|
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 October 15 2022 14:25 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2022 00:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 14 2022 23:28 WombaT wrote:
Forgive me if I’m wrong but in practice did the vaccine not reduce transmissibility in practice and this was shown to be the case? By all sorts of different folks? Yep. We're wayyy past this; we've already established many times that infection rates are significantly reduced during the early period after becoming vaccinated, and that the reduction of infection rate becomes less significant over the next several months. We've posted study upon study about this, and have had many discussions in this very thread. I think the recent question is more in line with " When did scientists actually discover that this awesome additional benefit (reducing infection rates, even temporarily) was actually a thing with the vaccines?" I think you’re the one arguing in bad faith in this thread if you’re pretending that reducing transmission was some additional recent discovery and not the primary argument for pushing vaccine mandates, making the case for herd immunity, blaming the unvaccinated that COVID still exists etc. I was the only one in this thread posting “study after study” showing the vaccine efficacy against infection and transmission not very good and for months everyone fought tooth and nail denying it and calling me an antivaxxer. You seem to be right that most people here have seemed to accepted reality now. The immediate pivot to “it was never about reducing transmission that was just a side-benefit we discovered” is so hilarious that I’m not even mad.
It was never pivolted you just never bothered to find out why anyone was doing the things they were doing around you.
You constantly demonstrate either a lack of basic understanding on what a vaccine is or why the lockdowns happened and yet act like anyone else is changing their mind on facts that were established year's ago now.
|
On October 15 2022 14:28 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2022 01:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 15 2022 00:14 xM(Z wrote:
mother fuckers, you spammed 600 pages here, vilifying any not-vaccinated person accusing them of killing their peers through evil, blissful ignorance Any chance you'd agree that this is slightly exaggerated? yes, but warranted. i will not reply to people misrepresenting my argument or to ones throwing baseless accusations around. the thing is, there is a vast amount of scientific data on viruses(corvidae/coronaviridae) for medics to know, prior to any kind of study/tests, that there will be transmission even if/when vaccinated, but the whole idea was ignored.
The same goes for you. No one is saying that the only reason why you would get a vaccine is to lower transmission.
You parroting misinformation about the vaccine in the face of evidence and basic logic is you killing people through blissful, evil ignorance. The fact that years later you hold onto being wrong because you can't face what you are doing is not our problem.
|
On October 15 2022 15:11 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2022 14:25 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2022 00:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 14 2022 23:28 WombaT wrote:
Forgive me if I’m wrong but in practice did the vaccine not reduce transmissibility in practice and this was shown to be the case? By all sorts of different folks? Yep. We're wayyy past this; we've already established many times that infection rates are significantly reduced during the early period after becoming vaccinated, and that the reduction of infection rate becomes less significant over the next several months. We've posted study upon study about this, and have had many discussions in this very thread. I think the recent question is more in line with " When did scientists actually discover that this awesome additional benefit (reducing infection rates, even temporarily) was actually a thing with the vaccines?" I think you’re the one arguing in bad faith in this thread if you’re pretending that reducing transmission was some additional recent discovery and not the primary argument for pushing vaccine mandates, making the case for herd immunity, blaming the unvaccinated that COVID still exists etc. I was the only one in this thread posting “study after study” showing the vaccine efficacy against infection and transmission not very good and for months everyone fought tooth and nail denying it and calling me an antivaxxer. You seem to be right that most people here have seemed to accepted reality now. The immediate pivot to “it was never about reducing transmission that was just a side-benefit we discovered” is so hilarious that I’m not even mad. It was never pivolted you just never bothered to find out why anyone was doing the things they were doing around you. You constantly demonstrate either a lack of basic understanding on what a vaccine is or why the lockdowns happened and yet act like anyone else is changing their mind on facts that were established year's ago now.
I should say everyone else has pivoted. You’re right that you haven’t pivoted and you still live in your own world where we could still hit herd immunity and eradicate COVID if it weren’t for those last antivaxx holdouts.
|
On October 15 2022 15:46 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2022 15:11 Sermokala wrote:On October 15 2022 14:25 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2022 00:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 14 2022 23:28 WombaT wrote:
Forgive me if I’m wrong but in practice did the vaccine not reduce transmissibility in practice and this was shown to be the case? By all sorts of different folks? Yep. We're wayyy past this; we've already established many times that infection rates are significantly reduced during the early period after becoming vaccinated, and that the reduction of infection rate becomes less significant over the next several months. We've posted study upon study about this, and have had many discussions in this very thread. I think the recent question is more in line with " When did scientists actually discover that this awesome additional benefit (reducing infection rates, even temporarily) was actually a thing with the vaccines?" I think you’re the one arguing in bad faith in this thread if you’re pretending that reducing transmission was some additional recent discovery and not the primary argument for pushing vaccine mandates, making the case for herd immunity, blaming the unvaccinated that COVID still exists etc. I was the only one in this thread posting “study after study” showing the vaccine efficacy against infection and transmission not very good and for months everyone fought tooth and nail denying it and calling me an antivaxxer. You seem to be right that most people here have seemed to accepted reality now. The immediate pivot to “it was never about reducing transmission that was just a side-benefit we discovered” is so hilarious that I’m not even mad. It was never pivolted you just never bothered to find out why anyone was doing the things they were doing around you. You constantly demonstrate either a lack of basic understanding on what a vaccine is or why the lockdowns happened and yet act like anyone else is changing their mind on facts that were established year's ago now. I should say everyone else has pivoted. You’re right that you haven’t pivoted and you still live in your own world where we could still hit herd immunity and eradicate COVID if it weren’t for those last antivaxx holdouts.
