|
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. |
Northern Ireland20855 Posts
On October 22 2022 06:00 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2022 15:25 Liquid`Drone wrote: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. Drone is a more sensible human and better communicator than me (in a second language), I don’t really get why he takes this at face value.
Had enough folks in my time who’ll try to throw in the exact same talking points and dog whistles I actively recognise from dark holes of the racist internet, while stressing ‘I’m not bigoted, but…
Well, I don’t think I have to be Sherlock Holmes in noticing a certain incongruence in what’s going on there.
Outside of the occasional breadcrumb or ‘oh yeah I’m vaccinated and I think they’re great’ near everything else Blackjack says on the topic is negative, over a period of years.
Perhaps I’m being uncharitable but if I went around savaging any political position left of Reagan and just went ‘oh but yeah I’m actually a socialist’ when questioned nobody would buy it.
|
Norway28275 Posts
spoilering this because I don't think the BJ meta discussion is interesting to people who are here for covid stuff, but damn, I'm having a hard time letting it slide.
+ Show Spoiler + I've known BJ for like two decades. I've never had problems with him being a liar or untrustworthy. He posted that he was getting vaccinated tomorrow on December 22nd 2020 - making him one of the very first posters on this forum to do so. I also post on another forum where he also posts, a forum where you had a lot of anti-vaxxers making outlandish statements. Guess what BJ was doing? Arguing strongly in favor of getting the vaccine. He hasn't consistently been posting negative stuff about getting the vaccine. He has consistently argued that the vaccine is good. I can't find a single post of BJ, anywhere, where he recommends not getting the vaccine. Not one. I can find many where he argues it's good. I'm not going to repeat the whole 'he's not arguing against the vaccine but against a) vaccine mandates or b) restrictions in a post-vaccine world' because if you don't get that then fuck it, not worth the effort.
Anyway, of course you're not going to get a good discussion out of him when you keep calling him a liar or anti-vaxxer. Now, I'm not really saying he's blameless in this whole thing, I wish he didn't do the whole 'well if you're gonna be a completely uncharitable absolute asshole, I'm gonna go join in on that' thing because unless he happens to run into one of the few ChristianS's, that just makes a circle of assholy posts go round and round, but I'll absolutely state that BJ hasn't been dishonest, and that people thinking he's anti-vaxx is more on them for being bad at reading than it is about him being bad at communicating. I'd prefer if he didn't make posts like the previous one but at the same time I'm having a hard time blaming him.
Honestly, I feel like one of the main issues is that he's very much not ideological, and this, in today's world, results in him having a bunch of views that aren't in line with what you expect him to think based on some other statement he makes. Like, on average, you can do the 'okay, so you think x, that must mean you also think y' and you'll be right quite frequently, but in his case, it doesn't actually work out.
Anyway this is hopefully my last meta-post on the posting of BJ, I'm bored of rehashing the same stuff. But he's not a liar and he's not an anti-vaxxer. Criticize him for being a snippy poster who doesn't do a good enough job expanding upon his thought process and you'll have a point, but I also get why he must find the whole process of posting here an overall unpleasant experience, one that does not inspire him to be his best possible version of himself either. Go back two years in this thread and read his posts dating from before December 2020 and you'll get a very different impression.
|
On October 22 2022 06:00 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2022 15:25 Liquid`Drone wrote: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.
Sigh… let’s see which post of the countless posts I’ve made saying people should get vaccinated should I use here. You said you wanted a “simple” one. Maybe this one from a couple months ago, doesn’t get any more concise than this.
https://tl.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27977076
Oh but it doesn’t matter because I’m “lying” or whatever you need to tell yourself to keep up this fun delusion where you’re standing up for science against the evil antivaxxer
|
On October 22 2022 05:39 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +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?
If you’ve been following his posts his attitude is basically “I believe in stronger vaccine initiatives than you and if you don’t it means you don’t want people to get vaccinated and you want people to die.” It’s the idea that whoever supports more strict policies automatically gets the moral high ground.
So the point is there is always someone that can draw the line further than you so why do you think where you draw the line in what policies you support is the most morally superior.
To be honest I thought he might say something like “well I don’t think we need vaccine passports anymore because everyone has the opportunity to get vaccinated and provide themself good protection against COVID.” Then I would be like “no way, me too! That’s the exact reasoning I use for my position on all vaccine mandates so just expand that and maybe you can finally understand my position!”
