EPTCoronavirus and You - Page 625
| 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
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25458 Posts
On August 22 2022 22:25 evilfatsh1t wrote: youre not answering the question. what rights specifcally do vaccinated people have that youre afraid is being compromised? also its interesting you put this line "The rights of some don't outweigh the rights of others" in your post. based on your last few points, that quote works less in your favour and more in mine. whatever rights of the vaccinated youre referring to shouldnt be enough to infringe on the right of the unvaccinated to choose whether they receive the vaccine or not. to be clear, im not trying to argue against mandates entirely. im saying the specific argument that a mandate should be in place because people need to be safer despite all the measures they can take, including taking the vaccine, isnt a good enough argument. What would be a good enough argument? I don’t see why we’re getting more and more into the weeds of semantics here in this thread. Going back into personal anecdotes as per the original kind of auspices of the thread. Probably in ways for the best as it’s quite distressing, but I’ve visited my late-stage dementia grandmother far less than I would have otherwise because I’m both working around the public, but also co-workers who are transparent about not being vaccinated. For medical reasons I actually got vaccinated very, very early so between a general waning of immunity, development of new variants etc, hey I’m safer but I’m not bulletproof and my employment conditions are not a factor I can control. The worry of despite best efforts, bringing COVID into a nursing home yeah that’s definitely a thing. I’m starting a new job and working from home shortly, so I can considerably reduce risk factors in a way I can’t presently. I presume such scenarios are what Magic is referring to by the ‘rights of the vaccinated’. The typical antivax response to this is invariably nonsensical. It’s either: 1. You’re vaccinated and they’re good, you’ll be fine. 2. Weird conspiratorial nonsense. If they believe point 1, they know vaccination is effective but they don’t want to partake because of, reasons I guess. And point 2 is weird conspiratorial nonsense. Look I’m honestly past talk of mandates, I think they had/have good justifications behind them but it’s pretty apparent that if they largely weren’t implemented at the worst periods of a pandemic they’re not coming in now it’s somewhat subsided. People have the right not to get a jab, I’m free to think they’re either a selfish asshole or a lunatic. Minus the cohort of people for whom the vaccine is medically risky to get. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4156 Posts
On August 22 2022 22:25 evilfatsh1t wrote: youre not answering the question. what rights specifcally do vaccinated people have that youre afraid is being compromised? also its interesting you put this line "The rights of some don't outweigh the rights of others" in your post. based on your last few points, that quote works less in your favour and more in mine. whatever rights of the vaccinated youre referring to shouldnt be enough to infringe on the right of the unvaccinated to choose whether they receive the vaccine or not. to be clear, im not trying to argue against mandates entirely. im saying the specific argument that a mandate should be in place because people need to be safer despite all the measures they can take, including taking the vaccine, isnt a good enough argument. I'm not in favor of vaccine mandates for the general population and I never was. I was very outspoken against it, and the resulting hostility (of which I wasn't innocent either) caused me to instate my policy of not responding to comments or questions. At this moment my policy is not in effect because I'm fed up with seeing the increased spread of anti-vaxx misinformation in this thread. I'm against misinformation against vaccines and I'm against heavy bias leading to hypocritical argumentation and misrepresentation of opposing arguments. This is why I disagree with BJ. But also I'm against the support of rules that don't make sense, can't realistically work, or are unethical, and I'm against blaming citizens (including people who refuse booster shots) for the course of the pandemic. This is why I disagree with JimmiC. The rights of vaccinated people are the same as of unvaccinated people: to not have their health irresponsibly compromised by the people around them. The problem is that this goes both ways, and I don't care how many times you say that I'm not answering your question, as I am indeed answering your question. Would you be in favor of a forced vaccination if it were entirely random? You sit at your office desk, and every day there's a small chance that you get a dose injected, which is decided by a random number generator. This means you might never get vaccinated, or you might get vaccinated several times a year. Would you be ok with that? If not, then that'd be in essence the same issue as not wanting to work side by side with unvaccinated individuals. In both cases there'd be a small chance every day that builds up to a big chance over time. Would you be ok with such chance-based vaccination? And if not, why not? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4156 Posts
On August 22 2022 23:14 JimmiC wrote: MP you're a funny guy, you get super upset about people strawmaning and boiling your point down to simple and wrong conclusions and yet you have no problem doing it to others. So you didn't argue in favor of vaccine mandates in order to end the pandemic? | ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
Last year my workplace tried to force all vaccinated people back to office. Clusters broke out. Fortunately I stood firm in not coming into office despite being vaccinated. So I kept myself safe by avoiding all unnecessary contact with people, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated. Maybe someone will cite some statistical study of how the risk of transmission between vaccinated people is really low. Fine, whatever. But I followed common sense, which has kept me uninfected far longer than my other vaccinated friends who mingled and infected each other. Still, my friends don't bear any ill-will against the unvaccinated, because deep inside they know that they're partly personally responsible due to being lax and could've taken more precautionary measures. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4156 Posts
