangerous environment."
It does not allow you to prohibit things, nor compel others, out of a feared or perceived potential for harm. That reasoning leads straight to 1984's "freedom is slavery."
Hey can I get some clarification? Are you saying the liberty of people with COVID who ignore precautions are the victims to worry about here? I could’ve sworn it was illegal to pass on viruses if you knew you were infected, but that was gays and not true patriots, so I’m sure the rules are different now
Not supporting them here (I am vaccinated and wear a mask in public), but their freedom is quite clearly the freedom of bodily autonomy - which I think is a more important freedom than your freedom to go on holiday abroad. I totally disagree with their conclusions, but if we're ranking freedoms then bodily autonomy comes first.
of course that's where the conflict comes in with a disease; by exercising bodily autonomy and therefore increasing the risk of covid, you also risk others' health by spreading it. But that's the benefit of the vaccine right? If you do catch it, you are extremely unlikely to have a severe case, and hopefully at some point a vaccine that prevents catching specific strains will be developed, leading to only antivaxxers getting covid.
I don't know what the right answer is when such conflicts arise, but I don't see the point of pretending that the antivaxxers' claims of freedoms being violated is somehow ambiguous - and to not counter that argument would be intellectually dishonest. I do know that the right answer for me and my family is to take the vaccine and wear a mask.
(Reposting here where it's more relevant.)
While the saying is true that "your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins," that argument falls apart when you try to apply it beyond one-on-one interactions with direct consequences into group generalities and indirect/indeterminable consequences, such as "creating a more dangerous environment."
Prohibit things or compelling them, out of a feared or perceived potential for harm, leads down the slippery slope to 1984's "freedom is slavery."
I hear what you are saying, I think the part that is stuck in my craw is how it doesn't appear to be consistent with any other beliefs. Seatbelt and consumption laws are probably the most obvious comparisons, of due to how politicized the issues is we can add abortion. Invoking bodily autonomy for one issue, but ignoring it or actively suppressing it for other issues makes it seem like the real fundamental belief has nothing to do with bodily autonomy.
Yeah I agree; I do think bodily autonomy is pretty fundamental but so is the interest of protection from harm. Ultimately, you can't claim that any specific freedoms are absolute because there are always moral exceptions, and I think that's one of the better counterarguments to the claim of vaccine mandates violating individual rights. Freedoms are ideals to be considered and optimised/traded for collectively, not inviolable absolutes.
Does "bodily autonomy" also include the right not to wear pants and underwear in public? If not, please explain the difference.
Separately, society made a decision a very long time ago that protecting the public health and welfare prevails over any individual's absolute sense of "bodily autonomy." It's fine to disagree with that choice, but that disagreement ought to be grounded in firm reasoning.
Yeah I agree with you. I'm not defending the choice to go unvaccinated or unmasked; I think it's a poor choice at both the individual and societal level. But the parent claimed that the antivax movement was claiming some kind of ambiguous "muh freedoms" violation, which irked me as it's pretty clear what kind of freedom they think is being violated.
No you're losing your freedom to travel because these countries are playing political games with each other and your rights. It has absolutely nothing to do with the unvaccinated. They could easily just ask for a vaccine card. Direct your fervor where it belongs.
Masks and vaccines do far less than you've been led to believe. But either way, it's the politicians who are taking away your ability to travel outside the country, not some fictional boogeyman that the propaganda tells you to hate.
"That means only 58% of Israel's total citizenry is fully vaccinated."
"But Israel paid a price for the early rollout. Health officials, and then Pfizer, said their data showed a dip in the vaccine's protection around six months after receiving the second shot."
I was agreeing with the claim that the vaccines aren't as effective as the public was initially led to believe.
A dip in effectiveness after 6 months seems to follow that line of reasoning just fine.
No one should be reasonably expected to get a booster every 6 months.
Side note: I also can't stand when the "total vaccinated %" includes children. We all know they can't be vaccinated yet and any total % vaccinated that includes them is disingenuous. I realize it was my source, but I digress.
Even if I assume that these governments are retaliating against each other in bad faith, the fact that we are still in the midst of a global pandemic would certainly give them the justification for their behavior. Once COVID became irrelevant (instead of endemic, which is beginning to look increasingly likely), then that justification is no longer valid.
> And if they keep doing this even when the vaccination rate is 80%+?
For the purposes of travel to some EU countries, vaccination has expiry date (270 days after receiving last vaccine). E.g., if you got your second Pfizer dose in March, by December your vaccination status is equivalent to "unvaccinated".
How much do COVID policies (mask mandates, vaccine uptake, allowed/disallowed events and gatherings, ect...) vary within a single European country? Compared to differences between States in the USA for example?
Pretty much nothing is done at the European level, and this announcement is little more than a suggestion. It is all decided at a member state level and countries adopt inconsistent policies, even for travels within the EU.
Depends on the country. In Germany, it's a federal country much like the USA, and such decisions are made at the state level. So there is not uniformity. But some policies, like masks in stores, are not as controversial as in the USA and so are pretty universally imposed.
Other countries have centralized national governments with full jurisdiction over public health and the capability of imposing a uniform policy nationwide. Some indeed have uniform policies. Others have policies that vary by region depending on the infection rate, etc. (You see the same thing within US, or German, states.)
There is no consistent EU policy on masks in stores. I don't think Sweden ever had such a policy, and Denmark recently eliminated theirs. The differences between EU countries seem to be as large as those between US states.
It varies. In Germany each land and city (as far as I recall from my trip to Munich) can have different rules, in Poland there's only central government which does it.
A _lot_, more than in the US. Ireland and Belgium have about 82% of adults fully vaccinated; Romania has 31%. Though it's perhaps less visible because most of the European countries with low vaccination rates aren't currently in the upswing of a wave, for now.
The EU largely doesn't set policy here; it's a member state competency. And there are significant cultural differences around vaccine acceptance.
One notable difference, though, is that it's almost never a party political issue in the same way as it is in the US; I don't think there's anywhere in Europe with party-based differences in vaccination and mask acceptance remotely on the scale of the US.
In my country the "federal" level sets the minimum, but the "state" level can and frequently does go further.
For example, "federal" level can say mandatory masks indoors, while "state" level can say mandatory masks both indoors and outdoors.
It's quite flexible, and sometimes ridiculous. At one point all cafes were closed here, but I could go 2 kilometers to the east where there's no such restriction because it's in a different "state".
"Federal" and "state" in quotes because we don't call them that, but for simplicity in comparison.
Agreed. Everyone flying in and out is vetted and tested. That's more than anyone can say for their local supermarket. Borders are some of the most "covid-secure" places in the world.
I don't remember the exact date, but around the end of 2020 / beginning 2021 at one point travel between France and the UK was allowed. Then suddenly, UK deemed France as too dangerous or something, which could be justified since cases in France were rising rapidly, whereas in Britain they were relatively stable. The next day, France halted travel from the UK "in retaliation".
It seems to me that the level of danger of a country isn't particularly related to how that country's politicians view your own, but what do I know?
Are migrants still traveling from France to the UK by stowing away on commercial trucks? (And to be clear I'm not trying to make a political point about migration, just curious about the current state of border security.)
> Everyone flying in and out is vetted and tested.
A PCR test before your flight isn't a very good insurance policy. You can easily get infected between the time you take the test and the time you fly. And of course you can be infected in transit.
Vaccination? Doesn't mean as much anymore thanks to Delta. Proof: 30% of all new COVID cases in Los Angeles are in fully vaccinated individuals.
But yeah, at least as far as the US and EU are concerned, this is politics. Both places are nasty petri dishes at this point.
Found out that a friend-of-a-friend tested positive while in another country (Costa Rica, I think?) so they got a fake negative test so they could return to the US and "recover at home".