But of course that’s not how he responded. His response was basically “I don’t decide that, science and facts decide that” which is some bullshit non-answer.
|
On October 22 2022 06:18 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2022 06:00 Sermokala wrote:On October 21 2022 15:25 Liquid`Drone wrote: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. Drone is a more sensible human and better communicator than me (in a second language), I don’t really get why he takes this at face value. Had enough folks in my time who’ll try to throw in the exact same talking points and dog whistles I actively recognise from dark holes of the racist internet, while stressing ‘I’m not bigoted, but… Well, I don’t think I have to be Sherlock Holmes in noticing a certain incongruence in what’s going on there. Outside of the occasional breadcrumb or ‘oh yeah I’m vaccinated and I think they’re great’ near everything else Blackjack says on the topic is negative, over a period of years. Perhaps I’m being uncharitable but if I went around savaging any political position left of Reagan and just went ‘oh but yeah I’m actually a socialist’ when questioned nobody would buy it.
Occasional bread crumb? My entire stance which I’ve reiterated many many times and Eri has reiterated for me as well is:
Everyone has the opportunity to provide themselves with good protection from COVID by getting vaccinated so we should not need to compel everyone else around us to get vaccinated to feel safe.
It’s a very pro-vaccine stance when interpreted correctly.
|
Yup I regret getting the "vaccine". Did what I thought was right at the time. Would not repeat it. Suffered no complications from the "vax" and hopefully won't. But don't worry we'll learn more about that open air test as the years go on.
@Drone "but I also get why he must find the whole process of posting here an overall unpleasant experience"
He's not the only one, this thread(forum maybe?) has become the Sermo/DPB/JimmC forum where anyone who disagrees is verboten.
|
On October 22 2022 20:04 Taelshin wrote: Yup I regret getting the "vaccine". Did what I thought was right at the time. Would not repeat it. Suffered no complications from the "vax" and hopefully won't. But don't worry we'll learn more about that open air test as the years go on.
@Drone "but I also get why he must find the whole process of posting here an overall unpleasant experience"
He's not the only one, this thread(forum maybe?) has become the Sermo/DPB/JimmC forum where anyone who disagrees is verboten.
But why do you regret it if you suffered no negative consequences? Also, why do you continue to put "" around vaccine? Do you not believe that the vaccine is real?
|
On October 22 2022 20:04 Taelshin wrote: Yup I regret getting the "vaccine". Did what I thought was right at the time. Would not repeat it. Suffered no complications from the "vax" and hopefully won't. But don't worry we'll learn more about that open air test as the years go on.
Why wouldn't you repeat it?
Edit: All of the things that Simberto asked ^^
|
On October 22 2022 20:04 Taelshin wrote: He's not the only one, this thread(forum maybe?) has become the Sermo/DPB/JimmC forum where anyone who disagrees is verboten.
First, I'm not forbidding anyone from posting, nor am I pretending like I have the authority to do so.
Second, my last few posts were these:
+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2022 20:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2022 20:04 Taelshin wrote: Yup I regret getting the "vaccine". Did what I thought was right at the time. Would not repeat it. Suffered no complications from the "vax" and hopefully won't. But don't worry we'll learn more about that open air test as the years go on. Why wouldn't you repeat it? On October 22 2022 01:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +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)? On October 20 2022 05:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2022 04:41 xM(Z wrote: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 17 2022 17:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2022 16:57 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: 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.
Not exactly spicy gatekeeping. Plus, asking questions and challenging assertions are often parts of conversations about controversial issues; those are very different than saying that certain people shouldn't be allowed to make posts.
Third, I've made it a point to specifically not pile on to the current off-topic scrutiny about one poster in particular, to precisely avoid the thing you're accusing me of, despite the fact that there'd obviously be plenty for me to say if it was a thread about that poster's behavior instead of a thread about coronavirus.
|
@Simberto I don't believe its a Vaccine, I believe its a therapeutic, That's why I put the "". And its pretty obvious that is the case. I'm confident everyone here will come around to that reality at some point. Some sooner then others. It's a flu shot at best.
@DPB Beat Covid over a year after the untested therapeutic was willingly injected, Not interested in testing my luck.
Sorry for dragging the conversation away from drone's well thought out post though. He makes a good point and I think you should all have a read.
Edit: made this post before DPB post #12709. Cross posting life.
|
On October 22 2022 21:26 Taelshin wrote: @Simberto I don't believe its a Vaccine, I believe its a therapeutic, That's why I put the "". And its pretty obvious that is the case. I'm confident everyone here will come around to that reality at some point. Some sooner then others. It's a flu shot at best.
