• Minarble@aussie.zone
    ·
    1 year ago

    They didn’t win, antiviral treatment and vaccines reduced the threat to acceptable levels.

    They are salty because as soon as they could the evil world governments removed the restrictions thereby completely negating all the batshit nonsense they were banging on about.

    Also if you are vaccinated you are supposed to be already dead by now. So it’s inconvenient to their narrative that we aren’t.

    Also for some reason windmills kill whales. It’s all part of Bill Gates plan you see?

    • UlyssesT
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      deleted by creator

    • booty [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      antiviral treatment and vaccines reduced the threat to acceptable levels.

      Just because you libs decided to accept it doesn't mean it's acceptable. The anti-maskers won because you became anti-maskers.

      • Kuori [she/her]
        ·
        1 year ago

        fr, all "reduced to acceptable levels" means is "people who don't matter to me are dying"

        • Minarble@aussie.zone
          ·
          1 year ago

          It means there are treatments available now that were not there and widely available previously.

          Hospital systems are not being overwhelmed with patients now.

          This cat is out of the bag and is now going to remain endemic in the world population forever there is no reasonable means of eradicating a disease that is now treatable in severe cases and preventable / reduced reaction to in the majority of the population with the current variant vaccines.

          The opportunity to remove the virus from circulating was squandered and is only viable in the initial outbreak once it is worldwide and seasonal like the flu it is very hard if not impossible to remove completely.

          Masks and isolation worked to reduce the impact and deathtoll when there was no treatment and no vaccine.

          They will be needed again if and when a new virus pops up just like the Spanish flu did in 1919.

          • booty [he/him]
            ·
            1 year ago

            The opportunity to remove the virus from circulating was squandered

            In other words, the anti-maskers won. Why did you claim otherwise?

            • Minarble@aussie.zone
              ·
              1 year ago

              The only opportunity to stop the virus spreading was in the initial phases. Once it had left China and was spreading in several countries across several continents it was already to late to make it extinct.

              The anti maskers didn’t win circumstances changed.

              The anti maskers were irrelevant except where they unfortunately spread the disease to other people and caused needless suffering.

          • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]
            ·
            1 year ago

            It means there are treatments available now that were not there and widely available previously.

            Avail!ble to what percentage of the population?

          • Tinidril@midwest.social
            ·
            1 year ago

            There was never an opportunity to eradicate the virus. From the moment it was discovered, it was already inevitable that it would become endemic. The purpose of slowing the spread was to prevent hospitals from getting overwhelmed in the first wave, and to give doctors time to develop treatments. That's what "flatten the curve" was all about.

    • FuckyWucky [none/use name]
      ·
      1 year ago

      i guess so, death rates are indeed lower now but its not going to bring the millions who died from state negligence back.

      covid could have been solved quickly had the first world countries taken immediate action as soon as vaccines were available and made it available to everyone. instead pharma corps decided to guard their IP and profit of off the deaths and suffering.

      there was no smallpox-eradication like imitative against COVID because there is not much profit to be made. we are in a neoliberal era where governments are retreating from doing welfare or anything remotely good to just running tools used to crush dissent. the ideological competition which existed pre-1991 is no longer there.

      And even if covid may not be immediately killing people doesn't mean its long term effects aren't visible, see excess mortality.

      • Minarble@aussie.zone
        ·
        1 year ago

        Covid is and was a serious public health issue.

        Initially there was no treatment.

        Millions did die unnecessarily because the only effective health response at the time was masking up, public hygiene and isolation.

        The only effective available initial response was badly managed and actively impeded by anti mask politicians and deluded members of the general public

        Small pox is much deadlier and also has the added benefit of being disfiguring if you happen to survive it. It was also easier to vaccinate against that the highly mutable Covid 19 virus

        Was there profiteering? Yes unfortunately but there was also very rapid development of vaccines and treatments that allow the disease to become a manageable issue.

        • FuckyWucky [none/use name]
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Was there profiteering? Yes unfortunately but there was also very rapid development of vaccines and treatments that allow the disease to become a manageable issue.

          why should there be? why isn't state producing the vaccines. its their job to do things that don't generate profit. instead the state funded private companies who in turn profited of off it.

          Small pox is much deadlier and also has the added benefit of being disfiguring if you happen to survive it. It was also easier to vaccinate against that the highly mutable Covid 19 virus

          still don't see why there was no global vaccination campaign against a NEW virus. also keep in mind that Soviet Union was the first country to propose global eradication program and provided massive support to WHO at the time. Now, U.S. has no significant competitor. There is China to some extent but its not the same situation (yet).

          Millions did die unnecessarily because the only effective health response at the time was masking up, public hygiene and isolation.

          no, millions died because the government didn't do a decent job at managing it. compare New Zealand to other countries from the same chart and you'll see.

          I ALSO WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT COVID VACCINATION RATE IS STILL 32% IN AFRICA!

          • Minarble@aussie.zone
            ·
            1 year ago

            The worlds not perfect. Be nice if it was.

            Should there have been a co ordinated government response world wide and then on going vaccination roll out world wide? Yep, agree with you.

            New Zealand did a great job in managing it.

            Australia did OK as well despite a few fumbles.

            Mainly because both have 1st world medical systems and also are isolated from other countries by sea and big distances between populations centres so could implement effective lock downs and mask mandates where needed.

            WA and Tasmania effectively led normal lives throughout the epidemic with the borders shut with only short lockdowns. Interstate commerce and travel were hit hard obviously.

            Both countries are now fully opened up with no restrictions because there are effective vaccines and anti viral treatments.

            My main point was that the anti maskers were irrelevant to the outcome except were they exposed other people to the virus needlessly.