|
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 20 2022 04:41 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Can you please elaborate on your statement "vaccination is selfish"? Why is vaccination selfish?
|
On October 19 2022 19:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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.
I don't know how it was (or is?) in Norway but yeah, Sweden has had their own route regarding this pandemic.
I got covid also after (or i think on) my holiday on August, one day feeling fucking terrible, then i too kthe home test, it showed positive, called work, got sent to a real test 2 days after, negative, lol. I guess my things with covid have been quite easy so far.
|
On October 19 2022 18:27 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2022 11:50 Sermokala 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. 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?
Staying on brand as always and not reading my post. Don't even try to figure out which mandates I'm talking about just assume whats best for your gotcha, ignore everything else, and start posting as soon as possible.
See the world does this thing where time passes and things change. Before March of 2020 I didn't think vaccine mandates for covid 19 were needed. I know that's a shocking revelation and might make everyone think I'm a hypocrite. Us people in the free-thinking facts over feelings crowd do this thing where we looks at the facts and make decisions. I know that's probably a wild concept to you but its something the rest of us do easily.
Before in this exchange, if you can remember we were talking about vaccine passports. Those and travel vaccine mandates aren't needed yes. See people who don't value feelings over facts can change their opinion on things as facts change. You it seems can't change your opinions and think its a sick burn to stay to the same stance at all times because you need your feelings to change first.
|
On October 19 2022 18:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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.
I don't get where you keep thinking that he is on board with the vaccine doing a good job at hindering severe illness hospitalizations and death. Hes constantly argues against more vaccination and constantly argues against more vaccination efforts. You can't hold positions that more vaccinated people are bad and that the vaccine is good without being an especially cruel person that wants to see people die due to ignorance.
And its primarily a battle of ignorance now, at least in America. People are constantly railing against any vaccine initiatives or any attempts to get people vaccinated. The war against ignorance on vaccines is fought by people who argue in bad faith trying to find any crack at all to create doubt on if someone should get the vaccine or not.
I just don't see the argument that the government shouldn't be doing everything it can to get people vaccinated. The government attempting to save its citizen's lives, long-term health, and money is one of the core purposes of organized governments. The government not doing what its suppose to do is what will erode people's trust in the government. I don't think that you seriously believe that the same people who would rather die connected to the tube are the same people who are going to be on board with the smallest of environmentalist efforts. A simple look at the types of people who are unvaccinated vs who they vote for are the same types of people who deny climate change.
Also increased vaccination in a population is a societal good from a non-pandemic viewpoint. More healthy people is a more economically beneficial situation than less health people.
|
On October 21 2022 07:13 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2022 19:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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.
I don't know how it was (or is?) in Norway but yeah, Sweden has had their own route regarding this pandemic. I got covid also after (or i think on) my holiday on August, one day feeling fucking terrible, then i too kthe home test, it showed positive, called work, got sent to a real test 2 days after, negative, lol. I guess my things with covid have been quite easy so far.
So the question is, did that positive home test even matter at all? I have taken too many of those already, and with restrictions gone, vaccines up and mild strains around, I don't see any reason to let anyone dig into my nose or throat anymore.
Which exact germ made you sick didn't matter before. What matters is how you feel because of it.
|
Northern Ireland24877 Posts
On October 21 2022 07:48 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2022 18:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. I don't get where you keep thinking that he is on board with the vaccine doing a good job at hindering severe illness hospitalizations and death. Hes constantly argues against more vaccination and constantly argues against more vaccination efforts. You can't hold positions that more vaccinated people are bad and that the vaccine is good without being an especially cruel person that wants to see people die due to ignorance. And its primarily a battle of ignorance now, at least in America. People are constantly railing against any vaccine initiatives or any attempts to get people vaccinated. The war against ignorance on vaccines is fought by people who argue in bad faith trying to find any crack at all to create doubt on if someone should get the vaccine or not. I just don't see the argument that the government shouldn't be doing everything it can to get people vaccinated. The government attempting to save its citizen's lives, long-term health, and money is one of the core purposes of organized governments. The government not doing what its suppose to do is what will erode people's trust in the government. I don't think that you seriously believe that the same people who would rather die connected to the tube are the same people who are going to be on board with the smallest of environmentalist efforts. A simple look at the types of people who are unvaccinated vs who they vote for are the same types of people who deny climate change. Also increased vaccination in a population is a societal good from a non-pandemic viewpoint. More healthy people is a more economically beneficial situation than less health people.
I’d be interested to see if this is just a more visible phenomenon, or a more prevalent one. It’s certainly the former, but on the latter I’m unsure.
