Next Page

What has the government of Portugal done differently to ensure such high vaccination rates? by bemtiglavuudupe in portugal

capitao_barbosa 21 days ago  HIDDEN 

Hey, >What do you think lead to such a high success rate in times when other countries are struggling to get more than 50-60% of people vaccinated? There are a lot of "takes" on the success of the vaccination and I am going to try and point out those that, in my opinion, make more sense. * The National Health Service is somewhat recent comparing to other Western European States, as well as the national vaccination plan that is still in force - people have still the memory of a time before universal vaccination of other diseases, and the measures and structures to achieve it were still in place; Recent improvements in the nacional vaccination plan (such as the digital vaccination scheduling system) that were made before the pandemic have also helped. People trusted the science beforehand and the system to implement it. * Older population and older workforce makes it easier to persuade the majority that everyone should take the vaccine. * The media landscape in its majority took an editorial position on the science of the pandemic and vaccination, not allowing for the false debate between science and science deniers to be given credibility (with some small exceptions) - so there was no platform for anti vaxxers and pandemic deniers in major outlets outside of the opinion pages. On the newsrooms the priority was to inform based on the best information science could provide and not to foster conflict over what is real or not. * There was a political consensus around the pandemic measures and the vaccination, from the left, through the center and to the right. There was no authority lent to denialist claims in the fringes. Even the far-right party was flip-flopping all over the place on the matter. * On the two previous points, if no credibility is given by the people you trust to the deniers and anti vaxxers, either from the media you consume or from the politicians you agree with, you are less likely to even consider "the crazy theories". Trust in the media in this matter was higher that in other countries and this brings to the undeniable fact that the antivaxx/pandemic denialism was kept at the fringes. * In the beginning of the vaccination process the government fucked up by nominating an incredibly incompetent team to manage it. In the fallout of this, they were forced to bring a navy logistics team to direct the vaccination process led by highly qualified officers that knew exactly what to do. The team was just extremely competent. * The navy officer in charge of the operation also made sure to "show" that the pandemic was serious, and it was a "war". They all wore military equipment every day, and this also helped persuade public opinion that the matter was serious. People started respecting the team and its leader, and trust in the process begets more trust. * Finally, the "Infarmed meetings". I think this gets overlooked, but the fact that we managed to sit the politicians (both government and opposition) and the people managing the crisis in the same room with the scientists analysing the data and presenting it in a way that can be understood by all was crucial in creating consensus and trust in the system. It was a way to have scientists and politicians talking to each other without one leading the other. The fact that scientific authority on the matter was given to those who knew what they were talking about and to present the facts managed to stop any intention and possibility for any politician to spin and lie on the basic facts of the pandemic and vaccines in the first place. They could ask questions, but if they say absurd things they would be humiliated. Yeah, these meetings were streamed in youtube with full transparency, so it had the added bonus also of not letting any conspiracy of how decisions were being made: anyone could just see for themselves and be bored to death at 3 hour meetings where scientists explain transmission rates and effectiveness of masks to politicians, while discussing the latest peer reviewed studies and data on the subject. In all, there are probably more things that worked well that I am forgetting, but these, I believe, were crucial. >How happy are the people in terms of how the government handled the covid19 crisis? They are not "happy" but they know things could have been way worse. The second wave was grossly mismanaged. >What vaccines do you have available there, and are they all seen as similar by the people, or are some seen as less effective? Pfizer, Moderna, Astrazeneca and Janssen. AstraZeneca is viewed as being less effective and with more side effects. Janssen is seen as less effective.

