This is all that really needs to be said about anti-vaxxers....
- Thread starter Ohio Guy
- Start date
If it had an EUA, I'd be good with it.
Whatever happened to "right to try"? Wasn't that supposed to be a big thing in some circles?
No, you shouldn't compare these things to an illness made more likely by refusing to get vaccinated for Covid, if that's what you're asking.
It is sometimes very hard to lose weight, lower blood sugar and lower blood pressure, even if your medical condition allows you to exercise and your will power allows you to control diet.
Blood pressure naturally increases as a person ages -- exercise and diet won't change that. My own A1C test results vary substantially with no change in my eating habits -- obviously, diet is not guaranteed to result in lower test results. Everybody already knows how hard it is to lose weight -- losing weight is difficult for everybody.
But, seriously, how hard is it to sit there for five minutes and receive a vaccine? Getting vaccinated really bears no comparison to the difficulty of lowering weight, blood pressure and blood sugar.
We need a new term to replace "anti-vaxxer" as applied to the refusal to receive Covid vaccines.
From watching these people, it looks to me that an opponent of Covid vaccine is also very likely to oppose masks, oppose social distancing, oppose occupancy restrictions, and maybe even oppose hand sanitizers. It doesn't look like they accept any precautions to combat Covid suggested by medical officials. It's not just one thing.
As an example, take another look at images of those maskless vaccine opponents at the recent school board meetings screaming chin-to-chin at the vaccine supporters.
Yeah, the personal liberty crowd was all behind that. Wonder why they're insistent about full FDA approval all of a sudden?
Never heard of it, but I assume that's for people who are near death and have nothing to lose.
Hardly the case with Covid.
Hey, if you're comfortable taking something unapproved by the FDA, I suppose you're welcome to it. I got the vaccine. But I sure as hell don't blame others for not taking it when it's not approved by their own government.
Isn't 'my body, my choice', supposed to be a big thing in some circles?
I'm assuming you wore a mask most of your childhood because you are one f-ed up individual
Right they aren’t totally comparable. Vaccine mandates would require that a person inject a foreign substance inside their body. That is a very rare situation and as far as I know, is only accomplished on an individual basis after a hearing. Cajoling one to change unhealthy behaviors is much different. I think we should all be vaccinated. But to have government mandate injections for an adult to receive the full benefit of human rights and privileges is a bridge to far for me. This is especially true when science has given us a very effective means to protect ourselves.
lMAO. You post about me while avoiding an important medical/legal/ethical discussion and you claim I am f-Ed up? I don’t think you have the chops to participate.
Except that no one is advocating that "government mandate injections for an adult to receive the full benefit of human rights and privileges". You're the king of straw man arguments.
What are you talking about? Millions of people are scared shitless of those who aren’t vaccinated and want to deprive them of rights and privileges until they are.
Such as?
What goverment entity are they wanting to mandate shots under pain of forfeiting what rights and what privileges?
Well, the folks in the parking lot were the people who got upset during the meeting and left. They allowed the first 30 people to sign up to get a minute each to speak, and the line for that started at 2 pm that afternoon...
Btw, the man in the car they were threatening is a medical professional (not a doctor) but is also a parent with kids in the district. He signed up to speak and was actually 4th in line, and the parking lot scene occurred while the meeting was still going on inside...His position is just as valid as any of the mob in the parking lot...
LOL
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...:21-2326:J:Easterbrook:aut:T:op:N:2741753:S:0
And today Justice Barret told them to pound sand. Dismissed with no comment.
In some cases, smallpox mortality was 100%, so no.
The inquiry is always into the balance between the social good and the invasion of the liberty interests. Given substantitive due process evolution after Jacobson, I think the test of reasonable exercise of police power is much more complicated than existed when Jacobson was decided. I think COVID vaccine shaming is driven by ignorance, hysteria, and emotion. Calling unvaxxed people murderers is what I am talking about. Biden suggesting that vaccine is a matter of life and death is simply wrong and counterproductive. We need honest information and given that, I don’t think vaccine mandates for COVID would pass muster. I think the IU decision was wrong.
We aren't living on farms 30 miles apart any more. In crowded subways, packed arenas, filled conference rooms, my social contract theory says we have a duty to protect one another where possible. Masks, social distancing, vaccinations ain't storming the beaches on Omaha dangerous or difficult.