I don’t even know if it can be called ignorance, what one can call it I’m unsure again. Ignorance can tend to be countered with either pure information, or information delivered in a way aligned to the subject’s particular sensibilities.
This, I dunno man. It feels like in the vast majority, least of extreme cases it marches in lockstep with incoherent political/social identities that are deeply ingrained.
Any degree of transparency and admission of error is parsed as evidence of all sorts of malfeasance. But any lack of transparency is also so.
I shall add my usual caveat that I am not referring to quibbles over aspects of vaccine efficacy, or wider debates about things like mandates or wider policy.
Useless postulating and whatnot aside, it’s somewhat depressing in terms of anticipating the future. Would be nice to be laissez-faire but I mean, the much, much more stringent steps we’ll need to actually adjust to and tackle something like climate change, Hm. Never mind vaccines, if people can’t even suck up the terrrible, terrible imposition of wearing a mask you’re going to have a bloody tough time
|
Its a character thing. When normal people are ignorant of something and new information comes to them they change their minds and grow with what they've learned. Then you have other people who Embrace their ignorance and think that when they see new information that doesn't correspond with what they already feel is right they reject it because they feel that by changing their minds they would be embarrassing themselves to admit that they were ever wrong.
What you're seeing is what happens when someone can see that they've been proven wrong and are now trying to find anything they can latch onto to, in their minds, prove they were right somehow. We see it now a lot with qultists clinging onto anything to prove that they were right with increasingly crazy and dangerous acts.
I think its very depressing to be confronted with the evidence that not all of humanity wants to be saved and that you have to accept that you won't be able to convince everybody that even the earth is round.
|
On October 21 2022 08:27 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2022 07:13 raynpelikoneet wrote:On October 19 2022 19:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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.
I don't know how it was (or is?) in Norway but yeah, Sweden has had their own route regarding this pandemic. I got covid also after (or i think on) my holiday on August, one day feeling fucking terrible, then i too kthe home test, it showed positive, called work, got sent to a real test 2 days after, negative, lol. I guess my things with covid have been quite easy so far. So the question is, did that positive home test even matter at all? I have taken too many of those already, and with restrictions gone, vaccines up and mild strains around, I don't see any reason to let anyone dig into my nose or throat anymore. Which exact germ made you sick didn't matter before. What matters is how you feel because of it.
Germany has a list of illnesses that doctors have to tell the authorities of, if anyone catches it. I'm sure many countries are the same.
So it does matter what makes you I'll, and it already did matter before COVID.
We even had ebola before COVID including the quarantine restrictions. Although people mostly quarantined in the hospital, I think, because ebola is a major threat for anyone and you're too I'll to be on your own very fast.
|
Norway28626 Posts
On October 21 2022 07:48 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2022 18:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. I don't get where you keep thinking that he is on board with the vaccine doing a good job at hindering severe illness hospitalizations and death. Hes constantly argues against more vaccination and constantly argues against more vaccination efforts. You can't hold positions that more vaccinated people are bad and that the vaccine is good without being an especially cruel person that wants to see people die due to ignorance. And its primarily a battle of ignorance now, at least in America. People are constantly railing against any vaccine initiatives or any attempts to get people vaccinated. The war against ignorance on vaccines is fought by people who argue in bad faith trying to find any crack at all to create doubt on if someone should get the vaccine or not. I just don't see the argument that the government shouldn't be doing everything it can to get people vaccinated. The government attempting to save its citizen's lives, long-term health, and money is one of the core purposes of organized governments. The government not doing what its suppose to do is what will erode people's trust in the government. I don't think that you seriously believe that the same people who would rather die connected to the tube are the same people who are going to be on board with the smallest of environmentalist efforts. A simple look at the types of people who are unvaccinated vs who they vote for are the same types of people who deny climate change. Also increased vaccination in a population is a societal good from a non-pandemic viewpoint. More healthy people is a more economically beneficial situation than less health people.
I know he's pro-vaccine because I've read his posts from the beginning of this thread. Here are some quotes from blackjack from this very thread:
'But yeah as a cost-benefit analysis of COVID vs the vaccine it seems obviously better for everyone to take the vaccine.'
'I think everyone is in agreement that any side effects from the vaccine would be way less bad than what COVID is already doing.'
'When you look at the US deaths since vaccines were widespread and effective, say March 1, 2021, the deaths from the 6 months of then until now are a fraction of the deaths in the previous 12 months'
There are many more where he argues against measures like social distancing specifically because vaccines have been so good at making covid much less dangerous (even if they did not do much to hinder spread.)