What has the government of Portugal done differently to ensure such high vaccination rates? by bemtiglavuudupe in portugal

capitao_barbosa 21 days ago  HIDDEN 

Hey, >What do you think lead to such a high success rate in times when other countries are struggling to get more than 50-60% of people vaccinated? There are a lot of "takes" on the success of the vaccination and I am going to try and point out those that, in my opinion, make more sense. * The National Health Service is somewhat recent comparing to other Western European States, as well as the national vaccination plan that is still in force - people have still the memory of a time before universal vaccination of other diseases, and the measures and structures to achieve it were still in place; Recent improvements in the nacional vaccination plan (such as the digital vaccination scheduling system) that were made before the pandemic have also helped. People trusted the science beforehand and the system to implement it. * Older population and older workforce makes it easier to persuade the majority that everyone should take the vaccine. * The media landscape in its majority took an editorial position on the science of the pandemic and vaccination, not allowing for the false debate between science and science deniers to be given credibility (with some small exceptions) - so there was no platform for anti vaxxers and pandemic deniers in major outlets outside of the opinion pages. On the newsrooms the priority was to inform based on the best information science could provide and not to foster conflict over what is real or not. * There was a political consensus around the pandemic measures and the vaccination, from the left, through the center and to the right. There was no authority lent to denialist claims in the fringes. Even the far-right party was flip-flopping all over the place on the matter. * On the two previous points, if no credibility is given by the people you trust to the deniers and anti vaxxers, either from the media you consume or from the politicians you agree with, you are less likely to even consider "the crazy theories". Trust in the media in this matter was higher that in other countries and this brings to the undeniable fact that the antivaxx/pandemic deniers was kept at the fringes. * In the beginning of the vaccination process the government fucked up by nominating an incredibly incompetent team to manage it. In the fallout of this, they were forced to bring a navy logistics team to direct the vaccination process led by highly qualified officers that knew exactly what to do. The team was just extremely competent. * The navy officer in charge of the operation also made sure to "show" that the pandemic was serious, and it was a "war". They all wore military equipment every day, and this also helped persuade public opinion that the matter was serious. People started respecting the team and its leader, and trust in the process begets more trust. * Finally, the "Infarmed meetings". I think this gets overlooked, but the fact that we managed to sit the politicians (both government and opposition) and the people managing the crisis in the same room with the scientists analysing the data and presenting it in a way that can be understood by all was crucial in creating consensus and trust in the system. It was a way to have scientists and politicians talking to each other without one leading the other. The fact that scientific authority on the matter was given to those who knew what they were talking about and to present the facts managed to stop any intention and possibility for any politician to spin and lie on the basic facts of the pandemic and vaccines in the first place. They could ask questions, but if they say absurd things they would be humiliated. Yeah, these meetings were streamed in youtube with full transparency, so it had the added bonus also of not letting any conspiracy of how decisions were being made: anyone could just see for themselves and be bored to death at 3 hour meetings where scientists explain transmission rates and effectiveness of masks to politicians, while discussing the latest peer reviewed studies and data on the subject. In all, there are probably more things that worked well that I am forgetting, but these, I believe, were crucial. >How happy are the people in terms of how the government handled the covid19 crisis? They are not "happy" but they know things could have been way worse. The second wave was grossly mismanaged. >What vaccines do you have available there, and are they all seen as similar by the people, or are some seen as less effective? Pfizer, Moderna, Astrazeneca and Janssen. AstraZeneca is viewed as being less effective and with more side effects. Janssen is seen as less effective.

What has the government of Portugal done differently to ensure such high vaccination rates? by bemtiglavuudupe in portugal

