• Xtrix
    2.2k
    Did you do that only after you worked to falsify any theory, and applied the scientific method to what your doctor said?James Riley

    Doctor isn’t government. Government is the problem, remember. Saint Reagan said so.
  • Xtrix
    2.2k
    Who says the interests of society is health and safety?NOS4A2

    :lol:

    That’s one interest of many. Who says it isn’t?

    Nevermind. You’re right: the interests of society are death and destruction.
  • Xtrix
    2.2k


    Saint Reagan didn’t say it, so it isn’t true.
  • NOS4A2
    4.9k


    That’s right; the “interests of society” are whatever Xtrix says they are.
  • Michael
    9.8k
    The infected can spread the disease. Absent voluntary quarantine and isolation, I think more forceful measure would have to be taken and is justified.NOS4A2

    And that is why governments are requiring people to be vaccinated; because vaccination reduces the risk of infection. We're not in a position where we can immediately know if someone is infected, and it is perhaps impractical and too burdensome to require that everyone take daily tests and show proof that the results are negative (and I believe that lateral flow tests have a quite high false negative rate). Requiring vaccinations is the most practical way to reduce the number of infected people spreading the disease.

    Governments aren't doing this because they have a hard-on for telling people what to do. They're doing this because that's what the medical science recommends.
  • James Riley
    1.8k
    and I believe that lateral flow tests have a quite high false negative rateMichael

    :up:

    I think I read somewhere that it also takes a while after exposure to register on the test. If I get it from you and then take the test shortly thereafter, I may show clean. I'm not sure what the time frame is but it could lead to that case where a person is tested and allowed to do X but the horse is out of the barn. They are doing X and spreading disease. I'm not sure on the science of all this, but that was my understanding. It's not a good thing if little Johnny get's it from the bus driver, tests negative that morning, spends all day in class spreading crap, then tests positive the next morning. "Oh, we better close the school down! 50 kids have it! I wonder where it came from?"
  • Xtrix
    2.2k
    That’s right; the “interests of society” are whatever Xtrix says they are.NOS4A2

    Imagine struggling with “health and safety” as an interest. This is what modern “libertarianism” does, folks. Take a good look.

    Yes, there is such a thing as the common good. Not having a virus spread around because a bunch of people think they know more than medical experts — that’s part of the common good.
  • Xtrix
    2.2k
    On 9/11, some perspective:

    American death toll on 9/11: 2,977
    American death toll in Afghanistan war: 2,461
    American death toll from COVID: 3,260

    That last one is a two day average.
  • Xtrix
    2.2k
    Governments aren't doing this because they have a hard-on for telling people what to do. They're doing this because that's what the medical science recommends.Michael

    Sorry, but NOS is a medical expert, with years of experience with epidemics and infectious diseases and, more importantly, has a simple, handy-dandy principle on which to judge things — as articulated by Saint Reagan: government is not the solution, only the problem.


    Case closed. The rest is your non-thinking obsequiousness to Big Government. Which is the problem.
  • NOS4A2
    4.9k


    Medical science also recommended the Tuskegee experiments, experimentation on Jews, slaves, deliberately infecting Guatemalans with syphillis, transplanting the testicles of young men into older ones, or radiated prisoners to see the effects of radiation, and on and on. I’m not sure the fact that some policy is recommended by medical science is a good enough reason to enact them, especially given that the the area of expertise for medical scientists is medical science, not ethics or political science.

    It’s also practical to weld people into their homes or round up the infected and put them into concentration camps. It would be much easier and cost effective to round up the infected and gun them down where they stand. But to me, the practicality or success rate of any given policy isn’t a good enough reason to enforce it.

    Anyways, if you are vaccinated, what is there to fear from the unvaccinated?
  • NOS4A2
    4.9k


    Imagine needing state officials to decide your health and safety. You will never leave the tit at this rate, forever unweaned.
  • Srap Tasmaner
    3k
    vaccination reduces the risk of infectionMichael

    I was under the impression there's conflicting data, and obviously views, on this. That vaccination reduces the severity and duration of the illness, is well-supported though. I would think that indirectly reduces transmission, but I'm no expert.
  • Srap Tasmaner
    3k
    if you are vaccinated, what is there to fear from the unvaccinated?NOS4A2

    Being vaccinated doesn't make you immune. It's not 100% effective.