I'll address the greater argument soon.
|
Sermokala:
“I just don’t see this argument where the government shouldn’t be doing everything it can to get people vaccinated”
Also Sermokala:
“Travel vaccine mandates and vaccine passports aren’t needed”
So your stance is basically the government should be doing “everything it can to vaccinate more people” unless you decide it’s not necessary and for some reason you get sole discretion in this matter. And if anyone disagrees with you they are just a cruel antivaxx grandma killer. Got it.
Actually I’m going to change my position in this thread. I think we should bring back vaccine passports and travel mandates. Now you need to explain why you are against these things and are not as virtuous as me because I want to save more lives. The only logical conclusion since you are against these things is that you are an antivaxxer and you don’t want more people to get vaccinated.
|
If arguing in bad faith was an Olympic sport BlackJack would take home the gold without contest.
|
On October 21 2022 14:32 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2022 08:27 Slydie wrote:On October 21 2022 07:13 raynpelikoneet wrote:On October 19 2022 19:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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.
I don't know how it was (or is?) in Norway but yeah, Sweden has had their own route regarding this pandemic. I got covid also after (or i think on) my holiday on August, one day feeling fucking terrible, then i too kthe home test, it showed positive, called work, got sent to a real test 2 days after, negative, lol. I guess my things with covid have been quite easy so far. So the question is, did that positive home test even matter at all? I have taken too many of those already, and with restrictions gone, vaccines up and mild strains around, I don't see any reason to let anyone dig into my nose or throat anymore. Which exact germ made you sick didn't matter before. What matters is how you feel because of it. Germany has a list of illnesses that doctors have to tell the authorities of, if anyone catches it. I'm sure many countries are the same. So it does matter what makes you I'll, and it already did matter before COVID. We even had ebola before COVID including the quarantine restrictions. Although people mostly quarantined in the hospital, I think, because ebola is a major threat for anyone and you're too I'll to be on your own very fast.
I know for a fact that doctors absolutely hate calls about mild respiratory illness. They usually can't do anything about it, and it usually goes away anyway. The story here was a person getting well after 1 day, I'd say it is irresponsible to even call a doctor for that.
So, no need for testing either.
|
What has that to do with there being ilnesses whose emergence has to be relayed to health authorities, which you questioned existing before covid?
|
I'm 2 vaxed(pfizer) and 1 illness in(defeated) and given the option and information I wouldn't touch that shit(vax) with a 10 foot pole. Hope everyone else is doing okay.
|
On October 21 2022 19:22 Taelshin wrote:
I'm 2 vaxed(pfizer) and 1 illness in(defeated) and given the option and information I wouldn't touch that shit(vax) with a 10 foot pole. Hope everyone else is doing okay.
What information?
|
On October 21 2022 19:22 Taelshin wrote:
I'm 2 vaxed(pfizer) and 1 illness in(defeated) and given the option and information I wouldn't touch that shit(vax) with a 10 foot pole. Hope everyone else is doing okay.
Are you saying that you wish you had never been vaccinated from covid? Or that you're fine with being vaccinated but won't be getting any additional boosters? Or something else?
And... Why? Why do you wish you had never been vaccinated (or why won't you be getting any more boosters or whatever you mean by your statement)?
|
|
|
Northern Ireland24877 Posts
On October 21 2022 15:45 BlackJack wrote:
Sermokala:
“I just don’t see this argument where the government shouldn’t be doing everything it can to get people vaccinated”
Also Sermokala:
“Travel vaccine mandates and vaccine passports aren’t needed”
So your stance is basically the government should be doing “everything it can to vaccinate more people” unless you decide it’s not necessary and for some reason you get sole discretion in this matter. And if anyone disagrees with you they are just a cruel antivaxx grandma killer. Got it.
Actually I’m going to change my position in this thread. I think we should bring back vaccine passports and travel mandates. Now you need to explain why you are against these things and are not as virtuous as me because I want to save more lives. The only logical conclusion since you are against these things is that you are an antivaxxer and you don’t want more people to get vaccinated.
Come on really?
Despite frequent disagreements I think you post sensibly but this is either sorely missing an /s or is an unbelievably bad faith argument
Jumping on this is silly. Anyone and their dog reading this these for any length of time sees no contradiction here.
‘The government should be doing everything in its power to get people vaccinated, provided it’s proven useful or effective’.