On August 23 2022 00:26 RKC wrote: Fully vaccinated people can still be carriers. So if I'm going to a large gathering, my concern of catching COVID from a vaccinated person is just as much as an unvaccinated person. And most of my close family and friends had caught COVID at near zero-COVID places back in the day when restrictions were tighter (workplace clusters where unvaccinated aren't allowed in). So I'm not fully understanding where this aversion to only unvaccinated people comes from. Last year my workplace tried to force all vaccinated people back to office. Clusters broke out. Fortunately I stood firm in not coming into office despite being vaccinated. So I kept myself safe by avoiding all unnecessary contact with people, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated. Maybe someone will cite some statistical study of how the risk of transmission between vaccinated people is really low. Fine, whatever. But I followed common sense, which has kept me uninflected far longer than my other vaccinated friends who mingled and infected each other. Still, my friends don't bear any ill-will against the unvaccinated, because deep inside they know that they're partly personally responsible due to being lax and could've taken more precautionary measures. What you're saying is partially correct. For example, it is true that the safest option is isolation. I myself for example have never contracted covid-19, which is likely in part because I self-isolated quite strictly, especially during each wave, but also perhaps because I got fully vaccinated right before the biggest wave. However, in cases where isolation is not possible or not productive, it is preferable to live and work with people who get frequent boosters as opposed to people who don't. They help protect you, just like you can help protect them. And this is the point that I want to stress. This point often gets conflated with the idea that vaccine mandates would end this pandemic. That is not something I would propose. It makes the most sense to get boosted frequently, and people who oppose this claim do not - in my opinion - have the moral highground over those who want a general vaccine mandate. At best I consider them equally radical on both sides. | ||
|
Mikau313
Netherlands230 Posts
On August 23 2022 00:26 RKC wrote: Fully vaccinated people can still be carriers. So if I'm going to a large gathering, my concern of catching COVID from a vaccinated person is just as much as an unvaccinated person. And most of my close family and friends had caught COVID at near zero-COVID places back in the day when restrictions were tighter (workplace clusters where unvaccinated aren't allowed in). So I'm not fully understanding where this aversion to only unvaccinated people comes from. Last year my workplace tried to force all vaccinated people back to office. Clusters broke out. Fortunately I stood firm in not coming into office despite being vaccinated. So I kept myself safe by avoiding all unnecessary contact with people, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated. Maybe someone will cite some statistical study of how the risk of transmission between vaccinated people is really low. Fine, whatever. But I followed common sense, which has kept me uninfected far longer than my other vaccinated friends who mingled and infected each other. Still, my friends don't bear any ill-will against the unvaccinated, because deep inside they know that they're partly personally responsible due to being lax and could've taken more precautionary measures. This is such a disingenuous take. Yes, fully vaccinated can still be carriers. That doesn't mean, however, that you're just as likely to get it from a vaccinated person as from an unvaccinated person. This whole notion of treating it like a black and white situation (either you can pass it to me or you can't) in a situation where it's all about chance, statistics and odds is just so revolting. | ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
I never meant that the risk of transmission from a single vaccinated person is the same as unvaccinated person. The context here is the numbers game. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Lmui
Canada6213 Posts
OTTAWA — Moderna says the federal government has purchased a total of 12 million doses of the company's bivalent vaccine that targets both the original strain of COVID-19 and the Omicron variant. ... The government and the company also agreed to convert six million doses of the company's original COVID-19 Spikevax vaccine to bivalent doses. Currently under review in Canada, but looks promising for a fall release. The bivalent is significantly better against Omicron from the studies I've seen so far. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13956 Posts
On August 22 2022 14:01 BlackJack wrote: 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. Again dodging the question by replacing what I said with what is convenient for you. People have the right to refuse treatment for their own body. they don't have the right to inflict harm on others. We have established in this country that actions that effect others are not protected. In your example, we have a Jehovah's witness deciding to end their own life based on their own actions. with the unvaccinated, we have people deciding to end others' lives based on their own actions. I have repeatedly given examples about how vaccination falls into this second category. So again we have to ask the question you keep dodging. what part of the covid vaccine do you find it worse than all the other vaccines people have been mandated to get and all the other mandates the government issues against inflicting harm on others? You can't claim to support the vaccine but also constantly cast doubt on and bash the use of the vaccine. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44371 Posts