@DPB Beat Covid over a year after the untested therapeutic was willingly injected, Not interested in testing my luck.
Sorry for dragging the conversation away from drone's well thought out post though. He makes a good point and I think you should all have a read.
Can you please elaborate on what you mean when you call the covid vaccine "a therapeutic"? My understanding of the noun "therapeutic" is that it applies as a sort of umbrella term that can incorporate many kinds of treatments, including vaccines, but it sounds like you're making a more nuanced distinction. You also compared it to a flu shot, though, which is literally a vaccine ( https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/flushot.htm ), so I'm confused.
From the above article: "Influenza (flu) vaccines (often called “flu shots”) are vaccines that protect against the four influenza viruses that research indicates will be most common during the upcoming season. Most flu vaccines are “flu shots” given with a needle, usually in the arm, but there also is a nasal spray flu vaccine."
Also, why do you think that the covid vaccine (or "therapeutic", to use your term) is untested? There had been many clinical trials done before distributing the vaccines to the public, and a lot of research completed and written about the process. Do you not believe that these things were actually done?
|
@DPB Nope, not interested in explaining thing's that have been previously posted in this thread and dismissed by you and others. I'm confident that you'll come around sooner rather then later.
You should make sure your up to date on your therapeutic(vaccine) though I wouldn't want my words to prevent anyone from getting their protection. I think its every 6 months right now. The sooner you get it, the sooner your safe as everyone knows.
EDIT: DISCLAIMER THE COVID VACCINE IS THE BEST THING EVER AND ANYONE SAYING OTHERWISE IS WRONG AND PROVIDING MISINFORMATION. TRUST YOUR DOCTOR.
|
On October 22 2022 22:09 Taelshin wrote: @DPB Nope, not interested in explaining thing's that have been previously posted in this thread and dismissed by you and others. I'm confident that you'll come around sooner rather then later.
You should make sure your up to date on your therapeutic(vaccine) though I wouldn't want my words to prevent anyone from getting their protection. I think its every 6 months right now. The sooner you get it, the sooner your safe as everyone knows.
EDIT: DISCLAIMER THE COVID VACCINE IS THE BEST THING EVER AND ANYONE SAYING OTHERWISE IS WRONG AND PROVIDING MISINFORMATION. TRUST YOUR DOCTOR.
How you think this dismissive and sarcastic response to our good-faith clarification questions is appropriate is beyond me. And you wonder why people don't take you seriously? It's precisely because of posts like this one, where you aren't interested in even explaining - let alone defending - your positions. We're asking you to elaborate on your statements, yet you interpret this as forbidding you from posting.
When we ask you follow-up questions, it's because we sincerely want to make sure we understand your position and the terms you're using. Otherwise, our interpretations may misrepresent your position, and right now it seems to me that your position is something like "the covid vaccine was untested [only because you said so], and it isn't a vaccine because it's a therapeutic [term you're unwilling to define] and it's more like the flu vaccine [even though the flu vaccine is still a vaccine], and the covid vaccine didn't cause you any problems but you'd definitely never do it again [cuz... reasons]". I have no idea how accurate of a depiction that is, which is why I was asking you to help me understand your perspective and the logic behind it.
I feel like you're purposely posting low-quality, inane rants, just so you can achieve your self-fulfilling prophecy of people lecturing you after you've proven unwilling to have a legitimate conversation with them. However, the reason why I'm criticizing you isn't because you disagree with me, which was your original assertion; it's because you make posts like this one.
|
On October 22 2022 21:26 Taelshin wrote: @Simberto I don't believe its a Vaccine, I believe its a therapeutic, That's why I put the "". And its pretty obvious that is the case. I'm confident everyone here will come around to that reality at some point. Some sooner then others. It's a flu shot at best.
@DPB Beat Covid over a year after the untested therapeutic was willingly injected, Not interested in testing my luck.
Sorry for dragging the conversation away from drone's well thought out post though. He makes a good point and I think you should all have a read.
Edit: made this post before DPB post #12709. Cross posting life.