That’s the blind man walking towards a cliff problem. So you would be in favor of a government mandate that we have a duty to shout out a warning? If not a shout out, then what. Jail?
We have a vaccine and a lot of knowledge to protect ourselves. That’s good enough fo me.
I agree with you. I don’t agree with one size fits all nor do I agree with taking authority from local government. What is the disconnect?
That is the driving at night with no lights problem. Your car has lights, you have plenty of info on them. Why should we have a law?
Why would she ask you that? Vaccinated people are passing on the disease too, correct? So why would your vaccination status matter? You are not protecting anyone else by having the vaccine, you are protecting yourself.
Yes, they are called "breakthrough infections" when a vaccinated person gets COVID. There are far, far, far fewer of them. If one does not get infected, they cannot pass it. Therefore more vaccinations means fewer people spreading.
Did anyone listen to Ingraham last night? She had on the top epidemiologist from Harvard and he said that the Pfizer jab is causing spike proteins to be sent all over the body, especially to women's ovaries. Sounds like a big problem.
Foreign substance, you called it. Now I know you're trolling.
Under this usage, you put a "foreign substance" in your body every time you have a latte, cheeseburger, salad or anything else from a restaurant. You have no idea whether any of the ingredients in those foods were sanitary and pure, you have no idea whether the restaurant workers blew their noses near your food and you can't even identify many of the ingredients listed on the salad dressing bottle back in the restaurant kitchen.
We are no longer hunter-gatherers living on our own. We are all interconnected and must act like it.
Again though, they can still spread the disease, which would make asking someone if they are vaccinated when entering an establishment pretty irrelevant. They are still capable of spreading. Maybe less likely, but more likely than the probability of someone dying from the disease, correct?
And I am vaccinated, I am just saying in light of this information (breakthroughs occur...probably far more than we are being told), the vaccine passports don't serve a health purpose, they are merely a form of punishment to force people into a certain behavior. Also, asking someone if they are vaccinated like Uncle Mark was saying should be done is a waste of time. The vaccine does not mean you aren't carrying or are not capable of passing on the virus anymore. It may mean you are a little less likely to get sick and far more likely to get a less severe version of the virus but you are still a potential vector to pass the illness onto others. The fever, cough, etc. types of questions are more pertinent than whether you have had a shot.
The only reason it would be useless to ask whether someone is vaccinated is that the idiots will just lie about it so they can say they stuck it to the man.
2 tourists were arrested in Hawaii in connection with fake COVID-19 vaccination cards, officials say
Hawaii's attorney general's office said potential penalties for falsifying vaccination cards include a fine of up $5,000 and up to one year in prison.
Getting vaccinated helps protect everyone, not just the person receiving the vaccine.
The only reason it would be useless to ask whether someone is vaccinated is that the idiots will just lie about it so they can say they stuck it to the man.
2 tourists were arrested in Hawaii in connection with fake COVID-19 vaccination cards, officials say
Hawaii's attorney general's office said potential penalties for falsifying vaccination cards include a fine of up $5,000 and up to one year in prison.news.yahoo.com
Getting vaccinated helps protect everyone, not just the person receiving the vaccine.
Getting vaccinated, particularly the mRNA vaccines is having up to a 40% failure rate on actually preventing the illness. That means potentially 4 out of every 10 people with that vaccine could get sick and could pass the virus onto others (both vaccinated and unvaccinated). I know this is going to mess with the feeling of superiority some had, but getting the vaccine, particularly with the Delta variant, is more about protecting yourself than it is about protecting others. Using all the same logic that was used to sell the vaccine would still apply to the vaccinated. You can still get Grandma sick. You can still get the kids sick. You can still get other vaccinated individuals sick. Your chances are reduced, but 40% is still pretty high....
Do drunk driving laws serve a purpose? Every day people driving sober cause accidents that kill people, and every day there are drunks on the road who have no accidents. We don't say "see, it doesn't matter". It's all odds, we reduce the odds. If we can reduce 5% here and 10% there, it adds up.