That has never been my position it's a made-up one in your head that you keep projecting. Just like how you keep projecting positions on other people who keep telling you they don't hold.
I'm for less people dying from covid and contracting long covid. That the measures taken by governments has been about hospital capacity and capability.
That people like you who keep down playing the effects of the vaccine out of prideful ignorance cause others to die or contract long covid. Just look at how hard it was for you to answer a simple question of if you think the vaccine was good or not.
|
On October 15 2022 14:25 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2022 00:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 14 2022 23:28 WombaT wrote:
Forgive me if I’m wrong but in practice did the vaccine not reduce transmissibility in practice and this was shown to be the case? By all sorts of different folks? Yep. We're wayyy past this; we've already established many times that infection rates are significantly reduced during the early period after becoming vaccinated, and that the reduction of infection rate becomes less significant over the next several months. We've posted study upon study about this, and have had many discussions in this very thread. I think the recent question is more in line with " When did scientists actually discover that this awesome additional benefit (reducing infection rates, even temporarily) was actually a thing with the vaccines?" I think you’re the one arguing in bad faith in this thread if you’re pretending that reducing transmission was some additional recent discovery and not the primary argument for pushing vaccine mandates, making the case for herd immunity, blaming the unvaccinated that COVID still exists etc. I was the only one in this thread posting “study after study” showing the vaccine efficacy against infection and transmission not very good and for months everyone fought tooth and nail denying it and calling me an antivaxxer. You seem to be right that most people here have seemed to accepted reality now. The immediate pivot to “it was never about reducing transmission that was just a side-benefit we discovered” is so hilarious that I’m not even mad.
I never said that the infection reduction was a recent discovery or that vaccines were never about reducing transmission, and I went through great lengths (literally went back to the earlier conversations between you and me) to make sure I properly repeated the fact that infection reduction starts out great and then becomes less significant over the next few months, in the post you're quoting now. You and I posted a lot of data and talked a lot about this. It's not hard for someone to go back and confirm that our conversations and sources were about infection reduction starting off as significant, and then becoming less significant after a few months, as opposed to the idea that infection reduction was never very good.
|
Northern Ireland26645 Posts
On October 15 2022 07:43 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2022 04:54 Artisreal wrote:
What is really debated here?
Policy based on the best available information being wrong with the alternative being no policy until certainty?
Can't be vaccines work again? It's a constant attempt to find some way to justify being anti vax. They realize that they can't come out and say it because people have science but they look for the smallest crack that they can find and hope it's the gotcha that will justify their sunk cost of being anti vax. Going through insane hoops to find anything is better than having to face what they've done.
We’re also talking a 3 year timeframe where things get merged and it’s difficult to remember who said what, in what order and in what context.
Be accident or design, one finds oneself defending a stance one didn’t actually hold at the time the best available information.
I was pretty zealous on keeping stringent travel restrictions, more than most even here, until it became clear that vaccine rollouts to the developing world weren’t happening quickly enough, and subsequently omicron came on the scene, so that horse had obviously bolted.
But that morphs into defending a ‘you said if we’d kept travel restrictions we would have stopped COVID’
It’s a tiring process where there is no dialogue, only gotchas.
1. You cannot be wrong, ever. Even if it is a sensible position to hold at a particular time. Or if you provide a proviso like ‘Em I don’t really know it’s not my area of expertise, but the consensus seems to be…’
2. Positions you may have held 2/3 years prior will be brought up as if they’re your contemporary positions.
3. On the flip side, predictions and prescriptions from the other side of the aisle, even ones that are catastrophically incorrect will just be re-run and not re-appraised in perpetuity until they fit. Don’t need to do anything, herd immunity will take hold. It’s equivalent to the flu.
4. Anything that could be interpreted in multiple ways, must be interpreted in the worst way possible. Most notably but not exclusively liability waivers for vaccine manufacturers.
5. A weird approach to cause and effect that omits the cause part. We didn’t need lockdowns because the numbers aren’t that bad (partly because of lockdowns), or need vaccines because the numbers aren’t that bad (in large part due to vaccines).
It’s a rather exhausting, aggravating playbook and that’s not even touching on the proper crazies. Had a guy argue with me the other day not that COVID wasn’t real, but viruses in their totality don’t exist.
Props to those that have had the patience for this craic, it’s largely broken my tender soul.