    The larger issues would be burden one the healthcare system, and simple concern for your fellow citizens and the effect their illness or death will have on others. I mean, if your child's teacher gets sick and dies, it wasn't you, and it wasn't your child, but you and your child and that teacher's family and friends will all feel it.
  • Michael
    9.8k
    This is what I based my statement on:

    CDC COVID-19 Study Shows mRNA Vaccines Reduce Risk of Infection by 91 Percent for Fully Vaccinated People

    In the new analysis, 3,975 participants completed weekly SARS-CoV-2 testing for 17 consecutive weeks (from December 13, 2020 to April 10, 2021) in eight U.S. locations. Participants self-collected nasal swabs that were laboratory tested for SARS-CoV-2, which is the virus that causes COVID-19. If the tests came back positive, the specimens were further tested to determine the amount of detectable virus in the nose (i.e., viral load) and the number of days that participants tested positive (i.e., viral shedding). Participants were followed over time and the data were analyzed according to vaccination status. To evaluate vaccine benefits, the study investigators accounted for the circulation of SARS-CoV-2 viruses in the area and how consistently participants used personal protective equipment (PPE) at work and in the community. Once fully vaccinated, participants’ risk of infection was reduced by 91 percent. After partial vaccination, participants’ risk of infection was reduced by 81 percent. These estimates included symptomatic and asymptomatic infections.

    ...

    Other study findings suggest that fully or partially vaccinated people who got COVID-19 might be less likely to spread the virus to others. For example, fully or partially vaccinated study participants had 40 percent less detectable virus in their nose (i.e., a lower viral load), and the virus was detected for six fewer days (i.e., viral shedding) compared to those who were unvaccinated when infected. In addition, people who were partially or fully vaccinated were 66 percent less likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection for more than one week compared to those who were unvaccinated. While these indicators are not a direct measure of a person’s ability to spread the virus, they have been correlated with reduced spread of other viruses, such as varicella and influenza.
  • NOS4A2
    4.9k


    Yes, the vaccinated can spread the disease, and according to an Israeli study for example, have less protection than natural immunity. Maybe there should be natural immunity passports.

    The whole “burden on the healthcare system” has so far been a canard. We’ve been hearing it from the beginning, but even when field hospitals were implemented to offset this, they had to stand down, most of them without treating a single covid patient.
  • Michael
    9.8k
    Medical science also recommended the Tuskegee experiments, experimentation on Jews, slaves, deliberately infecting Guatemalans with syphillis, transplanting the testicles of young men into older ones, or radiated prisoners to see the effects of radiation, and on and on. I’m not sure the fact that some policy is recommended by medical science is a good enough reason to enact them, especially given that the the area of expertise for medical scientists is medical science, not ethics or political science.

    It’s also practical to weld people into their homes or round up the infected and put them into concentration camps. It would be much easier and cost effective to round up the infected and gun them down where they stand. But to me, the practicality or success rate of any given policy isn’t a good enough reason to enforce it.
    NOS4A2

    If there are compelling ethical (or practical reasons) not to enact a medical policy then I agree that there is justification not to. Requiring vaccination doesn't seem to have such conflicts. Being vaccinated isn't like being infected with syphilis or being placed into concentration camps. Being vaccinated is good for the person being vaccinated, not just for the wider community, which is where it differs from the examples above which actively harm the subject. We've already established that the right to self-autonomy isn't unrestricted, so what about requiring vaccination is so bad that protecting the public health isn't worth the cost?

    Anyways, if you are vaccinated, what is there to fear from the unvaccinated?

    There is a lesser chance of me being infected if both you and I are vaccinated than if just I am vaccinated. I'm probably butchering statistics here, but if the vaccine is 90% effective and if I'm the only vaccinated person then there is a 10% chance of me catching COVID, but if everyone is vaccinated then there's a 1% chance (my numbers might be wrong, but I believe that the principle that I'm better protected if others are also vaccinated holds).

    And there are people who for medical reasons should not be vaccinated. Me being vaccinated protects them, and as the cost of me being vaccinated is effectively nil, it would be unfair for me to put them at risk or for them to have to seclude themselves from society just so that I can refuse to be vaccinated as some matter of principle over self-autonomy.
  • James Riley
    1.8k
    Anyways, if you are vaccinated, what is there to fear from the unvaccinated?NOS4A2

    Variants and passthroughs that arise due to the recalcitrance of the unvaccinated. Indeed, the variants that have arisen thus far are due to failures to isolate and mask (and now vax). And there could be some on the horizon that are worse, thanks to those who don't play ball.
  • Srap Tasmaner
    3k
    The whole “burden on the healthcare system” has so far been a canard. We’ve been hearing it from the beginning, but even when field hospitals were implemented to offset this, they had to stand down, most of them without treating a single covid patient.NOS4A2

    If you cherry-pick, you invite those who disagree with you to do the same. If you believe you are countering a widely accepted narrative, I'm sure the temptation is even stronger.