The last time I travelled back to the US it was sufficient to show a PDF of a rapid antigen test from 3 days ago on my smartphone. Those are trivial to fake, there's no security on the files at all. (I don't encourage anyone to do that.)
Was walking through some apartments yesterday and a lady in a moomoo was talking with her neighbor. Their dogs were playing, they were just out enjoying the day. I hear moomoo lady say she in on forced at-home quarantine for covid. The poor neighbor. I saw the horror on her face as she scooped up her dog and ran away. I was so grateful for my mask, and I've had covid and am vaccinated. Moomoo lady had no mask, no gloves, couldn't have been any closer to her neighbor. She knew she was sick, just could not have cared less. It's truly mind boggling some care absolutely nothing for others. Maybe it's always been this way and covid just made it all visible.
The tests are not perfect. Multiply their false negative rate, by the rate of infection in the country the traveler is from, and that is the rate of infection among people you're letting into the country.
This is how variants like Delta can spread globally.
but I think it's politics from US side. Vaccinated people from EU can't go to US. Meanwhile vaccinated people will still be able to come to EU from USA.
Yep. We've got double jabbed relatives from Argentina that are barred from travel because Sputnik V isn't approved. Yet it's one of the most effective vaccines out there.
It's definitely the exception and not the rule, but Taiwan is a counterexample.
We've had less than 16,000 total cases here, most of which stemmed from an outbreak in May that is now under control.
The border is basically only open to citizens and residents, and everybody has to quarantine for 14 days at an approved quarantine hotel or government facility regardless of vaccination status. PCR test no earlier than 3 days before your flight, PCR test upon arrival, rapid test 10 days into quarantine, and PCR test right before your quarantine ends.
Inconvenient? Yes. Expensive? Yes. But you can't argue with the results. Life is pretty damn good here and at least for the time being, Delta has not found its way into the community.
It was the same in Singapore large gatherings are restricted where as anyone coming into Singapore has to stay in quarantine for 2 weeks. The current local spread actually got through because of seafood delivery from a neighbouring country where it is assumed dock workers got it from the fisherman and spread it to the fishmongers and into the community. We have reached 80% vaccination for general population and 90% for 12+ because of that despite the spread the deaths are low. The situation would be a lot worse without vaccination and if a countries population is reticent about vaccination why the fuck should another country that is actually willing to vaccinate ignore the sacrifices of its own population.
> Inconvenient? Yes. Expensive? Yes. But you can't argue with the results. Life is pretty damn good here and at least for the time being, Delta has not found its way into the community.
Pretty much identical, but with the huge exception of a current Delta outbreak in the community. The next week will be the making or breaking of our chosen strategy.
Not really. Look at cases and deaths state by state in the us and there is huge disparity. Same with country by country. Travel restrictions slow spread which increase the number of vaccinated people.
> Travel restrictions anywhere are ridiculous at this point. The virus is everywhere already.
It can increase the spread though, here (CH) a large fraction of local case are tied to people coming back from holidays. Mandatory quarantine would likely help somewhat.
> Mandatory quarantine would likely help somewhat.
It helps a lot. However even strict quarantine leaks, and New Zealand has shutdown to try eradicate its current outbreak. Delta is incredibly transmissible and resistant to controls.
If the new strain is more deadly, or more contagious, it is better to delay the arrival and have the explosion of cases come later--science will typically have more information and better treatments.
Let's consider for a moment that millions of illegal immigrants - very few of which have been vaccinated or tested before arriving in the US - have crossed the US southern border in the past year and the Biden Admin has shown zero interest in stopping that disaster.
There is no scenario where that doesn't prove the US blockading itself from inbound travel (eg from Europe) is purely a con, health security theater. As an American it's embarrasing to watch the level of stupidity the US Government is putting on display in its Covid response.
> Given that, what is your issue with the USA allowing vaccinated travellers...
30% of all new COVID cases in Los Angeles are in fully vaccinated individuals. Israel, one of the most highly vaccinated countries in the world, is reporting record new cases.
The vaccines are effective at reducing the risk of severe illness and death, but the data is now very clear that they do not prevent people from becoming infected and infecting others.
If the US wants to reduce the risk that it will be among the first in line to get every new variant, it would need to embrace the only approach that has proven effective: limit arrivals and force arrivals to quarantine for a sufficient amount of time.
Of course, you could argue that the cost of this exceeds the benefits. But either way, it's time to let go of the idea that people who are vaccinated are not at risk of catching and spreading the virus. It's just not the case.
I haven't seen the travel restrictions converted into xenophobia that much where I am. I tend to consume a spectrum of Canadian media and a few of the late night shows from the US - but the only thing I've noticed is more negativity in reporting in Canada about American handling.
Canada's government should win an award for incoherence. They called the USA racist for banning flights from China, then proceeded to ban flights from China one week later. Canada subsequently proceeded to ban non-essential trips to/from the USA by road, but only partially by air when the USA had a higher infection rate. Then, even after Canada achieved the same infection rate as border states, the government kept the travel ban, to no apparent gain. There are even more gems if you look for them: https://bc.ctvnews.ca/canadian-travellers-fined-5-700-each-f...
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations says "Only 1.6% of people in low-income countries have received at least one dose" and there are some quite populous countries in the graph that show low vaccination rates.
and where are the people in those low income countries going that doesnt already have covid spreading domestically? thats the point theyre making, were well past the point of an errant passenger introducing the virus to another country.
Recommendations and restrictions to limit travel before good vaccination coverage aim to reduce serious illness from the virus while vaccination progresses, no? Countries are not homogenous, especially travel from high incidence areas can worsen the situation in better off areas.
They always were and for me they seem like they were put in place by people that never travel like the “regular folk”. I traveled between two EU Schengen countries this year in April. Before this you would get off the plane, get your luggage if you have one and get out, really fast. Now, we were around 400 people from 3 planes all in one small non ventilated hall of the airport , waiting to get our tests checked, QR codes scanned and temperature checked. People were rubbing next to each other, loose masks, masks on chins, masks under the nose, people coughing and so on. Because there were so many people, they were randomly checking the test for some. In total we waited over an hour there. How did that make any sense in the current context, I don’t know.
More severe travel restrictions earlier (in combination with countries like the US doing what they were supposed to do) could have saved a lot of lives. It's not too late to save a few more.
We have recently locked down in New Zealand and the virus is in the community. We were an exception to your statement, we are not anymore but are trying to get back there.
May I ask why? Won't you have to isolate forever at this point? Covid can not be eradicated. Animals carry it. For example, 33% of White Tail Deer (n-481) in the USA sampled have ben found to have antibodies for it. It's assumed cats and dogs can carry and spread it.
This isn't like polio or smallpox - this would be like trying to have 0 cases of the flu, forever. The best you can do is get vaccinated to at least take some pressure off the hospital system if/when you get infected. Somehow we all went from "flatten the curve" to "no one can ever get sick again".
We have done it several times and will hopefully do it again.
We have had a pretty smooth time as a whole, with relatively little inconvenience - this and the previous month long lockdown excluded.
However as you say, what’s the point?
We are not vaccinated widely enough to prevent carnage. We need way more people vaccinated as our hospital system is under strain already. Adding Covid will be catastrophic, and we need to reduce that risk.
New Zealand is the gateway to various pacific islands and we provide their healthcare. If Covid rips through them that’s also on us.
Why hasn't New Zealand shown any interest in developing or widely deploying vaccines? I wouldn't take Kiwis for being vaccine skeptics. Seems like they just wanted to lock down and pretend it wasn't happening rather than finding a solution. Bizarre strategy.
