|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On August 19 2021 05:21 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 05:15 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2021 05:12 teeel141 wrote:On August 19 2021 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2021 04:43 teeel141 wrote:On August 18 2021 23:59 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 18 2021 14:14 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 13:28 Magic Powers wrote:On August 18 2021 08:29 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
If keeping anti-vax out of restaurants, bars, offices and everything else works, great. If it doesn't work, hold them down or deport them. If we had other options, I would advocate for those. Nothing else is working. At one point you need to escalate. Reality is basically never as binary as the trolley problem. Its an analogy that has very little place in any discussion. I hope you realize that your position is not only controversial, but also radical. It's one thing to create incentives for people (that don't result in them being unable to function respectably in society), it's another to enforce a medical procedure on them. If you realize that it's a radical position, then please also understand that people will rightfully give you a lot of pushback. I wouldn't say that bothers me really. I think most people have incredibly naive, uneducated perspectives. I don't really suffer in any way when people disagree with me. So in a country with 100 million gun owners, capable of owning military grade weapons, would you like to go door to door injecting them against their will? Who is naive here? I also said revoking citizenship is an option. Give people a raft and send them out to the Pacific Ocean. Don’t need to forcefully inject people, just need to apply pressure such that their lives are ruined otherwise. That’s what’s already happening with jobs and indoor places requiring vaccines. I like how this guy is basically advocating murder for people who refuse the mandates. And JimmiC says: I don't think you would ever have to go that far Briliant discussion So long as anti-vax folks are causing people to die, the way you are framing this is silly. Look up the total deaths from covid so far. This isn't some benign situation. It is actively shitty already. Pretending we have some option that doesn't result in loss of human life is naive. This is the trolley problem. If we pull a switch, 20 anti-vaxers die and and 200 people are saved. Total slam dunk as far as I am concerned. Lots of antivaxers would totally take the vax if you threaten their livelihood/citizenship/career/child custody. I would gladly spend my mornings pulling that lever over and over because I would have the benefit of saving hundreds of lives. Maybe put the non vaxxed in prison camps atleast? They could work for food and the shelter we built for them. Just to be efficient obviously. And they can always get vaxxed to leave the camps right? So no problem at all? Theres one somewhat better option I dunno, it seems that you really don't care about human life at all while claiming that you do. Nor any other implications for what you propose. The problem with your camp solution is that they can still spread to others. Big nono. No one has the right to choose to expose other people to contagions. I care about human life, which is why I am advocating for increasing human life. Are you familiar with the trolley problem? Would you kill 5 people to save 10? Or would you complain that human lives are being lost and pout? Reality is rarely as binary as the trolley problem. It has little place in trying to have an actual discussion.
Reality is rarely the trolley problem but I think this is. I'll elaborate.
1) people are already dying
2) Unless you want to pretend you lack individual responsibility, we are all willful participants in the society we belong to. We have every capability to fight or accept every tenant of that society. The reality we currently live in is OUR own doing, even if only a small part
3) People can PREDICTABLY be known to die within the next 3 months and we know the mechanism through which we will die
4) We have the ability to know which people will be either directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths that we can accurately model that dynamic
5) We have the ability to choose whether or not those people are infection vectors through a variety of methods already described
6) When our methods of preventing infection don't work, we have 2 choices: Accept the deaths (blood on our hands) or prevent deaths (less blood on our hands)
7) If less blood is better than more blood, it is ethical to choose less blood
That's why I see it as the trolley problem, roughly speaking.
|
Covid is not 100% fatal. Vaccines largely work to reduce it further
So if you actually cared about 'less deaths' then killing all the anti-vaxxers is the wrong choice since only a small number of them would die from Covid and a tiny tiny fraction of vaccinated might.
Your ignoring 'ifs', your ignoring chances, your ignoring social measures just so you can say "fuck it Trolly problem, lets machine gun them down".
I'm done trying to have a discussion with you. I'm off to play some Humankind.
|
On August 19 2021 05:39 Gorsameth wrote:
Covid is not 100% fatal. Vaccines largely work to reduce it further
So if you actually cared about 'less deaths' then killing all the anti-vaxxers is the wrong choice since only a small number of them would die from Covid and a tiny tiny fraction of vaccinated might.
Your ignoring 'ifs', your ignoring chances, your ignoring social measures just so you can say "fuck it Trolly problem, lets machine gun them down".