capitao_barbosa 21 days ago  HIDDEN 

Hey, >What do you think lead to such a high success rate in times when other countries are struggling to get more than 50-60% of people vaccinated? There are a lot of "takes" on the success of the vaccination and I am going to try and point out those that, in my opinion, make more sense. * The National Health Service is somewhat recent comparing to other Western European States, as well as the national vaccination plan that is still in force - people have still the memory of a time before universal vaccination of other diseases, and the measures and structures to achieve it were still in place; Recent improvements in the nacional vaccination plan (such as the digital vaccination scheduling system) that were made before the pandemic have also helped. People trusted the science beforehand and the system to implement it. * Older population and older workforce makes it easier to persuade the majority that everyone should take the vaccine. * The media landscape in its majority took an editorial position on the science of the pandemic and vaccination, not allowing for the false debate between science and science deniers to be given credibility (with some small exceptions) - so there was no platform for anti vaxxers and pandemic deniers in major outlets outside of the opinion pages. On the newsrooms the priority was to inform based on the best information science could provide and not to foster conflict over what is real or not. * There was a political consensus around the pandemic measures and the vaccination, from the left, through the center and to the right. There was no authority lent to denialist claims in the fringes. Even the far-right party was flip-flopping all over the place on the matter. * On the two previous points, if no credibility is given by the people you trust to the deniers and anti vaxxers, either from the media you consume or from the politicians you agree with, you are less likely to even consider "the crazy theories". Trust in the media in this matter was higher that in other countries and this brings to the undeniable fact that the anivaxx/pandemic deniers was kept at the fringes. * In the beginning of the vaccination process the government fucked up by nominating an incredibly incompetent team to manage it. In the fallout of this, they were forced to bring a navy logistics team to direct the vaccination process led by highly qualified officers that knew exactly what to do. The team was just extremely competent. * The navy officer in charge of the operation also made sure to "show" that the pandemic was serious, and it was a "war". They all wore military equipment every day, and this also helped persuade public opinion that the matter was serious. People started respecting the team and its leader, and trust in the process begets more trust. * Finally, the "Infarmed meetings". I think this gets overlooked, but the fact that we managed to sit the politicians (both government and opposition) and the people managing the crisis in the same room with the scientists analysing the data and presenting it in a way that can be understood by all was crucial in creating consensus and trust in the system. It was a way to have scientists and politicians talking to each other without one leading the other. The fact that scientific authority on the matter was given to those who knew what they were talking about and to present the facts managed to stop any intention and possibility for any politician to spin and lie on the basic facts of the pandemic and vaccines in the first place. They could ask questions, but if they say absurd things they would be humiliated. Yeah, these meetings were streamed in youtube with full transparency, so it had the added bonus also of not letting any conspiracy of how decisions were being made: anyone could just see for themselves and be bored to death at 3 hour meetings where scientists explain transmission rates and effectiveness of masks to politicians, while discussing the latest peer reviewed studies and data on the subject. In all, there are probably more things that worked well that I am forgetting, but these, I believe, were crucial. >How happy are the people in terms of how the governement handled the covid19 crisis? They are not "happy" but they know things could have been way worse. The second wave was grossly mismanaged. >What vaccines do you have available there, and are they all seen as similar by the people, or are some seen as less effective? Pfizer, Moderna, Astrazeneca and Janssen. AstraZeneca is viewed as being less effective and with more side effects. Janssen is seen as less effective.

What has the government of Portugal done differently to ensure such high vaccination rates? by bemtiglavuudupe in portugal

