World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Don't give them too much credit. Lots of Germans acted quite stupidly during COVID (much like in many other countries).
Can confirm. Got weird looks when I said I got this years flue and COVID shot.
I mean it depends. If you followed STIKO recommendations that means you're either >=60 or overshared your medical status.
Nope, there are quite a few additional recommendations.
...most of which are medical the other are based on increased risk of exposure.
So, yes, if you're working retail and got sideeye that means your colleagues aren't up to date and you should probably get the work's council involved to themselves relay the STIKO recommendation. Arguably your employer is slacking in their duty to care. If you're a dockworker, yeah you probably overshared. Did you share the specific reason you did it? "Because of grandma" can change people's attitude quite quickly.
"Because I don't like to catch or spread easily preventable and possibly deadly diseases."
"General paranoia" is not among the STIKO recommendations. I mean you do you but don't be surprised when others think it's a bit excessive.
It’s the leading cause of child deaths by illness in the US now. That seems like all the reason we need.
The STIKO does not make recommendations for the US, but Germany.
Sure, but child deaths don’t really care about location.
Although I'm definitely too lazy to get a shot, I think it's good to get those. I don't think it's excessive, it's called modern health science.
It's called ignoring STIKO recommendations. If they don't recommend a particular immunisation for a particular collection of people then because they think that the overall risk of the vaccine is larger than the benefits it would bring. According to modern health science.
Yes, lots of idiot anti-vaxers ignored epidemiologists during the pandemic. Don't now turn around and ignore epidemiologists to stick it to the idiots.
Again, you assume that I am not covered by one of the aforementioned additional recommendations. And you asked for my reason why I got vaccinated, and that's my main reason.
Do you play lottery by any chance? Got better chances to "win" COVID or Influenza than the jackpot ever. And once I win the jackpot, I'll start worrying about adverse effects by vaccination. Because that's even less likely.
Oh, and just to reassure you: I am not vaccinated against rabies.
When you give me a reason then I'm going to assume that that is your reason. I cannot, in fact, mind-read. You could have started with "Among other things" and my response would have been different.
I'm also not an epidemiologist so I won't argue with the risk assessment of the STIKO. You, OTOH, are doing exactly that, claiming, so far without argument or evidence, that the risk of the vaccines you took is lower than the risk of contracting the illness.
Well, no need to be an epidemiologist to do basic research. So let's get into it:
COVID-19
Influenza
Now that's just wrong:
SCNR, you didn't specify adverse side effects. :P
Here's the info you're looking for.
I almost cannot believe the degree of arrogance on display here. "Don't listen to epidemiologists, have a look at my random assortment of anti-anti-vax talking points instead". You are not an expert. Don't pretend you are one just because you can destroy anti-vaxers with facts and logic, because you can dazzle people with stats. You are not an epidemiologist, and you have no idea what you're talking about.
And neither do I. But at least I don't pretend to know better than the epidemiologists. Do you seriously think your "basic research" trumps their actually learned assessments? Is the STIKO suddenly some shady cabal of anti-vaxers wanting us all dead? Do you have any actual arguments as to why their recommendations should be ignored?
Yes, if I had not gotten my three shots back then I should catch up on that. But I already have that base immunity, which, according to the STIKO, means that I shouldn't get yearly shots because I don't fall into any of the categories that they recommend them for. That's the end of it.
Throwing stones ... glasshouses?
I argued that the risk of a vaccination is negligibly small and backed that up with data. Not that the recommendations are bogus.
This is the second time you maliciously misrepresent my points.
Edit: To expand a bit: The recommendations are the recommendations because the STIKO works on a national level. 10 Person in 1 Million dying is a gamble I might be willing to take. The STIKO might not, because they potentially "sentence" ~800 people to death.
If it was actually negligible then the STIKO would say "everyone should still get vaccinated". But it isn't, so they don't.
You mean you personally prefer to take the risk, and that's fine, as said: You do you. But the chances don't differ on a national vs. personal level, it's still the same numbers.
Consider this: You also have a very low chance to get infected in the first place, (incidence and thus infection rates in Germany rates are very low), and on top of that the chance for the infection to be deadly or even dangerous is very low (because you (presumably) have base immunity). Those two chances combined are lower than that of getting the vaccination having nasty side effects which is why it's not recommended to vaccinate if you're not in a particular risk group, increasing the one, the other, or both chances.
Winning the lottery has a certain chance, getting struck by lighting has a certain chance, the chance of the same person first winning the lottery and then getting hit by lightning is smaller than either of those. And that chance is lower than catching bad side effects from the vaccine. Otherwise, as said, the STIKO would still recommend it for the general population.