On August 23 2022 01:11 RKC wrote: Let's say I'm attending a gathering of 500 guests in a city with >90% vaccination rate. The likelihood of catching the virus from the 450 vaccinated guests should be around the same as the risk of infection from the 50 unvaccinated guest, no? I never meant that the risk of transmission from a single vaccinated person is the same as unvaccinated person. The context here is the numbers game. The exact ratio or probabilities of big vaxxed group vs. small unvaxxed group depends on several factors, such as how long ago the vaccinated group received their vaccines, but it ultimately boils down to the fact that you would need a lot more vaccinated people to congregate for it to be as infectious/dangerous, whereas a small number of unvaccinated people could do more "damage". I think we're all in agreement here that this is a reasonably good argument to want others to get vaccinated if they're going to be around other people. It's definitely a numbers game, as you put it. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44371 Posts
On August 23 2022 02:59 Sermokala wrote: Again dodging the question by replacing what I said with what is convenient for you. People have the right to refuse treatment for their own body. they don't have the right to inflict harm on others. We have established in this country that actions that effect others are not protected. In your example, we have a Jehovah's witness deciding to end their own life based on their own actions. with the unvaccinated, we have people deciding to end others' lives based on their own actions. I have repeatedly given examples about how vaccination falls into this second category. So again we have to ask the question you keep dodging. what part of the covid vaccine do you find it worse than all the other vaccines people have been mandated to get and all the other mandates the government issues against inflicting harm on others? You can't claim to support the vaccine but also constantly cast doubt on and bash the use of the vaccine. My understanding of BlackJack's position (and BlackJack, please correct me if I'm wrong) is this: BJ believes that (1) covid has been bad enough and (2) the vaccines have been effective enough to convince him to become vaccinated and to recommend that others get vaccinated too, but not so extreme as to convince BJ that people should pay significant consequences (e.g., losing one's job, paying fines, requiring mandates that overrule the right to bodily autonomy, etc.) for remaining unvaccinated. For him to call for more significant consequences, either covid would need to be worse than its current state, or the vaccines would need to be more effective. Now, we might ask BJ something like "Well, how bad would covid need to be for you to think that those significant consequences are justified for remaining unvaxxed" or "Well, how effective would the vaccine need to be at dealing with covid (or for how many months would the efficacy need to last) for you to think that those significant consequences are justified for remaining unvaxxed". And it seems to be the case that BJ's response to questions like those would be "I'm not exactly sure where I'd draw the line for either of those, but I do know that at the present time (and maybe in the past?) we haven't arrived at those lines yet, because I still don't feel like we're justified to enforce those more significant consequences." I think a lot of it comes down to where each of us draws those kinds of lines, in terms of the dangers and effects of covid (on the individual; on their families, friends, and neighbors; on our hospitals) and how much the vaccine mitigates those risks. For me (DPB), I care less than BJ does about one's personal right to bodily autonomy in the context of vaccines and public health situations, so my line is drawn in a different place. I think a lot of the arguments with BJ boil down to the idea that our lines are drawn in slightly different places than where BJ has drawn his. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10568 Posts
On August 22 2022 22:00 Magic Powers wrote: No they should not be banned. My point of view is that radical points of view need to get out of the debate. That is yours and JimmiC's. Well then you’re just completely ignoring the rights of the vaccinated to be able to not have to work around the unvaccinated. I think there’s no room in the debate for antivaxxers like you | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10568 Posts
On August 23 2022 04:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: My understanding of BlackJack's position (and BlackJack, please correct me if I'm wrong) is this: BJ believes that (1) covid has been bad enough and (2) the vaccines have been effective enough to convince him to become vaccinated and to recommend that others get vaccinated too, but not so extreme as to convince BJ that people should pay significant consequences (e.g., losing one's job, paying fines, requiring mandates that overrule the right to bodily autonomy, etc.) for remaining unvaccinated. For him to call for more significant consequences, either covid would need to be worse than its current state, or the vaccines would need to be more effective. Now, we might ask BJ something like "Well, how bad would covid need to be for you to think that those significant consequences are justified for remaining unvaxxed" or "Well, how effective would the vaccine need to be for dealing with covid (or for how many months would the efficacy need to last) for you to think that those significant consequences are justified for remaining unvaxxed". And it seems to be the case that BJ's response to questions like those would be "I'm not exactly sure where I'd draw the line for either of those, but I do know that at the present time (and maybe in the past?) we haven't arrived at those lines yet, because I still don't feel like we're justified to enforce those more significant consequences." I think a lot of it comes down to where each of us draws those kinds of lines, in terms of the dangers and effects of covid (on the individual; on their families, friends, and neighbors; on our hospitals) and