EPTCoronavirus and You - Page 623
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On August 22 2022 06:12 JimmiC wrote: If it such a good analogy why do Republicans hate mandates and love abortion bans? + Show Spoiler + Also you continue speeding too much you lose your license, then eventually lose your fredom and likely your job. Or you are kinda proving Serms point that you can just choose to pay the fine and keep speeding. How many people actually lost their job due to government mandates? Almost all had testing requirements. I dont know, go ask a Republican or someone that loves abortion bans? You've been making these dumbass posts for a while now. "but BJ why do u support the Republicans" "But BJ why do u oppose abortion then." I'm pro-choice and I've never voted for a Republican in my life. I've been a diehard atheist since I was 8 years old, what makes you think I speak for the religious right? Maybe stop making dumbfuck assumptions to fuel your whataboutisms. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14058 Posts
On August 22 2022 06:09 BlackJack wrote: Yeah the penalties aren't the same. Paying a $85 speeding ticket is way way way worse than losing your job. Good point. I know how an analogy works and I know this is also an example of you trying to equate the two. You are mandated to have a safe car to drive on the road. You can have you ability to drive taken away from you of you are unsafe on the road with your driving. So let's try this again. What about a vaccine mandate for covid is so much worse than the other vaccine mandates or other mandates we are seemingly okay with. People assume you're a republican because republicans are the only ones that stick to an anti vax stance in the face of reason morality and logic. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On August 22 2022 06:32 Magic Powers wrote: And as we all know, people who don't want to work next to unvaccinated people can just quit their jobs, too. Because freedom is such a straight forward concept that it only goes in one direction and not also the other, right? People who don't want to work next to smokers can also just quit their jobs, right? And people who's neighbors play loud music at night can just move elsewhere. And when big companies build noisy roads in front of our doors, why don't we just plug our ears? And minors who have smoker parents can just leave their homes and become orphans, of course there's no problem with that. I wasn't aware how easy this whole freedom thing is, but now I'm enlightened. We don't have to make any rules for people who make life difficult for others, we can just leave their spaces and let them do whatever they want. This is going to go very well and make for a great society. I think we’ve been over this, we simply disagree. You feel threatened enough by the unvaccinated to ban them from your workplace and I don’t. Almost everyone in my workplace hasn’t had a COVID shot in 8 months or longer and as we’ve shown there’s almost no protection against Omicron at this point. Feeling safer around them than an unvaccinated person would just be irrational right now. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On August 22 2022 07:02 BlackJack wrote: I think we’ve been over this, we simply disagree. You feel threatened enough by the unvaccinated to ban them from your workplace and I don’t. Almost everyone in my workplace hasn’t had a COVID shot in 8 months or longer and as we’ve shown there’s almost no protection against Omicron at this point. Feeling safer around them than an unvaccinated person would just be irrational right now. At no point did I argue unvaccinated people should be banned from anything. My issue is that you're presenting things from one perspective only, which is that of the rights of the unvaccinated, while ignoring the rights of the vaccinated. This is heavily biased and it should therefore be obvious to you why you're facing backlash so often from so many people. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On August 22 2022 07:27 Magic Powers wrote: At no point did I argue unvaccinated people should be banned from anything. My issue is that you're presenting things from one perspective only, which is that of the rights of the unvaccinated, while ignoring the rights of the vaccinated. This is heavily biased and it should therefore be obvious to you why you're facing backlash so often from so many people. False. As I have said repeatedly in this thread, I think the vaccinated are well enough protected with their vaccine that they should not need to compel everyone around them to get the vaccine as well. That's not ignoring their rights - that's carefully considering their rights and deciding that they don't overrule the rights of people to decide what goes into their body. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On August 22 2022 07:37 BlackJack wrote: False. As I have said repeatedly in this thread, I think the vaccinated are well enough protected with their vaccine that they should not need to compel everyone around them to get the vaccine as well. That's not ignoring their rights - that's carefully considering their rights and deciding that they don't overrule the rights of people to decide what goes into their body. What you (or anyone) thinks is irrelevant in the face of the facts. Fact is that boosters make transmission less likely in both directions. You'll no doubt once again dispute my claim and pretend that it's false, even though your argument fails when put into the correct context? | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On August 22 2022 06:09 BlackJack wrote: Yeah the penalties aren't the same. Paying a $85 speeding ticket is way way way worse than losing your job. Good point. I won't keep engaging if all you're going to do is split hairs and argue in bad faith. I have better things to do than get in verbal slap fights with someone who just wants to win stupid arguments with gotcha shit. I make a post about you glossing over distinctions that matter and you just do it again. Waste of time. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
A vaccinated person should only feel threatened in Scenario A. And if that is so, should they have the right to insist that the unvaccinated should be coerced in some way to be vaccinated because this would kill off the virus entirely so that they won't need to keep taking boosters? Or should a vaccinated person just shrug off the risk posed by the unvaccinated and just keep boostering up until the virus flames out because all boosters are safe and the risk of side effects are statistically insignificant? I'm curious to know where people stand, because I'm struggling to understand what some people here are really frustrated about, here and now at this phase of the pandemic. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14058 Posts