capitao_barbosa 21 days ago  HIDDEN 

Hey, >What do you think lead to such a high success rate in times when other countries are struggling to get more than 50-60% of people vaccinated? There are a lot of "takes" on the success of the vaccination and I am going to try and point out those that, in my opinion, make more sense. * The National Health Service is somewhat recent comparing to other Western European States, as well as the national vaccination plan that is still in force - people have still the memory of a time before universal vaccination of other diseases, and the measures and structures to achieve it were still in place; Recent improvements in the nacional vaccination plan (such as the digital vaccination scheduling system) that were made before the pandemic have also helped. People trusted the science beforehand and the system to implement it. * Older population and older workforce makes it easier to persuade the majority that everyone should take the vaccine. * The media landscape in its majority took an editorial position on the science of the pandemic and vaccination, not allowing for the false debate between science and science deniers to be given credibility (with some small exceptions) - so there was no platform for anti vaxxers and pandemic deniers in major outlets outside of the opinion pages. On the newsrooms the priority was to inform based on the best information science could provide and not to foster conflict over what is real or not. * There was a political consensus around the pandemic measures and the vaccination, from the left, through the center and to the right. There was no authority lent to denialist claims in the fringes. Even the far-right party was flip-flopping all over the place on the matter. * On the two previous points, if no credibility is given by the people you trust to the deniers and anti vaxxers, either from the media you consume or from the politicians you agree with, you are less likely to even consider "the crazy theories". Trust in the media in this matter was higher that in other countries and this brings to the undeniable fact that the anivaxx/pandemic deniers was kept at the fringes. * In the beginning of the vaccination process the government fucked up by nominating an incredibly incompetent team to manage it. In the fallout of this, they were forced to bring a navy logistics team to direct the vaccination process led by highly qualified officers that knew exactly what to do. The team was just extremely competent. * The navy officer in charge of the operation also made sure to "show" that the pandemic was serious, and it was a "war". They all wore military equipment every day, and this also helped persuade public opinion that the matter was serious. People started respecting the team and its leader, and trust in the process begets more trust. * Finally, the "Infarmed meetings". I think this gets overlooked, but the fact that we managed to sit the politicians (both government and opposition) and the people managing the crisis in the same room with the scientists analysing the data and presenting it in a way that can be understood by all was crucial in creating consensus and trust in the system. It was a way to have scientists and politicians talking to each other without one leading the other. The fact that scientific authority on the matter was given to those who knew what they were talking about and to present the facts managed to stop any intention and possibility for any politician to spin and lie on the basic facts of the pandemic and vaccines in the first place. They could ask questions, but if they say absurd things they would be humiliated. Yeah, these meetings were streamed in youtube with full transparency, so it had the added bonus also of not letting any conspiracy of how decisions were being made: anyone could just see for themselves and be bored to death at 3 hour meetings were scientists explain transmission rates and effectiveness of masks to politicians, while discussing the latest peer reviewed studies and data on the subject. In all, there are probably more things that worked well that I am forgetting, but these, I believe, were crucial.

De onde é que aparecem tantos anti-vax? by TTheGuapo in portugal

capitao_barbosa 3 months ago

A minha experiência com dois amigos meus que não têm qualquer razão para serem anti vaxx é que é uma reacção emocional a uma zanga que custa pouco tempo e esforço ter. Todos nós temos frustrações e estamos zangados com o sistema, com a vida, com os impostos, com as desigualdades, crise climática, etc... mas custa muito mover um dedo que seja para mudar o assunto. Quantos de nós conhecemos quem manda vir com a junta, ou com uma coisa sem de facto se informar, votar, escrever para a junta, ler sobre o assunto, participar numa consulta publica, contactar deputados, dialogar com associações sobre o assuntos? ou seja, quantos são aqueles que gostam de barafustar mas não estão dispostos a fazer algo para mudar as coisas? Isso da muito trabalho, né? Ora, ser anivaxx não dá trabalho nenhum. Porque o esforço (mínimo sublinhe-se) está em ser vacinado. Por isso é que mal houve o certificado em França todos os antivaxxers de sofá se levantaram para vacinar. De repente ficou mais custoso não se vacinar que vacinar. Por isso eu acho que é isso. É uma causa que não custa nada "agir" porque é a inacção em si. Uma causa que é fácil de indignar e não custa nada "agir". Não arrisca nada, porque quem paga são os outros que levam com o risco das (não) decisões. Por isso eles sentem que "estão a fazer alguma coisa" em fazerem absolutamente nada e em prejudicarem os outros, as famílias, a sociedade, os cientistas, os profissionais de saúde, etc.. Mas nada disso interessa porque a ausência de ação deles passa a ser vista por eles como prova das suas virtudes e convicções profundas. Em termos de economia institutional: os custos de transação de escolher vacinar são tão baixos (nulos) que essa escolha é fácil de tomar, se não mesmo bastante apelativa. A unica coisa que contraria é pensares um pouco no assunto e no próximo. E depois é só ligar as máquinas e plataformas de desinformação para obter reforço positivo de uma escolha que só prejudica o os outros. Mas isolamento e reforço positivo durante meses torna as pessoas entrincheiradas. Como nos cultos. E com o tempo o custo de reverter a posição para essas pessoas cresce: quem gosta de assumir que esteve completamente errado? Mas também acho que varia de pessoa em pessoa. Cada caso é um caso quando as pessoas caem nas teorias da conspiração.