Your beliefs have no base in reality though. Much like stating that the vaccine is untested is a massive troll.
|
On October 22 2022 15:17 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2022 05:39 WombaT wrote: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? If you’ve been following his posts his attitude is basically “I believe in stronger vaccine initiatives than you and if you don’t it means you don’t want people to get vaccinated and you want people to die.” It’s the idea that whoever supports more strict policies automatically gets the moral high ground. So the point is there is always someone that can draw the line further than you so why do you think where you draw the line in what policies you support is the most morally superior. To be honest I thought he might say something like “well I don’t think we need vaccine passports anymore because everyone has the opportunity to get vaccinated and provide themself good protection against COVID.” Then I would be like “no way, me too! That’s the exact reasoning I use for my position on all vaccine mandates so just expand that and maybe you can finally understand my position!” But of course that’s not how he responded. His response was basically “I don’t decide that, science and facts decide that” which is some bullshit non-answer. Again with the hits of not reading posts and just skimming to the parts you want to respond to.
That has never been my position Your constant bad-faith arguments are just pathetic. I'm glad we've finally gotten confirmation that you don't think science and facts is a legitimate answer to the decisions that are being made that effect your life.
Drone keeps banging on how "you're not actually anti vax you just don't think people need to get the vax" being an okay position to take but its really not. Even if we were to accept that you're "actually pro-vax just don't think people need to get it" you're left with being an incredibly cruel and hateful stance of wanting people to die when they don't have to. You're left with supporting the people like Taelshin who spread misinformation and are just defending their ability to spread misinformation.
Lets just lay this argument to rest finally. You have no facts to support you, you have no science to support you. All you have to support you is a preference of people dieing over people having any sort of discomfort.
I'm going to challenge you everytime because I want people to live and you want people to die. But for my sake I'm convinced even more what I've been saying about you is right.
|
Northern Ireland20855 Posts
On October 22 2022 17:12 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2022 06:18 WombaT wrote:On October 22 2022 06:00 Sermokala wrote:On October 21 2022 15:25 Liquid`Drone wrote: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. Drone is a more sensible human and better communicator than me (in a second language), I don’t really get why he takes this at face value. Had enough folks in my time who’ll try to throw in the exact same talking points and dog whistles I actively recognise from dark holes of the racist internet, while stressing ‘I’m not bigoted, but… Well, I don’t think I have to be Sherlock Holmes in noticing a certain incongruence in what’s going on there. Outside of the occasional breadcrumb or ‘oh yeah I’m vaccinated and I think they’re great’ near everything else Blackjack says on the topic is negative, over a period of years. Perhaps I’m being uncharitable but if I went around savaging any political position left of Reagan and just went ‘oh but yeah I’m actually a socialist’ when questioned nobody would buy it. Occasional bread crumb? My entire stance which I’ve reiterated many many times and Eri has reiterated for me as well is: Everyone has the opportunity to provide themselves with good protection from COVID by getting vaccinated so we should not need to compel everyone else around us to get vaccinated to feel safe. It’s a very pro-vaccine stance when interpreted correctly. Fair enough, not much ambiguity there
It’s a (needlessly) fractious topic we all bring our particular biases to. I have more exposure to anti-vax crazies than I’d like, so similar arguments even in another cause raise a certain impression. Which is my bad, I do try to untether the two but I’m not always successful.
On the flip side I mean I don’t think you’re unique in here in being pro-vaccine/anti-mandate as a combo. But you catch a fair bit more flak than the rest combined, there’s probably communication errors at both ends there.
So yeah my bad for my part. The thread is largely my source of info on this topic and it ceases to fulfil that function when it turns into a pissing contest, I’ll try not to contribute in that end in future.
|
@Sermokala
It’s hilarious that you can repeatedly state that if I’m against compelling people to get vaccinated it’s because I’m against science and against facts and I want people to die and nobody says a word.
But then if I do it to you facetiously simply as an exercise to demonstrate how ridiculous you are being people will come from all over to criticize me for arguing in bad faith.
Do you have any idea how many countries have lifted all their COVID vaccine mandates? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound saying all of these countries don’t believe in “facts” and “science”?
|
On October 23 2022 03:35 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2022 17:12 BlackJack wrote:On October 22 2022 06:18 WombaT wrote:On October 22 2022 06:00 Sermokala wrote:On October 21 2022 15:25 Liquid`Drone wrote: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. Drone is a more sensible human and better communicator than me (in a second language), I don’t really get why he takes this at face value. Had enough folks in my time who’ll try to throw in the exact same talking points and dog whistles I actively recognise from dark holes of the racist internet, while stressing ‘I’m not bigoted, but… Well, I don’t think I have to be Sherlock Holmes in noticing a certain incongruence in what’s going on there. Outside of the occasional breadcrumb or ‘oh yeah I’m vaccinated and I think they’re great’ near everything else Blackjack says on the topic is negative, over a period of years. Perhaps I’m being uncharitable but if I went around savaging any political position left of Reagan and just went ‘oh but yeah I’m actually a socialist’ when questioned nobody would buy it. Occasional bread crumb? My entire stance which I’ve reiterated many many times and Eri has reiterated for me as well is: Everyone has the opportunity to provide themselves with good protection from COVID by getting vaccinated so we should not need to compel everyone else around us to get vaccinated to feel safe. It’s a very pro-vaccine stance when interpreted correctly. Fair enough, not much ambiguity there It’s a (needlessly) fractious topic we all bring our particular biases to. I have more exposure to anti-vax crazies than I’d like, so similar arguments even in another cause raise a certain impression. Which is my bad, I do try to untether the two but I’m not always successful. On the flip side I mean I don’t think you’re unique in here in being pro-vaccine/anti-mandate as a combo. But you catch a fair bit more flak than the rest combined, there’s probably communication errors at both ends there. So yeah my bad for my part. The thread is largely my source of info on this topic and it ceases to fulfil that function when it turns into a pissing contest, I’ll try not to contribute in that end in future.
I think the pro-vaccine and anti-mandate combo is very common of the posters in this thread. Magic Powers says he opposes any vaccine mandates and he’s very pro vaccine. For whatever reason nobody speaks up on it or they are happy to be silent about it. Maybe they fear if they say something anti-mandate it will be construed as saying something anti-vaxx and frankly they are right.
|
On October 23 2022 04:04 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2022 03:35 WombaT wrote:On October 22 2022 17:12 BlackJack wrote:On October 22 2022 06:18 WombaT wrote:On October 22 2022 06:00 Sermokala wrote:On October 21 2022 15:25 Liquid`Drone wrote: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. Drone is a more sensible human and better communicator than me (in a second language), I don’t really get why he takes this at face value. Had enough folks in my time who’ll try to throw in the exact same talking points and dog whistles I actively recognise from dark holes of the racist internet, while stressing ‘I’m not bigoted, but… Well, I don’t think I have to be Sherlock Holmes in noticing a certain incongruence in what’s going on there. Outside of the occasional breadcrumb or ‘oh yeah I’m vaccinated and I think they’re great’ near everything else Blackjack says on the topic is negative, over a period of years. Perhaps I’m being uncharitable but if I went around savaging any political position left of Reagan and just went ‘oh but yeah I’m actually a socialist’ when questioned nobody would buy it. Occasional bread crumb? My entire stance which I’ve reiterated many many times and Eri has reiterated for me as well is: Everyone has the opportunity to provide themselves with good protection from COVID by getting vaccinated so we should not need to compel everyone else around us to get vaccinated to feel safe. It’s a very pro-vaccine stance when interpreted correctly. Fair enough, not much ambiguity there It’s a (needlessly) fractious topic we all bring our particular biases to. I have more exposure to anti-vax crazies than I’d like, so similar arguments even in another cause raise a certain impression. Which is my bad, I do try to untether the two but I’m not always successful. On the flip side I mean I don’t think you’re unique in here in being pro-vaccine/anti-mandate as a combo. But you catch a fair bit more flak than the rest combined, there’s probably communication errors at both ends there. So yeah my bad for my part. The thread is largely my source of info on this topic and it ceases to fulfil that function when it turns into a pissing contest, I’ll try not to contribute in that end in future. I think the pro-vaccine and anti-mandate combo is very common of the posters in this thread. Magic Powers says he opposes any vaccine mandates and he’s very pro vaccine. For whatever reason nobody speaks up on it or they are happy to be silent about it. Maybe they fear if they say something anti-mandate it will be construed as saying something anti-vaxx and frankly they are right.
Do you think people's perspectives on how important vaccine mandates are may change over time, based on several criteria like how dangerous the current strain is compared to previous ones, and whether or not hospitals are being overburdened? I wouldn't be surprised if some people who were pro-mandate back during the delta variant have since eased their position on mandates, as the state of our communities/countries/world ease out of the pandemic and into accepting covid as endemic.
|
BJ either misremembers my stance on vaccine mandates or doesn't care to represent it correctly. I'm against a general vaccine mandate, which is defined as a mandate for all adults, and refusing it can have severe consequences like getting fired. However, if people are recklessly endangering their co-workers, patients, etc., then I'd consider a mandate for those people perfectly justified. I would oppose a mandate only if it is excessive and unreasonable. I'm definitely not against all vaccine mandates and I've never been against that. During the peak of the pandemic it was mandated that people get vaccinated to be able to go to the cinemas, and I was in favor of that.
|
|
|
|