Playing cod psychologist, even if it’s a purely subconscious thing one wonders if some of these incessant efforts to be ‘skeptical’ about all this is to redirect from a position of ‘I don’t care about the societal cost, I wanna live life as normal.’
Hell of a lot easier to avoid uncomfortable cognitive dissonance on internal scrutiny of one’s morals if lockdowns/vaccines etc are either ineffective or actively harmful.
Obligatory though probably redundant proviso that I’m not talking about people indulging in good faith scrutiny of best policy.
|
On October 15 2022 15:46 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2022 15:11 Sermokala wrote:On October 15 2022 14:25 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2022 00:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 14 2022 23:28 WombaT wrote:
Forgive me if I’m wrong but in practice did the vaccine not reduce transmissibility in practice and this was shown to be the case? By all sorts of different folks? Yep. We're wayyy past this; we've already established many times that infection rates are significantly reduced during the early period after becoming vaccinated, and that the reduction of infection rate becomes less significant over the next several months. We've posted study upon study about this, and have had many discussions in this very thread. I think the recent question is more in line with " When did scientists actually discover that this awesome additional benefit (reducing infection rates, even temporarily) was actually a thing with the vaccines?" I think you’re the one arguing in bad faith in this thread if you’re pretending that reducing transmission was some additional recent discovery and not the primary argument for pushing vaccine mandates, making the case for herd immunity, blaming the unvaccinated that COVID still exists etc. I was the only one in this thread posting “study after study” showing the vaccine efficacy against infection and transmission not very good and for months everyone fought tooth and nail denying it and calling me an antivaxxer. You seem to be right that most people here have seemed to accepted reality now. The immediate pivot to “it was never about reducing transmission that was just a side-benefit we discovered” is so hilarious that I’m not even mad. It was never pivolted you just never bothered to find out why anyone was doing the things they were doing around you. You constantly demonstrate either a lack of basic understanding on what a vaccine is or why the lockdowns happened and yet act like anyone else is changing their mind on facts that were established year's ago now. I should say everyone else has pivoted. You’re right that you haven’t pivoted and you still live in your own world where we could still hit herd immunity and eradicate COVID if it weren’t for those last antivaxx holdouts.
Maybe it wasn’t him, but certainly there were posters here with that viewpoint 18 months ago.I’m not going to trawl 600 pages to find the posts though.It was also the government line for a time.
I’d hazard a guess that in another 12 months more people will also pivot on the need to jab healthy 5-12 year old kids with this stuff.Pfizer is now applying for emergency use authorisation for the booster in 5-12 year olds.I’m not seeing an emergency in that age group.
|
On October 17 2022 16:57 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2022 15:46 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2022 15:11 Sermokala wrote:On October 15 2022 14:25 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2022 00:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 14 2022 23:28 WombaT wrote:
Forgive me if I’m wrong but in practice did the vaccine not reduce transmissibility in practice and this was shown to be the case? By all sorts of different folks? Yep. We're wayyy past this; we've already established many times that infection rates are significantly reduced during the early period after becoming vaccinated, and that the reduction of infection rate becomes less significant over the next several months. We've posted study upon study about this, and have had many discussions in this very thread. I think the recent question is more in line with " When did scientists actually discover that this awesome additional benefit (reducing infection rates, even temporarily) was actually a thing with the vaccines?" I think you’re the one arguing in bad faith in this thread if you’re pretending that reducing transmission was some additional recent discovery and not the primary argument for pushing vaccine mandates, making the case for herd immunity, blaming the unvaccinated that COVID still exists etc. I was the only one in this thread posting “study after study” showing the vaccine efficacy against infection and transmission not very good and for months everyone fought tooth and nail denying it and calling me an antivaxxer. You seem to be right that most people here have seemed to accepted reality now. The immediate pivot to “it was never about reducing transmission that was just a side-benefit we discovered” is so hilarious that I’m not even mad. It was never pivolted you just never bothered to find out why anyone was doing the things they were doing around you. You constantly demonstrate either a lack of basic understanding on what a vaccine is or why the lockdowns happened and yet act like anyone else is changing their mind on facts that were established year's ago now. I should say everyone else has pivoted. You’re right that you haven’t pivoted and you still live in your own world where we could still hit herd immunity and eradicate COVID if it weren’t for those last antivaxx holdouts. Maybe it wasn’t him, but certainly there were posters here with that viewpoint 18 months ago.I’m not going to trawl 600 pages to find the posts though.It was also the government line for a time. I’d hazard a guess that in another 12 months more people will also pivot on the need to jab healthy 5-12 year old kids with this stuff.Pfizer is now applying for emergency use authorisation for the booster in 5-12 year olds.I’m not seeing an emergency in that age group.