I'm done trying to have a discussion with you. I'm off to play some Humankind.
It doesn't need to be 100% fatal for us to accurately model # of deaths per month. I don't think you are understanding how modeling works. There is no if. We can be verrrrry sure the number of people that will die. We don't know which ones, but we know how to prevent the deaths. We don't need to know who will die in order to accurately predict the total loss of life. This is all knowable. Pretending this is fuzzy and unknowable is cowardly IMO. We should be willing to face the cold reality of the ethical considerations that come with consciousness.
Also, for the record, I am not advocating for directly killing anti-vax.
President Mohdoo's proposed solution: People have 2 options
1) Be vaccinated
2) Be given a boat and dropped off 5 miles away from the coast of the pacific ocean. Never allowed to return
In this way, we allow anti-vaxers to more fully adopt their "let nature decide" perspective.
Edit: No problem, I appreciate your thoughts. Til next time!
|
On August 19 2021 05:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 05:39 Gorsameth wrote:
Covid is not 100% fatal. Vaccines largely work to reduce it further
So if you actually cared about 'less deaths' then killing all the anti-vaxxers is the wrong choice since only a small number of them would die from Covid and a tiny tiny fraction of vaccinated might.
Your ignoring 'ifs', your ignoring chances, your ignoring social measures just so you can say "fuck it Trolly problem, lets machine gun them down".
I'm done trying to have a discussion with you. I'm off to play some Humankind. It doesn't need to be 100% fatal for us to accurately model # of deaths per month. I don't think you are understanding how modeling works. There is no if. We can be verrrrry sure the number of people that will die. We don't know which ones, but we know how to prevent the deaths. We don't need to know who will die in order to accurately predict the total loss of life. This is all knowable. Pretending this is fuzzy and unknowable is cowardly IMO. We should be willing to face the cold reality of the ethical considerations that come with consciousness. Also, for the record, I am not advocating for directly killing anti-vax. President Mohdoo's proposed solution: People have 2 options 1) Be vaccinated 2) Be given a boat and dropped off 5 miles away from the coast of the pacific ocean. Never allowed to return In this way, we allow anti-vaxers to more fully adopt their "let nature decide" perspective. Edit: No problem, I appreciate your thoughts. Til next time!
Yeah it's not fuzzy at all. We know who is dying of COVID. It's the unvaccinated. The blood is on their own hands so I'm not sure what the problem is for you. Are you trying to be the benevolent dictator and protect people from themselves?
|
On August 19 2021 07:19 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 05:45 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2021 05:39 Gorsameth wrote:
Covid is not 100% fatal. Vaccines largely work to reduce it further
So if you actually cared about 'less deaths' then killing all the anti-vaxxers is the wrong choice since only a small number of them would die from Covid and a tiny tiny fraction of vaccinated might.
Your ignoring 'ifs', your ignoring chances, your ignoring social measures just so you can say "fuck it Trolly problem, lets machine gun them down".
I'm done trying to have a discussion with you. I'm off to play some Humankind. It doesn't need to be 100% fatal for us to accurately model # of deaths per month. I don't think you are understanding how modeling works. There is no if. We can be verrrrry sure the number of people that will die. We don't know which ones, but we know how to prevent the deaths. We don't need to know who will die in order to accurately predict the total loss of life. This is all knowable. Pretending this is fuzzy and unknowable is cowardly IMO. We should be willing to face the cold reality of the ethical considerations that come with consciousness. Also, for the record, I am not advocating for directly killing anti-vax. President Mohdoo's proposed solution: People have 2 options 1) Be vaccinated 2) Be given a boat and dropped off 5 miles away from the coast of the pacific ocean. Never allowed to return In this way, we allow anti-vaxers to more fully adopt their "let nature decide" perspective. Edit: No problem, I appreciate your thoughts. Til next time! Yeah it's not fuzzy at all. We know who is dying of COVID. It's the unvaccinated. The blood is on their own hands so I'm not sure what the problem is for you. Are you trying to be the benevolent dictator and protect people from themselves?
Not everyone is physically able to be vaccinated. Those people matter too. But yes also the benevolent dictator thing. People don't have the right to knowingly negligently die through being unvaxed according to my ethics. Those of us with the capability to force these people to be smart should do so. We should do that by advocating for stripping the rights to choose from those who choose not to. I essentially reject rights to full bodily autonomy in the case of vaccinations.