We have been vaccinating, and the current rate is very higher (500k in a population of 5 million in the last week).
We also supply many small pacific islands and were also happy to delay so that supply could go to places with an acute need first (ie places that actually have Covid).
We will be in line with the rest of the developed world very soon.
> Bizarre strategy
Eradication? It’s worked pretty well and the economy and population are in good shape relative to other strategies employed.
Given we are close to Covid free (and aim to be again) and we are vaccinating fast, what strategy would you advocate?
If other countries had not developed vaccines and eventually shared them with New Zealand what would they have done? Just sat with closed borders for the rest of time?
And even when they got the vaccine they've not really bothered to get it distributed - slowest vaccination rate in the developed world.
If other countries had not developed vaccines and eventually shared them with New Zealand what would they have done? Just sat with closed borders for the rest of time?
You can apply that bit of logic to every bit of tech that exists. New Zealand is a tiny place, with a population less than that of a medium to large city. Why not buy something proven?
> Just sat with closed borders for the rest of time?
I’m quite happy with the closed borders and wish they were more tightly closed. Others can have different views - the results speak for themselves. Once things are are more settled and treatments are better managed, we can open up.
> slowest vaccination rate in the developed world.
Our vaccine roll out has been slow, though the current rate of administration would be one of the highest in the world so that failing is hopefully temporary.
> Very strange.
What do you believe New Zealand should do? I’d say that we are in a very good position relative to most.
Most other western countries tried to develop vaccines as quickly as they possibly could starting in early 2020 because they thought that was the long-term solution.
I get what you mean though about a small country, but it's not like New Zealand doesn't have universities as well. Waiting for someone else to hopefully solve the problem and then buy it was a gamble - I guess it paid off thankfully.
Do you advocate that every city develop its own unique vaccine?
If New Zealand is paying for its vaccines then its contributing to the effort just like everyone else.
The people who should develop vaccines now are the existing clusters of experts in vaccines. As in large university, government and corporate environments that have been working in that area and already have lots of experts, equipment and relevant resources and arrangements.
Anything else is a long term project.
Maybe RNA vaccines and other new vaccine tech will bring down the costs of vaccine development centers, and maybe the pandemic will increase the demand for more centers. I am not arguing against New Zealand developing their own in house capacity going forward.
Or maybe we only need a few really good vaccines for each pandemic and there is a limit to the benefits of redundant research and production.
Either way, new centers are not a quick or simple task, and not likely to happen while most experts are currently located and utilized elsewhere.
Sorry - do you mean why didn't NZ develop vaccine production facilities? I don't know why you'd think it logical for two hundred odd governments to all be doing entirely independent vaccine research to combat the same disease. Funding a diverse set of approaches and salves is certainly worth it - but there's no reason all that work should necessarily be duplicated within national borders. Lastly - I'd be amazed if no New Zealander ended up contributing to vaccine development in some manner.
NZ has taken an isolationist approach to the virus that seems, to all accounts, to have worked absolutely wonderfully - it's not an approach available to all nations, but they made it work for them.
I live and work in Canada and I didn't leverage any of the factors available to me to jump ahead in the vaccination line - my wife and I have no children and have both been able to work fully remote... so we've similarly isolated ourselves - when my age group came up I registered and was vaccinated but I was happy to see people who have jobs that necessitate in-person interaction prioritized in front of me. It's more efficient for my health for those folks to get the vaccine first - I think NZ found itself in a similar situation, everyone (mostly) wanted to get vaccinated and the voluntary rate so far has been pretty good - it's just that other places need the vaccine more desperately than them.
So long as you ignore America, where a large number of doses have expired due to political resistance - those doses of vaccine will end up going to productive ends, and wouldn't it be nice to stop the disease before we have a new wave spread out from Africa?
They probably want to keep it out while they vaccinate. They currently are around 20% fully vaccinated and around 40% with at least one shot, and vaccination is proceeding at a decent pace.
Why are their vaccination rates so low? I understand their strategy in terms of using their isolation as a strength here but I can’t imagine it’s scalable after awhile.
Was there apprehension to get vaccinated or did their government fail to acquire supplies? I would imagine New Zealand would have no difficulty in getting supplies by June or so but perhaps I’m wrong. Israel for example is similar in terms of GDP per capita and they are well ahead.
Speak for yourself. In Argentina the ban on foreign tourists has delayed the arrival of the Delta variant by several months, drastically increasing the rate of vaccination.
The virus has exasperated USA and EU nationalism, which is sad because that’s exactly what adversarial powers want. Disintegration of the ‘west’. I’m still an optimist, I can try to be the chance in the world.
Why is travel banned from the EU still anyway? the travel bans seem kind of random and unmaintained at this point... is there a good source that summarizes what's going on?
This is a non-mandatory recommendation by an advisory agency. It is entirely up to individual EU member states about whether they will bar vaccinated and/or non-vaccinated travelers from the U.S.
My little girl was born in September 2020 in Chicago, USA, she was diagnosed with heart disease, and as it turns out a really rare genetic condition. She passed away in May 2021.
My family all live in the UK.
My little girl died without ever meeting her granddad, her aunt, her uncle, etc. I had to livestream her funeral to my family/friends.
Added an additional level of pain and suffering, to an already incredibly terrible situation. I feel immense guilt, for whatever reason. COVID would have likely killed my severely immunocompromised child.
In the speech I read at her funeral, I said:
> For the people who didn’t meet her or spent little time with her. I am sorry. I’m not apologising personally, I’m just acknowledging how terrible it must have been to look but not touch. Some had it better than others. Some only got to see her through a screen. There were no winners in this situation, only losers.
I didn't kiss my child's face until the last week of her life.
I really am burnt out from all this, especially with no end in sight.
edit: I appreciate the condolences/well wishes. I wasn't trying to elicit sympathy, I just wanted to give some insight to someone who had no choice other than to do what was best for their child (or so I thought).
I'm sure you've heard it many times before, and words simply don't do it justice. But I am so terribly sorry to hear you had to go through (are going through) that.
There is not much we can say to alleviate your pain. I just want to say that I am truly sorry for your loss, and can only fathom hoe horrible it is to not only lose a child, but be alone and not be able to share the pain.
Take care of all of you and may she rest in peace
Oh no, I'm so sorry. My baby girl was born in Jan 2021, also in Chicago, and I very much remember reading your blog in the days leading up to her birth after another stumbling across it from another comment of yours here on HN. It's a scary time before the birth, moreso during a pandemic, and I was so impressed with your strength and your adorable little girl, it helped me out. I hadn't realized she passed away. I'm so sorry. Know that she and you made a difference in some stranger's life.
Oh buddy, genuinely, thank you for that. I hope you and your lil family are happy and healthy! I didn't anticipate to share so much of my personal life online, but knowing that someone got something from it, is all worth it for me, so thank you. Talking about my lil girl keeps her very fresh in my mind, especially now as enough time has gone where I'm hazy on certain things. If I can talk about her, and bring awareness to our/the situation, it's a win/win.
I wonder how this metric looks on a state-by-state basis (not that it is their responsibility to look at us on such a granular level, it just seem like it could be good for business to let in people from NYC or California or other major economic hubs).
why does everyone think this is a political thing? I didn't even know there is a ban on US travel to EU and it's not something being discussed a lot in europe. This summer had a lot of issues already (fires heatwaves floods afghanistan etc) and delta is gaining ground quick despite vaccinations so it makes sense to prepare for 4th wave as soon as holidaymakers return.
I also think that americans are underestimating the situation of the upcoming months
This is security theatre to placate the masses. Delta is already in every country. Vaccinated incoming travellers with recent tests showing negative results would have a negligible impact on total Delta infections.