how much the vaccine mitigates those risks. For me (DPB), I care less than BJ does about one's personal right to bodily autonomy in the context of vaccines and public health situations, so my line is drawn in a different place. I think a lot of the arguments with BJ boil down to the idea that our lines are drawn in slightly different places than where BJ has drawn his. Yes this post is quite accurate. Regarding your last sentence I'm certain that all of the arguments with me are related to 1 of 2 things 1) People don't think you should be allowed to draw the line at all and as long as vaccines do more good than harm you're morally obligated to compel everyone to get one 2) People think you're not allowed to say anything bad about the vaccines, even if its factual, because it will cause people to not want to get one and then you're responsible for grandma's death which makes you an antivaxxer. Personally I think there was some merit to the argument for vaccine mandates during alpha/delta. But in light of all of the new variables if you're still supporting vaccine mandates I just think you have a warped view of COVID and the world. The new variables being 10x less likely to die if you vaccinated yourself 10x less likely to die of Omicron than Delta 10% vaccine efficacy against catching/spreading COVID after only 3 months of booster 10% of the population would be convinced to get vaccinated with mandates I'm taking some liberty with these estimates to get nice round numbers but they are not wholly inaccurate. Most people will get vaccinated voluntarily. Of the remaining some will refuse vaccination even with the mandates. In places they've implemented vaccine passport systems it boosted vaccination by 10-15%~ or so. Combine that with the fact that most vaccinated people (>3 months since last shot) have little protection against Omicron infection and the fact that you're far less likely to die of Omicron infection, especially if you're triple vaccinated. Almost all of the lives saved from vaccine mandates will be of the people you're compelling to get vaccinated. I think most people here acknowledge these current circumstances and realize we're no longer in a place where mandates should no longer exist even if they supported them last year. There's a couple holdouts that are still just so fearful about COVID or so hellbent on virtue signaling that they still think they are necessary. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10568 Posts
On August 23 2022 02:59 Sermokala wrote: Again dodging the question by replacing what I said with what is convenient for you. People have the right to refuse treatment for their own body. they don't have the right to inflict harm on others. We have established in this country that actions that effect others are not protected. In your example, we have a Jehovah's witness deciding to end their own life based on their own actions. with the unvaccinated, we have people deciding to end others' lives based on their own actions. I have repeatedly given examples about how vaccination falls into this second category. So again we have to ask the question you keep dodging. what part of the covid vaccine do you find it worse than all the other vaccines people have been mandated to get and all the other mandates the government issues against inflicting harm on others? You can't claim to support the vaccine but also constantly cast doubt on and bash the use of the vaccine. Wait you're not allowed to harm others and giving people COVID is harming others? Shit I guess I should be in jail then because I definitely gave a lot of people COVID last week. Please don't dime me out. I wouldn't do well in prison. So do you support mandatory flu vaccination as well? Because certainly a lot of people are being murdered by the people that choose not to get a flu vaccine as well. I don't know of any country that implemented flu vaccine passports to get into a restaurant or bar. So is the rest of the world just "ignorant" and you're just so much more woke than everyone else? | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4156 Posts
On August 23 2022 05:09 BlackJack wrote: Well then you’re just completely ignoring the rights of the vaccinated to be able to not have to work around the unvaccinated. I think there’s no room in the debate for antivaxxers like you I don't care about covid policy since I have no impact on it, as long as I can live a normal life. Here in this thread I'm trying to mitigate the damage you're doing by spreading misinformation like the one about myocarditis and the one about protection against infection. My goal is to let people know that they benefit from more frequent boosters, and you've been deliberately spreading information that leads them away from that conclusion. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13956 Posts
2) People think you're not allowed to say anything bad about the vaccines, even if its factual, because it will cause people to not want to get one and then you're responsible for grandma's death which makes you an antivaxxer. And this is the question we keep asking you to answer. The rest of your post leans on this. What bad things about the vaccine do you think there are that makes them at any point during covid worth not getting? By lying about the vaccine being bad you are misinforming people to not get the vaccine and are inflicting undue harm against them. By trying to equate not getting a new infection vs not dieing from a new infection is willful ignorance that is therefore inflicting harm on others. I personally think it gets to the standard of not being protected by the first amendment. People are dieing from misinformation spread about the vaccine. Almost all of the lives saved from vaccine mandates will be of the people you're compelling to get vaccinated. You even give up the game right here by justifying vaccine mandates. We don't want them damaging the economy and filling hospitals. We don't want our family members to die. So again we ask what part about the vaccine do you think is so bad that it is different from all the other mandates, including other vaccines, that you are forced under and are accepted from the government? | ||
| ||