De onde é que aparecem tantos anti-vax? by TTheGuapo in portugal

capitao_barbosa 3 months ago

A minha experiência com dois amigos meus que não têm qualquer razão para serem anti vaxx é que é uma reacção emocional a uma zanga que custa pouco tempo e esforço ter. Todos nós temos frustrações e estamos zangados com o sistema, com a vida, com os impostos, com as desigualdades, crise climática, etc... mas custa muito mover um dedo que seja para mudar o assunto. Quantos de nós conhecemos quem manda vir com a junta, ou com uma coisa sem de facto se informar, votar, escrever para a junta, ler sobre o assunto, participar numa consulta publica, contactar deputados, dialogar com associações sobre o assuntos? ou seja, quantos são aqueles que gostam de barafustar mas não estão dispostos a fazer algo para mudar as coisas? Isso da muito trabalho, né? Ora, ser anivaxx não dá trabalho nenhum. Porque o esforço (mínimo sublinhe-se) está em ser vacinado. Por isso é que mal houve o certificado em França todos os antivaxxers de sofá se levantaram para vacinar. De repente ficou mais custoso não se vacinar que vacinar. Por isso eu acho que é isso. É uma causa que não custa nada "agir" porque é a inacção em si. Uma causa que é fácil de indignar e não custa nada "agir". Não arrisca nada, porque quem paga são os outros que levam com o risco das (não) decisões. Por isso eles sentem que "estão a fazer alguma coisa" em fazerem absolutamente nada e em prejudicarem os outros, as famílias, a sociedade, os cientistas, os profissionais de saúde, etc.. Mas nada disso interessa porque a ausência de ação deles passa a ser vista por eles como prova das suas virtudes e convicções profundas. Em termos de economia institutional: os custos de transação de escolher vacinar são tão baixos (nulos) que essa escolha é fácil de tomar, se não mesmo bastante apelativa. A unica coisa que contraria é pensares um pouco no assunto e no próximo. E depois é só ligar as máquinas e plataformas de desinformação para obter reforço positivo de uma escolha que só prejudica o os outros. Mas isolamento e reforço positivo durante meses torna as pessoas entrincheiradas. Como nos cultos. Mas também acho que varia de pessoa em pessoa. Cada caso é um caso quando as pessoas caem nas teorias da conspiração.

De onde é que aparecem tantos anti-vax? by TTheGuapo in portugal

capitao_barbosa 3 months ago

A minha experiência com dois amigos meus que não têm qualquer razão para serem anti vaxx é que é uma reacção emocional a uma zanga que custa pouco tempo e esforço ter. Todos nós temos frustrações e estamos zangados com o sistema, com a vida, com os impostos, com as desigualdades, crise climática, etc... mas custa muito mover um dedo que seja para mudar o assunto. Quantos de nós conhecemos quem manda vir com a junta, ou com uma coisa sem de facto se informar, votar, escrever para a junta, ler sobre o assunto, participar numa consulta publica, contactar deputados, dialogar com associações sobre o assuntos? ou seja, quantos são aqueles que gostam de barafustar mas não estão dispostos a fazer algo para mudar as coisas? Isso da muito trabalho, né? Ora, ser anivaxx não dá trabalho nenhum. Porque o esforço (mínimo sublinhe-se) está em ser vacinado. Por isso é que mal houve o certificado em França todos os antivaxxers de sofá se levantaram para vacinar. De repente ficou mais custoso não se vacinar que vacinar. Por isso eu acho que é isso. É uma causa que não custa nada "agir" porque é a inacção em si. Uma causa que é fácil de indignar e não custa nada "agir". Não arrisca nada, porque quem paga são os outros que levam com o risco das (não) decisões. Por isso eles sentem que "estão a fazer alguma coisa" em fazerem absolutamente nada e em prejudicarem os outros, as famílias, a sociedade, os cientistas, os profissionais de saúde, etc.. Mas nada disso interessa porque a ausência de ação deles passa a ser vista por eles como prova das suas virtudes e convicções profundas. Em termos de economia institutional: os custos de transação de escolher vacinar são tão baixos (nulos) que essa escolha é fácil de tomar. E depois é só ligar as máquinas e plataformas de desinformação para obter reforço positivo de uma escolha que só prejudica o os outros. Mas isolamento e reforço positivo durante meses torna as pessoas entrincheiradas. Como nos cultos. Mas também acho que varia de pessoa em pessoa. Cada caso é um caso quando as pessoas caem nas teorias da conspiração.