The STIKO recommends whatever has the lowest number of people dying. During the pandemic, that was people getting vaccinated, now, it's not (as long as you have base immunity). The amount of people dying because they followed STIKO recommendations will never be zero but, assuming the STIKO is doing its job, always be lower than those not following it.
yo, why are you fucking lying about the STIKO recommendations?
the link you yourself provided says to definitely get the vaccine, in no uncertain terms:
(i'm not gonna bother translating that into english; sorry about that, but it's not worth the effort.)
the STIKO makes it ABUNDANTLY clear that you absolutely should get AT LEAST 1 vaccination for "Basisimmunität" (basic immunity).
take your outright lies elsewhere with your anti-vax bullshit.
Here's what I wrote, emphasis added:
If you're getting vaccinated now it's presumably a yearly fresh-up shot, not for base immunity. If that wasn't the case, if you only got your base immunity this year the reason for the side-eye was probably because you didn't get vaccinated back then.
Also, learn to read: You need three contacts with the virus or vaccine, not one. If you never got ill, you need three shots, if you only got ill once, you need two. Which, just for the record, I got (three, that is). You confuse me, someone who follows STIKO recommendations and thus medicinal best practice, with an anti-vaxer.
that's not what I'm responding to.
here's what you actually wrote:
which is a flat out lie.
they DO recommend everyone get at least one vaccine. and they still recommend that.
AT LEAST ONE.
you wrote the exact opposite of what you're claiming now and it's straight up disinformation.
screw that bullshit cop out you buried in parentheses halfway down AFTER, and completely disconnected from, a closed statement that is entirely false.
you can't post a false statement, then another false statement, and then add a caveat at the end that amounts to little more than "just kidding...unless?".
the STIKO recommendation also is not either/or as you frame it.
the actual recommendation is:
that you falsely presented as no longer being the case. it is still the case.
on top of everything, you are the one who can't read, since you haven't even realized that I'm a different user entirely and not the one who made the side-eye comment.
to quote another user:
You're arguing semantics. During the whole conversation I assumed that you have base immunity, and thus did not mention it, just as I didn't mention various other details about the recommendations.
The point still stands: The STIKO does not recommend yearly fresh-ups for people who have base immunity. You still got a fresh-up. I didn't. Thus, I followed their recommendations, you didn't.
this is FALSE:
the guidelines say protections last at least 12 months, after which you should still get a fresh-up, even if you have base immunity:
the recommendation literally says EVERYONE, and in this case specifically "Für Personen im Alter ≥ 18 Jahre und Schwangere ohne Grunderkrankung" (the very same paragraph, right at the beginning), has protections that last about 12 months.
this is INCLUDING "Basisimmunität", which that same paragraph states lasts about 12 month.
they really shouldn't use "Basisimmunität", because it sounds like it lasts indefinitely, which is false; it lasts about 12 months, and then decreases in effectiveness.
this is apparently the part you can't read properly: the base immunity is NOT permanent.
getting a fresh-up is the recommendation.
NOT getting a fresh-up is AGAINST the recommendation.
i can't believe i have to state this again, but: I AM A DIFFERENT USER.
i never said anything about getting the fresh-up.
stop spreading anti-vax biullshit, just because you can't read properly.
and especially don't go around telling other people they can't read, if you yourself are the one incapable of it.
to quote YOU:
yes.
No.
If they had data showing that base immunity has a drop-off, by date, effectiveness etc, that would warrant fresh-ups they would say, in very plain words, that you should get a fresh-up.
But they don't:
For endangered groups. Not the general population. They know, for sure, that it lasts at least 12 months, but they might have good reason to believe that it lasts indefinitely, that the drop-off is not worth the risk for the general population, or some such. Ask a specialist. I'm not one, but I can read, without turning to all caps. Maybe you should read the whole thing with a cooler head.
so you admit you have no idea, and then make a definitive statement to NOT get vaccinated.
you do see the hypocrisy here, right?
and "at least" means they do not know what happens after, presumably because data is not yet available.
given that they very clearly state that getting fresh-ups does help, the reasonable assumption is to get the vaccine just in case.
not the other way around, like you did.
you are spreading misinformation, if you say not to get the vaccine, just because you assume that it has downsides.
to use your own argument: IF fresh-ups had negative effects, they would say so in plain words.
they don't do that, which shows nicely how dumb of an argument that is.
I admitted that I have no idea about the epidemiological details, then made a definite statement about what the STIKO said. Which I did by quoting them, verbatim.
It is not the job of the STIKO to not recommend vaccinations. They either recommend or don't recommend, but they never recommend not to, that's the job of your doctor, comparing your medical state/history against counterindications.