There have been multiple covid variants over the past few years, and so the situation 12 months from now may be different than our current state (or the state 12 or 24 months ago). If the situation changes, then people's views may change. You're using the term "pivot" as if it's some sort of hypocrisy for someone to have one view during a pandemic of a certain covid variant, and then an updated view years later when the virus is endemic with a different strain. The medical guidelines and our understanding of the situation may change over time, as covid changes. Pivot, Jab, and Stuff are particularly dismissive or biased words you're using, and if the medical consensus 12 months from now ends up being that an annual covid shot is recommended (similar to an annual flu shot), then don't be surprised if people get annual covid shots. Even healthy people can become sick from viruses, and many people prefer to proactively reduce the chance of getting seriously sick by doing things like receiving a medically-recommended booster shot.
|
Northern Ireland26645 Posts
On October 17 2022 16:57 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2022 15:46 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2022 15:11 Sermokala wrote:On October 15 2022 14:25 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2022 00:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 14 2022 23:28 WombaT wrote:
Forgive me if I’m wrong but in practice did the vaccine not reduce transmissibility in practice and this was shown to be the case? By all sorts of different folks? Yep. We're wayyy past this; we've already established many times that infection rates are significantly reduced during the early period after becoming vaccinated, and that the reduction of infection rate becomes less significant over the next several months. We've posted study upon study about this, and have had many discussions in this very thread. I think the recent question is more in line with " When did scientists actually discover that this awesome additional benefit (reducing infection rates, even temporarily) was actually a thing with the vaccines?" I think you’re the one arguing in bad faith in this thread if you’re pretending that reducing transmission was some additional recent discovery and not the primary argument for pushing vaccine mandates, making the case for herd immunity, blaming the unvaccinated that COVID still exists etc. I was the only one in this thread posting “study after study” showing the vaccine efficacy against infection and transmission not very good and for months everyone fought tooth and nail denying it and calling me an antivaxxer. You seem to be right that most people here have seemed to accepted reality now. The immediate pivot to “it was never about reducing transmission that was just a side-benefit we discovered” is so hilarious that I’m not even mad. It was never pivolted you just never bothered to find out why anyone was doing the things they were doing around you. You constantly demonstrate either a lack of basic understanding on what a vaccine is or why the lockdowns happened and yet act like anyone else is changing their mind on facts that were established year's ago now. I should say everyone else has pivoted. You’re right that you haven’t pivoted and you still live in your own world where we could still hit herd immunity and eradicate COVID if it weren’t for those last antivaxx holdouts. Maybe it wasn’t him, but certainly there were posters here with that viewpoint 18 months ago.I’m not going to trawl 600 pages to find the posts though.It was also the government line for a time. I’d hazard a guess that in another 12 months more people will also pivot on the need to jab healthy 5-12 year old kids with this stuff.Pfizer is now applying for emergency use authorisation for the booster in 5-12 year olds.I’m not seeing an emergency in that age group.
Things would have to change for a pivot to occur.
I’m pretty sure even those most enthusiastic about the vaccination program in this thread have certain qualms when it comes to that age group.
Specifically that they’re innately at quite low risk from COVID itself, but not appreciably lower from potential vaccine side effects. A secondary justification could be in reducing spread in aggregate via vaccination lowering transmissibility. Again I don’t believe this vaccine is that effect in this regard against the current variants within this particular age group.
So the risk/reward calculus changes. I’m going off memory here so I may totally be off-base and people can correct me. My memory is fallible but I seem to recall people finding a limited benefit to vaccinating young children and not whole-heartedly advocating it in the same way with various adult groups.
If those factors appreciably change in whatever direction, one reappraises the lay of the land and considers their position, that’s not pivoting.
I’d rather Pfizer lay the groundwork now and have it as an option on the table that isn’t used versus some new variant emerging in winter and everyone scrambling to stick together a solution at short notice.
|
On October 15 2022 07:43 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2022 04:54 Artisreal wrote:
What is really debated here?
Policy based on the best available information being wrong with the alternative being no policy until certainty?
Can't be vaccines work again? It's a constant attempt to find some way to justify being anti vax. They realize that they can't come out and say it because people have science but they look for the smallest crack that they can find and hope it's the gotcha that will justify their sunk cost of being anti vax. Going through insane hoops to find anything is better than having to face what they've done.
Mad props that you continue to reality check in this thread!!
<3
|
On October 17 2022 22:36 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2022 07:43 Sermokala wrote:On October 15 2022 04:54 Artisreal wrote:
What is really debated here?
Policy based on the best available information being wrong with the alternative being no policy until certainty?