Note: This is if people want to continue living in the US. My boat plan is an easy alternative.
Edit: I'll elaborate a bit. I think being unvaccinated falls below the minimum threshold of cognitive decency. I don't think it has a modern justification. People who can't medically be vaxed should not be. Anyone who can, must be. I think we are simply past the "well what if I don't want to?" part of society development when it comes to vaccines. It isn't new anymore. The skepticism isn't valid. We need to move on and stop pretending these are views worth even acknowledging.
|
Wow some people in this thread are truly psychotic, I wish I’d rather not of checked it. I think the people calling for division and hate should give a deep look at themselves rather than others with different opinions on matters
|
WA Governor is FINALLY bringing back the statewide mask mandate No excuse for it taking this long imo.
Not sure how much it can help without other restrictions (like capacity) but at least they are coming to grips with the reality that just pushing vaccines harder isn't enough.
|
On August 19 2021 08:04 castleeMg wrote:
Wow some people in this thread are truly psychotic, I wish I’d rather not of checked it. I think the people calling for division and hate should give a deep look at themselves rather than others with different opinions on matters
While I don't advocate for the mass murder of unvaccinated people, make sure you don't strawman the issue of vaccination to merely "a difference of opinions". There are huge consequences at stake here; it's not like merely agreeing to disagree on our favorite colors or favorite StarCraft race.
|
|
|
On August 19 2021 08:04 castleeMg wrote:
Wow some people in this thread are truly psychotic, I wish I’d rather not of checked it. I think the people calling for division and hate should give a deep look at themselves rather than others with different opinions on matters
I think this perspective comes from the fact that psychology naturally forces our brains to not grasp the concept of death or the idea that our society makes decisions that lead to death every day. And we vote and participate in a society that does those things. We are always participants in the death of humans, we just have easy ways of telling ourselves we’re actually totally unrelated.
In reality, we’re all humans making decisions. There’s nothing magical to the processes that lead to death. We should welcome the conversation rather than shutting down. People have died because of our covid policies. Shouldn’t pretend we have nothing to do with those deaths as individuals. It’s cowardly.
|
On August 19 2021 01:18 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 01:11 Mohdoo wrote:
Pointing out the fact that people are shitty at understanding reputability isn't helping your argument. All you are showing is that lots of people have lots of really stupid thoughts. That isn't new. That isn't novel. It doesn't change anything. The fact that we have billions of humans means we will have at least a billion idiots.
This ridiculous muddying of the waters is transparent and simple. You aren't the first person to come up with silly methods like this. We have already answered these fake questions of yours. You jump to the conclusion that people are stupid real fast, almost like it's a reflex. Can you prove that they come to their conclusions because they're stupid? Because I think the burden of proof for that claim is in your corner, not anyone else's.
By the very definition of IQ, half the population has an IQ lower than 100. I'd consider an IQ under 100 quite stupid. So calling a billion people stupid is actually quite charitable as he's only calling about 1/7 of the world population stupid, which is comfortably below one sigma of the population intelligence. The way IQ is defined, that is 85. Saying people with an IQ below 85 are stupid seems fair. Worldwide that is well over a billion people.
Now whether the majority of antivaxxers are among that billion, or IQ and propensity to believe antivax drivel are uncorrelated, I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised, but have no data to support that.
|
On August 19 2021 08:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 08:04 castleeMg wrote:
Wow some people in this thread are truly psychotic, I wish I’d rather not of checked it. I think the people calling for division and hate should give a deep look at themselves rather than others with different opinions on matters While I don't advocate for the mass murder of unvaccinated people, make sure you don't strawman the issue of vaccination to merely "a difference of opinions". There are huge consequences at stake here; it's not like merely agreeing to disagree on our favorite colors or favorite StarCraft race.
Zerg, duh. Conform or president Acro will put you in a boat and dump you 5 miles out to sea. Unlike Mohdoo, I don't have a preference for Pacific or Atlantic 
|
On August 19 2021 07:39 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 07:19 BlackJack wrote:On August 19 2021 05:45 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2021 05:39 Gorsameth wrote:
Covid is not 100% fatal. Vaccines largely work to reduce it further
So if you actually cared about 'less deaths' then killing all the anti-vaxxers is the wrong choice since only a small number of them would die from Covid and a tiny tiny fraction of vaccinated might.
Your ignoring 'ifs', your ignoring chances, your ignoring social measures just so you can say "fuck it Trolly problem, lets machine gun them down".
I'm done trying to have a discussion with you. I'm off to play some Humankind. It doesn't need to be 100% fatal for us to accurately model # of deaths per month. I don't think you are understanding how modeling works. There is no if. We can be verrrrry sure the number of people that will die. We don't know which ones, but we know how to prevent the deaths. We don't need to know who will die in order to accurately predict the total loss of life. This is all knowable. Pretending this is fuzzy and unknowable is cowardly IMO. We should be willing to face the cold reality of the ethical considerations that come with consciousness. Also, for the record, I am not advocating for directly killing anti-vax. President Mohdoo's proposed solution: People have 2 options 1) Be vaccinated 2) Be given a boat and dropped off 5 miles away from the coast of the pacific ocean. Never allowed to return In this way, we allow anti-vaxers to more fully adopt their "let nature decide" perspective. Edit: No problem, I appreciate your thoughts. Til next time! Yeah it's not fuzzy at all. We know who is dying of COVID. It's the unvaccinated. The blood is on their own hands so I'm not sure what the problem is for you. Are you trying to be the benevolent dictator and protect people from themselves? Not everyone is physically able to be vaccinated. Those people matter too. But yes also the benevolent dictator thing. People don't have the right to knowingly negligently die through being unvaxed according to my ethics. Those of us with the capability to force these people to be smart should do so. We should do that by advocating for stripping the rights to choose from those who choose not to. I essentially reject rights to full bodily autonomy in the case of vaccinations. Note: This is if people want to continue living in the US. My boat plan is an easy alternative. Edit: I'll elaborate a bit. I think being unvaccinated falls below the minimum threshold of cognitive decency. I don't think it has a modern justification. People who can't medically be vaxed should not be. Anyone who can, must be. I think we are simply past the "well what if I don't want to?" part of society development when it comes to vaccines. It isn't new anymore. The skepticism isn't valid. We need to move on and stop pretending these are views worth even acknowledging.
Well I guess you are very kind to want to save the people that won't get the vax. Good on you. What was it you said you wanted to do with them if they don't listen to you? Banish them to island prison camps or something? Again, thanks for helping them. I'm sure you have only the best islands picked for them since you care about their lives so much.
|
On August 19 2021 10:59 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 01:18 Magic Powers wrote:On August 19 2021 01:11 Mohdoo wrote:
Pointing out the fact that people are shitty at understanding reputability isn't helping your argument. All you are showing is that lots of people have lots of really stupid thoughts. That isn't new. That isn't novel. It doesn't change anything. The fact that we have billions of humans means we will have at least a billion idiots.
This ridiculous muddying of the waters is transparent and simple. You aren't the first person to come up with silly methods like this. We have already answered these fake questions of yours. You jump to the conclusion that people are stupid real fast, almost like it's a reflex. Can you prove that they come to their conclusions because they're stupid? Because I think the burden of proof for that claim is in your corner, not anyone else's. By the very definition of IQ, half the population has an IQ lower than 100. I'd consider an IQ under 100 quite stupid. So calling a billion people stupid is actually quite charitable as he's only calling about 1/7 of the world population stupid, which is comfortably below one sigma of the population intelligence. The way IQ is defined, that is 85. Saying people with an IQ below 85 are stupid seems fair. Worldwide that is well over a billion people. Now whether the majority of antivaxxers are among that billion, or IQ and propensity to believe antivax drivel are uncorrelated, I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised, but have no data to support that.
By education level, PhD’s are the most Covid vaccine hesitant group.
https://www.upmc.com/media/news/072621-king-mejia-vaccine-hesitancy
The largest decrease in hesitancy between January and May by education group was in those with a high school education or less. Hesitancy held constant in the most educated group (those with a Ph.D.); by May Ph.D.’s were the most hesitant group.
|
Northern Ireland25519 Posts
On August 19 2021 04:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm not too fond of the rational/irrational angle, as I generally believe everyone acts in accordance with their own rationality. The issue how I see it is more a question of people inhabiting different information universes, and, indeed, that some people end up being consistently wrong because they, for whatever reason, (not necessarily related to intelligence) stumbled into a wrong information universe. These different universes aren't necessarily different in how rationally they interpret facts, they rather differ in what facts form the foundation of their greater beliefs.