On August 22 2022 12:51 RKC wrote: Either regular boosters are really essential because vaccination effects wane drastically over time, or regular boosters aren't essential because original vaccination (plus one booster) provides enough protection against infection. A vaccinated person should only feel threatened in Scenario A. And if that is so, should they have the right to insist that the unvaccinated should be coerced in some way to be vaccinated because this would kill off the virus entirely so that they won't need to keep taking boosters? Or should a vaccinated person just shrug off the risk posed by the unvaccinated and just keep boostering up until the virus flames out because all boosters are safe and the risk of side effects are statistically insignificant? I'm curious to know where people stand, because I'm struggling to understand what some people here are really frustrated about, here and now at this phase of the pandemic. I would say neither. We know that protection against infection wanes over time, that boosters are very effective at stopping fresh infections. What we know for certain however is that Original vaccination +boosters + any cases of infection builds on your resistance to death or hospitalization from covid. We know that the unvaccinated are a massive drain on our economy and on the health care system. The entire premise of the lockdowns and every government measure taken so far has not been about the eradication of the virus but to further the best outcome for all parties. The lockdowns were made in order to prevent our hospital system from collapsing, which is was very much on the edge and was prevented by said lockdown. Mandates were given out to minimize the strain on the hospital system. Long-term vaccine mandates minimize strain on our economy and health care systems that have been so damaged by covid. Continued resistance to the vaccine serves no one and only inflicts harm on others. Its no different than any mandate on the vaccines we force children to have to go to school, the mandates we have on the alcohol you can buy or the food you can buy or the cars you can drive or the houses you can live in. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14058 Posts
On August 22 2022 07:02 BlackJack wrote: I think we’ve been over this, we simply disagree. You feel threatened enough by the unvaccinated to ban them from your workplace and I don’t. Almost everyone in my workplace hasn’t had a COVID shot in 8 months or longer and as we’ve shown there’s almost no protection against Omicron at this point. Feeling safer around them than an unvaccinated person would just be irrational right now. This is getting repetitive BJ. How you continue to miss the basic premise of a vaccine and how it makes you safer against the thing you are being vaccinated for is just wild. It is irrational to reject basic logic and science. Why do you keep clinging to your defense of basic ignorance? | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On August 22 2022 07:55 Magic Powers wrote: What you (or anyone) thinks is irrelevant in the face of the facts. Fact is that boosters make transmission less likely in both directions. You'll no doubt once again dispute my claim and pretend that it's false, even though your argument fails when put into the correct context? Wrong again. Why would I dispute the claim that boosters make transmission less likely? I’m the one here that’s been posting studies that show boosters offer some protection for at least 3 months and then maybe a tiny bit after that. If boosters didn’t make transmission less likely the Vaccine efficacy would have been 0% across the board, don’t you agree? | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8778 Posts
On August 22 2022 07:27 Magic Powers wrote: At no point did I argue unvaccinated people should be banned from anything. My issue is that you're presenting things from one perspective only, which is that of the rights of the unvaccinated, while ignoring the rights of the vaccinated. This is heavily biased and it should therefore be obvious to you why you're facing backlash so often from so many people. thats not how rights work. you dont have a right to not become sick. you dont have a right to not get shot dead in the street. generally speaking rights is the freedom to do or not do something. rights do jackshit for preventing something from happening to you. and more specifically to your point, the claim that vaccinated people must be protected and unvaccinated people present a risk to their health, well thats the entire point why the vaccinated people got vaccinated. if the vaccine does its job then the vaccinated people are protected regardless. i dont have any stats to back it up but im quite certain that the additional risk factor of a vaccinated person mingling with an unvaccinated person is negligible | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45176 Posts
On August 22 2022 13:37 evilfatsh1t wrote: thats not how rights work. you dont have a right to not become sick. you dont have a right to not get shot dead in the street. generally speaking rights is the freedom to do or not do something. rights do jackshit for preventing something from happening to you. and more specifically to your point, the claim that vaccinated people must be protected and unvaccinated people present a risk to their health, well thats the entire point why the vaccinated people got vaccinated. if the vaccine does its job then the vaccinated people are protected regardless. i dont have any stats to back it up but im quite certain that the additional risk factor of a vaccinated person mingling with an unvaccinated person is negligible Maybe it's just semantics or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but can you please elaborate on why I don't have the right to not be murdered? I thought murder was illegal? I would think I have the right to live, no? | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On August 22 2022 13:20 Sermokala wrote: This is getting repetitive BJ. How you continue to miss the basic premise of a vaccine and how it makes you safer against the thing you are being vaccinated for is just wild. It is irrational to reject basic logic and science. Why do you keep clinging to your defense of basic ignorance? Is that your question that you’ve said I’ve been dodging? Yes I have answered that. It doesn’t matter if something will save someone’s life they still have the choice to refuse it. This is a universally understood right of bodily autonomy that every medical establishment across the world agrees on. If a Jehova’s witness needs a blood transfusion or they will die but they say it’s against their religion to receive blood do you know what we do as a society? We let them die. Period. That’s the ethical approach. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On August 22 2022 13:35 BlackJack wrote: Wrong again. Why would I dispute the claim that boosters make transmission less likely? I’m the one here that’s been posting studies that show boosters offer some protection for at least 3 months and then maybe a tiny bit after that. If boosters didn’t make transmission less likely the Vaccine efficacy would have been 0% across the board, don’t you agree? I have absolutely no idea what your question says, maybe you want to rephrase that. | ||
| ||