Can't be vaccines work again? It's a constant attempt to find some way to justify being anti vax. They realize that they can't come out and say it because people have science but they look for the smallest crack that they can find and hope it's the gotcha that will justify their sunk cost of being anti vax. Going through insane hoops to find anything is better than having to face what they've done. Mad props that you continue to reality check in this thread!! <3
Ironically he’s probably the only person in the thread that has no common ground with anyone. Pretty much every reasonable person in this thread has acknowledged that the debate is essentially around the competing interests of public health and personal liberty. Every reasonable person in this thread realizes both of those things have merit. Also I’m pretty sure everyone else in this thread agrees that we are at a point now where you shouldn’t have to show your vaccine card to get into a restaurant or keep your job. To Sermokala there are no competing interests. There’s only one variable to look at and that is if the vaccine is a net positive. If you lose your job because you don’t want the vaccine then great. I suspect he takes delight in that. It’s quite a fringe position to still believe that. Maybe Mohdoo and NewSunshine are still right there with him. But all of the reasonable and more objective posters like Gorsameth and Wombat I’m quite sure would say we are past the days of vaccine passports.
|
On October 19 2022 04:06 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2022 22:36 Artisreal wrote:On October 15 2022 07:43 Sermokala wrote:On October 15 2022 04:54 Artisreal wrote:
What is really debated here?
Policy based on the best available information being wrong with the alternative being no policy until certainty?
Can't be vaccines work again? It's a constant attempt to find some way to justify being anti vax. They realize that they can't come out and say it because people have science but they look for the smallest crack that they can find and hope it's the gotcha that will justify their sunk cost of being anti vax. Going through insane hoops to find anything is better than having to face what they've done. Mad props that you continue to reality check in this thread!! <3 Ironically he’s probably the only person in the thread that has no common ground with anyone. Pretty much every reasonable person in this thread has acknowledged that the debate is essentially around the competing interests of public health and personal liberty. Every reasonable person in this thread realizes both of those things have merit. Also I’m pretty sure everyone else in this thread agrees that we are at a point now where you shouldn’t have to show your vaccine card to get into a restaurant or keep your job. To Sermokala there are no competing interests. There’s only one variable to look at and that is if the vaccine is a net positive. If you lose your job because you don’t want the vaccine then great. I suspect he takes delight in that. It’s quite a fringe position to still believe that. Maybe Mohdoo and NewSunshine are still right there with him. But all of the reasonable and more objective posters like Gorsameth and Wombat I’m quite sure would say we are past the days of vaccine passports.
From the guy who refuses to do basic research its pretty onbrand that you show that you don't read any of my posts.
The variable I have said that is the only one that matters is hospital capacity and capability to treat covid. The vaccine helps that over everything else. And I do take great delight in the success the measures taken. The fact that they're not needed anymore points to their success.
I mean lets face it the vaccine passports and forcing people to lose their job if they refused to get the vaccine was a startling success. We got a lot of people vaccinated and hospital capacity hasn't been threatened in the waves from putting them into place. Over 97% of the population over 16 has gotten at least one shot and over 82% are fully vaccinated. Those are numbers you can't argue with Blackjack. Granted the deep south has lagged behind as they are prone to do about everything but even Texas is over 70%.
If people want to die in America because of their ignorance they're more than welcome to, that's freedom after all and we let people still smoke. We don't let them do it in public spaces and tax the hell out of it but hey its their choice to die from it. The problem we have is that for the people who have to be near them when they do it tend to die from it as well.
I'm for people being free to smoke. But that doesn't mean that I won't feel just as delightedly free to tell them its disgusting and that they're killing themselves and others.
|
On October 19 2022 04:06 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2022 22:36 Artisreal wrote:On October 15 2022 07:43 Sermokala wrote:On October 15 2022 04:54 Artisreal wrote:
What is really debated here?
Policy based on the best available information being wrong with the alternative being no policy until certainty?
Can't be vaccines work again? It's a constant attempt to find some way to justify being anti vax. They realize that they can't come out and say it because people have science but they look for the smallest crack that they can find and hope it's the gotcha that will justify their sunk cost of being anti vax. Going through insane hoops to find anything is better than having to face what they've done. Mad props that you continue to reality check in this thread!! <3 Ironically he’s probably the only person in the thread that has no common ground with anyone. Pretty much every reasonable person in this thread has acknowledged that the debate is essentially around the competing interests of public health and personal liberty. Every reasonable person in this thread realizes both of those things have merit. Also I’m pretty sure everyone else in this thread agrees that we are at a point now where you shouldn’t have to show your vaccine card to get into a restaurant or keep your job. To Sermokala there are no competing interests. There’s only one variable to look at and that is if the vaccine is a net positive. If you lose your job because you don’t want the vaccine then great. I suspect he takes delight in that. It’s quite a fringe position to still believe that. Maybe Mohdoo and NewSunshine are still right there with him. But all of the reasonable and more objective posters like Gorsameth and Wombat I’m quite sure would say we are past the days of vaccine passports.
I mean if you want to be detached from scientific reality, so be it.
That's your choice, don't try to press it on others.
Imagining that he's standing alone on some hill waiting for a good cause to die for, I've got news for you.
You're one of the loud individuals who try to complain about the hair in the soup that's actually just fibre from the ingredients.
Most of us are just fed up because you don't seem to understand that.
|
On October 19 2022 14:32 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2022 04:06 BlackJack wrote:On October 17 2022 22:36 Artisreal wrote:On October 15 2022 07:43 Sermokala wrote:On October 15 2022 04:54 Artisreal wrote:
What is really debated here?