Moreover, Delta is not a significant threat in countries where at-risk populations have been mostly vaccinated, which describes the US and most European countries. Infections != deaths.
Yeah, it probably won't be implemented in France or germany, i think we both have 80 to 85% of the population vaccinated.
Its a recomendation, not a law, and most countries don't follow EU recommendations. The reason it was drafted is because it allows small countries who want to ban US travelers without facing retribution "I'm sorry, its a EU recommendation, not our own will no hard feelings, please don't ban our imports".
By the way, this is used during PPP decision-making (find some obscure EU laws to veto some private partners decision, like using Azure cloud for AI4EU), and probably used politically, internally or externally to deny demands "No, it is impossible, the EU have a reco/law/designated standard on this" (And in 80% of the cases, this is non-binding).
I think this is the real power of the EU, giving politicians the possibility of deflecting blame. Most positive effect of Brexit for the UK is this imho.
The US, at this point, only has a slim majority of residents vaccinated - and all the evidence I've seen points to the fact that working age folks (those more likely to have a wide number of contacts in a day and those most likely to be doing the traveling) have mostly voluntarily eschewed the vaccine.
As a Canadian - we had trouble getting access to the vaccine for a long time - but we're closing in on 75% of the population vaccinated with vaccination rates only slightly beginning to taper off.
If you need to show proof of vaccination and negative tests at the individual level, then blanket banning a country from entry is pointless political theater, no?
My twins were born June 2020 and all my immediate family (parents, brother, etc) live in the EU and haven’t been able to see them (nor their other grandkids). Not allowing tourists to come visit I can get behind but splitting up close family, especially for these extended periods of time (and especially when they are vaccinated!) is just cruel and senseless. I really don’t see how this is helping anything, given that countless countries with much higher case rates are not on the banned list.
> This is without prejudice to the possibility for member states to lift the temporary restriction on non-essential travel to the EU for fully vaccinated travellers.
I already have a trip planned to a Shengen country, planned months in advance. Everything is already paid for. I am also vaccinated fully (with certificate). Am I going to be allowed on my vacation next week?
Short answer is: yes. Just remember to fill the Passenger Locator Form [0]. You may fill any time before getting to the boarding area, where they will ask to see that and your vaccination card or a negative test obtained within 48 hours. Technically is 72 hours, but airlines are stricter.
It will take a minute before the single EU countries will adopt regulations following the the recommendation.
That being said any country can implement any restrictions at their discretion, and you might not be allowed in hotels, for instance (although that was implemented mostly during harsher spikes).
This is ridiculous. I can travel everywhere in Europe, drink inside and outside, walk in dense crowds and in some places go clubbing. No one asked to see my vaccination certificate. No one wears masks in some countries.
Americans aren't a threat when we've collectively moved on.
This is what it's like here in Northern Indiana as well. Nobody is stopped from any usual activities, businesses are free to enforce mask mandates on their own premises but most aren't.
And you will generally have no idea whether people around you are vaccinated or not, unless you are in a University or somewhere that enforces vaccination, generally this is only if they are actually large enough to register on the local scale as "potential identified source of many new infections" and would want to stay out of the news in that way – ahem, I mean somewhere that is invested in keeping people safe.
I am planning some cross-country travel for a conference in October (really big one, you might have heard of it) and I am really having a hard time with it. I've mostly been isolated for the past year and a half. I am vaccinated and I would really like to see some people. But I do feel like a plague rat even making these plans.
Given the number of people around me (especially as you drive outside of the city parts of Indiana and into farm country) who wear their un-vaccinated status on their sleeve or bumper sticker, as a point of pride or honor, I wouldn't say we're not a threat. But still generally agree with the sentiment.
> Americans aren't a threat when we've collectively moved on.
You may have collectively moved on, but the United States is still banning travel from many, many regions that have a much lower prevalence of COVID-19 than it does.
Reciprocally banning Americans from traveling seems like an appropriate response.
If citizens don't protest this is never going to end. That's why I don't understand why people hate antivax people. They exists mostly because politics have failed since the beginning.
For any new measures that politicians make today. The more people are in favor of it the longer we will have to deal with all this nonsense. Politicians contrary to the beginning of the pandemic, are strongly confident that what they do is useful. When in fact it's all completely useless.
Stop complaining about people who protest about the restrictions (whatever the restrictions), and support them. Politicians need to stop thinking that they need to act about covid. That's the only way we will end all that joke
They have also had huge upticks in cases and are still mostly vaccinated.
The idea that this vaccine is going to cure everything feels more and more silly -- places with high vaccination rates _still have problems_.
If the goal is 100% compliance on vaccinations, what do you do about other countries? These variants will be leaking out of them until the end of time.
And without the vaccine we would have worse problems. Most of the hospitalised in the UK are among the unvaccinated young. If the old weren't vaccinated either then the pressure on the hospitals would be far worse.
If vaccination is not the end game, then there is no end game. There will always be some variant somewhere, even if the planet was 100% vaccinated, there would be virus multiplying in animal reservoirs.
> places with high vaccination rates _still have problems_.
Yes, they do. But getting COVID with a vaccination means infections are not emergency-room-critical events. Getting COVID without a vaccination can be an emergency-room-critical event.
So no. I still refuse to support antivaxxers politics. Once we're no longer having hospital bed overflows with every new variant - that's when I'll revisit my choice.
You glossed over the important part of the sentence.
> Hospital bed overflows
That's the important part, not reaching 'Zero-COVID'. Vaccinations (or naturally occurring "immunity" due to infections) reducing the impact of new infections is sufficient to meet that criteria.
And this will eventually happen. Antivaxxers are simply pushing this eventuality out, and taking out others along the way.
>Yes, they do. But getting COVID with a vaccination means infections are not emergency-room-critical events. Getting COVID without a vaccination can be an emergency-room-critical event.
Thats not entirely true. In my town close to 20% of the hospitalizations are vaccinated. And there have been deaths amongst those as well. Of course the news, even local, is rounding down +/- 5% when its convenient and up the same margin when also convenient. But the local county and hospitals publicly post the raw data.
In fact i find calling people that are skeptical of the vaccine "anti-vaxxers" to be particularly unbecoming of an individual. Thats a specific attempt to conflate them with the Jenny McCarthy brand of anti-vaccination folks. These are brand new delivery methods and science that have either never been tried before, or in VERY limited use cases (such as Ebola for viral vector) and have few if any long term studies.
People shouldnt be shamed for being skeptical or questioning of the narrative. If the facts fully support the narrative or reasoning you shouldnt NEED to shame or silence dissenters to make your arguments more effective.
Especially when things like breakthrough rates are specifically being ignored as of May 1, 2021 [0], when theres data that specifically points to that fact such as slide 17. [1]
And the fact that people are being banned and silenced for pointing out that the vaccine does not prevent infection, or serious outcomes of infection, or even transmission and these are generally baseline requirements of othervaccines [2]
For example if TDAP or the pertussis vaccine allowed vaccinated patients an 80% chance of transmitting the virus, instead of the current 10%, there would absolutely be different reccomendations out there, especially for parents of newborns.
> In my town close to 20% of the hospitalizations are vaccinated.
That implies that 80% of the hospitalizations are unvaccinated. Which I then correlate to: 80% of the hospital bed use is directly preventable? 80% of the hospitalized cases are draining our resources better applied to other emergencies?
Inexcusable.
> Thats a specific attempt to conflate them with the Jenny McCarthy brand of anti-vaccination folks.
Respectfully, I find the defense of anti-vaxxers and/or "vaccine skeptics" points of view is irrelevant to this particular thread of discussion. This thread is specifically about their outsized - and more importantly preventable - negative impact on the available medical resources.
Address that, and I'm perfectly fine with the lifting of restrictions, because they won't be needed anymore.
But right now? Those restrictions absolutely are needed.
>That implies that 80% of the hospitalizations are unvaccinated. Which I then correlate to: 80% of the hospital bed use is directly preventable? 80% of the hospitalized cases are draining our resources better applied to other emergencies?
How can you get from A to B there.....For all you know, those people would be hospitalized even if they were vaccinated. Theres really no science there, because the groups charged with tracking that very datapoint have chosen to specifically avoid it.
One thing is for certain, we don't know why some people present with only mild symptoms and others need critical care, regardless of vaccination status. And there could be plenty of reasons vaccinated numbers are down.
Have you considered that maybe many of those vaccinated are also more cautious in their daily routines, are more likely to sanitize their hands or avoid interactions with others that would put them at increased risk regardless of status, such as eating out or attending parties vs curbside or takeout?
Heck i would not be shocked if there are more people around you that are more skeptical than they let on because people like you will try and paint them with a broad brush. Its exactly why, despite being vaccinated myself, i avoid such topics in public around friends and family and just say its its not their business.
>Respectfully, I find the defense of anti-vaxxers and/or "vaccine skeptics" points of view is irrelevant to this particular thread of discussion. This thread is specifically about their outsized - and more importantly preventable - negative impact on the available medical resources.
Its important to note that I am not defending their viewpoints, but moreover I am admonishing rhetoric that is divisive and serves no other purpose than to increase division and make another feel righteous.
As well, this thread is about an EU recommendations affecting an entire country, of which only portions of are seeing spikes...
You chose to paint with broad strokes and use rhetoric that serves no other purpose than to alienate rather than use rhetoric that works to bring those skeptical of existing treatments to a more logical conclusion. I find it very odd that someone is specifically choosing rhetoric steeped in emotional appeals to admonish those they attack for working off what they see as emotional responses that isnt based on fact or science...
Are you sure that encouraging measures, you are going to increase the vaccination rate ? In France where getting the vaccine allows you to go to restaurant, take the plane, take the train, ... This has barely been the case. Most people who got vaccinated are the ones who already planned to be vaccinated. The ones who were antivax, are still antivax
My goal - and the effective goal (even explicit in some cases: "flattening the curve") of the stay-at-home orders, mask mandates, social distancing mandates, vaccinations - is the reduction of hospital-grade infections.
That's what needs to go down. And if someone's not getting a vaccination, then they need to do several of the other steps to avoid overwhelming hospitals.
If they don't (and they're not), then they haven't earned my support.
> There is not really evidence that the "other steps" works
Infection and hospitalization curves trending towards horizontal or 0 after those "other steps" were implemented, and before vaccines were available, was pretty compelling evidence to my eyes.
As was the resumption of upward trends as those "other steps" were repealed.
> We should just accept them as they are
Oh, I accept that they probably won't change. Just as I don't expect flat earthers or moon landing deniers to change their minds in the face of evidence.
Regardless, I absolutely refuse to support them, their politics, or their views.
So I would agree that things like closing borders are closing the barn doors after the horse has not merely left but come back, had babies, raised them, and then the entire family left. There is a lot of room for discussion of what restrictions are necessary (e.g., mask mandates, especially in schools), and for more rational basis of restrictions to be implemented, that should be happening but isn't because this has all become hopelessly politicized.
But antivax? Vaccinations clearly reduce incidences of COVID-19, especially those cases that induce the most strain on our health systems. And the strain that the current wave is producing is indeed intense--there are water treatment plants struggling to get enough liquid oxygen because so much is going to intubated COVID-19 patients. So there's increased risk of giving a major metropolitan city cholera because of the current COVID-19 wave.
So the justification for not getting a vaccine at this point that the antivaxers push basically boils down to "I don't feel like it." That's not going to engender a lot of sympathy from those who realize that the antivaxers are basically murderers by proxy.
I encourage everyone to get vaccinated if they can, but calling antivaxers murderers by proxy is illogical and inconsistent. We know that obesity is a preventable and treatable condition, and that it greatly increases the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization. So should we also label obese people as murderers by proxy? Obviously not.
Obesity isn't a condition that is easily changed by choice--ending obesity requires some pretty major lifestyle changes, and maintaining that lifestyle change for an extended period. It's probably harder than quitting smoking.
Choosing to change your mind and get vaccinated is a radically different situation. It's not hard to find a vaccination site; it's not hard to get to a center if you need to--it's basically as hard as going shopping, which is already a decently common activity for much of the population.
268 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 246 ms ] threadEven if the vaccine was dangerous (which it isn't) then it's even more necessary to reward those who did face the peril and got the jab.
Instead these rational/brave people are at the mercy and held hostage by the irrational/cowards .
If you got the jab you should be able to travel. Full stop.
It's not their fault, there is some mechanism inside their brains which makes them highly skeptical of everything.
And there are so many of them because back in the days it was an evolutionary advantage to be skeptical of everything. Back when humans lived in groups of hundreds to thousands and were routinely attacked by other groups of hundreds to thousands.
Some “highly suspicious” individuals are ingesting ivermectin paste for horses from the farm supply store.
Some people don't want blankets, Syphilis (multiple times to multiple groups Guatemala and Tuskegee)), or other government help.
Is the vaccine one of those? Probably not, but I can understand the skeptical faction.
People want and need to go back to travel. Especially between US-China-EU
If it was for me I'd allow everybody, but given that majority rules and the majority is made up of vaccinated people , and the aforementioned majority doesn't want these people near them in their 12hrs plane trip...then it's a perfect scenario to let the skeptics enjoy the dodged bullet in their home country
https://www.thelocal.dk/20210614/denmark-ends-requirement-to...
Here is a graph of case rates of them, the US, and a few others [1]. Here's death rates [2].
[1] http://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=countri...
[2] http://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=countri...
Also, yes, I agree with you that this is likely retaliation.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/louisiana-covid-...
(and yes this peaking predates Ida)
So while I don't think you can say we have already peaked as a country, there is reason for optimism we are very near the peak or just over it.
The approach towards vaccinations and masking in schools has been absurd. I'm so disappointed that the FDA haven't prioritized vaccinations for kids. Now a ton of kids are going to die unnecessarily.
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...
It's more about the lack of reciprocity from the US after the EU opened up for travel from the US. The rise of Delta cases in the US is just a convenient excuse to fix the inbalance.
I'm not sure there are enough to show up in numbers are there?
The list is short and doesn't ban countries with way more infections than the listed ones. People can travel from all over Africa for example, but not Europe.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/from-oth...
It makes zero sense and it's not nearly as flexible as the EU, which adds and removes countries from the ban list frequently.
I feel like there's a large element of theatrics around covid travel restrictions (except for zero-covid-strategy countries, but those are rare); it's something that's relatively easy to do, so, even though it probably isn't particularly useful in most cases, it gets done.
Ireland's mandatory hotel quarantine is a nice example; it currently largely applies to countries which people rarely travel to Ireland from anyway (Brazil being the main exception). It does _not_ apply, and never has applied to, say, the UK; despite the UK having very high rates right now, travel between the UK and Ireland is far too common for it to be feasible. But at the time it was introduced, the vaccine programme was slow due to supply issues, and the government wanted to be seen to be doing _something_, so...
The incidence rate among those who travel is not necessarily same as that of the whole population.
EU also took some back some tariffs they put up as reactions to tariffs Trump put up. Biden smiled, said thanks and left the Trump tariffs in place.
US is acting in self interest, EU sometimes has problems with that. We are also good at acting in self interest, but sometimes we are very naive about others doing it.
> Why it matters: The decision, which is non-binding and will ultimately be up to individual member states to implement, comes after weeks of EU officials criticizing the Biden administration for not lifting U.S. restrictions on travel from Europe.
> The decision...comes after weeks of EU officials criticizing the Biden administration for not lifting U.S. restrictions on travel from Europe.
Political stuff I guess. In lieu of doing something useful, they need to look like at least they're doing something.
I'm not salty about it though, it's good for our economy.
though I do agree, it is stupid to keep these limitations in place - it shows how simpletons run the show
EU citizens have been banned from traveling to the United States for ~18mo now.
At this point, travel bans are just politics. If we are only allowing vaccinated individuals in, the idea of a foreigner contributing to increased danger to our society is just nonsense.
It's already hard enough to travel to the US from Europe, you need a 14-day stop somewhere not banned, but now returning is going to get harder too.
There may be quarantine or other obligations however.
Expensive time consuming PCR tests, online registrations, temperature+visual checkpoints, qr codes, digital passes.
Different agencies now collect a lot of private information about travelers including biometrics!
The locator forms are weirdly _inconsistent_, though; the Spanish one asks for seat number and incorporates the vaccine cert; the Irish one isn't interested in seat number and you have to show the vaccine cert separately. I'm somewhat surprised this hasn't all been standardised.
If everyone had been vaccinated as soon as the vaccine was available to them, and were using good mask and hand-washing hygiene, it might not have come to this.
If you want to talk about arguments made in ignorance, please start by not putting words in other people's mouths.
Talk to me about how near total vaccination rates are impossible the next time you contract smallpox or polio.
If the covid vaccine stopped the spread of the virus I would be agreeing with you.
Can you imagine if the Polio vaccine "wore off" like the Covid vaccine seems to?
https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...
https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...
So really the only variable is whether you yourself are vaccinated or not.
You seem to be just parroting the media and Reddit.
The wearing of masks for COVID had the unintended side effect of eliminating some strains of influenza.
I don't read Reddit, and I take my media with a healthy grain of salt, but we are talking about the basic function of virii and the immune system.
While the saying is true that "your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins," that argument falls apart when you try to apply it beyond one-on-one interactions with direct consequences into group generalities and indirect/indeterminable consequences, such as "creating a more dangerous environment."
It does not allow you to prohibit things, nor compel others, out of a feared or perceived potential for harm. That reasoning leads straight to 1984's "freedom is slavery."
I've already said this.
I don't know what the right answer is when such conflicts arise, but I don't see the point of pretending that the antivaxxers' claims of freedoms being violated is somehow ambiguous - and to not counter that argument would be intellectually dishonest. I do know that the right answer for me and my family is to take the vaccine and wear a mask.
Prohibit things or compelling them, out of a feared or perceived potential for harm, leads down the slippery slope to 1984's "freedom is slavery."
Assault sans battery is still a crime. Repeatedly threatening to punch someone, e.g., or throwing punches without landing them.
In the context of COVID I've seen appeals to an imaginary right to feel safe, and using that to imply obligations onto others.
Highly controversial in the day.
>consumption laws
Pretty universally hated by the non-moralizing types on both sides of the isle.
Separately, society made a decision a very long time ago that protecting the public health and welfare prevails over any individual's absolute sense of "bodily autonomy." It's fine to disagree with that choice, but that disagreement ought to be grounded in firm reasoning.
What is this based on?
It's pretty clear the the vaccine does not stop transmission of the virus.
[1] - https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/08/20/1029628...
"But Israel paid a price for the early rollout. Health officials, and then Pfizer, said their data showed a dip in the vaccine's protection around six months after receiving the second shot."
That doesn't exactly fit your narrative, imo.
A dip in effectiveness after 6 months seems to follow that line of reasoning just fine.
No one should be reasonably expected to get a booster every 6 months.
Side note: I also can't stand when the "total vaccinated %" includes children. We all know they can't be vaccinated yet and any total % vaccinated that includes them is disingenuous. I realize it was my source, but I digress.
Kinda looks like the cat's out of the bag.
Help Big Brother out, blame each other!
For the purposes of travel to some EU countries, vaccination has expiry date (270 days after receiving last vaccine). E.g., if you got your second Pfizer dose in March, by December your vaccination status is equivalent to "unvaccinated".
https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2021/08/18...
Other countries have centralized national governments with full jurisdiction over public health and the capability of imposing a uniform policy nationwide. Some indeed have uniform policies. Others have policies that vary by region depending on the infection rate, etc. (You see the same thing within US, or German, states.)
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/coronavirus-denmark-removes-...
The EU largely doesn't set policy here; it's a member state competency. And there are significant cultural differences around vaccine acceptance.
One notable difference, though, is that it's almost never a party political issue in the same way as it is in the US; I don't think there's anywhere in Europe with party-based differences in vaccination and mask acceptance remotely on the scale of the US.
For example, "federal" level can say mandatory masks indoors, while "state" level can say mandatory masks both indoors and outdoors.
It's quite flexible, and sometimes ridiculous. At one point all cafes were closed here, but I could go 2 kilometers to the east where there's no such restriction because it's in a different "state".
"Federal" and "state" in quotes because we don't call them that, but for simplicity in comparison.
This shit is just politics at this point.
I think it has been for a while.
I don't remember the exact date, but around the end of 2020 / beginning 2021 at one point travel between France and the UK was allowed. Then suddenly, UK deemed France as too dangerous or something, which could be justified since cases in France were rising rapidly, whereas in Britain they were relatively stable. The next day, France halted travel from the UK "in retaliation".
It seems to me that the level of danger of a country isn't particularly related to how that country's politicians view your own, but what do I know?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35807136
A PCR test before your flight isn't a very good insurance policy. You can easily get infected between the time you take the test and the time you fly. And of course you can be infected in transit.
Vaccination? Doesn't mean as much anymore thanks to Delta. Proof: 30% of all new COVID cases in Los Angeles are in fully vaccinated individuals.
But yeah, at least as far as the US and EU are concerned, this is politics. Both places are nasty petri dishes at this point.
This is how variants like Delta can spread globally.
Always has been.
We've had less than 16,000 total cases here, most of which stemmed from an outbreak in May that is now under control.
The border is basically only open to citizens and residents, and everybody has to quarantine for 14 days at an approved quarantine hotel or government facility regardless of vaccination status. PCR test no earlier than 3 days before your flight, PCR test upon arrival, rapid test 10 days into quarantine, and PCR test right before your quarantine ends.
Inconvenient? Yes. Expensive? Yes. But you can't argue with the results. Life is pretty damn good here and at least for the time being, Delta has not found its way into the community.
> Inconvenient? Yes. Expensive? Yes. But you can't argue with the results. Life is pretty damn good here and at least for the time being, Delta has not found its way into the community.
Pretty much identical, but with the huge exception of a current Delta outbreak in the community. The next week will be the making or breaking of our chosen strategy.
It can increase the spread though, here (CH) a large fraction of local case are tied to people coming back from holidays. Mandatory quarantine would likely help somewhat.
It helps a lot. However even strict quarantine leaks, and New Zealand has shutdown to try eradicate its current outbreak. Delta is incredibly transmissible and resistant to controls.
Given that, what is your issue with the USA allowing vaccinated travellers, who are tested before boarding a flight, from entering the country?
There is no scenario where that doesn't prove the US blockading itself from inbound travel (eg from Europe) is purely a con, health security theater. As an American it's embarrasing to watch the level of stupidity the US Government is putting on display in its Covid response.
30% of all new COVID cases in Los Angeles are in fully vaccinated individuals. Israel, one of the most highly vaccinated countries in the world, is reporting record new cases.
The vaccines are effective at reducing the risk of severe illness and death, but the data is now very clear that they do not prevent people from becoming infected and infecting others.
If the US wants to reduce the risk that it will be among the first in line to get every new variant, it would need to embrace the only approach that has proven effective: limit arrivals and force arrivals to quarantine for a sufficient amount of time.
Of course, you could argue that the cost of this exceeds the benefits. But either way, it's time to let go of the idea that people who are vaccinated are not at risk of catching and spreading the virus. It's just not the case.
That shows that travel spreads new variants.
More severe travel restrictions earlier (in combination with countries like the US doing what they were supposed to do) could have saved a lot of lives. It's not too late to save a few more.
This isn't like polio or smallpox - this would be like trying to have 0 cases of the flu, forever. The best you can do is get vaccinated to at least take some pressure off the hospital system if/when you get infected. Somehow we all went from "flatten the curve" to "no one can ever get sick again".
We have done it several times and will hopefully do it again.
We have had a pretty smooth time as a whole, with relatively little inconvenience - this and the previous month long lockdown excluded.
However as you say, what’s the point?
We are not vaccinated widely enough to prevent carnage. We need way more people vaccinated as our hospital system is under strain already. Adding Covid will be catastrophic, and we need to reduce that risk.
New Zealand is the gateway to various pacific islands and we provide their healthcare. If Covid rips through them that’s also on us.
We also supply many small pacific islands and were also happy to delay so that supply could go to places with an acute need first (ie places that actually have Covid).
We will be in line with the rest of the developed world very soon.
> Bizarre strategy
Eradication? It’s worked pretty well and the economy and population are in good shape relative to other strategies employed.
Given we are close to Covid free (and aim to be again) and we are vaccinating fast, what strategy would you advocate?
I meant why not even try to develop a vaccine.
If other countries had not developed vaccines and eventually shared them with New Zealand what would they have done? Just sat with closed borders for the rest of time?
And even when they got the vaccine they've not really bothered to get it distributed - slowest vaccination rate in the developed world.
Very strange.
You can apply that bit of logic to every bit of tech that exists. New Zealand is a tiny place, with a population less than that of a medium to large city. Why not buy something proven?
> Just sat with closed borders for the rest of time?
I’m quite happy with the closed borders and wish they were more tightly closed. Others can have different views - the results speak for themselves. Once things are are more settled and treatments are better managed, we can open up.
> slowest vaccination rate in the developed world.
Our vaccine roll out has been slow, though the current rate of administration would be one of the highest in the world so that failing is hopefully temporary.
> Very strange.
What do you believe New Zealand should do? I’d say that we are in a very good position relative to most.
Most other western countries tried to develop vaccines as quickly as they possibly could starting in early 2020 because they thought that was the long-term solution.
I get what you mean though about a small country, but it's not like New Zealand doesn't have universities as well. Waiting for someone else to hopefully solve the problem and then buy it was a gamble - I guess it paid off thankfully.
It hasn’t paid off yet. We haven’t got enough Covid in New Zealand to get the value offered by a vaccine - yet.
If New Zealand is paying for its vaccines then its contributing to the effort just like everyone else.
The people who should develop vaccines now are the existing clusters of experts in vaccines. As in large university, government and corporate environments that have been working in that area and already have lots of experts, equipment and relevant resources and arrangements.
Anything else is a long term project.
Maybe RNA vaccines and other new vaccine tech will bring down the costs of vaccine development centers, and maybe the pandemic will increase the demand for more centers. I am not arguing against New Zealand developing their own in house capacity going forward.
Or maybe we only need a few really good vaccines for each pandemic and there is a limit to the benefits of redundant research and production.
Either way, new centers are not a quick or simple task, and not likely to happen while most experts are currently located and utilized elsewhere.
NZ has taken an isolationist approach to the virus that seems, to all accounts, to have worked absolutely wonderfully - it's not an approach available to all nations, but they made it work for them.
I live and work in Canada and I didn't leverage any of the factors available to me to jump ahead in the vaccination line - my wife and I have no children and have both been able to work fully remote... so we've similarly isolated ourselves - when my age group came up I registered and was vaccinated but I was happy to see people who have jobs that necessitate in-person interaction prioritized in front of me. It's more efficient for my health for those folks to get the vaccine first - I think NZ found itself in a similar situation, everyone (mostly) wanted to get vaccinated and the voluntary rate so far has been pretty good - it's just that other places need the vaccine more desperately than them.
So long as you ignore America, where a large number of doses have expired due to political resistance - those doses of vaccine will end up going to productive ends, and wouldn't it be nice to stop the disease before we have a new wave spread out from Africa?
Was there apprehension to get vaccinated or did their government fail to acquire supplies? I would imagine New Zealand would have no difficulty in getting supplies by June or so but perhaps I’m wrong. Israel for example is similar in terms of GDP per capita and they are well ahead.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.
My little girl was born in September 2020 in Chicago, USA, she was diagnosed with heart disease, and as it turns out a really rare genetic condition. She passed away in May 2021.
My family all live in the UK.
My little girl died without ever meeting her granddad, her aunt, her uncle, etc. I had to livestream her funeral to my family/friends.
Added an additional level of pain and suffering, to an already incredibly terrible situation. I feel immense guilt, for whatever reason. COVID would have likely killed my severely immunocompromised child.
In the speech I read at her funeral, I said:
> For the people who didn’t meet her or spent little time with her. I am sorry. I’m not apologising personally, I’m just acknowledging how terrible it must have been to look but not touch. Some had it better than others. Some only got to see her through a screen. There were no winners in this situation, only losers.
I didn't kiss my child's face until the last week of her life.
I really am burnt out from all this, especially with no end in sight.
edit: I appreciate the condolences/well wishes. I wasn't trying to elicit sympathy, I just wanted to give some insight to someone who had no choice other than to do what was best for their child (or so I thought).
I just wanted to say that I hope time will deal with the pain. You'll always have the memory of her life, and of your love for her.
I also think that americans are underestimating the situation of the upcoming months
Moreover, Delta is not a significant threat in countries where at-risk populations have been mostly vaccinated, which describes the US and most European countries. Infections != deaths.
Its a recomendation, not a law, and most countries don't follow EU recommendations. The reason it was drafted is because it allows small countries who want to ban US travelers without facing retribution "I'm sorry, its a EU recommendation, not our own will no hard feelings, please don't ban our imports".
By the way, this is used during PPP decision-making (find some obscure EU laws to veto some private partners decision, like using Azure cloud for AI4EU), and probably used politically, internally or externally to deny demands "No, it is impossible, the EU have a reco/law/designated standard on this" (And in 80% of the cases, this is non-binding).
I think this is the real power of the EU, giving politicians the possibility of deflecting blame. Most positive effect of Brexit for the UK is this imho.
As a Canadian - we had trouble getting access to the vaccine for a long time - but we're closing in on 75% of the population vaccinated with vaccination rates only slightly beginning to taper off.
They are not “at-risk” though. 65+ is at >80% fully vaccinated.
>70% of the >18 adult population has received at least one dose.
<18 & 18-24 are the only populations below 50%, one dose or full.
I already have a trip planned to a Shengen country, planned months in advance. Everything is already paid for. I am also vaccinated fully (with certificate). Am I going to be allowed on my vacation next week?
It will take a minute before the single EU countries will adopt regulations following the the recommendation.
[0] https://app.euplf.eu/
Americans aren't a threat when we've collectively moved on.
And you will generally have no idea whether people around you are vaccinated or not, unless you are in a University or somewhere that enforces vaccination, generally this is only if they are actually large enough to register on the local scale as "potential identified source of many new infections" and would want to stay out of the news in that way – ahem, I mean somewhere that is invested in keeping people safe.
I am planning some cross-country travel for a conference in October (really big one, you might have heard of it) and I am really having a hard time with it. I've mostly been isolated for the past year and a half. I am vaccinated and I would really like to see some people. But I do feel like a plague rat even making these plans.
Given the number of people around me (especially as you drive outside of the city parts of Indiana and into farm country) who wear their un-vaccinated status on their sleeve or bumper sticker, as a point of pride or honor, I wouldn't say we're not a threat. But still generally agree with the sentiment.
You may have collectively moved on, but the United States is still banning travel from many, many regions that have a much lower prevalence of COVID-19 than it does.
Reciprocally banning Americans from traveling seems like an appropriate response.
For any new measures that politicians make today. The more people are in favor of it the longer we will have to deal with all this nonsense. Politicians contrary to the beginning of the pandemic, are strongly confident that what they do is useful. When in fact it's all completely useless.
Stop complaining about people who protest about the restrictions (whatever the restrictions), and support them. Politicians need to stop thinking that they need to act about covid. That's the only way we will end all that joke
I refuse.
So long as they - antivaxers - are filling hospital emergency rooms and killing other people by DDOSing caregivers, I absolutely fucking refuse.
What about Gibralter?
They have also had huge upticks in cases and are still mostly vaccinated.
The idea that this vaccine is going to cure everything feels more and more silly -- places with high vaccination rates _still have problems_.
If the goal is 100% compliance on vaccinations, what do you do about other countries? These variants will be leaking out of them until the end of time.
[0] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-DZDM-UUAInxW7?format=jpg&name=...
Vaccination is not enough? Masks aren't enough?
If vaccination is not the end game, then there is no end game. There will always be some variant somewhere, even if the planet was 100% vaccinated, there would be virus multiplying in animal reservoirs.
Yes, they do. But getting COVID with a vaccination means infections are not emergency-room-critical events. Getting COVID without a vaccination can be an emergency-room-critical event.
So no. I still refuse to support antivaxxers politics. Once we're no longer having hospital bed overflows with every new variant - that's when I'll revisit my choice.
This will never happen. There will always be some new fearsome variant. You are advocating for Zero-COVID.
> Hospital bed overflows
That's the important part, not reaching 'Zero-COVID'. Vaccinations (or naturally occurring "immunity" due to infections) reducing the impact of new infections is sufficient to meet that criteria.
And this will eventually happen. Antivaxxers are simply pushing this eventuality out, and taking out others along the way.
Thats not entirely true. In my town close to 20% of the hospitalizations are vaccinated. And there have been deaths amongst those as well. Of course the news, even local, is rounding down +/- 5% when its convenient and up the same margin when also convenient. But the local county and hospitals publicly post the raw data.
In fact i find calling people that are skeptical of the vaccine "anti-vaxxers" to be particularly unbecoming of an individual. Thats a specific attempt to conflate them with the Jenny McCarthy brand of anti-vaccination folks. These are brand new delivery methods and science that have either never been tried before, or in VERY limited use cases (such as Ebola for viral vector) and have few if any long term studies.
People shouldnt be shamed for being skeptical or questioning of the narrative. If the facts fully support the narrative or reasoning you shouldnt NEED to shame or silence dissenters to make your arguments more effective.
Especially when things like breakthrough rates are specifically being ignored as of May 1, 2021 [0], when theres data that specifically points to that fact such as slide 17. [1]
And the fact that people are being banned and silenced for pointing out that the vaccine does not prevent infection, or serious outcomes of infection, or even transmission and these are generally baseline requirements of othervaccines [2]
For example if TDAP or the pertussis vaccine allowed vaccinated patients an 80% chance of transmitting the virus, instead of the current 10%, there would absolutely be different reccomendations out there, especially for parents of newborns.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/bre...
[1] https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/do....
[2] https://thehill.com/homenews/media/569908-twitter-bans-conse...
That implies that 80% of the hospitalizations are unvaccinated. Which I then correlate to: 80% of the hospital bed use is directly preventable? 80% of the hospitalized cases are draining our resources better applied to other emergencies?
Inexcusable.
> Thats a specific attempt to conflate them with the Jenny McCarthy brand of anti-vaccination folks.
Respectfully, I find the defense of anti-vaxxers and/or "vaccine skeptics" points of view is irrelevant to this particular thread of discussion. This thread is specifically about their outsized - and more importantly preventable - negative impact on the available medical resources.
Address that, and I'm perfectly fine with the lifting of restrictions, because they won't be needed anymore.
But right now? Those restrictions absolutely are needed.
How can you get from A to B there.....For all you know, those people would be hospitalized even if they were vaccinated. Theres really no science there, because the groups charged with tracking that very datapoint have chosen to specifically avoid it.
One thing is for certain, we don't know why some people present with only mild symptoms and others need critical care, regardless of vaccination status. And there could be plenty of reasons vaccinated numbers are down.
Have you considered that maybe many of those vaccinated are also more cautious in their daily routines, are more likely to sanitize their hands or avoid interactions with others that would put them at increased risk regardless of status, such as eating out or attending parties vs curbside or takeout?
Heck i would not be shocked if there are more people around you that are more skeptical than they let on because people like you will try and paint them with a broad brush. Its exactly why, despite being vaccinated myself, i avoid such topics in public around friends and family and just say its its not their business.
>Respectfully, I find the defense of anti-vaxxers and/or "vaccine skeptics" points of view is irrelevant to this particular thread of discussion. This thread is specifically about their outsized - and more importantly preventable - negative impact on the available medical resources.
Its important to note that I am not defending their viewpoints, but moreover I am admonishing rhetoric that is divisive and serves no other purpose than to increase division and make another feel righteous.
As well, this thread is about an EU recommendations affecting an entire country, of which only portions of are seeing spikes...
You chose to paint with broad strokes and use rhetoric that serves no other purpose than to alienate rather than use rhetoric that works to bring those skeptical of existing treatments to a more logical conclusion. I find it very odd that someone is specifically choosing rhetoric steeped in emotional appeals to admonish those they attack for working off what they see as emotional responses that isnt based on fact or science...
What an awesome phrase - will have to steal this.
That's what needs to go down. And if someone's not getting a vaccination, then they need to do several of the other steps to avoid overwhelming hospitals.
If they don't (and they're not), then they haven't earned my support.
But forcing people will not work. We should just accept them as they are and not feel superior. Thing that most politicians are very bad at
Infection and hospitalization curves trending towards horizontal or 0 after those "other steps" were implemented, and before vaccines were available, was pretty compelling evidence to my eyes.
As was the resumption of upward trends as those "other steps" were repealed.
> We should just accept them as they are
Oh, I accept that they probably won't change. Just as I don't expect flat earthers or moon landing deniers to change their minds in the face of evidence.
Regardless, I absolutely refuse to support them, their politics, or their views.
But antivax? Vaccinations clearly reduce incidences of COVID-19, especially those cases that induce the most strain on our health systems. And the strain that the current wave is producing is indeed intense--there are water treatment plants struggling to get enough liquid oxygen because so much is going to intubated COVID-19 patients. So there's increased risk of giving a major metropolitan city cholera because of the current COVID-19 wave.
So the justification for not getting a vaccine at this point that the antivaxers push basically boils down to "I don't feel like it." That's not going to engender a lot of sympathy from those who realize that the antivaxers are basically murderers by proxy.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e4.htm
Instead of insulting them to make yourself feel morally superior it's more productive to focus on education and persuasion.
Choosing to change your mind and get vaccinated is a radically different situation. It's not hard to find a vaccination site; it's not hard to get to a center if you need to--it's basically as hard as going shopping, which is already a decently common activity for much of the population.
So it's strictly retaliatory.