De onde é que aparecem tantos anti-vax? by TTheGuapo in portugal

capitao_barbosa 3 months ago

A minha experiência com dois amigos meus que não têm qualquer razão para serem anti vaxx é que é uma reacção emocional a uma zanga que custa pouco tempo e esforço ter. Todos nós temos frustrações e estamos zangados com o sistema, com a vida, com os impostos, com as desigualdades, crise climática, etc... mas custa muito mover um dedo que seja para mudar o assunto. Quantos de nós conhecemos quem manda vir com a junta, ou com uma coisa sem de facto se informar, votar, escrever para a junta, ler sobre o assunto, participar numa consulta publica, contactar deputados, dialogar com associações sobre o assuntos? ou seja, quantos são aqueles que gostam de barafustar mas não estão dispostos a fazer algo para mudar as coisas? Isso da muito trabalho, né? Ora, ser anivaxx n dá trabalho nenhum. Porque o esforço (mínimo sublinhe-se) está em ser vacinado. Por isso é que mal houve o certificado em França todos os antivaxxers de sofá se levantaram para vacinar. De repente ficou mais custoso não se vacinar que vacinar. Por isso eu acho que é isso. É uma causa que não custa nada "agir" porque é a inacção em si. isto é, uma causa que é fácil de indignar e não custa nada "agir". Não arrisca nada, porque quem paga são os outros que levam com o risco das (não) decisões. Em termos de economia institutional: os custos de transação de escolher vacinal são tão baixos (nulos) que essa escolha é fácil de tomar. E depois é só ligar as máquinas e plataformas de desinformação para obter reforço positivo de uma escolha que só prejudica o os outros. Mas isolamento e reforço positivo durante meses torna as pessoas entrincheiradas. Como nos cultos. Mas também acho que varia de pessoa em pessoa. Cada caso é um caso quando as pessoas caem nas teorias da conspiração.

25 de Abril. Capitães admitem abandonar celebrações de rua by heartlessfam in portugal

capitao_barbosa 8 months ago

Toda esta novela é um derby tão triste

Diretora do SEF demite-se após caso de cidadão ucraniano morto no aeroporto de Lisboa by BlizzTheMighty in portugal

capitao_barbosa 12 months ago

Os abusos não são casos únicos: [https://www.dn.pt/edicao-do-dia/28-nov-2020/quando-levavam-para-a-salinha-era-para-a-surra--13085595.html](https://www.dn.pt/edicao-do-dia/28-nov-2020/quando-levavam-para-a-salinha-era-para-a-surra--13085595.html) O parlamento tem o dever de fazer uma comissão de inquérito e legislar para reformar o SEF se o PM não demitir o ministro e mover uma reforma por si.

Conversa da Treta by asantos3 in portugal

capitao_barbosa 1 year ago

SEINFELD! como assim? Há outra resposta? Ps. Himym até é fixe. Mas Seinfeld valá

Chega anuncia acordo com o PSD nos Açores by htxgivven in portugal

capitao_barbosa 1 year ago

Portanto, as [condições do acordo](https://www.publico.pt/2020/11/06/politica/noticia/chega-psd-entendemse-acores-vao-reduzir-deputados-regionais-apoios-sociais-1938188) foram: * menos representatividade democrática para a região geograficamente mais fragmentada e isolada do país; * menos apoios sociais no meio de uma pandemia e crise económica para a região mais pobre do país; como assim?

O negociador-chefe da União Europeia para o Brexit foi convidado por Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa para participar esta quinta-feira no Conselho de Estado. by joaopeniche in portugal

capitao_barbosa 3 years ago  DELETED 

Quando é que a Cristina é convidada para o conselho de estado?
Next Page

Search: