|
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 December 21 2021 08:56 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 02:45 JimmiC wrote:On December 21 2021 02:26 Lmui wrote:
I'm going to blame the antivaxxers for the hospital situation we're in.
2 in 3 (67.7%) people in the hospital taking up a bed right now in my province are unvaccinated. This is despite them making up less than 20% of the population. Normalized for age, they are overrepresented in the hospital by a factor of 20-25x.
We could have dropped our hospital utilization by 64% for covid cases if everyone eligible to be vaccinated, was vaccinated (never mind the benefits everywhere else in society). 100% vaccination isn't going to stop Omicron, but it seems to drop it from a bad time to actually flu-like symptoms if you're 2x vax'd and cold like symptoms if you're boosted. Not to mention that Having covid plus vaccination is the best protection. If everyone was vaccinated, those that got the cold like symptoms might never get it again and be way less likely to pass it on. + Show Spoiler +There is zero societal benefit to the unvaccinated and huge drawbacks.
And even after all this data and time you still have people who don't understand why in an area with massive spread you would want to prevent people from getting sick by going to online exams. It is like they do not realize that college students interact outside of the college, the danger to them is low but to the community where you still have a ton of unvaccinated is huge.
Also, being sick really sucks. Most of the food recalls happen when none or actually very few die and no one is like government let me eat that contaminated lettuce, its my choice! Because if they are not in fantasy conspiracy world 99.99% of people actively avoid getting sick, even if it is not a risk to kill them. Hah, anytime Drone or I made the point that COVID to a double vaccinated person was about as bad as the flu you had essay-long criticisms. Now Lmui compares it to not just the flu but even the common cold and you have no objection. I guess what is being said doesn't matter as much as who is saying it. 
Dunno about what posts you're referring to but for me, catching it is not a good thing. Pre-omicron, I was pretty confident that between the way I live and with the people I interacted with (essentially 100% vaccinated outside of grocery stores), the chances of me catching covid were essentially zero because my friends group is pretty much universally as conservative as me socially.
With Omicron, that's no longer a guarantee or assurance. I'm glad to have 2 doses and I'll take a booster when my 6 months is up in mid-january. Catching covid can give broader, but not necessarily better immunity because there's more virus antigens that the body can produce antibodies against, but depending on the severity of the infection, you have a high variance in protection levels.
If you are going to catch covid, you want to do it with boosters in the last month. My reference to flu/cold is based on the anecdotal comments from people in other communities. Not based on scientific data. It's just a remark on severity levels between unvax=covid,fully vax~flu,full+booster~cold as far as outcomes go.
|
|
|
On December 21 2021 09:33 dudeman001 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 09:13 codonbyte wrote:On December 21 2021 09:08 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 02:10 pmh wrote:On December 21 2021 01:26 WombaT wrote:On December 20 2021 09:54 pmh wrote:
The best way forward for society as a whole i would not dare to say. Maybe public expectations should be lowerd.The public has never fully realized the scope of this pandemic and messages from authoritys have been to optimistic in general (for which there are definitely some arguments so i can understand that).
We dont have all that many options other then continue with the current strategy and hope that at one point things will get better. If this is actually realistic and how long this would take i would not dare to say either but it could be that we are somewhat close.
The unvaxed are definitely not helping but blaming them is pointless i think. It only increases polarization which isnt particulary helpfull in a situation like this. The problem is also bigger then a certain percentage of the population beeing unvaxed. Many people thought they where good with 2 vaccinations and now everyone does need a booster which cant be done in time because of logistical issues. The unvaxed will still get their protection from infection eventually. I think people forget that we live a rather rarefied existence, especially in the West. We haven’t fully conquered all that nature can throw at us. We aren’t guaranteed a certain standard of living, it’s what we carve out. I don’t blame anti-vaxxers for things dragging on as it seems patently clear that vaccination alone may not cut it. I do think many of their rationales and sometimes underlying motivations are stupid, while vaccination isn’t the golden goose solution, not vaccinating certainly doesn’t bloody help. In addition many, albeit not all don’t exactly adhere to the additional behaviours that help on top of/instead of vaccination. It’s been years since I’ve heard calls to seek to avoid polarisation in all sorts of domains. Sometimes seeking some common ground would absolutely be prudent, sometimes we’re getting into the fallacy of moderation territory. This isn’t to say people aren’t guilty of pious or overly divisive rhetoric that isn’t especially helpful, that frequently also comes from a position of a total lack of understanding or knowledge themselves, or that genuine objections to other things get lumped in as ‘anti-vax’ Without adding a million additional caveats I’m not talking about folks in this thread, but in the environs outside. They’re, absolutely full of shite in myriad mysterious and muddled ways. The only way to have a discussion that doesn’t become poisonous and polarised is not to have it at all. Which isn’t reducing polarisation because ultimately you’re just letting a group of people do what they want, which antagonises the other ‘pole’ anyway. It’s ‘don’t tell me what to do’ taken to such preposterous realms it can only come from a humongous anti-authority streak or plain selfishness, and given some of the crossover into some of their politics, they are only anti-authority when it’s not their bloke. If the government mandated people not to jump in a fire some of these folks would be making giant pyres and triple jumping in holding hands. Yes i do agree. All this is very much true. A prudent strategy to properly adrees this i dont really see unfortunatly. Trying to force the issue has proven to not be very effective. People only dig in more,heels in the sand. The effect of any sort of polarization spreads out like oil,also increasing polarization in other areas. This effect is particulary strong in the USA where every single issue has become polarized mostly along partizan lines. Maybe ignoring and accepting the issue to some extend isnt the worst solution at this point. Simply repeating the message and advices from scientists in a friendly and open manner without directly attacking the unvaxxed on a personal level. As direct pressure only increases resistance. Eventually people will come around if you aproach them this way. At least thats what i hope and also think. This has been the general aproach in most western nations so far so i do think we are doing the right thing when it comes to this. Its mostly the public itself which does become more hostile towards the other side, which i think is not helping. The other option would be to force vaccinations and make them mandatory,this isnt the worst solution for dealing with the pandemic and some countries have resorted to this already. But doing so does go against some of the principles on which our society is build,it does come with collateral damage. For some people this will work.They will take the vaccine and simply stop caring about having been forced to take it. With other people it will backfire and they will be even less willing to comply. In the end it might not be the worst solution as the group which will simply accept it is probably a lot bigger then the group which will resist even more. But it would be much better for the future if this could be avoided all together. Verbally, that might be true, but applying direct pressure in other ways has been beneficial to getting more people vaccinated, such as requiring vaccinations to travel or stay employed. They might bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, they're vaccinated and finally contributing the tiniest little bit to society (however much they may hate it). The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. You're talking about stripping people's right to - as you said it - travel or stay employed, unless they take a corporation's pharmaceutical product. THAT is a tyrannical approach to the problem. Under normal circumstances, that would be tyrannical. However, a global pandemic that has already killed millions of people can hardly be described as "normal". Extreme circumstances call for extreme actions, including requiring that people take a corporation's pharmaceutical product or lose the right to travel or be employed. This is a public health issue. I'm tired of being unable to live life normally because 10-20% of the population refuses to get vaccinated for "philosophical reasons". Their refusal to get vaccinated has detrimental effects on the quality of my life. This year, my university just recently started having in-person classes again, and they'll have to stop if the situation declines. When there is a public health crisis, the public needs to work together to solve it, and that means sacrificing some of your personal freedom. If we were dealing with a pandemic that had a 98% death rate I would be completely onboard with taking extreme action to overcome the disease. But instead we have a virus with a 98% survival rate AND is highly treatable even without the use of vaccines. I don't believe you've met the burden of justification to remove people's rights in this regard. Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 09:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 09:08 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 02:10 pmh wrote:On December 21 2021 01:26 WombaT wrote:On December 20 2021 09:54 pmh wrote:
The best way forward for society as a whole i would not dare to say. Maybe public expectations should be lowerd.The public has never fully realized the scope of this pandemic and messages from authoritys have been to optimistic in general (for which there are definitely some arguments so i can understand that).
We dont have all that many options other then continue with the current strategy and hope that at one point things will get better. If this is actually realistic and how long this would take i would not dare to say either but it could be that we are somewhat close.
The unvaxed are definitely not helping but blaming them is pointless i think. It only increases polarization which isnt particulary helpfull in a situation like this. The problem is also bigger then a certain percentage of the population beeing unvaxed. Many people thought they where good with 2 vaccinations and now everyone does need a booster which cant be done in time because of logistical issues. The unvaxed will still get their protection from infection eventually. I think people forget that we live a rather rarefied existence, especially in the West. We haven’t fully conquered all that nature can throw at us. We aren’t guaranteed a certain standard of living, it’s what we carve out. I don’t blame anti-vaxxers for things dragging on as it seems patently clear that vaccination alone may not cut it. I do think many of their rationales and sometimes underlying motivations are stupid, while vaccination isn’t the golden goose solution, not vaccinating certainly doesn’t bloody help. In addition many, albeit not all don’t exactly adhere to the additional behaviours that help on top of/instead of vaccination. It’s been years since I’ve heard calls to seek to avoid polarisation in all sorts of domains. Sometimes seeking some common ground would absolutely be prudent, sometimes we’re getting into the fallacy of moderation territory. This isn’t to say people aren’t guilty of pious or overly divisive rhetoric that isn’t especially helpful, that frequently also comes from a position of a total lack of understanding or knowledge themselves, or that genuine objections to other things get lumped in as ‘anti-vax’ Without adding a million additional caveats I’m not talking about folks in this thread, but in the environs outside. They’re, absolutely full of shite in myriad mysterious and muddled ways. The only way to have a discussion that doesn’t become poisonous and polarised is not to have it at all. Which isn’t reducing polarisation because ultimately you’re just letting a group of people do what they want, which antagonises the other ‘pole’ anyway. It’s ‘don’t tell me what to do’ taken to such preposterous realms it can only come from a humongous anti-authority streak or plain selfishness, and given some of the crossover into some of their politics, they are only anti-authority when it’s not their bloke. If the government mandated people not to jump in a fire some of these folks would be making giant pyres and triple jumping in holding hands. Yes i do agree. All this is very much true. A prudent strategy to properly adrees this i dont really see unfortunatly. Trying to force the issue has proven to not be very effective. People only dig in more,heels in the sand. The effect of any sort of polarization spreads out like oil,also increasing polarization in other areas. This effect is particulary strong in the USA where every single issue has become polarized mostly along partizan lines. Maybe ignoring and accepting the issue to some extend isnt the worst solution at this point. Simply repeating the message and advices from scientists in a friendly and open manner without directly attacking the unvaxxed on a personal level. As direct pressure only increases resistance. Eventually people will come around if you aproach them this way. At least thats what i hope and also think. This has been the general aproach in most western nations so far so i do think we are doing the right thing when it comes to this. Its mostly the public itself which does become more hostile towards the other side, which i think is not helping. The other option would be to force vaccinations and make them mandatory,this isnt the worst solution for dealing with the pandemic and some countries have resorted to this already. But doing so does go against some of the principles on which our society is build,it does come with collateral damage. For some people this will work.They will take the vaccine and simply stop caring about having been forced to take it. With other people it will backfire and they will be even less willing to comply. In the end it might not be the worst solution as the group which will simply accept it is probably a lot bigger then the group which will resist even more. But it would be much better for the future if this could be avoided all together. Verbally, that might be true, but applying direct pressure in other ways has been beneficial to getting more people vaccinated, such as requiring vaccinations to travel or stay employed. They might bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, they're vaccinated and finally contributing the tiniest little bit to society (however much they may hate it). The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. You're talking about stripping people's right to - as you said it - travel or stay employed, unless they take a corporation's pharmaceutical product. THAT is a tyrannical approach to the problem. No, you're stripping people's rights by condemning vaccines. People do not have the right to jeopardize the health of those around them. You don't get to do whatever the hell you want, regardless of how it may endanger others. Focusing on the idea that it's because of "corporate pharmaceuticals" is completely glossing over the very real death toll and severe injury toll of the insanely infectious pandemic we've been fighting. And this is true in non-covid contexts as well, such as mandatory vaccines for public school children. You're arguing for removing people's rights under the imposition of force unless they act how you want them to. But you know what, fine. I said above that if we were dealing with a deadlier virus I would agree to a mandate because there is a threshold at which imposed behavior becomes justified. Here are my terms: Prove to me that unless every individual takes this vaccine - and only this vaccine - society itself can no longer function. If you show me evidence that meets this burden I'll submit that your argument is better than anything I can come up with. Until then I will keep my rights, thank you.
How much worse does it need to get before mandates would be appropriate? Are we supposed to wait for it to become as bad as the plague before enacting mandates? Well guess what: it's not just the 2% death rate that's a problem: all the people who survive it, who are "easily treatable", as you say, are filling up hospitals. My local hospital just recently had to start refusing all elective treatments due to being at capacity with covid-19 cases, mostly unvaccinated.
Why should the rest of us, who got vaccinated, have trouble getting treatment in hospitals because some people decided to forego getting vaccinated, despite advice from healthcare professionals everywhere? Why should people who need medical care unrelated to covid-19 have trouble receiving that care because hospitals are overflowing with anti-vaxxers?
|
On December 21 2021 09:47 dudeman001 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 09:39 codonbyte wrote:On December 21 2021 09:21 Slydie wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 02:10 pmh wrote:On December 21 2021 01:26 WombaT wrote:On December 20 2021 09:54 pmh wrote:
The best way forward for society as a whole i would not dare to say. Maybe public expectations should be lowerd.The public has never fully realized the scope of this pandemic and messages from authoritys have been to optimistic in general (for which there are definitely some arguments so i can understand that).
We dont have all that many options other then continue with the current strategy and hope that at one point things will get better. If this is actually realistic and how long this would take i would not dare to say either but it could be that we are somewhat close.
The unvaxed are definitely not helping but blaming them is pointless i think. It only increases polarization which isnt particulary helpfull in a situation like this. The problem is also bigger then a certain percentage of the population beeing unvaxed. Many people thought they where good with 2 vaccinations and now everyone does need a booster which cant be done in time because of logistical issues. The unvaxed will still get their protection from infection eventually. I think people forget that we live a rather rarefied existence, especially in the West. We haven’t fully conquered all that nature can throw at us. We aren’t guaranteed a certain standard of living, it’s what we carve out. I don’t blame anti-vaxxers for things dragging on as it seems patently clear that vaccination alone may not cut it. I do think many of their rationales and sometimes underlying motivations are stupid, while vaccination isn’t the golden goose solution, not vaccinating certainly doesn’t bloody help. In addition many, albeit not all don’t exactly adhere to the additional behaviours that help on top of/instead of vaccination. It’s been years since I’ve heard calls to seek to avoid polarisation in all sorts of domains. Sometimes seeking some common ground would absolutely be prudent, sometimes we’re getting into the fallacy of moderation territory. This isn’t to say people aren’t guilty of pious or overly divisive rhetoric that isn’t especially helpful, that frequently also comes from a position of a total lack of understanding or knowledge themselves, or that genuine objections to other things get lumped in as ‘anti-vax’ Without adding a million additional caveats I’m not talking about folks in this thread, but in the environs outside. They’re, absolutely full of shite in myriad mysterious and muddled ways. The only way to have a discussion that doesn’t become poisonous and polarised is not to have it at all. Which isn’t reducing polarisation because ultimately you’re just letting a group of people do what they want, which antagonises the other ‘pole’ anyway. It’s ‘don’t tell me what to do’ taken to such preposterous realms it can only come from a humongous anti-authority streak or plain selfishness, and given some of the crossover into some of their politics, they are only anti-authority when it’s not their bloke. If the government mandated people not to jump in a fire some of these folks would be making giant pyres and triple jumping in holding hands. Yes i do agree. All this is very much true. A prudent strategy to properly adrees this i dont really see unfortunatly. Trying to force the issue has proven to not be very effective. People only dig in more,heels in the sand. The effect of any sort of polarization spreads out like oil,also increasing polarization in other areas. This effect is particulary strong in the USA where every single issue has become polarized mostly along partizan lines. Maybe ignoring and accepting the issue to some extend isnt the worst solution at this point. Simply repeating the message and advices from scientists in a friendly and open manner without directly attacking the unvaxxed on a personal level. As direct pressure only increases resistance. Eventually people will come around if you aproach them this way. At least thats what i hope and also think. This has been the general aproach in most western nations so far so i do think we are doing the right thing when it comes to this. Its mostly the public itself which does become more hostile towards the other side, which i think is not helping. The other option would be to force vaccinations and make them mandatory,this isnt the worst solution for dealing with the pandemic and some countries have resorted to this already. But doing so does go against some of the principles on which our society is build,it does come with collateral damage. For some people this will work.They will take the vaccine and simply stop caring about having been forced to take it. With other people it will backfire and they will be even less willing to comply. In the end it might not be the worst solution as the group which will simply accept it is probably a lot bigger then the group which will resist even more. But it would be much better for the future if this could be avoided all together. Verbally, that might be true, but applying direct pressure in other ways has been beneficial to getting more people vaccinated, such as requiring vaccinations to travel or stay employed. They might bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, they're vaccinated and finally contributing the tiniest little bit to society (however much they may hate it). The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. I might be an idealist, but from a principal point of view, I do not support vaccine mandates. All medication should be taken by choice, not force. I also find it very hard to defend that you can be demanded to give medical information to anyone working for example in a restaurant, who has no HC-related function nor education. Other implications of letting go of this area of privacy give me chills. I absolutely support vaccines and put my whole summer holiday on hold to get my shots ASAP, but mandates are a very tough question of benefits and values. We have given up a lot of personal freedom to fight this pandemic, and there is no telling when, if ever, we will get them back. You know what gives me chills? The thought of losing the freedom to attend in-person classes at university. Or actually go out to dinner at restaurants and bars. Or the freedom to get on a plane and travel where I please. That's what really gives me chills. Yet all those freedoms are at stake if we don't get this pandemic under control. If one person's freedom to refuse reasonable medical treatment is infringing on society's freedom to pursue life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, then the solution is clear. You want the right to refuse to get vaccinated, okay, fine. You can have that right. However, you do not have the right to put other people's lives in danger, which means that employers can ban you from working if you aren't vaccinated. In fact, I'd go further and say that it is unreasonable for an employer to require someone to endanger their own safety by working in the presence of unvaccinated people, who are more likely to be infected with covid. And of course subjecting other airline passengers to your presence is out of the question in the confined space of an aircraft. And universities that want to be able to continue in-person lessons would be wise to ban you from their campuses, since it would unfairly jeopardize the safety of other students. So yes, it's understandable to want your own freedom and liberty, but it can't come at the expense of other people's freedom and liberty. To this day I still don't understand this argument so please enlighten me. How is an unvaccinated person any more dangerous to other individuals than a vaccinated person? They are more dangerous to themselves, yes, the vaccine provides strong protection from symptom severity. But repeated scientific study shows no difference in viral load & transmissibility between the two groups.
Because an unvaccinated person is more likely to catch covid-19, and therefore more likely to spread it. Therefore, they are a greater risk to society than a vaccinated person.
Also, you claim that "repeated scientific study shows no difference in viral load & transmissibility between the two groups", but you don't cite any sources. I'm genuinely curious where you got that information from, because all the science I've seen indicates the opposite: Vaccinated Workers Shed Less Covid Virus
|
Northern Ireland25449 Posts
On December 21 2021 09:47 dudeman001 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 09:39 codonbyte wrote:On December 21 2021 09:21 Slydie wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 02:10 pmh wrote:On December 21 2021 01:26 WombaT wrote:On December 20 2021 09:54 pmh wrote:
The best way forward for society as a whole i would not dare to say. Maybe public expectations should be lowerd.The public has never fully realized the scope of this pandemic and messages from authoritys have been to optimistic in general (for which there are definitely some arguments so i can understand that).
We dont have all that many options other then continue with the current strategy and hope that at one point things will get better. If this is actually realistic and how long this would take i would not dare to say either but it could be that we are somewhat close.
The unvaxed are definitely not helping but blaming them is pointless i think. It only increases polarization which isnt particulary helpfull in a situation like this. The problem is also bigger then a certain percentage of the population beeing unvaxed. Many people thought they where good with 2 vaccinations and now everyone does need a booster which cant be done in time because of logistical issues. The unvaxed will still get their protection from infection eventually. I think people forget that we live a rather rarefied existence, especially in the West. We haven’t fully conquered all that nature can throw at us. We aren’t guaranteed a certain standard of living, it’s what we carve out. I don’t blame anti-vaxxers for things dragging on as it seems patently clear that vaccination alone may not cut it. I do think many of their rationales and sometimes underlying motivations are stupid, while vaccination isn’t the golden goose solution, not vaccinating certainly doesn’t bloody help. In addition many, albeit not all don’t exactly adhere to the additional behaviours that help on top of/instead of vaccination. It’s been years since I’ve heard calls to seek to avoid polarisation in all sorts of domains. Sometimes seeking some common ground would absolutely be prudent, sometimes we’re getting into the fallacy of moderation territory. This isn’t to say people aren’t guilty of pious or overly divisive rhetoric that isn’t especially helpful, that frequently also comes from a position of a total lack of understanding or knowledge themselves, or that genuine objections to other things get lumped in as ‘anti-vax’ Without adding a million additional caveats I’m not talking about folks in this thread, but in the environs outside. They’re, absolutely full of shite in myriad mysterious and muddled ways. The only way to have a discussion that doesn’t become poisonous and polarised is not to have it at all. Which isn’t reducing polarisation because ultimately you’re just letting a group of people do what they want, which antagonises the other ‘pole’ anyway. It’s ‘don’t tell me what to do’ taken to such preposterous realms it can only come from a humongous anti-authority streak or plain selfishness, and given some of the crossover into some of their politics, they are only anti-authority when it’s not their bloke. If the government mandated people not to jump in a fire some of these folks would be making giant pyres and triple jumping in holding hands. Yes i do agree. All this is very much true. A prudent strategy to properly adrees this i dont really see unfortunatly. Trying to force the issue has proven to not be very effective. People only dig in more,heels in the sand. The effect of any sort of polarization spreads out like oil,also increasing polarization in other areas. This effect is particulary strong in the USA where every single issue has become polarized mostly along partizan lines. Maybe ignoring and accepting the issue to some extend isnt the worst solution at this point. Simply repeating the message and advices from scientists in a friendly and open manner without directly attacking the unvaxxed on a personal level. As direct pressure only increases resistance. Eventually people will come around if you aproach them this way. At least thats what i hope and also think. This has been the general aproach in most western nations so far so i do think we are doing the right thing when it comes to this. Its mostly the public itself which does become more hostile towards the other side, which i think is not helping. The other option would be to force vaccinations and make them mandatory,this isnt the worst solution for dealing with the pandemic and some countries have resorted to this already. But doing so does go against some of the principles on which our society is build,it does come with collateral damage. For some people this will work.They will take the vaccine and simply stop caring about having been forced to take it. With other people it will backfire and they will be even less willing to comply. In the end it might not be the worst solution as the group which will simply accept it is probably a lot bigger then the group which will resist even more. But it would be much better for the future if this could be avoided all together. Verbally, that might be true, but applying direct pressure in other ways has been beneficial to getting more people vaccinated, such as requiring vaccinations to travel or stay employed. They might bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, they're vaccinated and finally contributing the tiniest little bit to society (however much they may hate it). The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. I might be an idealist, but from a principal point of view, I do not support vaccine mandates. All medication should be taken by choice, not force. I also find it very hard to defend that you can be demanded to give medical information to anyone working for example in a restaurant, who has no HC-related function nor education. Other implications of letting go of this area of privacy give me chills. I absolutely support vaccines and put my whole summer holiday on hold to get my shots ASAP, but mandates are a very tough question of benefits and values. We have given up a lot of personal freedom to fight this pandemic, and there is no telling when, if ever, we will get them back. You know what gives me chills? The thought of losing the freedom to attend in-person classes at university. Or actually go out to dinner at restaurants and bars. Or the freedom to get on a plane and travel where I please. That's what really gives me chills. Yet all those freedoms are at stake if we don't get this pandemic under control. If one person's freedom to refuse reasonable medical treatment is infringing on society's freedom to pursue life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, then the solution is clear. You want the right to refuse to get vaccinated, okay, fine. You can have that right. However, you do not have the right to put other people's lives in danger, which means that employers can ban you from working if you aren't vaccinated. In fact, I'd go further and say that it is unreasonable for an employer to require someone to endanger their own safety by working in the presence of unvaccinated people, who are more likely to be infected with covid. And of course subjecting other airline passengers to your presence is out of the question in the confined space of an aircraft. And universities that want to be able to continue in-person lessons would be wise to ban you from their campuses, since it would unfairly jeopardize the safety of other students. So yes, it's understandable to want your own freedom and liberty, but it can't come at the expense of other people's freedom and liberty. To this day I still don't understand this argument so please enlighten me. How is an unvaccinated person any more dangerous to other individuals than a vaccinated person? They are more dangerous to themselves, yes, the vaccine provides strong protection from symptom severity. But repeated scientific study shows no difference in viral load & transmissibility between the two groups.
Ok so imagine you’re on a hypothetical and novel spaceship called the Nostromo, undertaking some mission for the Weyland-Yutani Corporation. Both names I’ve just conjured there now.
Your resident android, Dave discovers some strange creature, and remarks that it look like it could have been designed by a Swiss artist with gigantic sexual hangups, but he’s devised some anti-phallic alien serum that will prevent this strange thing from interfering with the crew.
Everyone is quite grateful to Dave, despite his cold and emotionless ways for both discovering this strange and dangerous creature, and for quickly developing his miraculous ‘Alien Be Gone’ juice, except Ralph. He doesn’t take any Weyland-Yutani android telling him what to do lying down, and Weyland-Yutani’s links to big pharma, much less people pointing out that he’s on a mining expedition as a paid employee so that doesn’t make much sense.
So anyway eventually this hypothetical alien seeks out Ralph and, I don’t know jumps on his face and hugs it or something. I believe that’s how they express physical love in their culture, but anyway after committing a touching and sensual carnal act, the fruits of this labour aren’t another weird spider thing that jumps on faces, but a worm thing that somehow, despite a lack of obvious food sources turns into an 8 foot tall bipedal killing machine in 24 hours, and has acid for blood, and not just regular acid but burning through solid metal in seconds acid.
Anyway sorry for looking for feedback on my current science fiction novel ideas in an unrelated thread.
Concerns for one’s fellow human, miss a degree of the point. The viruses themselves are a thing, they mutate, they spread. I may have the immune response to whatever is floating around now, creating (needlessly) conditions that increase spread, transmission and inevitable mutations both affect society in aggregate by numbers alone (hospital overflow for example), or incubate something that my immune system can’t handle.
And yes I’m aware vaccination doesn’t eliminate these factors either, or no doubt someone will go on about how great natural immunity is.
|
On December 21 2021 09:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 09:33 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:13 codonbyte wrote:On December 21 2021 09:08 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 02:10 pmh wrote:On December 21 2021 01:26 WombaT wrote:On December 20 2021 09:54 pmh wrote:
The best way forward for society as a whole i would not dare to say. Maybe public expectations should be lowerd.The public has never fully realized the scope of this pandemic and messages from authoritys have been to optimistic in general (for which there are definitely some arguments so i can understand that).
We dont have all that many options other then continue with the current strategy and hope that at one point things will get better. If this is actually realistic and how long this would take i would not dare to say either but it could be that we are somewhat close.
The unvaxed are definitely not helping but blaming them is pointless i think. It only increases polarization which isnt particulary helpfull in a situation like this. The problem is also bigger then a certain percentage of the population beeing unvaxed. Many people thought they where good with 2 vaccinations and now everyone does need a booster which cant be done in time because of logistical issues. The unvaxed will still get their protection from infection eventually. I think people forget that we live a rather rarefied existence, especially in the West. We haven’t fully conquered all that nature can throw at us. We aren’t guaranteed a certain standard of living, it’s what we carve out. I don’t blame anti-vaxxers for things dragging on as it seems patently clear that vaccination alone may not cut it. I do think many of their rationales and sometimes underlying motivations are stupid, while vaccination isn’t the golden goose solution, not vaccinating certainly doesn’t bloody help. In addition many, albeit not all don’t exactly adhere to the additional behaviours that help on top of/instead of vaccination. It’s been years since I’ve heard calls to seek to avoid polarisation in all sorts of domains. Sometimes seeking some common ground would absolutely be prudent, sometimes we’re getting into the fallacy of moderation territory. This isn’t to say people aren’t guilty of pious or overly divisive rhetoric that isn’t especially helpful, that frequently also comes from a position of a total lack of understanding or knowledge themselves, or that genuine objections to other things get lumped in as ‘anti-vax’ Without adding a million additional caveats I’m not talking about folks in this thread, but in the environs outside. They’re, absolutely full of shite in myriad mysterious and muddled ways. The only way to have a discussion that doesn’t become poisonous and polarised is not to have it at all. Which isn’t reducing polarisation because ultimately you’re just letting a group of people do what they want, which antagonises the other ‘pole’ anyway. It’s ‘don’t tell me what to do’ taken to such preposterous realms it can only come from a humongous anti-authority streak or plain selfishness, and given some of the crossover into some of their politics, they are only anti-authority when it’s not their bloke. If the government mandated people not to jump in a fire some of these folks would be making giant pyres and triple jumping in holding hands. Yes i do agree. All this is very much true. A prudent strategy to properly adrees this i dont really see unfortunatly. Trying to force the issue has proven to not be very effective. People only dig in more,heels in the sand. The effect of any sort of polarization spreads out like oil,also increasing polarization in other areas. This effect is particulary strong in the USA where every single issue has become polarized mostly along partizan lines. Maybe ignoring and accepting the issue to some extend isnt the worst solution at this point. Simply repeating the message and advices from scientists in a friendly and open manner without directly attacking the unvaxxed on a personal level. As direct pressure only increases resistance. Eventually people will come around if you aproach them this way. At least thats what i hope and also think. This has been the general aproach in most western nations so far so i do think we are doing the right thing when it comes to this. Its mostly the public itself which does become more hostile towards the other side, which i think is not helping. The other option would be to force vaccinations and make them mandatory,this isnt the worst solution for dealing with the pandemic and some countries have resorted to this already. But doing so does go against some of the principles on which our society is build,it does come with collateral damage. For some people this will work.They will take the vaccine and simply stop caring about having been forced to take it. With other people it will backfire and they will be even less willing to comply. In the end it might not be the worst solution as the group which will simply accept it is probably a lot bigger then the group which will resist even more. But it would be much better for the future if this could be avoided all together. Verbally, that might be true, but applying direct pressure in other ways has been beneficial to getting more people vaccinated, such as requiring vaccinations to travel or stay employed. They might bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, they're vaccinated and finally contributing the tiniest little bit to society (however much they may hate it). The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. You're talking about stripping people's right to - as you said it - travel or stay employed, unless they take a corporation's pharmaceutical product. THAT is a tyrannical approach to the problem. Under normal circumstances, that would be tyrannical. However, a global pandemic that has already killed millions of people can hardly be described as "normal". Extreme circumstances call for extreme actions, including requiring that people take a corporation's pharmaceutical product or lose the right to travel or be employed. This is a public health issue. I'm tired of being unable to live life normally because 10-20% of the population refuses to get vaccinated for "philosophical reasons". Their refusal to get vaccinated has detrimental effects on the quality of my life. This year, my university just recently started having in-person classes again, and they'll have to stop if the situation declines. When there is a public health crisis, the public needs to work together to solve it, and that means sacrificing some of your personal freedom. If we were dealing with a pandemic that had a 98% death rate I would be completely onboard with taking extreme action to overcome the disease. But instead we have a virus with a 98% survival rate AND is highly treatable even without the use of vaccines. I don't believe you've met the burden of justification to remove people's rights in this regard. On December 21 2021 09:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 09:08 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 02:10 pmh wrote:On December 21 2021 01:26 WombaT wrote:On December 20 2021 09:54 pmh wrote:
The best way forward for society as a whole i would not dare to say. Maybe public expectations should be lowerd.The public has never fully realized the scope of this pandemic and messages from authoritys have been to optimistic in general (for which there are definitely some arguments so i can understand that).
We dont have all that many options other then continue with the current strategy and hope that at one point things will get better. If this is actually realistic and how long this would take i would not dare to say either but it could be that we are somewhat close.
The unvaxed are definitely not helping but blaming them is pointless i think. It only increases polarization which isnt particulary helpfull in a situation like this. The problem is also bigger then a certain percentage of the population beeing unvaxed. Many people thought they where good with 2 vaccinations and now everyone does need a booster which cant be done in time because of logistical issues. The unvaxed will still get their protection from infection eventually. I think people forget that we live a rather rarefied existence, especially in the West. We haven’t fully conquered all that nature can throw at us. We aren’t guaranteed a certain standard of living, it’s what we carve out. I don’t blame anti-vaxxers for things dragging on as it seems patently clear that vaccination alone may not cut it. I do think many of their rationales and sometimes underlying motivations are stupid, while vaccination isn’t the golden goose solution, not vaccinating certainly doesn’t bloody help. In addition many, albeit not all don’t exactly adhere to the additional behaviours that help on top of/instead of vaccination. It’s been years since I’ve heard calls to seek to avoid polarisation in all sorts of domains. Sometimes seeking some common ground would absolutely be prudent, sometimes we’re getting into the fallacy of moderation territory. This isn’t to say people aren’t guilty of pious or overly divisive rhetoric that isn’t especially helpful, that frequently also comes from a position of a total lack of understanding or knowledge themselves, or that genuine objections to other things get lumped in as ‘anti-vax’ Without adding a million additional caveats I’m not talking about folks in this thread, but in the environs outside. They’re, absolutely full of shite in myriad mysterious and muddled ways. The only way to have a discussion that doesn’t become poisonous and polarised is not to have it at all. Which isn’t reducing polarisation because ultimately you’re just letting a group of people do what they want, which antagonises the other ‘pole’ anyway. It’s ‘don’t tell me what to do’ taken to such preposterous realms it can only come from a humongous anti-authority streak or plain selfishness, and given some of the crossover into some of their politics, they are only anti-authority when it’s not their bloke. If the government mandated people not to jump in a fire some of these folks would be making giant pyres and triple jumping in holding hands. Yes i do agree. All this is very much true. A prudent strategy to properly adrees this i dont really see unfortunatly. Trying to force the issue has proven to not be very effective. People only dig in more,heels in the sand. The effect of any sort of polarization spreads out like oil,also increasing polarization in other areas. This effect is particulary strong in the USA where every single issue has become polarized mostly along partizan lines. Maybe ignoring and accepting the issue to some extend isnt the worst solution at this point. Simply repeating the message and advices from scientists in a friendly and open manner without directly attacking the unvaxxed on a personal level. As direct pressure only increases resistance. Eventually people will come around if you aproach them this way. At least thats what i hope and also think. This has been the general aproach in most western nations so far so i do think we are doing the right thing when it comes to this. Its mostly the public itself which does become more hostile towards the other side, which i think is not helping. The other option would be to force vaccinations and make them mandatory,this isnt the worst solution for dealing with the pandemic and some countries have resorted to this already. But doing so does go against some of the principles on which our society is build,it does come with collateral damage. For some people this will work.They will take the vaccine and simply stop caring about having been forced to take it. With other people it will backfire and they will be even less willing to comply. In the end it might not be the worst solution as the group which will simply accept it is probably a lot bigger then the group which will resist even more. But it would be much better for the future if this could be avoided all together. Verbally, that might be true, but applying direct pressure in other ways has been beneficial to getting more people vaccinated, such as requiring vaccinations to travel or stay employed. They might bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, they're vaccinated and finally contributing the tiniest little bit to society (however much they may hate it). The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. You're talking about stripping people's right to - as you said it - travel or stay employed, unless they take a corporation's pharmaceutical product. THAT is a tyrannical approach to the problem. No, you're stripping people's rights by condemning vaccines. People do not have the right to jeopardize the health of those around them. You don't get to do whatever the hell you want, regardless of how it may endanger others. Focusing on the idea that it's because of "corporate pharmaceuticals" is completely glossing over the very real death toll and severe injury toll of the insanely infectious pandemic we've been fighting. And this is true in non-covid contexts as well, such as mandatory vaccines for public school children. You're arguing for removing people's rights under the imposition of force unless they act how you want them to. But you know what, fine. I said above that if we were dealing with a deadlier virus I would agree to a mandate because there is a threshold at which imposed behavior becomes justified. Here are my terms: Prove to me that unless every individual takes this vaccine - and only this vaccine - society itself can no longer function. If you show me evidence that meets this burden I'll submit that your argument is better than anything I can come up with. Until then I will keep my rights, thank you. I don't know why this is brought up every week or so, but "survival rate" is simply not the bar we should be electing to have, when countless others have already experienced devastating effects of covid besides literal death. Just for further reference, people who quote the 98% or 99% survival rate are immediately taken less seriously in discussions about covid, because they imply the false dichotomy of "unless a covid-infected person dies, they end up being fine and not worthy of consideration". Not only is this fallacious, but it also doesn't account for the massive overburdening of our hospitals that are completely preventable by more people being vaccinated - which jeopardizes other patients who aren't infected by covid but still need those emergency resources - and those who are hospitalized from covid (regardless of whether they ultimately live or die) are significantly disproportionately unvaccinated. And if the long-term effects of covid and the hospital saturation weren't enough, there's also the lack of contribution towards herd immunity, to help protect those who are either genetically immunocompromised or are taking medicine that makes them more susceptible to infection, which could be the stranger you pass in the supermarket or the coworker who works alongside you. And I don't care about your "terms", which only reveal that you don't understand how vaccines work. To copy a line I wrote a few minutes ago: we've had enforceable laws and public health regulations and travel restrictions and employment requirements forever, including vaccination prerequisites in many cases. You have the right to not abide by them as long as you're okay with the consequences, which means you'll be missing out on parts of society, and literally no one cares that you want to throw a temper tantrum over why you can't be unsafe around others. Grow up or get lost.
Despite being incredibly condescending and baking in plenty of assumptions about what I do/don't know, I do thank that you at least begun to answer my issue. If I understand this correctly you're arguing that survival rate is not enough of a metric and that long-term effects & burden on healthcare are enough to mandate vaccination. Ok.
At what point is mandated behavior justified? I mean really specifically, how bad do things have to get before mandates outweigh rights? Furthermore if there are countries with much lower vaccination rates than normal and yet also much lower covid & hospitalization rates, why is mandated behavior the only solution?
As for the legal issues I'll need more specifics to understand what you mean. As I understand it in the US some employers require vaccination because of the enhanced risk nature of the work, such as workers in the medical industry. But my employer has never asked me about my personal medical information ever. There seem to be many different standards applied historically, and I don't see the justification for a flat mandate across the board.
On December 21 2021 10:04 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 09:33 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:13 codonbyte wrote:On December 21 2021 09:08 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 02:10 pmh wrote:On December 21 2021 01:26 WombaT wrote:On December 20 2021 09:54 pmh wrote:
The best way forward for society as a whole i would not dare to say. Maybe public expectations should be lowerd.The public has never fully realized the scope of this pandemic and messages from authoritys have been to optimistic in general (for which there are definitely some arguments so i can understand that).
We dont have all that many options other then continue with the current strategy and hope that at one point things will get better. If this is actually realistic and how long this would take i would not dare to say either but it could be that we are somewhat close.
The unvaxed are definitely not helping but blaming them is pointless i think. It only increases polarization which isnt particulary helpfull in a situation like this. The problem is also bigger then a certain percentage of the population beeing unvaxed. Many people thought they where good with 2 vaccinations and now everyone does need a booster which cant be done in time because of logistical issues. The unvaxed will still get their protection from infection eventually. I think people forget that we live a rather rarefied existence, especially in the West. We haven’t fully conquered all that nature can throw at us. We aren’t guaranteed a certain standard of living, it’s what we carve out. I don’t blame anti-vaxxers for things dragging on as it seems patently clear that vaccination alone may not cut it. I do think many of their rationales and sometimes underlying motivations are stupid, while vaccination isn’t the golden goose solution, not vaccinating certainly doesn’t bloody help. In addition many, albeit not all don’t exactly adhere to the additional behaviours that help on top of/instead of vaccination. It’s been years since I’ve heard calls to seek to avoid polarisation in all sorts of domains. Sometimes seeking some common ground would absolutely be prudent, sometimes we’re getting into the fallacy of moderation territory. This isn’t to say people aren’t guilty of pious or overly divisive rhetoric that isn’t especially helpful, that frequently also comes from a position of a total lack of understanding or knowledge themselves, or that genuine objections to other things get lumped in as ‘anti-vax’ Without adding a million additional caveats I’m not talking about folks in this thread, but in the environs outside. They’re, absolutely full of shite in myriad mysterious and muddled ways. The only way to have a discussion that doesn’t become poisonous and polarised is not to have it at all. Which isn’t reducing polarisation because ultimately you’re just letting a group of people do what they want, which antagonises the other ‘pole’ anyway. It’s ‘don’t tell me what to do’ taken to such preposterous realms it can only come from a humongous anti-authority streak or plain selfishness, and given some of the crossover into some of their politics, they are only anti-authority when it’s not their bloke. If the government mandated people not to jump in a fire some of these folks would be making giant pyres and triple jumping in holding hands. Yes i do agree. All this is very much true. A prudent strategy to properly adrees this i dont really see unfortunatly. Trying to force the issue has proven to not be very effective. People only dig in more,heels in the sand. The effect of any sort of polarization spreads out like oil,also increasing polarization in other areas. This effect is particulary strong in the USA where every single issue has become polarized mostly along partizan lines. Maybe ignoring and accepting the issue to some extend isnt the worst solution at this point. Simply repeating the message and advices from scientists in a friendly and open manner without directly attacking the unvaxxed on a personal level. As direct pressure only increases resistance. Eventually people will come around if you aproach them this way. At least thats what i hope and also think. This has been the general aproach in most western nations so far so i do think we are doing the right thing when it comes to this. Its mostly the public itself which does become more hostile towards the other side, which i think is not helping. The other option would be to force vaccinations and make them mandatory,this isnt the worst solution for dealing with the pandemic and some countries have resorted to this already. But doing so does go against some of the principles on which our society is build,it does come with collateral damage. For some people this will work.They will take the vaccine and simply stop caring about having been forced to take it. With other people it will backfire and they will be even less willing to comply. In the end it might not be the worst solution as the group which will simply accept it is probably a lot bigger then the group which will resist even more. But it would be much better for the future if this could be avoided all together. Verbally, that might be true, but applying direct pressure in other ways has been beneficial to getting more people vaccinated, such as requiring vaccinations to travel or stay employed. They might bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, they're vaccinated and finally contributing the tiniest little bit to society (however much they may hate it). The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. You're talking about stripping people's right to - as you said it - travel or stay employed, unless they take a corporation's pharmaceutical product. THAT is a tyrannical approach to the problem. Under normal circumstances, that would be tyrannical. However, a global pandemic that has already killed millions of people can hardly be described as "normal". Extreme circumstances call for extreme actions, including requiring that people take a corporation's pharmaceutical product or lose the right to travel or be employed. This is a public health issue. I'm tired of being unable to live life normally because 10-20% of the population refuses to get vaccinated for "philosophical reasons". Their refusal to get vaccinated has detrimental effects on the quality of my life. This year, my university just recently started having in-person classes again, and they'll have to stop if the situation declines. When there is a public health crisis, the public needs to work together to solve it, and that means sacrificing some of your personal freedom. If we were dealing with a pandemic that had a 98% death rate I would be completely onboard with taking extreme action to overcome the disease. But instead we have a virus with a 98% survival rate AND is highly treatable even without the use of vaccines. I don't believe you've met the burden of justification to remove people's rights in this regard. On December 21 2021 09:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 09:08 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 02:10 pmh wrote:On December 21 2021 01:26 WombaT wrote:On December 20 2021 09:54 pmh wrote:
The best way forward for society as a whole i would not dare to say. Maybe public expectations should be lowerd.The public has never fully realized the scope of this pandemic and messages from authoritys have been to optimistic in general (for which there are definitely some arguments so i can understand that).
We dont have all that many options other then continue with the current strategy and hope that at one point things will get better. If this is actually realistic and how long this would take i would not dare to say either but it could be that we are somewhat close.
The unvaxed are definitely not helping but blaming them is pointless i think. It only increases polarization which isnt particulary helpfull in a situation like this. The problem is also bigger then a certain percentage of the population beeing unvaxed. Many people thought they where good with 2 vaccinations and now everyone does need a booster which cant be done in time because of logistical issues. The unvaxed will still get their protection from infection eventually. I think people forget that we live a rather rarefied existence, especially in the West. We haven’t fully conquered all that nature can throw at us. We aren’t guaranteed a certain standard of living, it’s what we carve out. I don’t blame anti-vaxxers for things dragging on as it seems patently clear that vaccination alone may not cut it. I do think many of their rationales and sometimes underlying motivations are stupid, while vaccination isn’t the golden goose solution, not vaccinating certainly doesn’t bloody help. In addition many, albeit not all don’t exactly adhere to the additional behaviours that help on top of/instead of vaccination. It’s been years since I’ve heard calls to seek to avoid polarisation in all sorts of domains. Sometimes seeking some common ground would absolutely be prudent, sometimes we’re getting into the fallacy of moderation territory. This isn’t to say people aren’t guilty of pious or overly divisive rhetoric that isn’t especially helpful, that frequently also comes from a position of a total lack of understanding or knowledge themselves, or that genuine objections to other things get lumped in as ‘anti-vax’ Without adding a million additional caveats I’m not talking about folks in this thread, but in the environs outside. They’re, absolutely full of shite in myriad mysterious and muddled ways. The only way to have a discussion that doesn’t become poisonous and polarised is not to have it at all. Which isn’t reducing polarisation because ultimately you’re just letting a group of people do what they want, which antagonises the other ‘pole’ anyway. It’s ‘don’t tell me what to do’ taken to such preposterous realms it can only come from a humongous anti-authority streak or plain selfishness, and given some of the crossover into some of their politics, they are only anti-authority when it’s not their bloke. If the government mandated people not to jump in a fire some of these folks would be making giant pyres and triple jumping in holding hands. Yes i do agree. All this is very much true. A prudent strategy to properly adrees this i dont really see unfortunatly. Trying to force the issue has proven to not be very effective. People only dig in more,heels in the sand. The effect of any sort of polarization spreads out like oil,also increasing polarization in other areas. This effect is particulary strong in the USA where every single issue has become polarized mostly along partizan lines. Maybe ignoring and accepting the issue to some extend isnt the worst solution at this point. Simply repeating the message and advices from scientists in a friendly and open manner without directly attacking the unvaxxed on a personal level. As direct pressure only increases resistance. Eventually people will come around if you aproach them this way. At least thats what i hope and also think. This has been the general aproach in most western nations so far so i do think we are doing the right thing when it comes to this. Its mostly the public itself which does become more hostile towards the other side, which i think is not helping. The other option would be to force vaccinations and make them mandatory,this isnt the worst solution for dealing with the pandemic and some countries have resorted to this already. But doing so does go against some of the principles on which our society is build,it does come with collateral damage. For some people this will work.They will take the vaccine and simply stop caring about having been forced to take it. With other people it will backfire and they will be even less willing to comply. In the end it might not be the worst solution as the group which will simply accept it is probably a lot bigger then the group which will resist even more. But it would be much better for the future if this could be avoided all together. Verbally, that might be true, but applying direct pressure in other ways has been beneficial to getting more people vaccinated, such as requiring vaccinations to travel or stay employed. They might bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, they're vaccinated and finally contributing the tiniest little bit to society (however much they may hate it). The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. You're talking about stripping people's right to - as you said it - travel or stay employed, unless they take a corporation's pharmaceutical product. THAT is a tyrannical approach to the problem. No, you're stripping people's rights by condemning vaccines. People do not have the right to jeopardize the health of those around them. You don't get to do whatever the hell you want, regardless of how it may endanger others. Focusing on the idea that it's because of "corporate pharmaceuticals" is completely glossing over the very real death toll and severe injury toll of the insanely infectious pandemic we've been fighting. And this is true in non-covid contexts as well, such as mandatory vaccines for public school children. You're arguing for removing people's rights under the imposition of force unless they act how you want them to. But you know what, fine. I said above that if we were dealing with a deadlier virus I would agree to a mandate because there is a threshold at which imposed behavior becomes justified. Here are my terms: Prove to me that unless every individual takes this vaccine - and only this vaccine - society itself can no longer function. If you show me evidence that meets this burden I'll submit that your argument is better than anything I can come up with. Until then I will keep my rights, thank you. How much worse does it need to get before mandates would be appropriate? Are we supposed to wait for it to become as bad as the plague before enacting mandates? Well guess what: it's not just the 2% death rate that's a problem: all the people who survive it, who are "easily treatable", as you say, are filling up hospitals. My local hospital just recently had to start refusing all elective treatments due to being at capacity with covid-19 cases, mostly unvaccinated. Why should the rest of us, who got vaccinated, have trouble getting treatment in hospitals because some people decided to forego getting vaccinated, despite advice from healthcare professionals everywhere? Why should people who need medical care unrelated to covid-19 have trouble receiving that care because hospitals are overflowing with anti-vaxxers?
YES, this is my point exactly. You say it's bad enough now to require mandated behavior, I ask why are the totality of these conditions sufficient to justify the mandate?
|
Northern Ireland25449 Posts
On December 21 2021 10:20 dudeman001 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 09:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 09:33 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:13 codonbyte wrote:On December 21 2021 09:08 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 02:10 pmh wrote:On December 21 2021 01:26 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
I think people forget that we live a rather rarefied existence, especially in the West. We haven’t fully conquered all that nature can throw at us. We aren’t guaranteed a certain standard of living, it’s what we carve out.
I don’t blame anti-vaxxers for things dragging on as it seems patently clear that vaccination alone may not cut it.
I do think many of their rationales and sometimes underlying motivations are stupid, while vaccination isn’t the golden goose solution, not vaccinating certainly doesn’t bloody help.
In addition many, albeit not all don’t exactly adhere to the additional behaviours that help on top of/instead of vaccination.
It’s been years since I’ve heard calls to seek to avoid polarisation in all sorts of domains. Sometimes seeking some common ground would absolutely be prudent, sometimes we’re getting into the fallacy of moderation territory.
This isn’t to say people aren’t guilty of pious or overly divisive rhetoric that isn’t especially helpful, that frequently also comes from a position of a total lack of understanding or knowledge themselves, or that genuine objections to other things get lumped in as ‘anti-vax’
Without adding a million additional caveats I’m not talking about folks in this thread, but in the environs outside.
They’re, absolutely full of shite in myriad mysterious and muddled ways. The only way to have a discussion that doesn’t become poisonous and polarised is not to have it at all.
Which isn’t reducing polarisation because ultimately you’re just letting a group of people do what they want, which antagonises the other ‘pole’ anyway.
It’s ‘don’t tell me what to do’ taken to such preposterous realms it can only come from a humongous anti-authority streak or plain selfishness, and given some of the crossover into some of their politics, they are only anti-authority when it’s not their bloke.
If the government mandated people not to jump in a fire some of these folks would be making giant pyres and triple jumping in holding hands. Yes i do agree. All this is very much true. A prudent strategy to properly adrees this i dont really see unfortunatly. Trying to force the issue has proven to not be very effective. People only dig in more,heels in the sand. The effect of any sort of polarization spreads out like oil,also increasing polarization in other areas. This effect is particulary strong in the USA where every single issue has become polarized mostly along partizan lines. Maybe ignoring and accepting the issue to some extend isnt the worst solution at this point. Simply repeating the message and advices from scientists in a friendly and open manner without directly attacking the unvaxxed on a personal level. As direct pressure only increases resistance. Eventually people will come around if you aproach them this way. At least thats what i hope and also think. This has been the general aproach in most western nations so far so i do think we are doing the right thing when it comes to this. Its mostly the public itself which does become more hostile towards the other side, which i think is not helping. The other option would be to force vaccinations and make them mandatory,this isnt the worst solution for dealing with the pandemic and some countries have resorted to this already. But doing so does go against some of the principles on which our society is build,it does come with collateral damage. For some people this will work.They will take the vaccine and simply stop caring about having been forced to take it. With other people it will backfire and they will be even less willing to comply. In the end it might not be the worst solution as the group which will simply accept it is probably a lot bigger then the group which will resist even more. But it would be much better for the future if this could be avoided all together. Verbally, that might be true, but applying direct pressure in other ways has been beneficial to getting more people vaccinated, such as requiring vaccinations to travel or stay employed. They might bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, they're vaccinated and finally contributing the tiniest little bit to society (however much they may hate it). The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. You're talking about stripping people's right to - as you said it - travel or stay employed, unless they take a corporation's pharmaceutical product. THAT is a tyrannical approach to the problem. Under normal circumstances, that would be tyrannical. However, a global pandemic that has already killed millions of people can hardly be described as "normal". Extreme circumstances call for extreme actions, including requiring that people take a corporation's pharmaceutical product or lose the right to travel or be employed. This is a public health issue. I'm tired of being unable to live life normally because 10-20% of the population refuses to get vaccinated for "philosophical reasons". Their refusal to get vaccinated has detrimental effects on the quality of my life. This year, my university just recently started having in-person classes again, and they'll have to stop if the situation declines. When there is a public health crisis, the public needs to work together to solve it, and that means sacrificing some of your personal freedom. If we were dealing with a pandemic that had a 98% death rate I would be completely onboard with taking extreme action to overcome the disease. But instead we have a virus with a 98% survival rate AND is highly treatable even without the use of vaccines. I don't believe you've met the burden of justification to remove people's rights in this regard. On December 21 2021 09:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 09:08 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 02:10 pmh wrote:On December 21 2021 01:26 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
I think people forget that we live a rather rarefied existence, especially in the West. We haven’t fully conquered all that nature can throw at us. We aren’t guaranteed a certain standard of living, it’s what we carve out.
I don’t blame anti-vaxxers for things dragging on as it seems patently clear that vaccination alone may not cut it.
I do think many of their rationales and sometimes underlying motivations are stupid, while vaccination isn’t the golden goose solution, not vaccinating certainly doesn’t bloody help.
In addition many, albeit not all don’t exactly adhere to the additional behaviours that help on top of/instead of vaccination.
It’s been years since I’ve heard calls to seek to avoid polarisation in all sorts of domains. Sometimes seeking some common ground would absolutely be prudent, sometimes we’re getting into the fallacy of moderation territory.
This isn’t to say people aren’t guilty of pious or overly divisive rhetoric that isn’t especially helpful, that frequently also comes from a position of a total lack of understanding or knowledge themselves, or that genuine objections to other things get lumped in as ‘anti-vax’
Without adding a million additional caveats I’m not talking about folks in this thread, but in the environs outside.
They’re, absolutely full of shite in myriad mysterious and muddled ways. The only way to have a discussion that doesn’t become poisonous and polarised is not to have it at all.
Which isn’t reducing polarisation because ultimately you’re just letting a group of people do what they want, which antagonises the other ‘pole’ anyway.
It’s ‘don’t tell me what to do’ taken to such preposterous realms it can only come from a humongous anti-authority streak or plain selfishness, and given some of the crossover into some of their politics, they are only anti-authority when it’s not their bloke.
If the government mandated people not to jump in a fire some of these folks would be making giant pyres and triple jumping in holding hands. Yes i do agree. All this is very much true. A prudent strategy to properly adrees this i dont really see unfortunatly. Trying to force the issue has proven to not be very effective. People only dig in more,heels in the sand. The effect of any sort of polarization spreads out like oil,also increasing polarization in other areas. This effect is particulary strong in the USA where every single issue has become polarized mostly along partizan lines. Maybe ignoring and accepting the issue to some extend isnt the worst solution at this point. Simply repeating the message and advices from scientists in a friendly and open manner without directly attacking the unvaxxed on a personal level. As direct pressure only increases resistance. Eventually people will come around if you aproach them this way. At least thats what i hope and also think. This has been the general aproach in most western nations so far so i do think we are doing the right thing when it comes to this. Its mostly the public itself which does become more hostile towards the other side, which i think is not helping. The other option would be to force vaccinations and make them mandatory,this isnt the worst solution for dealing with the pandemic and some countries have resorted to this already. But doing so does go against some of the principles on which our society is build,it does come with collateral damage. For some people this will work.They will take the vaccine and simply stop caring about having been forced to take it. With other people it will backfire and they will be even less willing to comply. In the end it might not be the worst solution as the group which will simply accept it is probably a lot bigger then the group which will resist even more. But it would be much better for the future if this could be avoided all together. Verbally, that might be true, but applying direct pressure in other ways has been beneficial to getting more people vaccinated, such as requiring vaccinations to travel or stay employed. They might bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, they're vaccinated and finally contributing the tiniest little bit to society (however much they may hate it). The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. You're talking about stripping people's right to - as you said it - travel or stay employed, unless they take a corporation's pharmaceutical product. THAT is a tyrannical approach to the problem. No, you're stripping people's rights by condemning vaccines. People do not have the right to jeopardize the health of those around them. You don't get to do whatever the hell you want, regardless of how it may endanger others. Focusing on the idea that it's because of "corporate pharmaceuticals" is completely glossing over the very real death toll and severe injury toll of the insanely infectious pandemic we've been fighting. And this is true in non-covid contexts as well, such as mandatory vaccines for public school children. You're arguing for removing people's rights under the imposition of force unless they act how you want them to. But you know what, fine. I said above that if we were dealing with a deadlier virus I would agree to a mandate because there is a threshold at which imposed behavior becomes justified. Here are my terms: Prove to me that unless every individual takes this vaccine - and only this vaccine - society itself can no longer function. If you show me evidence that meets this burden I'll submit that your argument is better than anything I can come up with. Until then I will keep my rights, thank you. I don't know why this is brought up every week or so, but "survival rate" is simply not the bar we should be electing to have, when countless others have already experienced devastating effects of covid besides literal death. Just for further reference, people who quote the 98% or 99% survival rate are immediately taken less seriously in discussions about covid, because they imply the false dichotomy of "unless a covid-infected person dies, they end up being fine and not worthy of consideration". Not only is this fallacious, but it also doesn't account for the massive overburdening of our hospitals that are completely preventable by more people being vaccinated - which jeopardizes other patients who aren't infected by covid but still need those emergency resources - and those who are hospitalized from covid (regardless of whether they ultimately live or die) are significantly disproportionately unvaccinated. And if the long-term effects of covid and the hospital saturation weren't enough, there's also the lack of contribution towards herd immunity, to help protect those who are either genetically immunocompromised or are taking medicine that makes them more susceptible to infection, which could be the stranger you pass in the supermarket or the coworker who works alongside you. And I don't care about your "terms", which only reveal that you don't understand how vaccines work. To copy a line I wrote a few minutes ago: we've had enforceable laws and public health regulations and travel restrictions and employment requirements forever, including vaccination prerequisites in many cases. You have the right to not abide by them as long as you're okay with the consequences, which means you'll be missing out on parts of society, and literally no one cares that you want to throw a temper tantrum over why you can't be unsafe around others. Grow up or get lost. Despite being incredibly condescending and baking in plenty of assumptions about what I do/don't know, I do thank that you at least begun to answer my issue. If I understand this correctly you're arguing that survival rate is not enough of a metric and that long-term effects & burden on healthcare are enough to mandate vaccination. Ok. At what point is mandated behavior justified? I mean really specifically, how bad do things have to get before mandates outweigh rights? Furthermore if there are countries with much lower vaccination rates than normal and yet also much lower covid & hospitalization rates, why is mandated behavior the only solution? As for the legal issues I'll need more specifics to understand what you mean. As I understand it in the US some employers require vaccination because of the enhanced risk nature of the work, such as workers in the medical industry. But my employer has never asked me about my personal medical information ever. There seem to be many different standards applied historically, and I don't see the justification for a flat mandate across the board. Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 10:04 codonbyte wrote:On December 21 2021 09:33 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:13 codonbyte wrote:On December 21 2021 09:08 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 02:10 pmh wrote:On December 21 2021 01:26 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
I think people forget that we live a rather rarefied existence, especially in the West. We haven’t fully conquered all that nature can throw at us. We aren’t guaranteed a certain standard of living, it’s what we carve out.
I don’t blame anti-vaxxers for things dragging on as it seems patently clear that vaccination alone may not cut it.
I do think many of their rationales and sometimes underlying motivations are stupid, while vaccination isn’t the golden goose solution, not vaccinating certainly doesn’t bloody help.
In addition many, albeit not all don’t exactly adhere to the additional behaviours that help on top of/instead of vaccination.
It’s been years since I’ve heard calls to seek to avoid polarisation in all sorts of domains. Sometimes seeking some common ground would absolutely be prudent, sometimes we’re getting into the fallacy of moderation territory.
This isn’t to say people aren’t guilty of pious or overly divisive rhetoric that isn’t especially helpful, that frequently also comes from a position of a total lack of understanding or knowledge themselves, or that genuine objections to other things get lumped in as ‘anti-vax’
Without adding a million additional caveats I’m not talking about folks in this thread, but in the environs outside.
They’re, absolutely full of shite in myriad mysterious and muddled ways. The only way to have a discussion that doesn’t become poisonous and polarised is not to have it at all.
Which isn’t reducing polarisation because ultimately you’re just letting a group of people do what they want, which antagonises the other ‘pole’ anyway.
It’s ‘don’t tell me what to do’ taken to such preposterous realms it can only come from a humongous anti-authority streak or plain selfishness, and given some of the crossover into some of their politics, they are only anti-authority when it’s not their bloke.
If the government mandated people not to jump in a fire some of these folks would be making giant pyres and triple jumping in holding hands. Yes i do agree. All this is very much true. A prudent strategy to properly adrees this i dont really see unfortunatly. Trying to force the issue has proven to not be very effective. People only dig in more,heels in the sand. The effect of any sort of polarization spreads out like oil,also increasing polarization in other areas. This effect is particulary strong in the USA where every single issue has become polarized mostly along partizan lines. Maybe ignoring and accepting the issue to some extend isnt the worst solution at this point. Simply repeating the message and advices from scientists in a friendly and open manner without directly attacking the unvaxxed on a personal level. As direct pressure only increases resistance. Eventually people will come around if you aproach them this way. At least thats what i hope and also think. This has been the general aproach in most western nations so far so i do think we are doing the right thing when it comes to this. Its mostly the public itself which does become more hostile towards the other side, which i think is not helping. The other option would be to force vaccinations and make them mandatory,this isnt the worst solution for dealing with the pandemic and some countries have resorted to this already. But doing so does go against some of the principles on which our society is build,it does come with collateral damage. For some people this will work.They will take the vaccine and simply stop caring about having been forced to take it. With other people it will backfire and they will be even less willing to comply. In the end it might not be the worst solution as the group which will simply accept it is probably a lot bigger then the group which will resist even more. But it would be much better for the future if this could be avoided all together. Verbally, that might be true, but applying direct pressure in other ways has been beneficial to getting more people vaccinated, such as requiring vaccinations to travel or stay employed. They might bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, they're vaccinated and finally contributing the tiniest little bit to society (however much they may hate it). The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. You're talking about stripping people's right to - as you said it - travel or stay employed, unless they take a corporation's pharmaceutical product. THAT is a tyrannical approach to the problem. Under normal circumstances, that would be tyrannical. However, a global pandemic that has already killed millions of people can hardly be described as "normal". Extreme circumstances call for extreme actions, including requiring that people take a corporation's pharmaceutical product or lose the right to travel or be employed. This is a public health issue. I'm tired of being unable to live life normally because 10-20% of the population refuses to get vaccinated for "philosophical reasons". Their refusal to get vaccinated has detrimental effects on the quality of my life. This year, my university just recently started having in-person classes again, and they'll have to stop if the situation declines. When there is a public health crisis, the public needs to work together to solve it, and that means sacrificing some of your personal freedom. If we were dealing with a pandemic that had a 98% death rate I would be completely onboard with taking extreme action to overcome the disease. But instead we have a virus with a 98% survival rate AND is highly treatable even without the use of vaccines. I don't believe you've met the burden of justification to remove people's rights in this regard. On December 21 2021 09:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 09:08 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 02:10 pmh wrote:On December 21 2021 01:26 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
I think people forget that we live a rather rarefied existence, especially in the West. We haven’t fully conquered all that nature can throw at us. We aren’t guaranteed a certain standard of living, it’s what we carve out.
I don’t blame anti-vaxxers for things dragging on as it seems patently clear that vaccination alone may not cut it.
I do think many of their rationales and sometimes underlying motivations are stupid, while vaccination isn’t the golden goose solution, not vaccinating certainly doesn’t bloody help.
In addition many, albeit not all don’t exactly adhere to the additional behaviours that help on top of/instead of vaccination.
It’s been years since I’ve heard calls to seek to avoid polarisation in all sorts of domains. Sometimes seeking some common ground would absolutely be prudent, sometimes we’re getting into the fallacy of moderation territory.
This isn’t to say people aren’t guilty of pious or overly divisive rhetoric that isn’t especially helpful, that frequently also comes from a position of a total lack of understanding or knowledge themselves, or that genuine objections to other things get lumped in as ‘anti-vax’
Without adding a million additional caveats I’m not talking about folks in this thread, but in the environs outside.
They’re, absolutely full of shite in myriad mysterious and muddled ways. The only way to have a discussion that doesn’t become poisonous and polarised is not to have it at all.
Which isn’t reducing polarisation because ultimately you’re just letting a group of people do what they want, which antagonises the other ‘pole’ anyway.
It’s ‘don’t tell me what to do’ taken to such preposterous realms it can only come from a humongous anti-authority streak or plain selfishness, and given some of the crossover into some of their politics, they are only anti-authority when it’s not their bloke.
If the government mandated people not to jump in a fire some of these folks would be making giant pyres and triple jumping in holding hands. Yes i do agree. All this is very much true. A prudent strategy to properly adrees this i dont really see unfortunatly. Trying to force the issue has proven to not be very effective. People only dig in more,heels in the sand. The effect of any sort of polarization spreads out like oil,also increasing polarization in other areas. This effect is particulary strong in the USA where every single issue has become polarized mostly along partizan lines. Maybe ignoring and accepting the issue to some extend isnt the worst solution at this point. Simply repeating the message and advices from scientists in a friendly and open manner without directly attacking the unvaxxed on a personal level. As direct pressure only increases resistance. Eventually people will come around if you aproach them this way. At least thats what i hope and also think. This has been the general aproach in most western nations so far so i do think we are doing the right thing when it comes to this. Its mostly the public itself which does become more hostile towards the other side, which i think is not helping. The other option would be to force vaccinations and make them mandatory,this isnt the worst solution for dealing with the pandemic and some countries have resorted to this already. But doing so does go against some of the principles on which our society is build,it does come with collateral damage. For some people this will work.They will take the vaccine and simply stop caring about having been forced to take it. With other people it will backfire and they will be even less willing to comply. In the end it might not be the worst solution as the group which will simply accept it is probably a lot bigger then the group which will resist even more. But it would be much better for the future if this could be avoided all together. Verbally, that might be true, but applying direct pressure in other ways has been beneficial to getting more people vaccinated, such as requiring vaccinations to travel or stay employed. They might bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, they're vaccinated and finally contributing the tiniest little bit to society (however much they may hate it). The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. You're talking about stripping people's right to - as you said it - travel or stay employed, unless they take a corporation's pharmaceutical product. THAT is a tyrannical approach to the problem. No, you're stripping people's rights by condemning vaccines. People do not have the right to jeopardize the health of those around them. You don't get to do whatever the hell you want, regardless of how it may endanger others. Focusing on the idea that it's because of "corporate pharmaceuticals" is completely glossing over the very real death toll and severe injury toll of the insanely infectious pandemic we've been fighting. And this is true in non-covid contexts as well, such as mandatory vaccines for public school children. You're arguing for removing people's rights under the imposition of force unless they act how you want them to. But you know what, fine. I said above that if we were dealing with a deadlier virus I would agree to a mandate because there is a threshold at which imposed behavior becomes justified. Here are my terms: Prove to me that unless every individual takes this vaccine - and only this vaccine - society itself can no longer function. If you show me evidence that meets this burden I'll submit that your argument is better than anything I can come up with. Until then I will keep my rights, thank you. How much worse does it need to get before mandates would be appropriate? Are we supposed to wait for it to become as bad as the plague before enacting mandates? Well guess what: it's not just the 2% death rate that's a problem: all the people who survive it, who are "easily treatable", as you say, are filling up hospitals. My local hospital just recently had to start refusing all elective treatments due to being at capacity with covid-19 cases, mostly unvaccinated. Why should the rest of us, who got vaccinated, have trouble getting treatment in hospitals because some people decided to forego getting vaccinated, despite advice from healthcare professionals everywhere? Why should people who need medical care unrelated to covid-19 have trouble receiving that care because hospitals are overflowing with anti-vaxxers? YES, this is my point exactly. You say it's bad enough now to require mandated behavior, I ask why are the totality of these conditions sufficient to justify the mandate?
See my previous informative post
|
On December 21 2021 10:20 dudeman001 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 09:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 09:33 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:13 codonbyte wrote:On December 21 2021 09:08 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 02:10 pmh wrote:On December 21 2021 01:26 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
I think people forget that we live a rather rarefied existence, especially in the West. We haven’t fully conquered all that nature can throw at us. We aren’t guaranteed a certain standard of living, it’s what we carve out.
I don’t blame anti-vaxxers for things dragging on as it seems patently clear that vaccination alone may not cut it.
I do think many of their rationales and sometimes underlying motivations are stupid, while vaccination isn’t the golden goose solution, not vaccinating certainly doesn’t bloody help.
In addition many, albeit not all don’t exactly adhere to the additional behaviours that help on top of/instead of vaccination.
It’s been years since I’ve heard calls to seek to avoid polarisation in all sorts of domains. Sometimes seeking some common ground would absolutely be prudent, sometimes we’re getting into the fallacy of moderation territory.
This isn’t to say people aren’t guilty of pious or overly divisive rhetoric that isn’t especially helpful, that frequently also comes from a position of a total lack of understanding or knowledge themselves, or that genuine objections to other things get lumped in as ‘anti-vax’
Without adding a million additional caveats I’m not talking about folks in this thread, but in the environs outside.
They’re, absolutely full of shite in myriad mysterious and muddled ways. The only way to have a discussion that doesn’t become poisonous and polarised is not to have it at all.
Which isn’t reducing polarisation because ultimately you’re just letting a group of people do what they want, which antagonises the other ‘pole’ anyway.
It’s ‘don’t tell me what to do’ taken to such preposterous realms it can only come from a humongous anti-authority streak or plain selfishness, and given some of the crossover into some of their politics, they are only anti-authority when it’s not their bloke.
If the government mandated people not to jump in a fire some of these folks would be making giant pyres and triple jumping in holding hands. Yes i do agree. All this is very much true. A prudent strategy to properly adrees this i dont really see unfortunatly. Trying to force the issue has proven to not be very effective. People only dig in more,heels in the sand. The effect of any sort of polarization spreads out like oil,also increasing polarization in other areas. This effect is particulary strong in the USA where every single issue has become polarized mostly along partizan lines. Maybe ignoring and accepting the issue to some extend isnt the worst solution at this point. Simply repeating the message and advices from scientists in a friendly and open manner without directly attacking the unvaxxed on a personal level. As direct pressure only increases resistance. Eventually people will come around if you aproach them this way. At least thats what i hope and also think. This has been the general aproach in most western nations so far so i do think we are doing the right thing when it comes to this. Its mostly the public itself which does become more hostile towards the other side, which i think is not helping. The other option would be to force vaccinations and make them mandatory,this isnt the worst solution for dealing with the pandemic and some countries have resorted to this already. But doing so does go against some of the principles on which our society is build,it does come with collateral damage. For some people this will work.They will take the vaccine and simply stop caring about having been forced to take it. With other people it will backfire and they will be even less willing to comply. In the end it might not be the worst solution as the group which will simply accept it is probably a lot bigger then the group which will resist even more. But it would be much better for the future if this could be avoided all together. Verbally, that might be true, but applying direct pressure in other ways has been beneficial to getting more people vaccinated, such as requiring vaccinations to travel or stay employed. They might bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, they're vaccinated and finally contributing the tiniest little bit to society (however much they may hate it). The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. You're talking about stripping people's right to - as you said it - travel or stay employed, unless they take a corporation's pharmaceutical product. THAT is a tyrannical approach to the problem. Under normal circumstances, that would be tyrannical. However, a global pandemic that has already killed millions of people can hardly be described as "normal". Extreme circumstances call for extreme actions, including requiring that people take a corporation's pharmaceutical product or lose the right to travel or be employed. This is a public health issue. I'm tired of being unable to live life normally because 10-20% of the population refuses to get vaccinated for "philosophical reasons". Their refusal to get vaccinated has detrimental effects on the quality of my life. This year, my university just recently started having in-person classes again, and they'll have to stop if the situation declines. When there is a public health crisis, the public needs to work together to solve it, and that means sacrificing some of your personal freedom. If we were dealing with a pandemic that had a 98% death rate I would be completely onboard with taking extreme action to overcome the disease. But instead we have a virus with a 98% survival rate AND is highly treatable even without the use of vaccines. I don't believe you've met the burden of justification to remove people's rights in this regard. On December 21 2021 09:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 09:08 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 02:10 pmh wrote:On December 21 2021 01:26 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
I think people forget that we live a rather rarefied existence, especially in the West. We haven’t fully conquered all that nature can throw at us. We aren’t guaranteed a certain standard of living, it’s what we carve out.
I don’t blame anti-vaxxers for things dragging on as it seems patently clear that vaccination alone may not cut it.
I do think many of their rationales and sometimes underlying motivations are stupid, while vaccination isn’t the golden goose solution, not vaccinating certainly doesn’t bloody help.
In addition many, albeit not all don’t exactly adhere to the additional behaviours that help on top of/instead of vaccination.
It’s been years since I’ve heard calls to seek to avoid polarisation in all sorts of domains. Sometimes seeking some common ground would absolutely be prudent, sometimes we’re getting into the fallacy of moderation territory.
This isn’t to say people aren’t guilty of pious or overly divisive rhetoric that isn’t especially helpful, that frequently also comes from a position of a total lack of understanding or knowledge themselves, or that genuine objections to other things get lumped in as ‘anti-vax’
Without adding a million additional caveats I’m not talking about folks in this thread, but in the environs outside.
They’re, absolutely full of shite in myriad mysterious and muddled ways. The only way to have a discussion that doesn’t become poisonous and polarised is not to have it at all.
Which isn’t reducing polarisation because ultimately you’re just letting a group of people do what they want, which antagonises the other ‘pole’ anyway.
It’s ‘don’t tell me what to do’ taken to such preposterous realms it can only come from a humongous anti-authority streak or plain selfishness, and given some of the crossover into some of their politics, they are only anti-authority when it’s not their bloke.
If the government mandated people not to jump in a fire some of these folks would be making giant pyres and triple jumping in holding hands. Yes i do agree. All this is very much true. A prudent strategy to properly adrees this i dont really see unfortunatly. Trying to force the issue has proven to not be very effective. People only dig in more,heels in the sand. The effect of any sort of polarization spreads out like oil,also increasing polarization in other areas. This effect is particulary strong in the USA where every single issue has become polarized mostly along partizan lines. Maybe ignoring and accepting the issue to some extend isnt the worst solution at this point. Simply repeating the message and advices from scientists in a friendly and open manner without directly attacking the unvaxxed on a personal level. As direct pressure only increases resistance. Eventually people will come around if you aproach them this way. At least thats what i hope and also think. This has been the general aproach in most western nations so far so i do think we are doing the right thing when it comes to this. Its mostly the public itself which does become more hostile towards the other side, which i think is not helping. The other option would be to force vaccinations and make them mandatory,this isnt the worst solution for dealing with the pandemic and some countries have resorted to this already. But doing so does go against some of the principles on which our society is build,it does come with collateral damage. For some people this will work.They will take the vaccine and simply stop caring about having been forced to take it. With other people it will backfire and they will be even less willing to comply. In the end it might not be the worst solution as the group which will simply accept it is probably a lot bigger then the group which will resist even more. But it would be much better for the future if this could be avoided all together. Verbally, that might be true, but applying direct pressure in other ways has been beneficial to getting more people vaccinated, such as requiring vaccinations to travel or stay employed. They might bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, they're vaccinated and finally contributing the tiniest little bit to society (however much they may hate it). The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. You're talking about stripping people's right to - as you said it - travel or stay employed, unless they take a corporation's pharmaceutical product. THAT is a tyrannical approach to the problem. No, you're stripping people's rights by condemning vaccines. People do not have the right to jeopardize the health of those around them. You don't get to do whatever the hell you want, regardless of how it may endanger others. Focusing on the idea that it's because of "corporate pharmaceuticals" is completely glossing over the very real death toll and severe injury toll of the insanely infectious pandemic we've been fighting. And this is true in non-covid contexts as well, such as mandatory vaccines for public school children. You're arguing for removing people's rights under the imposition of force unless they act how you want them to. But you know what, fine. I said above that if we were dealing with a deadlier virus I would agree to a mandate because there is a threshold at which imposed behavior becomes justified. Here are my terms: Prove to me that unless every individual takes this vaccine - and only this vaccine - society itself can no longer function. If you show me evidence that meets this burden I'll submit that your argument is better than anything I can come up with. Until then I will keep my rights, thank you. I don't know why this is brought up every week or so, but "survival rate" is simply not the bar we should be electing to have, when countless others have already experienced devastating effects of covid besides literal death. Just for further reference, people who quote the 98% or 99% survival rate are immediately taken less seriously in discussions about covid, because they imply the false dichotomy of "unless a covid-infected person dies, they end up being fine and not worthy of consideration". Not only is this fallacious, but it also doesn't account for the massive overburdening of our hospitals that are completely preventable by more people being vaccinated - which jeopardizes other patients who aren't infected by covid but still need those emergency resources - and those who are hospitalized from covid (regardless of whether they ultimately live or die) are significantly disproportionately unvaccinated. And if the long-term effects of covid and the hospital saturation weren't enough, there's also the lack of contribution towards herd immunity, to help protect those who are either genetically immunocompromised or are taking medicine that makes them more susceptible to infection, which could be the stranger you pass in the supermarket or the coworker who works alongside you. And I don't care about your "terms", which only reveal that you don't understand how vaccines work. To copy a line I wrote a few minutes ago: we've had enforceable laws and public health regulations and travel restrictions and employment requirements forever, including vaccination prerequisites in many cases. You have the right to not abide by them as long as you're okay with the consequences, which means you'll be missing out on parts of society, and literally no one cares that you want to throw a temper tantrum over why you can't be unsafe around others. Grow up or get lost. Despite being incredibly condescending and baking in plenty of assumptions about what I do/don't know, I do thank that you at least begun to answer my issue. If I understand this correctly you're arguing that survival rate is not enough of a metric and that long-term effects & burden on healthcare are enough to mandate vaccination. Ok. At what point is mandated behavior justified? I mean really specifically, how bad do things have to get before mandates outweigh rights? Furthermore if there are countries with much lower vaccination rates than normal and yet also much lower covid & hospitalization rates, why is mandated behavior the only solution? As for the legal issues I'll need more specifics to understand what you mean. As I understand it in the US some employers require vaccination because of the enhanced risk nature of the work, such as workers in the medical industry. But my employer has never asked me about my personal medical information ever. There seem to be many different standards applied historically, and I don't see the justification for a flat mandate across the board. Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 10:04 codonbyte wrote:On December 21 2021 09:33 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:13 codonbyte wrote:On December 21 2021 09:08 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 02:10 pmh wrote:On December 21 2021 01:26 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
I think people forget that we live a rather rarefied existence, especially in the West. We haven’t fully conquered all that nature can throw at us. We aren’t guaranteed a certain standard of living, it’s what we carve out.
I don’t blame anti-vaxxers for things dragging on as it seems patently clear that vaccination alone may not cut it.
I do think many of their rationales and sometimes underlying motivations are stupid, while vaccination isn’t the golden goose solution, not vaccinating certainly doesn’t bloody help.
In addition many, albeit not all don’t exactly adhere to the additional behaviours that help on top of/instead of vaccination.
It’s been years since I’ve heard calls to seek to avoid polarisation in all sorts of domains. Sometimes seeking some common ground would absolutely be prudent, sometimes we’re getting into the fallacy of moderation territory.
This isn’t to say people aren’t guilty of pious or overly divisive rhetoric that isn’t especially helpful, that frequently also comes from a position of a total lack of understanding or knowledge themselves, or that genuine objections to other things get lumped in as ‘anti-vax’
Without adding a million additional caveats I’m not talking about folks in this thread, but in the environs outside.
They’re, absolutely full of shite in myriad mysterious and muddled ways. The only way to have a discussion that doesn’t become poisonous and polarised is not to have it at all.
Which isn’t reducing polarisation because ultimately you’re just letting a group of people do what they want, which antagonises the other ‘pole’ anyway.
It’s ‘don’t tell me what to do’ taken to such preposterous realms it can only come from a humongous anti-authority streak or plain selfishness, and given some of the crossover into some of their politics, they are only anti-authority when it’s not their bloke.
If the government mandated people not to jump in a fire some of these folks would be making giant pyres and triple jumping in holding hands. Yes i do agree. All this is very much true. A prudent strategy to properly adrees this i dont really see unfortunatly. Trying to force the issue has proven to not be very effective. People only dig in more,heels in the sand. The effect of any sort of polarization spreads out like oil,also increasing polarization in other areas. This effect is particulary strong in the USA where every single issue has become polarized mostly along partizan lines. Maybe ignoring and accepting the issue to some extend isnt the worst solution at this point. Simply repeating the message and advices from scientists in a friendly and open manner without directly attacking the unvaxxed on a personal level. As direct pressure only increases resistance. Eventually people will come around if you aproach them this way. At least thats what i hope and also think. This has been the general aproach in most western nations so far so i do think we are doing the right thing when it comes to this. Its mostly the public itself which does become more hostile towards the other side, which i think is not helping. The other option would be to force vaccinations and make them mandatory,this isnt the worst solution for dealing with the pandemic and some countries have resorted to this already. But doing so does go against some of the principles on which our society is build,it does come with collateral damage. For some people this will work.They will take the vaccine and simply stop caring about having been forced to take it. With other people it will backfire and they will be even less willing to comply. In the end it might not be the worst solution as the group which will simply accept it is probably a lot bigger then the group which will resist even more. But it would be much better for the future if this could be avoided all together. Verbally, that might be true, but applying direct pressure in other ways has been beneficial to getting more people vaccinated, such as requiring vaccinations to travel or stay employed. They might bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, they're vaccinated and finally contributing the tiniest little bit to society (however much they may hate it). The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. You're talking about stripping people's right to - as you said it - travel or stay employed, unless they take a corporation's pharmaceutical product. THAT is a tyrannical approach to the problem. Under normal circumstances, that would be tyrannical. However, a global pandemic that has already killed millions of people can hardly be described as "normal". Extreme circumstances call for extreme actions, including requiring that people take a corporation's pharmaceutical product or lose the right to travel or be employed. This is a public health issue. I'm tired of being unable to live life normally because 10-20% of the population refuses to get vaccinated for "philosophical reasons". Their refusal to get vaccinated has detrimental effects on the quality of my life. This year, my university just recently started having in-person classes again, and they'll have to stop if the situation declines. When there is a public health crisis, the public needs to work together to solve it, and that means sacrificing some of your personal freedom. If we were dealing with a pandemic that had a 98% death rate I would be completely onboard with taking extreme action to overcome the disease. But instead we have a virus with a 98% survival rate AND is highly treatable even without the use of vaccines. I don't believe you've met the burden of justification to remove people's rights in this regard. On December 21 2021 09:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 09:08 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 02:10 pmh wrote:On December 21 2021 01:26 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
I think people forget that we live a rather rarefied existence, especially in the West. We haven’t fully conquered all that nature can throw at us. We aren’t guaranteed a certain standard of living, it’s what we carve out.
I don’t blame anti-vaxxers for things dragging on as it seems patently clear that vaccination alone may not cut it.
I do think many of their rationales and sometimes underlying motivations are stupid, while vaccination isn’t the golden goose solution, not vaccinating certainly doesn’t bloody help.
In addition many, albeit not all don’t exactly adhere to the additional behaviours that help on top of/instead of vaccination.
It’s been years since I’ve heard calls to seek to avoid polarisation in all sorts of domains. Sometimes seeking some common ground would absolutely be prudent, sometimes we’re getting into the fallacy of moderation territory.
This isn’t to say people aren’t guilty of pious or overly divisive rhetoric that isn’t especially helpful, that frequently also comes from a position of a total lack of understanding or knowledge themselves, or that genuine objections to other things get lumped in as ‘anti-vax’
Without adding a million additional caveats I’m not talking about folks in this thread, but in the environs outside.
They’re, absolutely full of shite in myriad mysterious and muddled ways. The only way to have a discussion that doesn’t become poisonous and polarised is not to have it at all.
Which isn’t reducing polarisation because ultimately you’re just letting a group of people do what they want, which antagonises the other ‘pole’ anyway.
It’s ‘don’t tell me what to do’ taken to such preposterous realms it can only come from a humongous anti-authority streak or plain selfishness, and given some of the crossover into some of their politics, they are only anti-authority when it’s not their bloke.
If the government mandated people not to jump in a fire some of these folks would be making giant pyres and triple jumping in holding hands. Yes i do agree. All this is very much true. A prudent strategy to properly adrees this i dont really see unfortunatly. Trying to force the issue has proven to not be very effective. People only dig in more,heels in the sand. The effect of any sort of polarization spreads out like oil,also increasing polarization in other areas. This effect is particulary strong in the USA where every single issue has become polarized mostly along partizan lines. Maybe ignoring and accepting the issue to some extend isnt the worst solution at this point. Simply repeating the message and advices from scientists in a friendly and open manner without directly attacking the unvaxxed on a personal level. As direct pressure only increases resistance. Eventually people will come around if you aproach them this way. At least thats what i hope and also think. This has been the general aproach in most western nations so far so i do think we are doing the right thing when it comes to this. Its mostly the public itself which does become more hostile towards the other side, which i think is not helping. The other option would be to force vaccinations and make them mandatory,this isnt the worst solution for dealing with the pandemic and some countries have resorted to this already. But doing so does go against some of the principles on which our society is build,it does come with collateral damage. For some people this will work.They will take the vaccine and simply stop caring about having been forced to take it. With other people it will backfire and they will be even less willing to comply. In the end it might not be the worst solution as the group which will simply accept it is probably a lot bigger then the group which will resist even more. But it would be much better for the future if this could be avoided all together. Verbally, that might be true, but applying direct pressure in other ways has been beneficial to getting more people vaccinated, such as requiring vaccinations to travel or stay employed. They might bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, they're vaccinated and finally contributing the tiniest little bit to society (however much they may hate it). The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. You're talking about stripping people's right to - as you said it - travel or stay employed, unless they take a corporation's pharmaceutical product. THAT is a tyrannical approach to the problem. No, you're stripping people's rights by condemning vaccines. People do not have the right to jeopardize the health of those around them. You don't get to do whatever the hell you want, regardless of how it may endanger others. Focusing on the idea that it's because of "corporate pharmaceuticals" is completely glossing over the very real death toll and severe injury toll of the insanely infectious pandemic we've been fighting. And this is true in non-covid contexts as well, such as mandatory vaccines for public school children. You're arguing for removing people's rights under the imposition of force unless they act how you want them to. But you know what, fine. I said above that if we were dealing with a deadlier virus I would agree to a mandate because there is a threshold at which imposed behavior becomes justified. Here are my terms: Prove to me that unless every individual takes this vaccine - and only this vaccine - society itself can no longer function. If you show me evidence that meets this burden I'll submit that your argument is better than anything I can come up with. Until then I will keep my rights, thank you. How much worse does it need to get before mandates would be appropriate? Are we supposed to wait for it to become as bad as the plague before enacting mandates? Well guess what: it's not just the 2% death rate that's a problem: all the people who survive it, who are "easily treatable", as you say, are filling up hospitals. My local hospital just recently had to start refusing all elective treatments due to being at capacity with covid-19 cases, mostly unvaccinated. Why should the rest of us, who got vaccinated, have trouble getting treatment in hospitals because some people decided to forego getting vaccinated, despite advice from healthcare professionals everywhere? Why should people who need medical care unrelated to covid-19 have trouble receiving that care because hospitals are overflowing with anti-vaxxers? YES, this is my point exactly. You say it's bad enough now to require mandated behavior, I ask why are the totality of these conditions sufficient to justify the mandate?
Why is it bad enough now for vaccines to be mandated? Because the pandemic has seriously degraded the quality of life for millions of people, even aside from the raw death rate, which is of course horrible in its own right.
- My university was only doing online classes for a year. I am not paying huge sums of money for zoom classes, so I took the year off. That slowed down my college education.
- Hospitals are filling up to the point where they're having to start refusing elective treatments. This means if you want medical treatment for something that's not immediately life-threatening, you can't get it because all the beds are full of covid patients, mostly unvaccinated covid patients.
- This includes treatments such as colonoscopies, mammograms, and other procedures that help detect cancer early. People are literally unable to get these treatments because beds are filled up.
- There are some people who are unable to get vaccinated due to medical conditions. These people depend on herd immunity: in other words, that the vaccination rate is so high that no virus can survive in the population. If vaccination isn't required in schools, many of these people are unable to attend, for example.
- People with family members that live in other countries may be unable to visit if international travel is not allowed (which it won't be if we don't get this pandemic under control).
So there you go: all of these are consequences of the pandemic, and all of these would be much less severe if the vaccination rates were higher. And this is why vaccine mandates are good.
My university has fairly strict vaccine, mask, and testing mandates for all students and staff. All students must be vaccinated, masks must be worn inside all buildings except when eating or drinking, and before I return to campus after winter break, I'll have to have my booster. I also have to get tested twice per week.
Because of these strict mandates, the university has managed to control the spread of covid-19 among the student population. They've been able to have in-person classes and clubs this year. People who are arguing for "personal freedoms" are arguing against my right to enjoy in-person classes and extracurricular activities.
Your right to make bad decisions about your personal healthcare does NOT trump MY right to enjoy in-person classes like every other college student who ever existed. Not after I'm finally managing to get my life in order.
|
On December 21 2021 10:20 dudeman001 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 09:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 09:33 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:13 codonbyte wrote:On December 21 2021 09:08 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 02:10 pmh wrote:On December 21 2021 01:26 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
I think people forget that we live a rather rarefied existence, especially in the West. We haven’t fully conquered all that nature can throw at us. We aren’t guaranteed a certain standard of living, it’s what we carve out.
I don’t blame anti-vaxxers for things dragging on as it seems patently clear that vaccination alone may not cut it.
I do think many of their rationales and sometimes underlying motivations are stupid, while vaccination isn’t the golden goose solution, not vaccinating certainly doesn’t bloody help.
In addition many, albeit not all don’t exactly adhere to the additional behaviours that help on top of/instead of vaccination.
It’s been years since I’ve heard calls to seek to avoid polarisation in all sorts of domains. Sometimes seeking some common ground would absolutely be prudent, sometimes we’re getting into the fallacy of moderation territory.
This isn’t to say people aren’t guilty of pious or overly divisive rhetoric that isn’t especially helpful, that frequently also comes from a position of a total lack of understanding or knowledge themselves, or that genuine objections to other things get lumped in as ‘anti-vax’
Without adding a million additional caveats I’m not talking about folks in this thread, but in the environs outside.
They’re, absolutely full of shite in myriad mysterious and muddled ways. The only way to have a discussion that doesn’t become poisonous and polarised is not to have it at all.
Which isn’t reducing polarisation because ultimately you’re just letting a group of people do what they want, which antagonises the other ‘pole’ anyway.
It’s ‘don’t tell me what to do’ taken to such preposterous realms it can only come from a humongous anti-authority streak or plain selfishness, and given some of the crossover into some of their politics, they are only anti-authority when it’s not their bloke.
If the government mandated people not to jump in a fire some of these folks would be making giant pyres and triple jumping in holding hands. Yes i do agree. All this is very much true. A prudent strategy to properly adrees this i dont really see unfortunatly. Trying to force the issue has proven to not be very effective. People only dig in more,heels in the sand. The effect of any sort of polarization spreads out like oil,also increasing polarization in other areas. This effect is particulary strong in the USA where every single issue has become polarized mostly along partizan lines. Maybe ignoring and accepting the issue to some extend isnt the worst solution at this point. Simply repeating the message and advices from scientists in a friendly and open manner without directly attacking the unvaxxed on a personal level. As direct pressure only increases resistance. Eventually people will come around if you aproach them this way. At least thats what i hope and also think. This has been the general aproach in most western nations so far so i do think we are doing the right thing when it comes to this. Its mostly the public itself which does become more hostile towards the other side, which i think is not helping. The other option would be to force vaccinations and make them mandatory,this isnt the worst solution for dealing with the pandemic and some countries have resorted to this already. But doing so does go against some of the principles on which our society is build,it does come with collateral damage. For some people this will work.They will take the vaccine and simply stop caring about having been forced to take it. With other people it will backfire and they will be even less willing to comply. In the end it might not be the worst solution as the group which will simply accept it is probably a lot bigger then the group which will resist even more. But it would be much better for the future if this could be avoided all together. Verbally, that might be true, but applying direct pressure in other ways has been beneficial to getting more people vaccinated, such as requiring vaccinations to travel or stay employed. They might bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, they're vaccinated and finally contributing the tiniest little bit to society (however much they may hate it). The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. You're talking about stripping people's right to - as you said it - travel or stay employed, unless they take a corporation's pharmaceutical product. THAT is a tyrannical approach to the problem. Under normal circumstances, that would be tyrannical. However, a global pandemic that has already killed millions of people can hardly be described as "normal". Extreme circumstances call for extreme actions, including requiring that people take a corporation's pharmaceutical product or lose the right to travel or be employed. This is a public health issue. I'm tired of being unable to live life normally because 10-20% of the population refuses to get vaccinated for "philosophical reasons". Their refusal to get vaccinated has detrimental effects on the quality of my life. This year, my university just recently started having in-person classes again, and they'll have to stop if the situation declines. When there is a public health crisis, the public needs to work together to solve it, and that means sacrificing some of your personal freedom. If we were dealing with a pandemic that had a 98% death rate I would be completely onboard with taking extreme action to overcome the disease. But instead we have a virus with a 98% survival rate AND is highly treatable even without the use of vaccines. I don't believe you've met the burden of justification to remove people's rights in this regard. On December 21 2021 09:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 09:08 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 02:10 pmh wrote:On December 21 2021 01:26 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
I think people forget that we live a rather rarefied existence, especially in the West. We haven’t fully conquered all that nature can throw at us. We aren’t guaranteed a certain standard of living, it’s what we carve out.
I don’t blame anti-vaxxers for things dragging on as it seems patently clear that vaccination alone may not cut it.
I do think many of their rationales and sometimes underlying motivations are stupid, while vaccination isn’t the golden goose solution, not vaccinating certainly doesn’t bloody help.
In addition many, albeit not all don’t exactly adhere to the additional behaviours that help on top of/instead of vaccination.
It’s been years since I’ve heard calls to seek to avoid polarisation in all sorts of domains. Sometimes seeking some common ground would absolutely be prudent, sometimes we’re getting into the fallacy of moderation territory.
This isn’t to say people aren’t guilty of pious or overly divisive rhetoric that isn’t especially helpful, that frequently also comes from a position of a total lack of understanding or knowledge themselves, or that genuine objections to other things get lumped in as ‘anti-vax’
Without adding a million additional caveats I’m not talking about folks in this thread, but in the environs outside.
They’re, absolutely full of shite in myriad mysterious and muddled ways. The only way to have a discussion that doesn’t become poisonous and polarised is not to have it at all.
Which isn’t reducing polarisation because ultimately you’re just letting a group of people do what they want, which antagonises the other ‘pole’ anyway.
It’s ‘don’t tell me what to do’ taken to such preposterous realms it can only come from a humongous anti-authority streak or plain selfishness, and given some of the crossover into some of their politics, they are only anti-authority when it’s not their bloke.
If the government mandated people not to jump in a fire some of these folks would be making giant pyres and triple jumping in holding hands. Yes i do agree. All this is very much true. A prudent strategy to properly adrees this i dont really see unfortunatly. Trying to force the issue has proven to not be very effective. People only dig in more,heels in the sand. The effect of any sort of polarization spreads out like oil,also increasing polarization in other areas. This effect is particulary strong in the USA where every single issue has become polarized mostly along partizan lines. Maybe ignoring and accepting the issue to some extend isnt the worst solution at this point. Simply repeating the message and advices from scientists in a friendly and open manner without directly attacking the unvaxxed on a personal level. As direct pressure only increases resistance. Eventually people will come around if you aproach them this way. At least thats what i hope and also think. This has been the general aproach in most western nations so far so i do think we are doing the right thing when it comes to this. Its mostly the public itself which does become more hostile towards the other side, which i think is not helping. The other option would be to force vaccinations and make them mandatory,this isnt the worst solution for dealing with the pandemic and some countries have resorted to this already. But doing so does go against some of the principles on which our society is build,it does come with collateral damage. For some people this will work.They will take the vaccine and simply stop caring about having been forced to take it. With other people it will backfire and they will be even less willing to comply. In the end it might not be the worst solution as the group which will simply accept it is probably a lot bigger then the group which will resist even more. But it would be much better for the future if this could be avoided all together. Verbally, that might be true, but applying direct pressure in other ways has been beneficial to getting more people vaccinated, such as requiring vaccinations to travel or stay employed. They might bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, they're vaccinated and finally contributing the tiniest little bit to society (however much they may hate it). The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. You're talking about stripping people's right to - as you said it - travel or stay employed, unless they take a corporation's pharmaceutical product. THAT is a tyrannical approach to the problem. No, you're stripping people's rights by condemning vaccines. People do not have the right to jeopardize the health of those around them. You don't get to do whatever the hell you want, regardless of how it may endanger others. Focusing on the idea that it's because of "corporate pharmaceuticals" is completely glossing over the very real death toll and severe injury toll of the insanely infectious pandemic we've been fighting. And this is true in non-covid contexts as well, such as mandatory vaccines for public school children. You're arguing for removing people's rights under the imposition of force unless they act how you want them to. But you know what, fine. I said above that if we were dealing with a deadlier virus I would agree to a mandate because there is a threshold at which imposed behavior becomes justified. Here are my terms: Prove to me that unless every individual takes this vaccine - and only this vaccine - society itself can no longer function. If you show me evidence that meets this burden I'll submit that your argument is better than anything I can come up with. Until then I will keep my rights, thank you. I don't know why this is brought up every week or so, but "survival rate" is simply not the bar we should be electing to have, when countless others have already experienced devastating effects of covid besides literal death. Just for further reference, people who quote the 98% or 99% survival rate are immediately taken less seriously in discussions about covid, because they imply the false dichotomy of "unless a covid-infected person dies, they end up being fine and not worthy of consideration". Not only is this fallacious, but it also doesn't account for the massive overburdening of our hospitals that are completely preventable by more people being vaccinated - which jeopardizes other patients who aren't infected by covid but still need those emergency resources - and those who are hospitalized from covid (regardless of whether they ultimately live or die) are significantly disproportionately unvaccinated. And if the long-term effects of covid and the hospital saturation weren't enough, there's also the lack of contribution towards herd immunity, to help protect those who are either genetically immunocompromised or are taking medicine that makes them more susceptible to infection, which could be the stranger you pass in the supermarket or the coworker who works alongside you. And I don't care about your "terms", which only reveal that you don't understand how vaccines work. To copy a line I wrote a few minutes ago: we've had enforceable laws and public health regulations and travel restrictions and employment requirements forever, including vaccination prerequisites in many cases. You have the right to not abide by them as long as you're okay with the consequences, which means you'll be missing out on parts of society, and literally no one cares that you want to throw a temper tantrum over why you can't be unsafe around others. Grow up or get lost. Despite being incredibly condescending and baking in plenty of assumptions about what I do/don't know, I do thank that you at least begun to answer my issue. If I understand this correctly you're arguing that survival rate is not enough of a metric and that long-term effects & burden on healthcare are enough to mandate vaccination. Ok. At what point is mandated behavior justified? I mean really specifically, how bad do things have to get before mandates outweigh rights? Furthermore if there are countries with much lower vaccination rates than normal and yet also much lower covid & hospitalization rates, why is mandated behavior the only solution? As for the legal issues I'll need more specifics to understand what you mean. As I understand it in the US some employers require vaccination because of the enhanced risk nature of the work, such as workers in the medical industry. But my employer has never asked me about my personal medical information ever. There seem to be many different standards applied historically, and I don't see the justification for a flat mandate across the board.
I was simply matching your level of condescension, which you started with "the fuck?" and accused the medical/scientific community of being tyrants for asserting - based on our massive wealth of data and evidence - that people ought to be vaccinated during our current pandemic. Anyways, I'll try to answer your questions to the best of my ability.
I don't know how/where to draw a line to say "now we've officially reached a point where we can start mandating behavior", because we mandate tons of behaviors for a variety of different reasons. We have seat belt laws, smoking/drinking laws, some restrictions on free speech, gun regulations, mandatory vaccines for public school children, rules for employment, rules for customers in private businesses, and a whole slew of other regulations that are arguably at different levels of severity for very different reasons, based on context. If we're focusing solely on public health and infectious disease issues, I would err on the side of being overly cautious because novel viruses and potential epidemics/pandemics can get extremely out of hand, lives could be at stake, and I think being proactive is generally better than being reactive.
To your second question of "how bad do things have to get before mandates outweigh rights?", I still think everyone has made a reasonable case that mandates preserve some rights at the expense of others. Certain mandates aren't all bad for those of us who promote rights and freedom and long-term autonomy. I don't see a vaccinate mandate as a net-negative for rights; I see it as a short-term loss for some rights, but a long-term gain for most rights. It's a matter of priorities.
In regards to legal issues, that was to speak more broadly to the fact that a vaccine mandate would simply be the millionth regulation and isn't really anything different... it's just another rule, whereas perhaps we're already accustomed to abiding by all the others, but I don't see such a mandate as a unique infringement on one's rights. There are already countless travel restrictions, employment restrictions, and other restrictions anyway, so I don't see a vaccinate mandate as anything monumental, especially when I think it's for a very good cause.
|
On December 21 2021 10:00 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 09:47 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:39 codonbyte wrote:On December 21 2021 09:21 Slydie wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 02:10 pmh wrote:On December 21 2021 01:26 WombaT wrote:On December 20 2021 09:54 pmh wrote:
The best way forward for society as a whole i would not dare to say. Maybe public expectations should be lowerd.The public has never fully realized the scope of this pandemic and messages from authoritys have been to optimistic in general (for which there are definitely some arguments so i can understand that).
We dont have all that many options other then continue with the current strategy and hope that at one point things will get better. If this is actually realistic and how long this would take i would not dare to say either but it could be that we are somewhat close.
The unvaxed are definitely not helping but blaming them is pointless i think. It only increases polarization which isnt particulary helpfull in a situation like this. The problem is also bigger then a certain percentage of the population beeing unvaxed. Many people thought they where good with 2 vaccinations and now everyone does need a booster which cant be done in time because of logistical issues. The unvaxed will still get their protection from infection eventually. I think people forget that we live a rather rarefied existence, especially in the West. We haven’t fully conquered all that nature can throw at us. We aren’t guaranteed a certain standard of living, it’s what we carve out. I don’t blame anti-vaxxers for things dragging on as it seems patently clear that vaccination alone may not cut it. I do think many of their rationales and sometimes underlying motivations are stupid, while vaccination isn’t the golden goose solution, not vaccinating certainly doesn’t bloody help. In addition many, albeit not all don’t exactly adhere to the additional behaviours that help on top of/instead of vaccination. It’s been years since I’ve heard calls to seek to avoid polarisation in all sorts of domains. Sometimes seeking some common ground would absolutely be prudent, sometimes we’re getting into the fallacy of moderation territory. This isn’t to say people aren’t guilty of pious or overly divisive rhetoric that isn’t especially helpful, that frequently also comes from a position of a total lack of understanding or knowledge themselves, or that genuine objections to other things get lumped in as ‘anti-vax’ Without adding a million additional caveats I’m not talking about folks in this thread, but in the environs outside. They’re, absolutely full of shite in myriad mysterious and muddled ways. The only way to have a discussion that doesn’t become poisonous and polarised is not to have it at all. Which isn’t reducing polarisation because ultimately you’re just letting a group of people do what they want, which antagonises the other ‘pole’ anyway. It’s ‘don’t tell me what to do’ taken to such preposterous realms it can only come from a humongous anti-authority streak or plain selfishness, and given some of the crossover into some of their politics, they are only anti-authority when it’s not their bloke. If the government mandated people not to jump in a fire some of these folks would be making giant pyres and triple jumping in holding hands. Yes i do agree. All this is very much true. A prudent strategy to properly adrees this i dont really see unfortunatly. Trying to force the issue has proven to not be very effective. People only dig in more,heels in the sand. The effect of any sort of polarization spreads out like oil,also increasing polarization in other areas. This effect is particulary strong in the USA where every single issue has become polarized mostly along partizan lines. Maybe ignoring and accepting the issue to some extend isnt the worst solution at this point. Simply repeating the message and advices from scientists in a friendly and open manner without directly attacking the unvaxxed on a personal level. As direct pressure only increases resistance. Eventually people will come around if you aproach them this way. At least thats what i hope and also think. This has been the general aproach in most western nations so far so i do think we are doing the right thing when it comes to this. Its mostly the public itself which does become more hostile towards the other side, which i think is not helping. The other option would be to force vaccinations and make them mandatory,this isnt the worst solution for dealing with the pandemic and some countries have resorted to this already. But doing so does go against some of the principles on which our society is build,it does come with collateral damage. For some people this will work.They will take the vaccine and simply stop caring about having been forced to take it. With other people it will backfire and they will be even less willing to comply. In the end it might not be the worst solution as the group which will simply accept it is probably a lot bigger then the group which will resist even more. But it would be much better for the future if this could be avoided all together. Verbally, that might be true, but applying direct pressure in other ways has been beneficial to getting more people vaccinated, such as requiring vaccinations to travel or stay employed. They might bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, they're vaccinated and finally contributing the tiniest little bit to society (however much they may hate it). The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. I might be an idealist, but from a principal point of view, I do not support vaccine mandates. All medication should be taken by choice, not force. I also find it very hard to defend that you can be demanded to give medical information to anyone working for example in a restaurant, who has no HC-related function nor education. Other implications of letting go of this area of privacy give me chills. I absolutely support vaccines and put my whole summer holiday on hold to get my shots ASAP, but mandates are a very tough question of benefits and values. We have given up a lot of personal freedom to fight this pandemic, and there is no telling when, if ever, we will get them back. You know what gives me chills? The thought of losing the freedom to attend in-person classes at university. Or actually go out to dinner at restaurants and bars. Or the freedom to get on a plane and travel where I please. That's what really gives me chills. Yet all those freedoms are at stake if we don't get this pandemic under control. If one person's freedom to refuse reasonable medical treatment is infringing on society's freedom to pursue life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, then the solution is clear. You want the right to refuse to get vaccinated, okay, fine. You can have that right. However, you do not have the right to put other people's lives in danger, which means that employers can ban you from working if you aren't vaccinated. In fact, I'd go further and say that it is unreasonable for an employer to require someone to endanger their own safety by working in the presence of unvaccinated people, who are more likely to be infected with covid. And of course subjecting other airline passengers to your presence is out of the question in the confined space of an aircraft. And universities that want to be able to continue in-person lessons would be wise to ban you from their campuses, since it would unfairly jeopardize the safety of other students. So yes, it's understandable to want your own freedom and liberty, but it can't come at the expense of other people's freedom and liberty. To this day I still don't understand this argument so please enlighten me. How is an unvaccinated person any more dangerous to other individuals than a vaccinated person? They are more dangerous to themselves, yes, the vaccine provides strong protection from symptom severity. But repeated scientific study shows no difference in viral load & transmissibility between the two groups. ![[image loading]](https://images.foxtv.com/static.fox13news.com/www.fox13news.com/content/uploads/2021/08/1280/720/ffbfc3b6-snapshot-copy.jpg?ve=1&tl=1) Cumulative number of COVID-19 vaccination Number % in Populaton People Vaccinated with at least One Dose 342,748 83.16% People Fully Vaccinated 290,645 70.52% Now do the math between how much hospital resources an unvacinated person uses vs a vaccinated person uses.
No argument with your chart but I'm talking about infection rates, not hospitalization rates.
On December 21 2021 10:13 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 09:47 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:39 codonbyte wrote:On December 21 2021 09:21 Slydie wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 02:10 pmh wrote:On December 21 2021 01:26 WombaT wrote:On December 20 2021 09:54 pmh wrote:
The best way forward for society as a whole i would not dare to say. Maybe public expectations should be lowerd.The public has never fully realized the scope of this pandemic and messages from authoritys have been to optimistic in general (for which there are definitely some arguments so i can understand that).
We dont have all that many options other then continue with the current strategy and hope that at one point things will get better. If this is actually realistic and how long this would take i would not dare to say either but it could be that we are somewhat close.
The unvaxed are definitely not helping but blaming them is pointless i think. It only increases polarization which isnt particulary helpfull in a situation like this. The problem is also bigger then a certain percentage of the population beeing unvaxed. Many people thought they where good with 2 vaccinations and now everyone does need a booster which cant be done in time because of logistical issues. The unvaxed will still get their protection from infection eventually. I think people forget that we live a rather rarefied existence, especially in the West. We haven’t fully conquered all that nature can throw at us. We aren’t guaranteed a certain standard of living, it’s what we carve out. I don’t blame anti-vaxxers for things dragging on as it seems patently clear that vaccination alone may not cut it. I do think many of their rationales and sometimes underlying motivations are stupid, while vaccination isn’t the golden goose solution, not vaccinating certainly doesn’t bloody help. In addition many, albeit not all don’t exactly adhere to the additional behaviours that help on top of/instead of vaccination. It’s been years since I’ve heard calls to seek to avoid polarisation in all sorts of domains. Sometimes seeking some common ground would absolutely be prudent, sometimes we’re getting into the fallacy of moderation territory. This isn’t to say people aren’t guilty of pious or overly divisive rhetoric that isn’t especially helpful, that frequently also comes from a position of a total lack of understanding or knowledge themselves, or that genuine objections to other things get lumped in as ‘anti-vax’ Without adding a million additional caveats I’m not talking about folks in this thread, but in the environs outside. They’re, absolutely full of shite in myriad mysterious and muddled ways. The only way to have a discussion that doesn’t become poisonous and polarised is not to have it at all. Which isn’t reducing polarisation because ultimately you’re just letting a group of people do what they want, which antagonises the other ‘pole’ anyway. It’s ‘don’t tell me what to do’ taken to such preposterous realms it can only come from a humongous anti-authority streak or plain selfishness, and given some of the crossover into some of their politics, they are only anti-authority when it’s not their bloke. If the government mandated people not to jump in a fire some of these folks would be making giant pyres and triple jumping in holding hands. Yes i do agree. All this is very much true. A prudent strategy to properly adrees this i dont really see unfortunatly. Trying to force the issue has proven to not be very effective. People only dig in more,heels in the sand. The effect of any sort of polarization spreads out like oil,also increasing polarization in other areas. This effect is particulary strong in the USA where every single issue has become polarized mostly along partizan lines. Maybe ignoring and accepting the issue to some extend isnt the worst solution at this point. Simply repeating the message and advices from scientists in a friendly and open manner without directly attacking the unvaxxed on a personal level. As direct pressure only increases resistance. Eventually people will come around if you aproach them this way. At least thats what i hope and also think. This has been the general aproach in most western nations so far so i do think we are doing the right thing when it comes to this. Its mostly the public itself which does become more hostile towards the other side, which i think is not helping. The other option would be to force vaccinations and make them mandatory,this isnt the worst solution for dealing with the pandemic and some countries have resorted to this already. But doing so does go against some of the principles on which our society is build,it does come with collateral damage. For some people this will work.They will take the vaccine and simply stop caring about having been forced to take it. With other people it will backfire and they will be even less willing to comply. In the end it might not be the worst solution as the group which will simply accept it is probably a lot bigger then the group which will resist even more. But it would be much better for the future if this could be avoided all together. Verbally, that might be true, but applying direct pressure in other ways has been beneficial to getting more people vaccinated, such as requiring vaccinations to travel or stay employed. They might bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, they're vaccinated and finally contributing the tiniest little bit to society (however much they may hate it). The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. I might be an idealist, but from a principal point of view, I do not support vaccine mandates. All medication should be taken by choice, not force. I also find it very hard to defend that you can be demanded to give medical information to anyone working for example in a restaurant, who has no HC-related function nor education. Other implications of letting go of this area of privacy give me chills. I absolutely support vaccines and put my whole summer holiday on hold to get my shots ASAP, but mandates are a very tough question of benefits and values. We have given up a lot of personal freedom to fight this pandemic, and there is no telling when, if ever, we will get them back. You know what gives me chills? The thought of losing the freedom to attend in-person classes at university. Or actually go out to dinner at restaurants and bars. Or the freedom to get on a plane and travel where I please. That's what really gives me chills. Yet all those freedoms are at stake if we don't get this pandemic under control. If one person's freedom to refuse reasonable medical treatment is infringing on society's freedom to pursue life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, then the solution is clear. You want the right to refuse to get vaccinated, okay, fine. You can have that right. However, you do not have the right to put other people's lives in danger, which means that employers can ban you from working if you aren't vaccinated. In fact, I'd go further and say that it is unreasonable for an employer to require someone to endanger their own safety by working in the presence of unvaccinated people, who are more likely to be infected with covid. And of course subjecting other airline passengers to your presence is out of the question in the confined space of an aircraft. And universities that want to be able to continue in-person lessons would be wise to ban you from their campuses, since it would unfairly jeopardize the safety of other students. So yes, it's understandable to want your own freedom and liberty, but it can't come at the expense of other people's freedom and liberty. To this day I still don't understand this argument so please enlighten me. How is an unvaccinated person any more dangerous to other individuals than a vaccinated person? They are more dangerous to themselves, yes, the vaccine provides strong protection from symptom severity. But repeated scientific study shows no difference in viral load & transmissibility between the two groups. Because an unvaccinated person is more likely to catch covid-19, and therefore more likely to spread it. Therefore, they are a greater risk to society than a vaccinated person. Also, you claim that "repeated scientific study shows no difference in viral load & transmissibility between the two groups", but you don't cite any sources. I'm genuinely curious where you got that information from, because all the science I've seen indicates the opposite: Vaccinated Workers Shed Less Covid Virus
Thank you! Some science at last. Ok, I have questions about this study (https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/8/11/ofab526/6425697 link to it from the article itself). First off it's an observational study which means correlation is the best outcome it can hope for. Second is this bit:
Between 16 December 2020 and 31 March 2021, there were 43 516 SARS-CoV-2 tests done among 11 930 employees with 880 employees having a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Among those employees with a positive test, 594 (67.5%) received at least 1 vaccine dose during the study period and 286 (32.5%) were not vaccinated.
Ok... they only tested the vaccination status of those that tested positive. What about the other 11,005 employees? Were they all vaccinated? Unvaccinated? We don't know because the study didn't test for that. It seems these workers were being tested once a month. What about the rest of the time? Overall this may point us in the direction that viral load is higher in unvaccinated individuals but it's not conclusive by any means.
You ask for science so here is some in return:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.12.21265796v1
Salvatore et al. examined the transmission potential of vaccinated and unvaccinated persons infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in a federal prison, July-August 2021. They found a total of 978 specimens were provided by 95 participants, “of whom 78 (82%) were fully vaccinated and 17 (18%) were not fully vaccinated…clinicians and public health practitioners should consider vaccinated persons who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 to be no less infectious than unvaccinated persons.”
(not peer reviewed)
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext
Singanayagam et al. examined the transmission and viral load kinetics in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with mild delta variant infection in the community. They found that (in 602 community contacts (identified via the UK contract-tracing system) of 471 UK COVID-19 index cases were recruited to the Assessment of Transmission and Contagiousness of COVID-19 in Contacts cohort study and contributed 8145 upper respiratory tract samples from daily sampling for up to 20 days) “vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and accelerates viral clearance. Nonetheless, fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts.”
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v1
Chia et al. reported that PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values were “similar between both vaccinated and unvaccinated groups at diagnosis, but viral loads decreased faster in vaccinated individuals. Early, robust boosting of anti-spike protein antibodies was observed in vaccinated patients, however, these titers were significantly lower against B.1.617.2 as compared with the wildtype vaccine strain.”
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.19.21262111v1
Israel, 2021 looked at Large-scale study of antibody titer decay following BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine or SARS-CoV-2 infection, and reported as “To determine the kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies following administration of two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine, or SARS-CoV-2 infection in unvaccinated individuals…In vaccinated subjects, antibody titers decreased by up to 40% each subsequent month while in convalescents they decreased by less than 5% per month. Six months after BNT162b2 vaccination 16.1% subjects had antibody levels below the sero-positivity threshold of <50 AU/mL, while only 10.8% of convalescent patients were below <50 AU/mL threshold after 9 months from SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
(side note, fascinating result showing vaccinated individuals initial have higher levels of antibodies than unvaccinated, but decrease much more rapidly than in unvaccinated)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34351882/
In Barnstable, Massachusetts, Brown et al. found that among 469 cases of COVID-19, 74% were fully vaccinated, and that “the vaccinated had on average more virus in their nose than the unvaccinated who were infected.”
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v1
Riemersma et al. found “no difference in viral loads when comparing unvaccinated individuals to those who have vaccine “breakthrough” infections. Furthermore, individuals with vaccine breakthrough infections frequently test positive with viral loads consistent with the ability to shed infectious viruses.” Results indicate that “if vaccinated individuals become infected with the delta variant, they may be sources of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to others.” They reported “low Ct values (<25) in 212 of 310 fully vaccinated (68%) and 246 of 389 (63%) unvaccinated individuals. Testing a subset of these low-Ct samples revealed infectious SARS-CoV-2 in 15 of 17 specimens (88%) from unvaccinated individuals and 37 of 39 (95%) from vaccinated people.”
Is that sufficient to substantiate "repeated scientific study"?
|
On December 21 2021 10:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 10:20 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 09:33 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:13 codonbyte wrote:On December 21 2021 09:08 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 02:10 pmh wrote:
[quote]
Yes i do agree. All this is very much true.
A prudent strategy to properly adrees this i dont really see unfortunatly. Trying to force the issue has proven to not be very effective. People only dig in more,heels in the sand. The effect of any sort of polarization spreads out like oil,also increasing polarization in other areas. This effect is particulary strong in the USA where every single issue has become polarized mostly along partizan lines.
Maybe ignoring and accepting the issue to some extend isnt the worst solution at this point. Simply repeating the message and advices from scientists in a friendly and open manner without directly attacking the unvaxxed on a personal level. As direct pressure only increases resistance. Eventually people will come around if you aproach them this way. At least thats what i hope and also think.
This has been the general aproach in most western nations so far so i do think we are doing the right thing when it comes to this. Its mostly the public itself which does become more hostile towards the other side, which i think is not helping.
The other option would be to force vaccinations and make them mandatory,this isnt the worst solution for dealing with the pandemic and some countries have resorted to this already. But doing so does go against some of the principles on which our society is build,it does come with collateral damage.
For some people this will work.They will take the vaccine and simply stop caring about having been forced to take it. With other people it will backfire and they will be even less willing to comply. In the end it might not be the worst solution as the group which will simply accept it is probably a lot bigger then the group which will resist even more. But it would be much better for the future if this could be avoided all together.
Verbally, that might be true, but applying direct pressure in other ways has been beneficial to getting more people vaccinated, such as requiring vaccinations to travel or stay employed. They might bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, they're vaccinated and finally contributing the tiniest little bit to society (however much they may hate it). The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. You're talking about stripping people's right to - as you said it - travel or stay employed, unless they take a corporation's pharmaceutical product. THAT is a tyrannical approach to the problem. Under normal circumstances, that would be tyrannical. However, a global pandemic that has already killed millions of people can hardly be described as "normal". Extreme circumstances call for extreme actions, including requiring that people take a corporation's pharmaceutical product or lose the right to travel or be employed. This is a public health issue. I'm tired of being unable to live life normally because 10-20% of the population refuses to get vaccinated for "philosophical reasons". Their refusal to get vaccinated has detrimental effects on the quality of my life. This year, my university just recently started having in-person classes again, and they'll have to stop if the situation declines. When there is a public health crisis, the public needs to work together to solve it, and that means sacrificing some of your personal freedom. If we were dealing with a pandemic that had a 98% death rate I would be completely onboard with taking extreme action to overcome the disease. But instead we have a virus with a 98% survival rate AND is highly treatable even without the use of vaccines. I don't believe you've met the burden of justification to remove people's rights in this regard. On December 21 2021 09:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 09:08 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 02:10 pmh wrote:
[quote]
Yes i do agree. All this is very much true.
A prudent strategy to properly adrees this i dont really see unfortunatly. Trying to force the issue has proven to not be very effective. People only dig in more,heels in the sand. The effect of any sort of polarization spreads out like oil,also increasing polarization in other areas. This effect is particulary strong in the USA where every single issue has become polarized mostly along partizan lines.
Maybe ignoring and accepting the issue to some extend isnt the worst solution at this point. Simply repeating the message and advices from scientists in a friendly and open manner without directly attacking the unvaxxed on a personal level. As direct pressure only increases resistance. Eventually people will come around if you aproach them this way. At least thats what i hope and also think.
This has been the general aproach in most western nations so far so i do think we are doing the right thing when it comes to this. Its mostly the public itself which does become more hostile towards the other side, which i think is not helping.
The other option would be to force vaccinations and make them mandatory,this isnt the worst solution for dealing with the pandemic and some countries have resorted to this already. But doing so does go against some of the principles on which our society is build,it does come with collateral damage.
For some people this will work.They will take the vaccine and simply stop caring about having been forced to take it. With other people it will backfire and they will be even less willing to comply. In the end it might not be the worst solution as the group which will simply accept it is probably a lot bigger then the group which will resist even more. But it would be much better for the future if this could be avoided all together.
Verbally, that might be true, but applying direct pressure in other ways has been beneficial to getting more people vaccinated, such as requiring vaccinations to travel or stay employed. They might bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, they're vaccinated and finally contributing the tiniest little bit to society (however much they may hate it). The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. You're talking about stripping people's right to - as you said it - travel or stay employed, unless they take a corporation's pharmaceutical product. THAT is a tyrannical approach to the problem. No, you're stripping people's rights by condemning vaccines. People do not have the right to jeopardize the health of those around them. You don't get to do whatever the hell you want, regardless of how it may endanger others. Focusing on the idea that it's because of "corporate pharmaceuticals" is completely glossing over the very real death toll and severe injury toll of the insanely infectious pandemic we've been fighting. And this is true in non-covid contexts as well, such as mandatory vaccines for public school children. You're arguing for removing people's rights under the imposition of force unless they act how you want them to. But you know what, fine. I said above that if we were dealing with a deadlier virus I would agree to a mandate because there is a threshold at which imposed behavior becomes justified. Here are my terms: Prove to me that unless every individual takes this vaccine - and only this vaccine - society itself can no longer function. If you show me evidence that meets this burden I'll submit that your argument is better than anything I can come up with. Until then I will keep my rights, thank you. I don't know why this is brought up every week or so, but "survival rate" is simply not the bar we should be electing to have, when countless others have already experienced devastating effects of covid besides literal death. Just for further reference, people who quote the 98% or 99% survival rate are immediately taken less seriously in discussions about covid, because they imply the false dichotomy of "unless a covid-infected person dies, they end up being fine and not worthy of consideration". Not only is this fallacious, but it also doesn't account for the massive overburdening of our hospitals that are completely preventable by more people being vaccinated - which jeopardizes other patients who aren't infected by covid but still need those emergency resources - and those who are hospitalized from covid (regardless of whether they ultimately live or die) are significantly disproportionately unvaccinated. And if the long-term effects of covid and the hospital saturation weren't enough, there's also the lack of contribution towards herd immunity, to help protect those who are either genetically immunocompromised or are taking medicine that makes them more susceptible to infection, which could be the stranger you pass in the supermarket or the coworker who works alongside you. And I don't care about your "terms", which only reveal that you don't understand how vaccines work. To copy a line I wrote a few minutes ago: we've had enforceable laws and public health regulations and travel restrictions and employment requirements forever, including vaccination prerequisites in many cases. You have the right to not abide by them as long as you're okay with the consequences, which means you'll be missing out on parts of society, and literally no one cares that you want to throw a temper tantrum over why you can't be unsafe around others. Grow up or get lost. Despite being incredibly condescending and baking in plenty of assumptions about what I do/don't know, I do thank that you at least begun to answer my issue. If I understand this correctly you're arguing that survival rate is not enough of a metric and that long-term effects & burden on healthcare are enough to mandate vaccination. Ok. At what point is mandated behavior justified? I mean really specifically, how bad do things have to get before mandates outweigh rights? Furthermore if there are countries with much lower vaccination rates than normal and yet also much lower covid & hospitalization rates, why is mandated behavior the only solution? As for the legal issues I'll need more specifics to understand what you mean. As I understand it in the US some employers require vaccination because of the enhanced risk nature of the work, such as workers in the medical industry. But my employer has never asked me about my personal medical information ever. There seem to be many different standards applied historically, and I don't see the justification for a flat mandate across the board. I was simply matching your level of condescension, which you started with "the fuck?" and accused the medical/scientific community of being tyrants for asserting - based on our massive wealth of data and evidence - that people ought to be vaccinated during our current pandemic. Anyways, I'll try to answer your questions to the best of my ability. I don't know how/where to draw a line to say "now we've officially reached a point where we can start mandating behavior", because we mandate tons of behaviors for a variety of different reasons. We have seat belt laws, smoking/drinking laws, some restrictions on free speech, gun regulations, mandatory vaccines for public school children, rules for employment, rules for customers in private businesses, and a whole slew of other regulations that are arguably at different levels of severity for very different reasons, based on context. If we're focusing solely on public health and infectious disease issues, I would err on the side of being overly cautious because novel viruses and potential epidemics/pandemics can get extremely out of hand, lives could be at stake, and I think being proactive is generally better than being reactive. To your second question of "how bad do things have to get before mandates outweigh rights?", I still think everyone has made a reasonable case that mandates preserve some rights at the expense of others. Certain mandates aren't all bad for those of us who promote rights and freedom and long-term autonomy. I don't see a vaccinate mandate as a net-negative for rights; I see it as a short-term loss for some rights, but a long-term gain for most rights. It's a matter of priorities. In regards to legal issues, that was to speak more broadly to the fact that a vaccine mandate would simply be the millionth regulation and isn't really anything different... it's just another rule, whereas perhaps we're already accustomed to abiding by all the others, but I don't see such a mandate as a unique infringement on one's rights. There are already countless travel restrictions, employment restrictions, and other restrictions anyway, so I don't see a vaccinate mandate as anything monumental, especially when I think it's for a very good cause.
I apologize if my initial post came off as rude or condescending, but please understand that I'm on your side. I care about your rights as much as my own, and I view taking them away as the last resort option after all other solutions are exhausted, starting with taking away rights is tyrannical in my eyes.
I expect the counter to that is that this isn't the starting point, and that we've tried many things to get the virus under control. But I stand by asking have we tried everything else first? India, Japan, Bangladesh, and more are all getting covid under control/do have it under control regardless of vaccination rate, which is why i asked for proof that the vaccine - and only the vaccine - is the only way out of the pandemic.
|
Northern Ireland25449 Posts
It’s justified so long as some combination of power and wider social compulsion makes it so. That’s how a lot of rights, if not all of them functionally exist. Usually augmented with some kind of rationale or principle.
Rights exist on a set of scales with obligations, you don’t have these rights without society at large guaranteeing them, you haven’t earned them, they’re a part of the social contract.
Sometimes you gotta balance the scales, be it by adhering to general standards or more structurally enforced things like taxation.
In this instance it’s pretty simple. There’s a pandemic, it’s caused huge amounts of despair and disruption. To help out, in meaningful ways you can get a vaccine, for free, with mild side effects.
That’s it, nobody’s being dragged into the ER from their day job to man the trenches. There shouldn’t be a mandate no, because this should so self-evidently be a reasonable trade off that nobody outside of those with genuine medical exemptions should be eschewing it.
Prove to me that unless every individual takes this vaccine - and only this vaccine - society itself can no longer function. If you show me evidence that meets this burden I'll submit that your argument is better than anything I can come up with. Until then I will keep my rights, thank you.
No, this is an unprovable hypothesis, and an insane burden of proof for any argument. Nobody in here to my knowledge has claimed this, to start.
What is your threshold of acceptable harm caused by a pandemic that would necessitate mandated behaviours and supersede your ‘rights’?
Bear very much in mind, and people for some reason frequently forget this in arguments that all the numbers thus far are for a health crisis with an unprecedented global mitigation response, in the entirety of human history.
|
On December 21 2021 10:57 WombaT wrote:
It’s justified so long as some combination of power and wider social compulsion makes it so. That’s how a lot of rights, if not all of them functionally exist. Usually augmented with some kind of rationale or principle.
Rights exist on a set of scales with obligations, you don’t have these rights without society at large guaranteeing them, you haven’t earned them, they’re a part of the social contract.
Sometimes you gotta balance the scales, be it by adhering to general standards or more structurally enforced things like taxation.
In this instance it’s pretty simple. There’s a pandemic, it’s caused huge amounts of despair and disruption. To help out, in meaningful ways you can get a vaccine, for free, with mild side effects.
That’s it, nobody’s being dragged into the ER from their day job to man the trenches. There shouldn’t be a mandate no, because this should so self-evidently be a reasonable trade off that nobody outside of those with genuine medical exemptions should be eschewing it.
Prove to me that unless every individual takes this vaccine - and only this vaccine - society itself can no longer function. If you show me evidence that meets this burden I'll submit that your argument is better than anything I can come up with. Until then I will keep my rights, thank you.
No, this is an unprovable hypothesis, and an insane burden of proof for any argument. Nobody in here to my knowledge has claimed this, to start.
What is your threshold of acceptable harm caused by a pandemic that would necessitate mandated behaviours and supersede your ‘rights’?
Bear very much in mind, and people for some reason frequently forget this in arguments that all the numbers thus far are for a health crisis with an unprecedented global mitigation response, in the entirety of human history.
Overall pretty much agree with what you're saying. I think my point is consistent with your perspective as well. The threat of mandates boils down to "you no longer get to be part of society until you take this." To which I say "So the threshold is that society can no longer function unless I take the vaccine?" It seems like an appropriate burden of justification for what's being threatened to be taken away.
|
Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 10:44 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 10:00 Sermokala wrote:On December 21 2021 09:47 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:39 codonbyte wrote:On December 21 2021 09:21 Slydie wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 02:10 pmh wrote:
[quote]
Yes i do agree. All this is very much true.
A prudent strategy to properly adrees this i dont really see unfortunatly. Trying to force the issue has proven to not be very effective. People only dig in more,heels in the sand. The effect of any sort of polarization spreads out like oil,also increasing polarization in other areas. This effect is particulary strong in the USA where every single issue has become polarized mostly along partizan lines.
Maybe ignoring and accepting the issue to some extend isnt the worst solution at this point. Simply repeating the message and advices from scientists in a friendly and open manner without directly attacking the unvaxxed on a personal level. As direct pressure only increases resistance. Eventually people will come around if you aproach them this way. At least thats what i hope and also think.
This has been the general aproach in most western nations so far so i do think we are doing the right thing when it comes to this. Its mostly the public itself which does become more hostile towards the other side, which i think is not helping.
The other option would be to force vaccinations and make them mandatory,this isnt the worst solution for dealing with the pandemic and some countries have resorted to this already. But doing so does go against some of the principles on which our society is build,it does come with collateral damage.
For some people this will work.They will take the vaccine and simply stop caring about having been forced to take it. With other people it will backfire and they will be even less willing to comply. In the end it might not be the worst solution as the group which will simply accept it is probably a lot bigger then the group which will resist even more. But it would be much better for the future if this could be avoided all together.
Verbally, that might be true, but applying direct pressure in other ways has been beneficial to getting more people vaccinated, such as requiring vaccinations to travel or stay employed. They might bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, they're vaccinated and finally contributing the tiniest little bit to society (however much they may hate it). The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. I might be an idealist, but from a principal point of view, I do not support vaccine mandates. All medication should be taken by choice, not force. I also find it very hard to defend that you can be demanded to give medical information to anyone working for example in a restaurant, who has no HC-related function nor education. Other implications of letting go of this area of privacy give me chills. I absolutely support vaccines and put my whole summer holiday on hold to get my shots ASAP, but mandates are a very tough question of benefits and values. We have given up a lot of personal freedom to fight this pandemic, and there is no telling when, if ever, we will get them back. You know what gives me chills? The thought of losing the freedom to attend in-person classes at university. Or actually go out to dinner at restaurants and bars. Or the freedom to get on a plane and travel where I please. That's what really gives me chills. Yet all those freedoms are at stake if we don't get this pandemic under control. If one person's freedom to refuse reasonable medical treatment is infringing on society's freedom to pursue life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, then the solution is clear. You want the right to refuse to get vaccinated, okay, fine. You can have that right. However, you do not have the right to put other people's lives in danger, which means that employers can ban you from working if you aren't vaccinated. In fact, I'd go further and say that it is unreasonable for an employer to require someone to endanger their own safety by working in the presence of unvaccinated people, who are more likely to be infected with covid. And of course subjecting other airline passengers to your presence is out of the question in the confined space of an aircraft. And universities that want to be able to continue in-person lessons would be wise to ban you from their campuses, since it would unfairly jeopardize the safety of other students. So yes, it's understandable to want your own freedom and liberty, but it can't come at the expense of other people's freedom and liberty. To this day I still don't understand this argument so please enlighten me. How is an unvaccinated person any more dangerous to other individuals than a vaccinated person? They are more dangerous to themselves, yes, the vaccine provides strong protection from symptom severity. But repeated scientific study shows no difference in viral load & transmissibility between the two groups. Cumulative number of COVID-19 vaccination Number % in Populaton People Vaccinated with at least One Dose 342,748 83.16% People Fully Vaccinated 290,645 70.52% Now do the math between how much hospital resources an unvacinated person uses vs a vaccinated person uses. No argument with your chart but I'm talking about infection rates, not hospitalization rates. On December 21 2021 10:13 codonbyte wrote:On December 21 2021 09:47 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:39 codonbyte wrote:On December 21 2021 09:21 Slydie wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 02:10 pmh wrote:
[quote]
Yes i do agree. All this is very much true.
A prudent strategy to properly adrees this i dont really see unfortunatly. Trying to force the issue has proven to not be very effective. People only dig in more,heels in the sand. The effect of any sort of polarization spreads out like oil,also increasing polarization in other areas. This effect is particulary strong in the USA where every single issue has become polarized mostly along partizan lines.
Maybe ignoring and accepting the issue to some extend isnt the worst solution at this point. Simply repeating the message and advices from scientists in a friendly and open manner without directly attacking the unvaxxed on a personal level. As direct pressure only increases resistance. Eventually people will come around if you aproach them this way. At least thats what i hope and also think.
This has been the general aproach in most western nations so far so i do think we are doing the right thing when it comes to this. Its mostly the public itself which does become more hostile towards the other side, which i think is not helping.
The other option would be to force vaccinations and make them mandatory,this isnt the worst solution for dealing with the pandemic and some countries have resorted to this already. But doing so does go against some of the principles on which our society is build,it does come with collateral damage.
For some people this will work.They will take the vaccine and simply stop caring about having been forced to take it. With other people it will backfire and they will be even less willing to comply. In the end it might not be the worst solution as the group which will simply accept it is probably a lot bigger then the group which will resist even more. But it would be much better for the future if this could be avoided all together.
Verbally, that might be true, but applying direct pressure in other ways has been beneficial to getting more people vaccinated, such as requiring vaccinations to travel or stay employed. They might bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, they're vaccinated and finally contributing the tiniest little bit to society (however much they may hate it). The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. I might be an idealist, but from a principal point of view, I do not support vaccine mandates. All medication should be taken by choice, not force. I also find it very hard to defend that you can be demanded to give medical information to anyone working for example in a restaurant, who has no HC-related function nor education. Other implications of letting go of this area of privacy give me chills. I absolutely support vaccines and put my whole summer holiday on hold to get my shots ASAP, but mandates are a very tough question of benefits and values. We have given up a lot of personal freedom to fight this pandemic, and there is no telling when, if ever, we will get them back. You know what gives me chills? The thought of losing the freedom to attend in-person classes at university. Or actually go out to dinner at restaurants and bars. Or the freedom to get on a plane and travel where I please. That's what really gives me chills. Yet all those freedoms are at stake if we don't get this pandemic under control. If one person's freedom to refuse reasonable medical treatment is infringing on society's freedom to pursue life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, then the solution is clear. You want the right to refuse to get vaccinated, okay, fine. You can have that right. However, you do not have the right to put other people's lives in danger, which means that employers can ban you from working if you aren't vaccinated. In fact, I'd go further and say that it is unreasonable for an employer to require someone to endanger their own safety by working in the presence of unvaccinated people, who are more likely to be infected with covid. And of course subjecting other airline passengers to your presence is out of the question in the confined space of an aircraft. And universities that want to be able to continue in-person lessons would be wise to ban you from their campuses, since it would unfairly jeopardize the safety of other students. So yes, it's understandable to want your own freedom and liberty, but it can't come at the expense of other people's freedom and liberty. To this day I still don't understand this argument so please enlighten me. How is an unvaccinated person any more dangerous to other individuals than a vaccinated person? They are more dangerous to themselves, yes, the vaccine provides strong protection from symptom severity. But repeated scientific study shows no difference in viral load & transmissibility between the two groups. Because an unvaccinated person is more likely to catch covid-19, and therefore more likely to spread it. Therefore, they are a greater risk to society than a vaccinated person. Also, you claim that "repeated scientific study shows no difference in viral load & transmissibility between the two groups", but you don't cite any sources. I'm genuinely curious where you got that information from, because all the science I've seen indicates the opposite: Vaccinated Workers Shed Less Covid Virus Thank you! Some science at last. Ok, I have questions about this study (https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/8/11/ofab526/6425697 link to it from the article itself). First off it's an observational study which means correlation is the best outcome it can hope for. Second is this bit:
Between 16 December 2020 and 31 March 2021, there were 43 516 SARS-CoV-2 tests done among 11 930 employees with 880 employees having a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Among those employees with a positive test, 594 (67.5%) received at least 1 vaccine dose during the study period and 286 (32.5%) were not vaccinated.
Ok... they only tested the vaccination status of those that tested positive. What about the other 11,005 employees? Were they all vaccinated? Unvaccinated? We don't know because the study didn't test for that. It seems these workers were being tested once a month. What about the rest of the time? Overall this may point us in the direction that viral load is higher in unvaccinated individuals but it's not conclusive by any means. You ask for science so here is some in return: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.12.21265796v1
Salvatore et al. examined the transmission potential of vaccinated and unvaccinated persons infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in a federal prison, July-August 2021. They found a total of 978 specimens were provided by 95 participants, “of whom 78 (82%) were fully vaccinated and 17 (18%) were not fully vaccinated…clinicians and public health practitioners should consider vaccinated persons who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 to be no less infectious than unvaccinated persons.”
(not peer reviewed) https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext
Singanayagam et al. examined the transmission and viral load kinetics in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with mild delta variant infection in the community. They found that (in 602 community contacts (identified via the UK contract-tracing system) of 471 UK COVID-19 index cases were recruited to the Assessment of Transmission and Contagiousness of COVID-19 in Contacts cohort study and contributed 8145 upper respiratory tract samples from daily sampling for up to 20 days) “vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and accelerates viral clearance. Nonetheless, fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts.”
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v1
Chia et al. reported that PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values were “similar between both vaccinated and unvaccinated groups at diagnosis, but viral loads decreased faster in vaccinated individuals. Early, robust boosting of anti-spike protein antibodies was observed in vaccinated patients, however, these titers were significantly lower against B.1.617.2 as compared with the wildtype vaccine strain.”
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.19.21262111v1
Israel, 2021 looked at Large-scale study of antibody titer decay following BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine or SARS-CoV-2 infection, and reported as “To determine the kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies following administration of two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine, or SARS-CoV-2 infection in unvaccinated individuals…In vaccinated subjects, antibody titers decreased by up to 40% each subsequent month while in convalescents they decreased by less than 5% per month. Six months after BNT162b2 vaccination 16.1% subjects had antibody levels below the sero-positivity threshold of <50 AU/mL, while only 10.8% of convalescent patients were below <50 AU/mL threshold after 9 months from SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
(side note, fascinating result showing vaccinated individuals initial have higher levels of antibodies than unvaccinated, but decrease much more rapidly than in unvaccinated) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34351882/
In Barnstable, Massachusetts, Brown et al. found that among 469 cases of COVID-19, 74% were fully vaccinated, and that “the vaccinated had on average more virus in their nose than the unvaccinated who were infected.”
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v1
Riemersma et al. found “no difference in viral loads when comparing unvaccinated individuals to those who have vaccine “breakthrough” infections. Furthermore, individuals with vaccine breakthrough infections frequently test positive with viral loads consistent with the ability to shed infectious viruses.” Results indicate that “if vaccinated individuals become infected with the delta variant, they may be sources of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to others.” They reported “low Ct values (<25) in 212 of 310 fully vaccinated (68%) and 246 of 389 (63%) unvaccinated individuals. Testing a subset of these low-Ct samples revealed infectious SARS-CoV-2 in 15 of 17 specimens (88%) from unvaccinated individuals and 37 of 39 (95%) from vaccinated people.”
Is that sufficient to substantiate "repeated scientific study"?
The hospitalization rate is the infection rate that people care about. The real rate at which people are contracting the infection is unknown without widespread and constant testing that is infesable. Even if it was fesable it wouldn't matter when the thing people have been paying attention to for any of the mandates is the hospitalization rate and the rate of people dieing that is effected by this rate.
If we let open the floodgates and not give a shit if you're vaccinated or not and let everyone just get infected the hospitals will be overwhelmed in a totality. The death rate will spike to horrific levels as people who have even minor cases of covid are killed due to a lack of resources to care for them. In the north during the winter those that are unable to be cared for by a hospital will be forced into temporary holdings (at best case hotels) that they will be triaged and left to die in their thousands.
Even if this were the end we could rationalize it as the evidence of the people who are vaccinated have such a better chance of success would be prioritized to be saved while the unvaccinated would be left to die in order to save the most lives possible. But that isn't the end as all the other basic things a society expects to be able to use a hospital for would be whole ignored. If you break your arm or leg don't call an ambulance you'll have to just splint it yourself and prepare yourself for the rest of your life without the full use of your limb. Animal attacks equal death, car accidents equal death, gunshot victims equal death, poisoning equals death.
We have already seen how the inability of people getting diagnosed for cancer is leading to more deaths, we have seen the mental health of the world go down greatly, how bad do you think these both and more will get when we have to listen to 10% of the population wanting the apocalypse to happen instead of preforming the smallest and easiest duty to prevent all this. That is the danger the unvaccinated pose to society.
|
That is a very fair concern, and if we were earlier in the pandemic I might agree with you. Back when covid started, every country was doing different things and it was kinda like a bunch of experiments were going on to find out who made the best approach. Well 2 years later we're finding that some countries utterly crushed it and a vaccine mandate was never part of the solution. I think there is enough evidence that there is a path out of the pandemic that doesn't rely on a vaccine mandate, and therefore enacting it is not a precedent worth setting.
|
On December 21 2021 10:53 dudeman001 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 10:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 10:20 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 09:33 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:13 codonbyte wrote:On December 21 2021 09:08 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Verbally, that might be true, but applying direct pressure in other ways has been beneficial to getting more people vaccinated, such as requiring vaccinations to travel or stay employed. They might bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, they're vaccinated and finally contributing the tiniest little bit to society (however much they may hate it). The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. You're talking about stripping people's right to - as you said it - travel or stay employed, unless they take a corporation's pharmaceutical product. THAT is a tyrannical approach to the problem. Under normal circumstances, that would be tyrannical. However, a global pandemic that has already killed millions of people can hardly be described as "normal". Extreme circumstances call for extreme actions, including requiring that people take a corporation's pharmaceutical product or lose the right to travel or be employed. This is a public health issue. I'm tired of being unable to live life normally because 10-20% of the population refuses to get vaccinated for "philosophical reasons". Their refusal to get vaccinated has detrimental effects on the quality of my life. This year, my university just recently started having in-person classes again, and they'll have to stop if the situation declines. When there is a public health crisis, the public needs to work together to solve it, and that means sacrificing some of your personal freedom. If we were dealing with a pandemic that had a 98% death rate I would be completely onboard with taking extreme action to overcome the disease. But instead we have a virus with a 98% survival rate AND is highly treatable even without the use of vaccines. I don't believe you've met the burden of justification to remove people's rights in this regard. On December 21 2021 09:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 09:08 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 02:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Verbally, that might be true, but applying direct pressure in other ways has been beneficial to getting more people vaccinated, such as requiring vaccinations to travel or stay employed. They might bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day, they're vaccinated and finally contributing the tiniest little bit to society (however much they may hate it). The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. You're talking about stripping people's right to - as you said it - travel or stay employed, unless they take a corporation's pharmaceutical product. THAT is a tyrannical approach to the problem. No, you're stripping people's rights by condemning vaccines. People do not have the right to jeopardize the health of those around them. You don't get to do whatever the hell you want, regardless of how it may endanger others. Focusing on the idea that it's because of "corporate pharmaceuticals" is completely glossing over the very real death toll and severe injury toll of the insanely infectious pandemic we've been fighting. And this is true in non-covid contexts as well, such as mandatory vaccines for public school children. You're arguing for removing people's rights under the imposition of force unless they act how you want them to. But you know what, fine. I said above that if we were dealing with a deadlier virus I would agree to a mandate because there is a threshold at which imposed behavior becomes justified. Here are my terms: Prove to me that unless every individual takes this vaccine - and only this vaccine - society itself can no longer function. If you show me evidence that meets this burden I'll submit that your argument is better than anything I can come up with. Until then I will keep my rights, thank you. I don't know why this is brought up every week or so, but "survival rate" is simply not the bar we should be electing to have, when countless others have already experienced devastating effects of covid besides literal death. Just for further reference, people who quote the 98% or 99% survival rate are immediately taken less seriously in discussions about covid, because they imply the false dichotomy of "unless a covid-infected person dies, they end up being fine and not worthy of consideration". Not only is this fallacious, but it also doesn't account for the massive overburdening of our hospitals that are completely preventable by more people being vaccinated - which jeopardizes other patients who aren't infected by covid but still need those emergency resources - and those who are hospitalized from covid (regardless of whether they ultimately live or die) are significantly disproportionately unvaccinated. And if the long-term effects of covid and the hospital saturation weren't enough, there's also the lack of contribution towards herd immunity, to help protect those who are either genetically immunocompromised or are taking medicine that makes them more susceptible to infection, which could be the stranger you pass in the supermarket or the coworker who works alongside you. And I don't care about your "terms", which only reveal that you don't understand how vaccines work. To copy a line I wrote a few minutes ago: we've had enforceable laws and public health regulations and travel restrictions and employment requirements forever, including vaccination prerequisites in many cases. You have the right to not abide by them as long as you're okay with the consequences, which means you'll be missing out on parts of society, and literally no one cares that you want to throw a temper tantrum over why you can't be unsafe around others. Grow up or get lost. Despite being incredibly condescending and baking in plenty of assumptions about what I do/don't know, I do thank that you at least begun to answer my issue. If I understand this correctly you're arguing that survival rate is not enough of a metric and that long-term effects & burden on healthcare are enough to mandate vaccination. Ok. At what point is mandated behavior justified? I mean really specifically, how bad do things have to get before mandates outweigh rights? Furthermore if there are countries with much lower vaccination rates than normal and yet also much lower covid & hospitalization rates, why is mandated behavior the only solution? As for the legal issues I'll need more specifics to understand what you mean. As I understand it in the US some employers require vaccination because of the enhanced risk nature of the work, such as workers in the medical industry. But my employer has never asked me about my personal medical information ever. There seem to be many different standards applied historically, and I don't see the justification for a flat mandate across the board. I was simply matching your level of condescension, which you started with "the fuck?" and accused the medical/scientific community of being tyrants for asserting - based on our massive wealth of data and evidence - that people ought to be vaccinated during our current pandemic. Anyways, I'll try to answer your questions to the best of my ability. I don't know how/where to draw a line to say "now we've officially reached a point where we can start mandating behavior", because we mandate tons of behaviors for a variety of different reasons. We have seat belt laws, smoking/drinking laws, some restrictions on free speech, gun regulations, mandatory vaccines for public school children, rules for employment, rules for customers in private businesses, and a whole slew of other regulations that are arguably at different levels of severity for very different reasons, based on context. If we're focusing solely on public health and infectious disease issues, I would err on the side of being overly cautious because novel viruses and potential epidemics/pandemics can get extremely out of hand, lives could be at stake, and I think being proactive is generally better than being reactive. To your second question of "how bad do things have to get before mandates outweigh rights?", I still think everyone has made a reasonable case that mandates preserve some rights at the expense of others. Certain mandates aren't all bad for those of us who promote rights and freedom and long-term autonomy. I don't see a vaccinate mandate as a net-negative for rights; I see it as a short-term loss for some rights, but a long-term gain for most rights. It's a matter of priorities. In regards to legal issues, that was to speak more broadly to the fact that a vaccine mandate would simply be the millionth regulation and isn't really anything different... it's just another rule, whereas perhaps we're already accustomed to abiding by all the others, but I don't see such a mandate as a unique infringement on one's rights. There are already countless travel restrictions, employment restrictions, and other restrictions anyway, so I don't see a vaccinate mandate as anything monumental, especially when I think it's for a very good cause. I apologize if my initial post came off as rude or condescending, but please understand that I'm on your side. I care about your rights as much as my own, and I view taking them away as the last resort option after all other solutions are exhausted, starting with taking away rights is tyrannical in my eyes. I expect the counter to that is that this isn't the starting point, and that we've tried many things to get the virus under control. But I stand by asking have we tried everything else first? India, Japan, Bangladesh, and more are all getting covid under control/do have it under control regardless of vaccination rate, which is why i asked for proof that the vaccine - and only the vaccine - is the only way out of the pandemic.
I'm sure there are a multitude of factors that help contribute to the stability of a country during a pandemic, but I'm not sure if all of them can be replicated by other countries due to geopolitical or other differences between countries. I also don't know enough about India, Japan, or Bangladesh to comment on how they've achieved significantly more success than the United States. That being said, the CDC and FDA and other expert authorities do maintain that vaccinations are the most effective way to assist in the fight against coronavirus, and while your request has already been addressed by others, it bears repeating that asking the vaccine to be the "only" solution or to be some magically perfect answer to the pandemic is completely unreasonable, even if it's the best shot (pun intended) we have at surviving this virus.
|
Northern Ireland25449 Posts
On December 21 2021 11:21 dudeman001 wrote:
That is a very fair concern, and if we were earlier in the pandemic I might agree with you. Back when covid started, every country was doing different things and it was kinda like a bunch of experiments were going on to find out who made the best approach. Well 2 years later we're finding that some countries utterly crushed it and a vaccine mandate was never part of the solution. I think there is enough evidence that there is a path out of the pandemic that doesn't rely on a vaccine mandate, and therefore enacting it is not a precedent worth setting.
Which countries have crushed it and how have they done so?
I’m a bit skeptical of cross-country comparisons as there’s just too many other variables to factor in. There are different climactic conditions, population densities, social and cultural norms and poverty to all factor in, countries that are nexuses for international travel and some that get little etc. It’s difficult to filter out that noise.
Anyway I don’t think the bar is society not functioning, but a level of degradation in it functioning, commensurate with the ease of what part I’m being asked to play, commensurate with a link in outcomes with what thing I’m being asked to do.
For example, despite me viewing Covid seriously, I would personally be against a requisitioning of me for 60 hours a week in some military/civilian service manning the hospitals. It would seem excessive, I’m not qualified etc or particular functional as a human being so would be of limited use. If there were something like ‘Super Covid’ where medical personnel where incapacitated en masse then maybe.
In the case of vaccines the threat to society is, relatively large and the imposition on me is, almost nothing, and what I’m being asked to do has a demonstrable, direct effect on the problem that necessitates asking me
|
I guess a fundamental difference between our perspectives is you trust the FDA/CDC and I don't. Not in a conspiratorial way, but in a "these people look incompetent" way. US policy seems to be an all in vaccine-or-bust strategy without adequate transparency or data backing up that it'll work. Meanwhile other strategies seem to be working but the US agencies haven't shown any interest in figuring out what we could improve or changing from the vaccine at all cost mentality. It feels like a political strategy rather than a scientific one by now.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland25449 Posts
On December 21 2021 11:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 10:53 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 10:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 10:20 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 09:33 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:13 codonbyte wrote:On December 21 2021 09:08 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:
[quote]
The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. You're talking about stripping people's right to - as you said it - travel or stay employed, unless they take a corporation's pharmaceutical product. THAT is a tyrannical approach to the problem. Under normal circumstances, that would be tyrannical. However, a global pandemic that has already killed millions of people can hardly be described as "normal". Extreme circumstances call for extreme actions, including requiring that people take a corporation's pharmaceutical product or lose the right to travel or be employed. This is a public health issue. I'm tired of being unable to live life normally because 10-20% of the population refuses to get vaccinated for "philosophical reasons". Their refusal to get vaccinated has detrimental effects on the quality of my life. This year, my university just recently started having in-person classes again, and they'll have to stop if the situation declines. When there is a public health crisis, the public needs to work together to solve it, and that means sacrificing some of your personal freedom. If we were dealing with a pandemic that had a 98% death rate I would be completely onboard with taking extreme action to overcome the disease. But instead we have a virus with a 98% survival rate AND is highly treatable even without the use of vaccines. I don't believe you've met the burden of justification to remove people's rights in this regard. On December 21 2021 09:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 09:08 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 09:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 08:55 dudeman001 wrote:
[quote]
The fuck? Imposing tyranny and then justifying it by showing compliance is one hell of a take. The fuck? Calling vaccinations "tyranny" and completely ignoring the absolutely lowest bar for dealing with a global public health crisis is one hell of a take. You're talking about stripping people's right to - as you said it - travel or stay employed, unless they take a corporation's pharmaceutical product. THAT is a tyrannical approach to the problem. No, you're stripping people's rights by condemning vaccines. People do not have the right to jeopardize the health of those around them. You don't get to do whatever the hell you want, regardless of how it may endanger others. Focusing on the idea that it's because of "corporate pharmaceuticals" is completely glossing over the very real death toll and severe injury toll of the insanely infectious pandemic we've been fighting. And this is true in non-covid contexts as well, such as mandatory vaccines for public school children. You're arguing for removing people's rights under the imposition of force unless they act how you want them to. But you know what, fine. I said above that if we were dealing with a deadlier virus I would agree to a mandate because there is a threshold at which imposed behavior becomes justified. Here are my terms: Prove to me that unless every individual takes this vaccine - and only this vaccine - society itself can no longer function. If you show me evidence that meets this burden I'll submit that your argument is better than anything I can come up with. Until then I will keep my rights, thank you. I don't know why this is brought up every week or so, but "survival rate" is simply not the bar we should be electing to have, when countless others have already experienced devastating effects of covid besides literal death. Just for further reference, people who quote the 98% or 99% survival rate are immediately taken less seriously in discussions about covid, because they imply the false dichotomy of "unless a covid-infected person dies, they end up being fine and not worthy of consideration". Not only is this fallacious, but it also doesn't account for the massive overburdening of our hospitals that are completely preventable by more people being vaccinated - which jeopardizes other patients who aren't infected by covid but still need those emergency resources - and those who are hospitalized from covid (regardless of whether they ultimately live or die) are significantly disproportionately unvaccinated. And if the long-term effects of covid and the hospital saturation weren't enough, there's also the lack of contribution towards herd immunity, to help protect those who are either genetically immunocompromised or are taking medicine that makes them more susceptible to infection, which could be the stranger you pass in the supermarket or the coworker who works alongside you. And I don't care about your "terms", which only reveal that you don't understand how vaccines work. To copy a line I wrote a few minutes ago: we've had enforceable laws and public health regulations and travel restrictions and employment requirements forever, including vaccination prerequisites in many cases. You have the right to not abide by them as long as you're okay with the consequences, which means you'll be missing out on parts of society, and literally no one cares that you want to throw a temper tantrum over why you can't be unsafe around others. Grow up or get lost. Despite being incredibly condescending and baking in plenty of assumptions about what I do/don't know, I do thank that you at least begun to answer my issue. If I understand this correctly you're arguing that survival rate is not enough of a metric and that long-term effects & burden on healthcare are enough to mandate vaccination. Ok. At what point is mandated behavior justified? I mean really specifically, how bad do things have to get before mandates outweigh rights? Furthermore if there are countries with much lower vaccination rates than normal and yet also much lower covid & hospitalization rates, why is mandated behavior the only solution? As for the legal issues I'll need more specifics to understand what you mean. As I understand it in the US some employers require vaccination because of the enhanced risk nature of the work, such as workers in the medical industry. But my employer has never asked me about my personal medical information ever. There seem to be many different standards applied historically, and I don't see the justification for a flat mandate across the board. I was simply matching your level of condescension, which you started with "the fuck?" and accused the medical/scientific community of being tyrants for asserting - based on our massive wealth of data and evidence - that people ought to be vaccinated during our current pandemic. Anyways, I'll try to answer your questions to the best of my ability. I don't know how/where to draw a line to say "now we've officially reached a point where we can start mandating behavior", because we mandate tons of behaviors for a variety of different reasons. We have seat belt laws, smoking/drinking laws, some restrictions on free speech, gun regulations, mandatory vaccines for public school children, rules for employment, rules for customers in private businesses, and a whole slew of other regulations that are arguably at different levels of severity for very different reasons, based on context. If we're focusing solely on public health and infectious disease issues, I would err on the side of being overly cautious because novel viruses and potential epidemics/pandemics can get extremely out of hand, lives could be at stake, and I think being proactive is generally better than being reactive. To your second question of "how bad do things have to get before mandates outweigh rights?", I still think everyone has made a reasonable case that mandates preserve some rights at the expense of others. Certain mandates aren't all bad for those of us who promote rights and freedom and long-term autonomy. I don't see a vaccinate mandate as a net-negative for rights; I see it as a short-term loss for some rights, but a long-term gain for most rights. It's a matter of priorities. In regards to legal issues, that was to speak more broadly to the fact that a vaccine mandate would simply be the millionth regulation and isn't really anything different... it's just another rule, whereas perhaps we're already accustomed to abiding by all the others, but I don't see such a mandate as a unique infringement on one's rights. There are already countless travel restrictions, employment restrictions, and other restrictions anyway, so I don't see a vaccinate mandate as anything monumental, especially when I think it's for a very good cause. I apologize if my initial post came off as rude or condescending, but please understand that I'm on your side. I care about your rights as much as my own, and I view taking them away as the last resort option after all other solutions are exhausted, starting with taking away rights is tyrannical in my eyes. I expect the counter to that is that this isn't the starting point, and that we've tried many things to get the virus under control. But I stand by asking have we tried everything else first? India, Japan, Bangladesh, and more are all getting covid under control/do have it under control regardless of vaccination rate, which is why i asked for proof that the vaccine - and only the vaccine - is the only way out of the pandemic. I'm sure there are a multitude of factors that help contribute to the stability of a country during a pandemic, but I'm not sure if all of them can be replicated by other countries due to geopolitical or other differences between countries. I also don't know enough about India, Japan, or Bangladesh to comment on how they've achieved significantly more success than the United States. That being said, the CDC and FDA and other expert authorities do maintain that vaccinations are the most effective way to assist in the fight against coronavirus, and while your request has already been addressed by others, it bears repeating that asking the vaccine to be the "only" solution or to be some magically perfect answer to the pandemic is completely unreasonable, even if it's the best shot (pun intended) we have at surviving this virus.
With the relative poverty, and especially in India the vastness of the place and many areas in rural isolation in combination with that, I find it hard to believe that India or Bangladesh can possibly test/track Covid cases to the degree say, the US can.
And in my crude understanding of Narendra Modi he can pull off the kind of shit Trump only wishes he could. Whether that clear ability extends in motivation to fudge Covid numbers I don’t know.
Japan I have few pet theories on other than the almost stereotypical ‘Asians are good with masks and disease compliance’ one. I’d be interested if anyone had anything more concrete.
There is a pretty glaring omission in most lists I see of countries who have their shit together, which is China, or countries under the Chinese sphere of influence. There may be some instructive lessons there too :p
As I said, I don’t like country to country comparisons because they’re mostly, well, bullshit unless the person making them has really attempted to account for differences, or has some plausible overall theories beyond the exact one they’re looking to prove. As I mostly browse TL on phone, the effort of actually dragging and copy pasting sources etc is something I’m too lazy to do, so I thank the rest of you for that.
I seem to recall Sweden used to be the gold standard held up, and proof herd immunity was the way to go until well, it wasn’t and even Anders Tegnell, for a time probably the world’s most famous epidemiologist (unless that’s Fauci’s actual procession) on the internet reevaluated his position and whatnot.
Note I say re-evaluate and not something derogatory like ‘backpedaling’, with all the negative connotations there. Which is fine, in the era when vaccines where an ‘if’ not a ‘when’, it was a reasonable strategy to pursue. From what I crudely understand the here immunity threshold vs serious health implications incurred was too high a barrier to breach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