Policy based on the best available information being wrong with the alternative being no policy until certainty?
Can't be vaccines work again? It's a constant attempt to find some way to justify being anti vax. They realize that they can't come out and say it because people have science but they look for the smallest crack that they can find and hope it's the gotcha that will justify their sunk cost of being anti vax. Going through insane hoops to find anything is better than having to face what they've done. Mad props that you continue to reality check in this thread!! <3 Ironically he’s probably the only person in the thread that has no common ground with anyone. Pretty much every reasonable person in this thread has acknowledged that the debate is essentially around the competing interests of public health and personal liberty. Every reasonable person in this thread realizes both of those things have merit. Also I’m pretty sure everyone else in this thread agrees that we are at a point now where you shouldn’t have to show your vaccine card to get into a restaurant or keep your job. To Sermokala there are no competing interests. There’s only one variable to look at and that is if the vaccine is a net positive. If you lose your job because you don’t want the vaccine then great. I suspect he takes delight in that. It’s quite a fringe position to still believe that. Maybe Mohdoo and NewSunshine are still right there with him. But all of the reasonable and more objective posters like Gorsameth and Wombat I’m quite sure would say we are past the days of vaccine passports. I mean if you want to be detached from scientific reality, so be it. That's your choice, don't try to press it on others. Imagining that he's standing alone on some hill waiting for a good cause to die for, I've got news for you. You're one of the loud individuals who try to complain about the hair in the soup that's actually just fibre from the ingredients. Most of us are just fed up because you don't seem to understand that.
“If you don’t agree with my approach then you don’t trust the science bro.” Find a new drum to beat. Do you think every country took the same approach and had the same timelines for lockdowns and vaccine mandates and other measures? Do you think the countries with the more stringent measures just trusted the science more and other countries were just infiltrated by the antivaxx anti science nut jobs?
|
It's more like "if you continually deny the science then you don't trust the science bro", but you do you.
|
On October 19 2022 11:50 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2022 04:06 BlackJack wrote:On October 17 2022 22:36 Artisreal wrote:On October 15 2022 07:43 Sermokala wrote:On October 15 2022 04:54 Artisreal wrote:
What is really debated here?
Policy based on the best available information being wrong with the alternative being no policy until certainty?
Can't be vaccines work again? It's a constant attempt to find some way to justify being anti vax. They realize that they can't come out and say it because people have science but they look for the smallest crack that they can find and hope it's the gotcha that will justify their sunk cost of being anti vax. Going through insane hoops to find anything is better than having to face what they've done. Mad props that you continue to reality check in this thread!! <3 Ironically he’s probably the only person in the thread that has no common ground with anyone. Pretty much every reasonable person in this thread has acknowledged that the debate is essentially around the competing interests of public health and personal liberty. Every reasonable person in this thread realizes both of those things have merit. Also I’m pretty sure everyone else in this thread agrees that we are at a point now where you shouldn’t have to show your vaccine card to get into a restaurant or keep your job. To Sermokala there are no competing interests. There’s only one variable to look at and that is if the vaccine is a net positive. If you lose your job because you don’t want the vaccine then great. I suspect he takes delight in that. It’s quite a fringe position to still believe that. Maybe Mohdoo and NewSunshine are still right there with him. But all of the reasonable and more objective posters like Gorsameth and Wombat I’m quite sure would say we are past the days of vaccine passports. From the guy who refuses to do basic research its pretty onbrand that you show that you don't read any of my posts. The variable I have said that is the only one that matters is hospital capacity and capability to treat covid. The vaccine helps that over everything else. And I do take great delight in the success the measures taken. The fact that they're not needed anymore points to their success. I mean lets face it the vaccine passports and forcing people to lose their job if they refused to get the vaccine was a startling success. We got a lot of people vaccinated and hospital capacity hasn't been threatened in the waves from putting them into place. Over 97% of the population over 16 has gotten at least one shot and over 82% are fully vaccinated. Those are numbers you can't argue with Blackjack. Granted the deep south has lagged behind as they are prone to do about everything but even Texas is over 70%. If people want to die in America because of their ignorance they're more than welcome to, that's freedom after all and we let people still smoke. We don't let them do it in public spaces and tax the hell out of it but hey its their choice to die from it. The problem we have is that for the people who have to be near them when they do it tend to die from it as well. I'm for people being free to smoke. But that doesn't mean that I won't feel just as delightedly free to tell them its disgusting and that they're killing themselves and others.
Funny that a couple months ago your stance was that as long as the vaccines are a net benefit then we should have vaccine mandates, there’s no logical reason to oppose them, and if you do oppose them the only explanation is that you don’t even know what a vaccine is or what it’s meant to do. You even supported vaccine mandates for the flu.