Then, I believe the one I myself inhabit is significantly more likely to be true, because it more consistently leans on a consensus of what experts in x field believe. But I (generally) don't think others who consistently believe other things are stupid or irrational. I think they are ignorant and wrong.
Indeed, good post.
Hey we’re not going to agree on everything as a species certainly, but I do feel we’re really struggling in the absence of trusted voices that 75/80% of people trust as generally reliable.
Especially important for people who aren’t intelligent. Nout wrong with that whatsoever, means nothing as to your moral character. It’s a complex enough world to unpack without being able to offload some of the mental labour to interlocutors who are considered bulletproof reliable.
A David Attenborough type character of political reportage, or science dissemination if you will. Insert one’s nation’s equivalent national treasure here.
I’m not of the opinion you can teach everyone to be a great critical thinker, but some moulding via both education and wider culture wouldn’t go amiss. Be it basic statistical literacy, or more psychological tweaking.
Nothing nefarious of course! Maybe, to pick one example, make people feel more comfortable to be wrong, and learn! It’s fine! How we live and learn after all. Many people seem to view admitting they got something incorrect to be a shot to their ego and self-image, so will perpetually double down.
I don’t mind being wrong, which is lucky considering how often it occurs.
|
I rather follow Drone's way of looking at why people make their choices instead of Mohdoo's.
There's tons of reasons that culminate into the why of people's choices. Some of them are minor, some are major. 1/10 people in Europe doesn't use the internet for example, how do you convey scientific consensus to them? What if they also distrust mainstream media because that doesn't brush with their political beliefs?
You shouldn't dismiss propaganda tools and the way it can influence people and let them pay for it nonetheless. Winning through kindness has always been the more successful approach.
Erode radical beliefs over time with sensibilisation campaigns, make life progressively more difficult for the non-compliers (privilege wise), try to use consistency in legislation/mandates/sucess of implementation/strategy.
If there's anything I've learned over the last year and a half it's that people pay very much notice to the inconsistencies their governments present them with (probably not necessarily inconsistent with the current situations of the times, but that's another discussion) and they lose complete confidence. Then they read/hear anecdotal evidence and because people don't understand statistics they jump to conclusions - mostly the wrong one's. Sadly, governments aren't bodies of exceptional foresight, but people do hold them to their highest (arbitrary) standards and when they mess up, it's a huge cascade effect on the psychological state of thre citizen, ranging from distrust to full rejection.
|
A lot of people are 'religious' in the sense that they live and thrive on 'certainties'. Obviously, religious dogma and personal bias is way more 'subjectively certain' than the 'objective uncertainties' in science (due to new discoveries and changing environments). So perhaps a lot of vaccine hesitant people fall under the former category. They may end up in the wrong side of science and facts on COVID. But their approach to life may serve them well (or even better than overly uncertain scientific folks) on other aspects in life. Like leading a simple stress-free life.
To win them over, we first need to empathise with them. And develop public health policies to accommodate their idiosyncrasies (within certain limits without overly burdening other people). Society life is all about tolerance and accommodation, after all.
|
On August 19 2021 12:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 10:59 Acrofales wrote:On August 19 2021 01:18 Magic Powers wrote:On August 19 2021 01:11 Mohdoo wrote:
Pointing out the fact that people are shitty at understanding reputability isn't helping your argument. All you are showing is that lots of people have lots of really stupid thoughts. That isn't new. That isn't novel. It doesn't change anything. The fact that we have billions of humans means we will have at least a billion idiots.
This ridiculous muddying of the waters is transparent and simple. You aren't the first person to come up with silly methods like this. We have already answered these fake questions of yours. You jump to the conclusion that people are stupid real fast, almost like it's a reflex. Can you prove that they come to their conclusions because they're stupid? Because I think the burden of proof for that claim is in your corner, not anyone else's. By the very definition of IQ, half the population has an IQ lower than 100. I'd consider an IQ under 100 quite stupid. So calling a billion people stupid is actually quite charitable as he's only calling about 1/7 of the world population stupid, which is comfortably below one sigma of the population intelligence. The way IQ is defined, that is 85. Saying people with an IQ below 85 are stupid seems fair. Worldwide that is well over a billion people. Now whether the majority of antivaxxers are among that billion, or IQ and propensity to believe antivax drivel are uncorrelated, I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised, but have no data to support that. By education level, PhD’s are the most Covid vaccine hesitant group. https://www.upmc.com/media/news/072621-king-mejia-vaccine-hesitancyShow nested quote +The largest decrease in hesitancy between January and May by education group was in those with a high school education or less. Hesitancy held constant in the most educated group (those with a Ph.D.); by May Ph.D.’s were the most hesitant group.
