Young people also need doctors and teachers and the entire infrastructure of society. Old people not only continue enjoying restaurants and social events but they are a significant percentage of those doctors and teachers and infrastructure workers. In Slovenia, specifically, 20% of the population is over 65. Let's say covid is dangerous if you are 55 or older. Oops, there goes 30% of doctors and 30% of teachers! That's OK, of course the medical system is robust and can handle a 30% drop in staff, the average GP only has 1500 patients already. Maybe losing 1/3 of staff will only take 1/4 of hospital beds out of service, so there are still 3 hospital beds per 1000 persons. Do you start to worry that they will not have a spare bed for young people in traffic accidents? Of course, it's possible some doctors under 55 have another condition, and will also stay home. And with most of the country still going to bars and schools, some of the medical staff will simply stop caring about any of you and quit. And because of all that socializing, the hospitalization numbers for younger adults will be far higher than they were under lockdown, with far fewer beds, and many more deaths.

I was saying that "stuff old people do" was not limited/forbidden for unvaccinated, while "stuff young people do" was. Mostly because old people don't do a lot (except for stay at home, socialize at other peoples homes, go to the store, doctor, pharmacy)... in turn, if an old person stayed unvaccinated, it did not affect their day-to-day life. Even cufew, after 21h/22h, old people are usually home then. But we did close bars, restaurants etc for unvaccinated, also clubs (somewhat understandable) but also stuff like outside playgrounds, basketball/football fields, etc. which was illogical to most. Curfew caused kids who would otherwise drink and party outside on benches in parks to move inside into small unventilated bedrooms and stay inside until morning.

If we assume vaccines save lives, making them mandatory to get your pension (or atleast getting pension harder for unvaccinated), and left all the clubs open, we'd save more lives, than with closing the clubs and playgrounds and not affecting old people at all.

Where I live, they forced bars to close if they were serving alcohol - you could serve mocktails and stay open all night. It's a wondrous germ, it knows what you're drinking.

Meanwhile the restrictions on cafes where old people gather during the day were much more lenient. It's just nuts.

Yup... alcohol for your hands when you enter... and no alcohol for your mouth when you're inside :)

> All those vaccines were said to prevent getting a symptomatic covid infection and also prevent the spread.

Right, this is nonsense. You claim "lies", but you're parroting lies yourself and spreading dangerous misinformation.

Let's have some sources to back up these extraordinary claims. Show us where medical authorities or the drug companies themselves ever claimed that the vaccines would "prevent getting a symptomatic covid infection" or "prevent the spread".

The original data presented never showed that the vaccines would prevent symptomatic infections or completely prevent transmission.

How do you interpret this, if not that the vaccines are 90% effective in preventing getting a covid infection, by CDC which is a medical authority?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1262334

I interpret that as them being 90% effective in preventing symptomatic infection, for a specific period after vaccination, against the variants that were circulating at the time. That's not a lie: that's what the data showed. I don't believe that's been contradicted since.

No one claimed they were perfect at preventing symptomatic infection. The ability of the vaccines to eliminate symptomatic infection reduced over time, but that's not because the authorities were lying about it. That's just the evolution of the virus and waning immunity.

> DR. ROCHELLE WALENSKY, CDC DIRECTOR

> And we have -- we can kind of almost see the end. We`re vaccinating so very fast, our data from the CDC today suggests, you know, that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don`t get sick, and that it`s not just in the clinical trials but it`s also in real world data.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210402002315/https://www.msnbc...

Oh good grief. That's a transcript of a real-time interview. People speak colloquially in ways that are not precise. Is that the best you can come up with?

It's the fucking director of the CDC. Precision is not optional, not for her, not on this subject.

She also said:

"We're just almost there, but not quite yet. And so I'm asking you to just hold on a little longer to get vaccinated when you can, so that all of those people that we all love will still be here when this pandemic ends.”

Give me a break.

Oh come on... this is not some physicst on a kids show, explaining how GPS work and skipping relativity....

...This is the director of CDC in a time of a huge pandemic and also a time when semi-mandatory vaccination policies were implemented everywhere, telling people directly, that if you get vaccinated, you won't carry the virus and/or get sick.

This is (was) no time for imprecise explanations, it was a time when you were literally getting forced to get vaccinated so you wouldn't get sick and transmit it to coworkers.

> telling people directly, that if you get vaccinated, you won't carry the virus and/or get sick

As a high level description, getting vaccinated means you won't get sick is not an unreasonable explanation, given they were 90%+ effective at the time in reducing symptoms.

> you were literally getting forced to get vaccinated

Really. Which country is this where literal forced vaccination was carried out? I don't believe any Western country implemented this. You appear to be spreading blatant lies while whinging about slight imprecision in a single transcript of a real-time interview.

"reducing symptoms" is something different than no symptoms at all and not carrying the virus.

> Really. Which country is this where literal forced vaccination was carried out? I don't believe any Western country implemented this. You appear to be spreading blatant lies while whinging about slight imprecision in a single transcript of a real-time interview.

Ok, "literally forced" was maybe a too-strong of a wording, but "forced to get vaccinated or lose your job" was a thing in many countries. For mine (slovenia) it's hard to find english articles of what you were unable to do if unvaccinated, but here are examples for usa:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_...

We can talk about technicalities of what "forced" means, but many people are/were not in a (financial) state to be able to survive without their jobs, and had to get vaccinated to keep them. Technically you're not forced, because you could choose not to eat and be homeless, but for most people that's a bad choice.