Now in this post you say vaccine mandates are “no longer needed.” What changed from 2 months ago? Are you saying they are no longer a net benefit? You no longer care about the lives that could be saved from them because they are fewer than a year ago? Maybe you have a change of heart because Biden told you the pandemic is over?
|
Northern Ireland26645 Posts
On October 19 2022 16:29 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2022 14:32 Artisreal wrote:On October 19 2022 04:06 BlackJack wrote:On October 17 2022 22:36 Artisreal wrote:On October 15 2022 07:43 Sermokala wrote:On October 15 2022 04:54 Artisreal wrote:
What is really debated here?
Policy based on the best available information being wrong with the alternative being no policy until certainty?
Can't be vaccines work again? It's a constant attempt to find some way to justify being anti vax. They realize that they can't come out and say it because people have science but they look for the smallest crack that they can find and hope it's the gotcha that will justify their sunk cost of being anti vax. Going through insane hoops to find anything is better than having to face what they've done. Mad props that you continue to reality check in this thread!! <3 Ironically he’s probably the only person in the thread that has no common ground with anyone. Pretty much every reasonable person in this thread has acknowledged that the debate is essentially around the competing interests of public health and personal liberty. Every reasonable person in this thread realizes both of those things have merit. Also I’m pretty sure everyone else in this thread agrees that we are at a point now where you shouldn’t have to show your vaccine card to get into a restaurant or keep your job. To Sermokala there are no competing interests. There’s only one variable to look at and that is if the vaccine is a net positive. If you lose your job because you don’t want the vaccine then great. I suspect he takes delight in that. It’s quite a fringe position to still believe that. Maybe Mohdoo and NewSunshine are still right there with him. But all of the reasonable and more objective posters like Gorsameth and Wombat I’m quite sure would say we are past the days of vaccine passports. I mean if you want to be detached from scientific reality, so be it. That's your choice, don't try to press it on others. Imagining that he's standing alone on some hill waiting for a good cause to die for, I've got news for you. You're one of the loud individuals who try to complain about the hair in the soup that's actually just fibre from the ingredients. Most of us are just fed up because you don't seem to understand that. “If you don’t agree with my approach then you don’t trust the science bro.” Find a new drum to beat. Do you think every country took the same approach and had the same timelines for lockdowns and vaccine mandates and other measures? Do you think the countries with the more stringent measures just trusted the science more and other countries were just infiltrated by the antivaxx anti science nut jobs?
Certain measures outside of a totalitarian apparatus require collective buy-in from the populace.
You have to mediate policy between what best scientific practice may be, practical real-world application of said advice and ultimately what your population’s attitudes are and what they are liable to stomach. My Scandinavian posters may correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe a fair bit that was mandated in the U.K, was not in that region. Not because it wasn’t considered a good idea, but because people were voluntarily doing it anyway.
There are other areas of divergent trade-offs in terms of economic structure as well. A country that’s hugely reliant on tourism will face different pressures in opening up than one that is not.
In a crude sense, a country that was very permissive, likely was so because its populace was against restrictions. And on the balance probably against what was considered best practice if you left it purely to scientist bean counter types.
There are of course other judgement calls to be made, one in particular that isn’t within that realm.
Namely what the thresholds are of additional illness and death to justify a big curtailing of freedoms and where those lie. A question I don’t blame people for not really answering, but one largely neglected in being answered nonetheless.
|
Norway28786 Posts
What science is BJ denying? To my knowledge, he has never posted anything negative about vaccine efficiency. He has posted that they're bad at stopping transmission - but that is, aside from a fairly short window after each new booster, very much backed up by science?
'The science' isn't the source of disagreement here. People agree the vaccine does a great job at hindering severe illness, hospitalizations, and death. BJ is certainly on board with this. People largely agree that vaccinated people still get infected, even if it is at a slightly lower rate (but perhaps overall it's at an equal rate because being vaccinated made people abandon other measures. Myself I got infected after being triple vaccinated - at which point I had abandoned all measures because I trusted that the vaccines would make it unlikely that I got really ill). Both of these positions are supported by 'the science'. The question where people disagree is to what degree should people be inconvenienced (or forced - some will argue that at some point, 'being inconvenienced' will essentially constitute 'being forced') to vaccinate to be part of greater society.
Here, one argument which circulated frequently at first - and which has less validity as it has become clear that vaccines do a mediocre job hindering transmission - is that a greater degree of inconvenience is warranted because then people are less likely to spread the virus to others. I'm not saying it's entirely invalid (vaccines did slightly reduce spread even a couple months after), but it's not a particularly strong argument in light of how poorly vaccines perform in terms of preventing infections.
Now - to be clear - this argument being less valid does not invalidate the position that more inconveniencing is a societal good. The 'must avoid overloading hospitals and incurring costs on society through needing healthcare they might not have needed' (and the non-vaccinated most certainly, again, no disagreement here, not from BJ either, comprised a much greater portion of covid-hospitalizations per capita, especially when looking at comparable age groups) is still entirely valid.
|
Norway28786 Posts
On October 19 2022 18:33 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2022 16:29 BlackJack wrote:On October 19 2022 14:32 Artisreal wrote:On October 19 2022 04:06 BlackJack wrote:On October 17 2022 22:36 Artisreal wrote:On October 15 2022 07:43 Sermokala wrote:On October 15 2022 04:54 Artisreal wrote:
What is really debated here?