There we go. Wee alteration. Unilateral rewording. Despite my boldness in doing so does anyone in here not think that’s what Sermakola meant?
|
On October 21 2022 15:45 BlackJack wrote:
Sermokala:
“I just don’t see this argument where the government shouldn’t be doing everything it can to get people vaccinated”
Also Sermokala:
“Travel vaccine mandates and vaccine passports aren’t needed”
So your stance is basically the government should be doing “everything it can to vaccinate more people” unless you decide it’s not necessary and for some reason you get sole discretion in this matter. And if anyone disagrees with you they are just a cruel antivaxx grandma killer. Got it.
Actually I’m going to change my position in this thread. I think we should bring back vaccine passports and travel mandates. Now you need to explain why you are against these things and are not as virtuous as me because I want to save more lives. The only logical conclusion since you are against these things is that you are an antivaxxer and you don’t want more people to get vaccinated.
Just incredible ability for you to stay on brand and not read posts. Just incredible.
Blackjack here's this incredible thing that you can do when you follow facts over feelings, you can look at facts and people who are also looking at facts. I know its this incredible concept to you that you don't have to follow your feelings over every possible explanation on whats going on in your life but its right there open to you and you can just start doing it at any time. I get how hard it might be for you to approach things like you're not the only one who gets to decide if something is right or wrong. I get how hard it might be for you to visualize a system where multiple people discuss and come up with a developing system of decision-making. The thing that is hard for you to understand is science.
I don't decide if vaccine travel mandates are needed or not, science does that, facts does that, other people with facts do that. Lifting travel vaccine mandates (and vaccine passports being the same thing FYI) doesn't contradict. We've gotten just about all we can with the measure and now we move on to other measures.
Just look at your own posts and see how much of it relies on you trying to convince other peoples feelings on things rather than having any sort of logical or moral component to any of it.
|
On October 21 2022 15:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2022 07:48 Sermokala wrote:On October 19 2022 18:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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. I don't get where you keep thinking that he is on board with the vaccine doing a good job at hindering severe illness hospitalizations and death. Hes constantly argues against more vaccination and constantly argues against more vaccination efforts. You can't hold positions that more vaccinated people are bad and that the vaccine is good without being an especially cruel person that wants to see people die due to ignorance. And its primarily a battle of ignorance now, at least in America. People are constantly railing against any vaccine initiatives or any attempts to get people vaccinated. The war against ignorance on vaccines is fought by people who argue in bad faith trying to find any crack at all to create doubt on if someone should get the vaccine or not. I just don't see the argument that the government shouldn't be doing everything it can to get people vaccinated. The government attempting to save its citizen's lives, long-term health, and money is one of the core purposes of organized governments. The government not doing what its suppose to do is what will erode people's trust in the government. I don't think that you seriously believe that the same people who would rather die connected to the tube are the same people who are going to be on board with the smallest of environmentalist efforts. A simple look at the types of people who are unvaccinated vs who they vote for are the same types of people who deny climate change. Also increased vaccination in a population is a societal good from a non-pandemic viewpoint. More healthy people is a more economically beneficial situation than less health people. I know he's pro-vaccine because I've read his posts from the beginning of this thread. Here are some quotes from blackjack from this very thread: 'But yeah as a cost-benefit analysis of COVID vs the vaccine it seems obviously better for everyone to take the vaccine.' 'I think everyone is in agreement that any side effects from the vaccine would be way less bad than what COVID is already doing.' 'When you look at the US deaths since vaccines were widespread and effective, say March 1, 2021, the deaths from the 6 months of then until now are a fraction of the deaths in the previous 12 months' There are many more where he argues against measures like social distancing specifically because vaccines have been so good at making covid much less dangerous (even if they did not do much to hinder spread.) I'll address the greater argument soon.
Hes lying to you. I don't get where you keep such faith with him when the things he says he believes is in such contradiction with what he argues for. He can't make a simple statement of "vaccines are good people should get vaccines" Do you remember how torturous it was to get a simple answer about that from him? How many pages and pages of me coming back to asking him a simple question and him refusing to go anywhere near the question I kept directly asking him?
Like If your argument is "He thinks the vaccine is good he just doesn't think anyone should get it" then you need to see that he's lying to you and that argument makes no sense. Because the instant reflex you should have every time is "well why don't you want everyone possible to get the vaccine?" And he won't answer it because he has no answer that would align with his first statement. He would have to say that the vaccine is bad and he doesn't think people should get it. He knows that would get him ridiculed and thrown out and so he lies. He lies, he deflects, he finds whatever little scrap he can possibly use to gain any sort of legitimacy he can find.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