A vaccinated person is less likely to get the disease. Once one has the disease, one has to get to a certain amount of it before they start shedding it (hence why it is 3-4 days after infection one become contagious and not 10 seconds after). The vaccinated body can start fighting the disease almost immediately, so the ability of the vaccine to get a foothold to get enough to shed is reduced by the body's sudden counterattack.
But then, the danger comes in the initial viral load. The more virus one takes in on that initial contact, the more likely one is to become more seriously ill. Again, if the body is able to start fighting the virus immediately the less likely it is one will be able to shed huge viral loads.
It's the Normandy analogy. The Germans release their armor on day 1, maybe the allies don't get the foothold and don't take the rest of France. The vaccine allows us to release the panzer reserves. Unvaccinated is the "well, let's just wait and see what happens" mentality. Very seldom is letting the enemy attack unchallenged the correct answer. It takes days for an unvaccinated body to know how to fight the virus. In those days, the virus gets a strong foothold and growing numbers without a challenge. This allows the virus to shed, and to shed more. How is any of that good?
None of that refutes my point though Marvin. I am not arguing that the vaccine does not diminish the likelihood of being sick or the likelihood that you won't have as severe an illness. I am arguing that the vaccine does not push the likelihood of getting sick to zero. Therefore the question of whether you are vaccinated is not relevant when trying to figure out if someone entering a hospital is sick (which is what the other screening questions are attempting to determine).
Edit: Nor is a vaccine passport some magical pass that says you are no longer someone who could pass the virus on. The guy I linked above said that the mRNA vaccines are proving only 50 to 60% effective against symptomatic COVID. So a vaccinated person still has possibly a 50% chance of getting sick (and therefore being someone who can get others sick). So the altruistic reasons behind getting the shot are not as high as people were led to believe. Getting the shot is good at keeping you out of the hospital. Getting the shot is not as effective in keeping you from getting sick from Delta.
It has been highly disappointing to see the number of posters who claim to be IU fans have such knuckle dragging views of the virus and the vaccines. I assume some are actually IU grads which is even worse.
These folks are going to continue to make this a long slow climb and are currently risking the health and lives of our childern and educaters. Shockingly, some are their own children they are hanging out to dry.
These folks are going to continue to make this a long slow climb and are currently risking the health and lives of our childern and educaters. Shockingly, some are their own children they are hanging out to dry.
You are right. Think of this though, we have blocked gays from giving blood for a long time. Non-gays can get HIV. We play the numbers the best we can. It is like the bulletproof vest, there is not an officer that wants to need it and it is likely to fail. But sometimes it works and when it does it is well worth having. A room with 90 vaccinated people and 10 unvaccinated is much less likely to spread than 90 unvaccinated and 10 vaccinated.
The vaccines were developed with respect to the original strain, not the Delta variant, which had not been identified at that time. They are now working against an enemy which was originally unknown.
The present vaccines, even assuming you/Topol are correct, still are preventing about 60% of infections, which is better than 0% for not getting vaccinated, apparently including some protections against the Delta variant which was not originally intended.
Your links quote Topol as saying, "the protection vs hospitalization and death is solid, holding up well, and is the reason why everyone should be vaccinated."
Your argument that "You can still get Grandma sick" etc. isn't convincing since the vaccines were never claimed to be 100% in the first place. You could have written that same argument on the first day each of the vaccines was released for use. So what if vaccine doesn't prevent 100%? Old news.
Protecting me by vaccination is the same as protecting others because even you admit that if vaccinated I'm far less likely to infect others, plus, if I'm not infected I'm not creating Covid mutants to spew onto others.
As demonstrated in too many to count instances, profanity-laced emotional outbursts trigger the spike protein infected crowd.
It is the new Gospel for the infected.
Like whistling through the graveyard.....
Again, nothing in your post refutes the point I was making. You are arguing with yourself on the point you think I am making.
The original post I responded to said that they should be asking your vaccine status when walking into the hospital to determine whether you have COVID or not. Even with the shot, there is still a up to a 50% chance that you can come down with the disease. So using the vaccine as a barometer for whether or not you are a risk (and 50% is a pretty damn significant risk) is faulty.
That's it. That was my whole argument. You are still arguing that you should get the shot. I did not argue against that. I said that getting the shot was more likely to have benefits for you as opposed to being as beneficial as was thought for others. If the facts that were presented are correct, that is a factual statement.
