pouët.net

It's a source of information in so far that you can compare what you saw with your eyes to how the media portrays what happened.

If I take the demonstration in Berlin (01-08-20) for example, there was an incident in which 'neo-nazi's stormed the Reichstag' which was used by the media to pretend like it was a 'neo-nazi' rally. While in reality, it was a very small group who were completely different from the rest of the people who showed up.

And I have no idea where you get your information from, I was talking about myself.

Calm down, he didn't imply that. I went to protests too to see with my own eyes what's going on there, besides protesting, of course, against forced measures.
Diagrams: No big surprise here, excess is always paired with under mortality. It gets much more interesting with longer intervals. (Look out for undermortality compared to some other years, also have a look at Sweden.) Not conclusive and helpful to prove any point.

Better be safe than sorry does not mean much anymore, does it.

You can stay home of course. I just don't want to be told to stay home. That's all. I'm totally pro measures, just not their enforcement.

What's the point of measures if they're not enforced?

They are recommendations and much more useful then, in my opinion.

What, like speed limits?

Yes.

@v3nom, I caught that update, but D.Foxes post implies that you (and other private sector venues) stick to all of the legally proposed set of options.

@D.Fox that's exactly what I recommended multiple times in this thread.

Again though, voluntarily requiring vaccination supports making it mandatory on a national level which in turn brings implicitly forced vaccination pretty much all the way there, as living in a society where you can't attend any public or private venue / event with more than X(what will probably be single digits) people will make it extremely cumbersome if not impossible to do some essential things. Arguing that this will be rolled back in a year or two seems rather naive to me looking at the political history of this country during my lifetime.

I understand that the majority of the local economy doesn't really have a choice, since we're talking about business that need to sustain themselves and their employees. For primarily non-commercial events though I don't really see "i want to party with my friends" a justifying motivation to neither take any risk nor supporting mandated required vaccination.

Btw. the article I linked quotes: "the reported effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines has reduced to 64% with regard to preventing infection and symptomatic illness."

Paralax: is your point that the quality of health-care didn't suffer due to the covid measures? Because I (and other sceners I know) know first hand that it surely did.

The only reason they need to enforce it is because it's based on lies. If there truly was a "killer virus" going through society people would not leave the house voluntarily.



I could say the exact same thing about injecting the entire world population with an experimental treatment, but you seem totally fine with that.

No, did not mean to imply any of that, and certainly not "COVID is just another flu". Just that you can draw all sorts of conclusions from only that graph, with the only common denominator being the title of that graph. It doesn't have enough information to tell causation from correlation.

(Btw., the term "comparable" is somewhat ambiguous, as context decides whether you mean "about the same" or "can be compared at all". You can compare COVID viruses with flu viruses on various levels and come to the conclusion that the former are a lot worse than the latter.)

LJ: No, I'm totally with you there. My point is that COVID 19 is not comparable to the flu because the average flu outbreak does not have the capability to disrupt societies like this pandemic has.
We can't deduce direct deaths due to COVID from excess mortality shown on the site but the case mortality rate and excess deaths visualizations are only two clicks away.

Not to mention that without lockdowns and other severe measures, the statistics would look much, much worse.

Based on what evidence?

Krill: fair enough, sorry for my misinterpretation :)

You're right of course that we could compare the flu and COVID on various levels. I'm mainly concerned about infectiousness and potential for fatal outcomes since these two factors are arguably out biggest problem right now. I guess we can be kind of glad though that we're not seeing crazy levels of mutations in corona viruses.

lol

D4XX: pro-tip: on this site, the actual author is always rendered on the bottom of the associated posting.

That's an interesting theory.
Another theory would be that lockdowns and other severe measures have severe consequences, some of them long-term, which are even more elusive than to count deaths and assign them to a singular cause. And that's only beginning to lead over to societal consequences.

The lockdowns were especially destructive for developing countries who don't have the luxury of working from home.

I haven't heard yet that this is a likely scenario, though. Over time, viruses seem to become more contagious but less lethal by the same mechanisms. The most successful viruses (by some measure) are those that don't kill their host. =)

That said, around hundred years ago, flu really was the COVID if its day. We're laughing about it now, but imagine a similar scenario in the far future. "Oh just another COVID." ;)

If only we had you guys in the WHO, hospitals, academia and governments we would have been so much better off during this pandemic. It is all super simple right!

Yeah i see. I was just marked the text and copied it into a quote. Have also marked your name. My bad. Sorry.

No worries :)

With all the money flowing around we would probably be just as corrupt.

A good friend of mine once said: There are no politicians. There are only people who are bought from the lobby and say what they have to say. At the beginning there is always the opposition and at the end there are millions of euros that everyone takes because everyone is corruptible.

I think he's right.