Sydney posts record number of COVID cases; Victoria to go back into lockdown

No mention of how many people have no income now, how many businesses have gone bankrupt, nor how many families are in financial dire straits

Your sloppy sophistry at work again. Taking antibiotics for an ear infection that pops up occasionally is nothing like locking a whole state or country down

Lack of ability of understanding the value of an analogy is not the same as sophistry, pretending to get a permanent protection from a temporary solution is what the analogy is meant to illustrate.

And no, taking antibiotics do not leave your body unaffected, it also have a cost in risks that can deteriorate importantly the health of the person taking them, the same as every other drug. The problem with your own analogy is that the measures you imagine have absolutely no effect on the supposed disease, while lockdowns have well characterized value in reducing the spreading of the disease. Vaccines of course are another measure that can reduce the need for lockdowns very importantly, but since conspiracy lovers also reject the value of vaccines their only "solution" is to let people die unnecessarily.

This is the problem with going against science as a permanent attitude, thinking scientific based measures are worthless (as in your analogy) is irrational and can be proved false objectively.

You cannot hide away from Covid forever. Get vaccinated.

2020hindsightsToday  03:26 pm JST

Hakman

Lockdowns aren't working -- so let's do more lockdowns!

Actually they are working. They just take time.

A grand total of five people died -- all of whom were elderly, none of whom were vaccinated -- and this is justification for turning a city of 5 million into a dystopian police state!

No. Lockdowns are imposed to stop the spread of the virus. I thought that would have been obvious by now.

If lockdowns working so well, why do they have to keep reinstating them?

And Victoria is likely to go back into lockdown tomorrow. More failure from the socialist CCP stooge Daniel Andrews.

Delirious alternative media nonsense aside, Australia did well in the early stages of this pandemic but how long can they keep doing these lockdowns?

What’s going on with the appallingly low vaccination rates? Who’s to blame for the shortages? I have too much respect for Australia to think there are more hysterical, incontinent anti-vaxxers than other places.

The Aussies I know are generally made of sterner stuff.

first it has to be proved that the deaths

It doesn’t have to be proved anything. Does the person return to life if you “prove” that “most people” don’t die from it? It’s still what killed them.

and other problems caused by the infection

such as the worst problem that people take the vaccine to prevent.....death?

It may happen

it DOES happen, not “may”

except the people who died.

after vaccination they are in less risk of complications and deaths than before.

Blacklabel

lockdown occurs. number of cases increase to the most there have ever been.

It takes time after the lockdown has started to have an effect. That's because there are still people who got infected before the lockdown before they realise they have Covid. I would have thought that this would be obvious.

people insist that but for the lockdown, cases would have been even more.

based on what? isnt it just your speculation at best and false at worst?

Based on empirical evidence. Look at New Zealand how many daily infections? A handful from overseas in quarantine. None in the community. Lockdowns work.

except the people who died.

That applies to everybody that is vaccinated, their risk lowered, thinking that not making that risk 0 is worthless is not a rational position, because nothing can do that. Vaccines do make people much less likely to die from the infection, but it can't protect perfectly against it, much less against all other unrelated health problems.

lockdown occurs. number of cases increase to the most there have ever been.

people insist that but for the lockdown, cases would have been even more.

based on what? isnt it just your speculation at best and false at worst?

Death by vaccine as well. That doesn’t happen, right?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-05/nsw-woman-becomes-australia-seventh-astrazeneca-related-death/100354032

lockdown occurs. number of cases increase to the most there have ever been

Wow, almost as if new, much more infectious, variants of the virus were causing this all over the world!! lockdowns are begin used precisely as a reaction against this more dangerous variant, do you also think accidents happen more often thanks to "dangerous slope" traffic signs?

You simply ignore facts in links that prove you're wrong, and try to deflect by calling anyone you disagree with a conspiracy theorist

What links? and again, where exactly did I called myself an expert? again keeping silent on that? you made the accusation, so it is not like you are lying, or are you?

If a link have false information, or if the comment make false assumptions about it and anybody can prove it, why would you expect for it to be left as if it was true? if you think differently from what other people do and can prove it with valid reasons then do it, if you can't then the problem is that you are wrong.

People whose only argument is a supposed conspiracy where all the scientists and doctors in the world do something to deceive people, but that provide not a single proof of that, can be validly called conspiracy theorists, the same as people that make imaginary accusations and run away instead of proving those accusations can be said not to be honest.

Death by vaccine as well. That doesn’t happen, right?

It may happen, but first it has to be proved that the deaths are at least in a higher rate than in unvaccinated people (because clots do happen completely independent from vaccines) and up to this point not even on the same scale of the deaths and other problems caused by the infection.

Or as your own source clearly says

The medical regulator has stressed the protective benefits of vaccination against COVID-19 far outweigh the potential risks.

Not for the 7 people who needlessly died. Fact.

The medical regulator has stressed the protective benefits of vaccination against COVID-19 far outweigh the potential risks.

It doesn’t have to be proved anything

Of course it does, in the real world (outside of conspiracy fantasies) first you need to confirm something is actually related before blaming that something.

What if 6 people that were vaccinated got married? does that mean the vaccine makes you get a spouse? and what if 2 won a prize? or changed cars?

What do you think it would mean if out of a similar number and demographics 8 UNvaccinated people die of clots? would you then say that the vaccine actually protects people from the clots (since one less person died from them).

That is why it is necessary to at least confirm vaccines are causing an increase on the rates, because the vaccines would be responsible for that increase, not for the normal occurrence on people.

it DOES happen, not “may”

In the specific case you are trying to misrepresent as if it were more dangerous than the infection it still have to be confirmed as related to the vaccine. So it may be the case, or it may not, your personal feelings about it are irrelevant.

Not for the 7 people who needlessly died. Fact.

Yes, also for the 7 people that died, the reduction of risk is shared between all vaccinated people, after vaccination they are in less risk of complications and deaths than before.

well, thats quite the opposite of what would have been expected.

tooheysnew

No mention of how many people have no income now, how many businesses have gone bankrupt, nor how many families are in financial dire straits

True. But it would have been worse without lockdowns.

What qualifications do you think are necessary to find scientific articles that prove the effect of lockdowns? being able to read is enough to do it, at least for people that are not actively trying to avoid getting informed.

Can you quote me even once "alluding" to being an expert? You keep repeating that only to become completely silent when asked to do it, sometimes for months even after the moderation get your comments for repeatedly breaking the rules of the site. So much for "never coming back".

Why can't you discuss the arguments that prove you wrong? why focus on completely irrelevant things? Is it that you can't find actual arguments to defend your opinion? that should be a very strong indication that it is actually wrong and you should change it instead of trying to deviate the topic with irrelevant personal attacks.

Hakman

Lockdowns aren't working -- so let's do more lockdowns!

Actually they are working. They just take time.

A grand total of five people died -- all of whom were elderly, none of whom were vaccinated -- and this is justification for turning a city of 5 million into a dystopian police state!

No. Lockdowns are imposed to stop the spread of the virus. I thought that would have been obvious by now.

virusrexToday  04:14 pm JST

If lockdowns working so well, why do they have to keep reinstating them?

Because they are not meant to provide a permanent solution? it should be obvious. I mean are you also surprised antibiotics have to be used with each bacterial infection?

Lockdowns are temporary solutions that let the situation be controlled without unnecessary loss of lives, this gives time to get better treatments, let hospital give the best possible treatment to all patients and for vaccination efforts to protect more of the population.

Your sloppy sophistry at work again. Taking antibiotics for an ear infection that pops up occasionally is nothing like locking a whole state or country down. You can still go out and about while taking the antibiotics, and the rest of your body isn't affected.

To borrow your weak analogy to show how poor it is, a lockdown, especially the repeated ones Australia has been subjected to, is like immobilising the arms, legs and jaw because you have an ear infection. Most of the body is not susceptible to the infection, and what is there can be treated in just about every case. Some people might go deaf, but you can't protect 100% of the population all the time.

A grand total of five people died -- all of whom were elderly, none of whom were vaccinated -- and this is justification for turning a city of 5 million into a dystopian police state!

And two days ago, this guy.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/300374573/covid19-nsw-man-27-dies-just-hours-away-from-covid19-isolation-freedom

and in the UK, this guy.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/uk/125973772/he-was-the-fittest-healthiest-person-i-know-uk-fitness-enthusiast-who-rejected-covid19-vaccine-dies-at-42

If lockdowns working so well, why do they have to keep reinstating them?

Because they are not meant to provide a permanent solution? it should be obvious. I mean are you also surprised antibiotics have to be used with each bacterial infection?

Lockdowns are temporary solutions that let the situation be controlled without unnecessary loss of lives, this gives time to get better treatments, let hospital give the best possible treatment to all patients and for vaccination efforts to protect more of the population.

Proof positive that lockdowns work