Policy based on the best available information being wrong with the alternative being no policy until certainty?
Can't be vaccines work again? It's a constant attempt to find some way to justify being anti vax. They realize that they can't come out and say it because people have science but they look for the smallest crack that they can find and hope it's the gotcha that will justify their sunk cost of being anti vax. Going through insane hoops to find anything is better than having to face what they've done. Mad props that you continue to reality check in this thread!! <3 Ironically he’s probably the only person in the thread that has no common ground with anyone. Pretty much every reasonable person in this thread has acknowledged that the debate is essentially around the competing interests of public health and personal liberty. Every reasonable person in this thread realizes both of those things have merit. Also I’m pretty sure everyone else in this thread agrees that we are at a point now where you shouldn’t have to show your vaccine card to get into a restaurant or keep your job. To Sermokala there are no competing interests. There’s only one variable to look at and that is if the vaccine is a net positive. If you lose your job because you don’t want the vaccine then great. I suspect he takes delight in that. It’s quite a fringe position to still believe that. Maybe Mohdoo and NewSunshine are still right there with him. But all of the reasonable and more objective posters like Gorsameth and Wombat I’m quite sure would say we are past the days of vaccine passports. I mean if you want to be detached from scientific reality, so be it. That's your choice, don't try to press it on others. Imagining that he's standing alone on some hill waiting for a good cause to die for, I've got news for you. You're one of the loud individuals who try to complain about the hair in the soup that's actually just fibre from the ingredients. Most of us are just fed up because you don't seem to understand that. “If you don’t agree with my approach then you don’t trust the science bro.” Find a new drum to beat. Do you think every country took the same approach and had the same timelines for lockdowns and vaccine mandates and other measures? Do you think the countries with the more stringent measures just trusted the science more and other countries were just infiltrated by the antivaxx anti science nut jobs? Certain measures outside of a totalitarian apparatus require collective buy-in from the populace. You have to mediate policy between what best scientific practice may be, practical real-world application of said advice and ultimately what your population’s attitudes are and what they are liable to stomach. My Scandinavian posters may correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe a fair bit that was mandated in the U.K, was not in that region. Not because it wasn’t considered a good idea, but because people were voluntarily doing it anyway. There are other areas of divergent trade-offs in terms of economic structure as well. A country that’s hugely reliant on tourism will face different pressures in opening up than one that is not. In a crude sense, a country that was very permissive, likely was so because its populace was against restrictions. And on the balance probably against what was considered best practice if you left it purely to scientist bean counter types. There are of course other judgement calls to be made, one in particular that isn’t within that realm. Namely what the thresholds are of additional illness and death to justify a big curtailing of freedoms and where those lie. A question I don’t blame people for not really answering, but one largely neglected in being answered nonetheless.
I mean there were big differences within Scandinavia, compared to Norway, Sweden basically ignored that there was a pandemic. But Norway also, overall, did not impose particularly harsh measures, aside from a few months at the very start of the pandemic, at which time there were a whole lot of unknown factors and where we thought/suspected that the mortality was much higher than what actually was the case.
Myself, I was always negative towards vaccine mandates (aside from for certain professions like 'person working in an elderly home', where even a slight decrease in transmission rate is important) because the way I see it, 'trust in each other and the government' is an important currency for a society. And, the way I see it, 'forcing' people to vaccinate erodes this trust - and it spends a certain amount of this, highly valuable societal currency. In my opinion (to be fair, I'm not necessarily representative of 'greater Norway' here - I'm definitely more of an anarchist than most people), people's ability to make choices has inherent value, even if these people sometimes make really stupid choices, and the ability to freely choose should only be restricted in cases where the external costs are particularly high - not when the main person likely to be negatively affected is yourself. (So - again, I supported strong measures at a point where we thought there was a legitimate chance that our hospitals would become overloaded like we had seen happen in Italy and the early hot-spots.) Basically, I want strict rules regarding stuff like pollution and drunk driving - but not regarding drug use or bicycle helmets, and while covid has fluctuated between these two during different stages of the pandemic, I think choosing not to vaccinate is overall something that more negatively affects the individual than society, and I want to expend the 'force people to act in x manner'-currency on climate related stuff as that is a) far more important and b) has much more externalized costs.
|
I think choosing not to vaccinate is overall something that more negatively affects the individual than society, and I want to expend the 'force people to act in x manner'-currency on climate related stuff as that is a) far more important and b) has much more externalized costs. yes, thousands of times.
vaccination is selfish, adhering to forms of self-imposed restrictions benefits others.
i was against mandatory restrictions because i would've just let the purposely unvaccinated ... die. it's not realistic obviously but i think it would've been the most fair outcome.
those who survive, nice!; those who die, they choose to!; and for the weaselly ones from in-between, they had a choice with the vaccines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