Your quote doesn't say that. It says that by education level,. PhDs decreased their hesitancy the least. I tried clicking through and couldn't get the raw data (I'll try again later from a PC), but if hesitancy was already really low among PhDs, then it not decreasing is mostly irrelevant... except for out-of-context quotes of course.
This Gallup poll seems to indicate exactly that, although it only looks at college vs non-college: https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/352976/vaccine-hesitancy-public-opinion.aspx
Another significant correlate of vaccine hesitancy is education. As Gallup noted, "Americans without a college degree are much more likely than college graduates to be vaccine-hesitant, 31% to 12%." We assume those with less formal education are less interested in or less accustomed to engaging in evidenced-based decision-making processes.
For both of these studies, I am hesitant to take them at face value, because subgroup analysis will *always* lead to some "statistically significant" difference somewhere, and none of these studies seem to have been set up to test for this specifically (e.g., subgroup sample sizes are almost certainly biased without being controlled for explicitly).
|
Norway28675 Posts
On August 19 2021 08:44 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 08:04 castleeMg wrote:
Wow some people in this thread are truly psychotic, I wish I’d rather not of checked it. I think the people calling for division and hate should give a deep look at themselves rather than others with different opinions on matters I think this perspective comes from the fact that psychology naturally forces our brains to not grasp the concept of death or the idea that our society makes decisions that lead to death every day. And we vote and participate in a society that does those things. We are always participants in the death of humans, we just have easy ways of telling ourselves we’re actually totally unrelated. In reality, we’re all humans making decisions. There’s nothing magical to the processes that lead to death. We should welcome the conversation rather than shutting down. People have died because of our covid policies. Shouldn’t pretend we have nothing to do with those deaths as individuals. It’s cowardly.
You gonna extend your policy to climate change, too? It's a way bigger issue than covid is, it's gonna lead to more deaths than covid will, we largely know what actions contribute to it, models are becoming increasingly accurate.. If you own two SUV's and you eat 300 grams of beef every day, off to the ocean with you?
In Norway, 88% of adults have taken their first dose. In the US, it's 70%. I think if anything, they have been more available and there have been more incentives, both in terms of sticks and carrots, in the US, yet there's a significantly lower % of people who take the vaccine.
Myself, (and I believe this fairly confidently) I think the main reason for this different has to do with how much trust people have in the government. Significant portions of the American population believe the government is evil and or incompetent. Hardly anyone in Norway believes that. Now, building or rebuilding trust in the government and its agencies is no easy task. But it's necessary. Not just for covid, but for any future crisis where pulling in the same direction is considered important. I gotta say, I don't think rounding up the doubters is likely to have much success in this regard.
I can totally understand and even support a suggestion like 'prioritize ventilators and emergency care for vaccinated people or those who cannot vaccinate, unvaccinated go at the end of the line', stuff like 'you need to show vaccine passport to take part in larger gatherings' and 'private businesses can enforce whatever rules they want' is all fine. But your proposed solution is extreme to the point where it's totalitarian insanity, and in the vein of this whole discussion about rationality or irrationality, assuming you are trolling strikes me as the rational thing to do. Might still be wrong, of course.
|
On August 19 2021 08:44 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2021 08:04 castleeMg wrote:
Wow some people in this thread are truly psychotic, I wish I’d rather not of checked it. I think the people calling for division and hate should give a deep look at themselves rather than others with different opinions on matters I think this perspective comes from the fact that psychology naturally forces our brains to not grasp the concept of death or the idea that our society makes decisions that lead to death every day. And we vote and participate in a society that does those things. We are always participants in the death of humans, we just have easy ways of telling ourselves we’re actually totally unrelated. In reality, we’re all humans making decisions. There’s nothing magical to the processes that lead to death. We should welcome the conversation rather than shutting down. People have died because of our covid policies. Shouldn’t pretend we have nothing to do with those deaths as individuals. It’s cowardly.
I have a hypothetical question for you: What should we do with people who are vaccinated and eschew all preventative measures, ie wearing masks, not going to large public gatherings, you get the idea, and act as a vector to spread the virus?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