    It should be an empirical question. I'll only say that I remember hearing daily reports on the radio not just about infections and deaths, but remaining ICU beds in area hospitals. Those numbers were usually single digits.
  • James Riley
    1.8k
    Government is the problem, remember. Saint Reagan said so.Xtrix

    That and trickle down is good.

    Before Dennis Miller turned, he once opined something to the effect: Trickle down? If that's not fair notice that you are about to get pissed on, then I don't know what is." LOL!
  • Xtrix
    2.2k
    Imagine needing state officials to decide your health and safety.NOS4A2

    So doctors and the overwhelming medical consensus become “state officials” now. Got it.

    So you took a vaccine shot because your state official told you to? How sad.
  • Xtrix
    2.2k
    Meant to post this here:

    Very good editorial in the NY Times, worth quoting at length.

    As Americans contemplate the prospect of a second winter trapped in the grip of Covid-19, remember that it didn’t need to be this way. Vaccines were developed in record time, and have proved to be both incredibly safe and stunningly effective. Nearly two-thirds of eligible Americans have accepted these facts and done their part by getting fully vaccinated.

    Yet tens of millions more have not, allowing the more contagious Delta variant to sweep across the country, where it is now killing more than 1,500 people in the United States daily. Right now, the list of the very sick and the dead is made up almost entirely of the unvaccinated. But as long as the virus continues to spread widely, it can and will evolve in ways that put everyone at risk.

    Faced with this avoidable catastrophe, President Biden is right to order tighter vaccine rules, which he did for roughly two-thirds of the nation’s work force on Thursday. “We’ve been patient,” Mr. Biden told vaccine holdouts. “But our patience is wearing thin. And your refusal has cost all of us.”

    The president moved to require all executive branch employees, federal contractors and millions of health care workers to be vaccinated. Workers at private businesses with 100 or more employees will have to either get vaccinated or take a weekly Covid test. Any business covered by the order must offer its employees paid time off to get their shots or recover from any side effects.

    [...]

    Yet vaccine resisters carry on about violations of their freedom, ignoring the fact that they don’t live in a bubble, and that their decision to stay unvaccinated infringes on everyone else’s freedom — the freedom to move around the country, the freedom to visit safely with friends and family, the freedom to stay alive.

    The Supreme Court made this point more than a century ago, when it upheld a fine against a Massachusetts man who refused to get the smallpox vaccine. In a majority opinion that echoes powerfully today, Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote, “Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”

    Refusers’ hollow appeals to “freedom” are especially hard to take considering that Americans already accept countless restrictions in the name of safety: We are required to wear seatbelts, for example, and to get vaccinations to attend public school.

    Speaking of school vaccination requirements, they’ve proven wildly effective. Thanks to vaccines, measles and the mumps were essentially eradicated in children, at least until vaccine opponents opened the door for them to return.

    A small number of people have a legitimate reason to decline the vaccine — say, those with an allergy. Others, particularly racial minorities, are mistrustful because of their personal experiences with the health care system, or because the vaccines are relatively new. Still others have struggled to get time off work or have worried (mistakenly) about the cost.

    Beyond these, it’s hard to understand any arguments against getting the shot. The vaccine made by Pfizer is now fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and the one by Moderna is expected to be shortly.
    — NY Times


    It goes on, and worth a read. Says it all quite nicely, I think.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/10/opinion/biden-covid-vaccine.html
  • Xtrix
    2.2k
    Most Americans support vaccine mandates in certain public spaces, survey finds

    "In an ideal world, vaccine requirements (or weekly testing) wouldn’t be necessary. Americans would see that the coronavirus has already killed more than 4.6 million people worldwide. They would understand that vaccines are the single best tool we have to protect lives and restore the economy. They would be racing to the nearest pharmacy and consider themselves fortunate to be living in one of the few nations in the world where that’s possible."

    If only...
  • Xtrix
    2.2k
    I think a great option is for private insurers to up the cost for those unvaccinated. That's a very sensible move, on top of other measures.

    My tax money shouldn't be going to pay for the medical bills of those that could easily have avoided this by getting a shot.
  • James Riley
    1.8k
    It's like whack a mole. :rofl:
  • Xtrix
    2.2k
    Go ahead and call me "conspiracy theorist" or whatever you've been programmed to label anyone who has an opposing view (based on long research).protonoia

    :lol:

    “Long research.”
  • James Riley
    1.8k
    Pathetic, naïve, ignorant moronsprotonoia

    :rofl:
  • Xtrix
    2.2k
    Pathetic, naïve, ignorant morons.protonoia

    :lol:

    Why do they all sound the same?
  • protonoia
    6
    Why do they all sound the same?Xtrix

    Because you are stupid.
  • James Riley
    1.8k
    Why do they all sound the same?Xtrix

    Because they did their own research. :rofl:
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment