Wow I'm really not following this "logic". The argument that a random individual is unlikely to cause harm is generally an excellent argument against separating that individual from society. Infection, unvaxxed status, serial killerhood are all reasons for separation of that person from society. — hypericin
The problem with this line of argument is that the vaxxed are every bit as contagious as the unvaxxed. The number of breakthrough infections is significant. How significant we don't know, because The CDC stopped tracking breakthrough cases in May
. Wonder why.
Now it's true that if you are vaxxed and you get covid anyway, your symptoms will be reduced. That's a good reason to be vaccinated. But if you do get a breakthrough case, you're just as contagious. And there are a lot of breakthrough cases. Israel, which has an 80% vaccination rate, reports that the Pfizer shot is only 39% effective
So your numbers just don't add up. The average person you meet is highly unlikely to be contagious at that moment in the first place. Of those that are, they're more likely to be vaccinated
for the simple reason that most people are vaccinated, and the vaccines simply aren't that effective.
So there's no scientific argument at all to decree that unvaccinated individuals should "forfeit the right to move freely in society," which was @Wayfarer
's original quote that I objected to.
And even if you could make such an argument, the downsides of such Othering of a group -- dirty, disease-ridden, danger to society -- would outweigh any good. I defy you to name any time in history that such an Othering came out well. And I'm sure you know all the bad instances I could name.
The vaccinated and infected are rare. If they are identified as such, they should be restricted.
Drunk drivers are rare. If they are identified, they should be restricted. — hypericin
Ok. Now that is entirely different than what @Wayfarer
said. You agree that the vaccinated yet infected should be isolated. That's not even what we're talking about, and you are in effect conceding my point.
Vaccination should be a requirement for entry to high risk areas such as transportation, supermarket, bars, restaurants, movie theaters, etc. — hypericin
I'm not even talking about that. @Wayfarer
said that the unvaccinated should "forfeit the right to move freely in society." I'm pointing out that this is one, not scientifically supported because of the high vaccine failure rates, the fact that the vaxxed are just as contagious as the unvaxxed, and the Othering that would inevitably produce results that nobody would want to see.
I'm not talking about any other issues, whether the unvaxxed should be allowed into bars and whatnot. I'm talking about "forfeit[ing] the right to move freely in society." That's a tremendous overreach and poorly thought out position. I wouldn't be surprised if @Wayfarer
would be willing to say, "You know, I just typed that in, but I didn't really think about it, and it's wrong on many levels and totally unworkable." I don't know. You're taking up an argument on someone else's behalf but you yourself don't seem to remember what the argument was.
The rest of your post is slippery slope — hypericin
Asking someone to drill down a level of detail is not a slippery slope. If you propose to restrict the free movement of the unvaccinated, how do you determine who they are? You have to interrogate everyone. Perhaps you discount an additional, say, one million police/citizen encounters per day. Maybe you haven't read the papers about public opinion of police encounters. It's not a slippery slope argument to challenge a highly impractical suggestion by asking the proposer to supply the details of how their idea would be implemented.
How so? The proposal is to restrict the free movement of 75 million or so Americans. I think I understated the likely consequences of such a nonsensical and dangerous idea.
and race baiting. — hypericin
How so? I pointed out that only 31% of blacks are vaccinated, so that if you start restricting their movement or rights in large numbers, you would create social problems that hardly need to be mentioned to be perfectly obvious to anyone who follows the news. You act like you don't follow the news.
In any event, the New York Times made much the same point when they reported four days ago, Why Only 28 Percent of Young Black New Yorkers Are Vaccinated
Perhaps you could read that article in its entirety and explain whether you think the New York Times is race baiting too.
In any event, my comments were regarding New York City's plan to require vaccinations for entry into public spaces. The New York Post reported on the details of the plan
today. They said that the venues themselves would be fined, not the individuals. Seems that unlike you, New York City actually put some thought into the consequences of their policy, and enacted enforcement mechanisms intended to avoid the obvious racial consequences instead of exacerbate them.
See how that works? People have an idea, but then they have to think through the consequences
and modify and implement their policies accordingly. That's what you call "hysteria" and "race baiting." I call it basic thoughtfulness and common sense.
This doesn't address the larger harm the unvaccinated, and the scumbag public figures that encourage them, do to society. — hypericin
Yes, you're just the person I'd pick to Other 75 million Americans and select them for special treatment. What could possibly go wrong?
But as I pointed out, your statistical logic is flat out wrong. The vaccines aren't even 50% effective. There are huge numbers of breakthrough cases, so many that the CDC won't even report them
. And while the vaccines keep you from getting as sick as you would without them, you are just as contagious
. So there is no scientific argument to be made that the unvaxxed are any more dangerous to society than the vaxxed.
What's dangerous is people letting their fear cloud their common sense. And don't you think the lockdowns themselves are harming society? Children born during pandemic have lower IQs
, for one thing. The increase in alcoholism, domestic violence, and substance abuse are noteworthy. Every action has consequences both good and bad. There's no thoughtfulness and balance in the simplistic "lock everyone down and shoot the unvaxxed" kind of thinking.
What, am I being hysterical again? UP AGAINST THE WALL: California Congressional Candidate Says Anti-Vaxxers Should Be Shot
. I'm not hysterical, I'm just someone who follows the news from a variety of sources.
If everyone was vaccinated, and diligently performed basic social distancing and hygiene during local outbreaks, we might be done with the pandemic, at least in the US. — hypericin
Might. And might not. The adverse reactions to the vaccine are off the chart, and nobody knows the long term consequences because there haven't been any studies. You're making a claim that can't be backed up by science. You're letting your lizard brain flood you with fear. Take a step back and try to think. Who's violating hygiene and social distancing? Who's arguing against it?
I'm arguing against the thoughtless and mindless claim that the unvaxxed should "forfeit the right to move freely in society." That's what I'm arguing against and that's ALL I'm arguing against. Are you sure you're
not the one who's hysterical?
Instead, hospitals and morgues are filling up again, and actual freedom, the freedom to enjoy life without risk of death or mutilation, has slipped away. — hypericin
Well that's just terrible, I agree. I'm disagreeing that it's practical to selectively restrict the freedom of movement of 75 million Americans without a lot of unexpected and highly negative consequences. Why don't you stick to the actual topic of what I said, and try to think the issue through?
Really, from that perspective the restriction of freedom of movement is too mild. Vaccination should be mandatory, full stop. — hypericin
The vaccines don't even work all that well. The adverse reactions, including death, are off the charts. Nobody knows if they're safe long term because the studies haven't been done. They have no FDA approval. I think you are so panicked by the media hysteria you'd send Jews to the ovens if someone told you they carried disease, which is exactly what the German media told people. You're just that kind of person. I hope you'll step back and get a grip on your own hysteria.
I haven't considered any government enforced denial of freedom of movement, so any disagreement I might raise isn't to that effect. — Cheshire
Ok, and I appreciate your saying that. Because other than that one point, I haven't said or advocated anything. Except to push back on my hysterical and propaganda-addled friend @hypericin
My issue is with the pronouncement that the possibility of a vaccinated person spreading a virus and the possibility of an unvaccinated person spreading the virus are treated as equal. Or the first makes the latter not matter. It seems to me a strong argument could acknowledge that one is taking place regularly and the other is somewhere between rare and not impossible. You disagree above, but maybe I missed something. — Cheshire
The numbers don't bear you out. As I posted, the Israelis, who are 80% vaccintaed, report that the Pfizer shot is only 39% effective. The numbers for the other shots are in that range. And now everyone is supposed to get a booster shot
. So in terms of effectiveness, the vaccines are essentially a bust. Yes they do make you less sick than you'd be otherwise; but you are just as contagious
And since most people are vaxxed, the chances that the next person you run into is contagious and vaxxed or contagious and unvaxxed are more or less the same. So there's no statistical argument to be made about treating one class differently than the other on the basis of contagion.
The Wall Street Journal is a Murdoch paper, is it not? — Wayfarer
Yes, but are you denying their factual claim that only 31% of black are vaccinated? As I posted above, the New York Times reported that only 28% of young blacks are vaccinated
. If the WSJ prints a fact, then it's a verifiable fact no matter how you feel about their editorial stances. Right? If you don't like the WSJ's 31% number, then just take the NYT's 28% if you prefer that.
More likely crying crocodile tears over the poor benighted black population to feed meat to their civil-libertarian right-wing audience than out of any genuine concern for the former. — Wayfarer
Well I don't much care either, I just want to see the hilarity ensue. A bit of sarcasm, don't get excited.
But as I also linked above, the New York Post reported that the enforcement actions in New York City will be against the venues and not against individuals. Meaning that they took my point to heart
and realized that the optics of arresting or ticketing or shooting (as one California congressional candidate wants to do) unvaccinated black people would not look too good in heavily black NYC.
You see once again that I am trying to get people to be thoughtful about what they're saying; and as support for my position, New York City itself was thoughtful about this point
. Whether they are genuinely concerned about black people or whether they just don't want the bad optics; they're only fining venues and not individuals.
Murdoch media worldwide are probably alone responsible for tens hundreds of thousands of infections by spreading their anti-vaccination nonsense along with all the many other lies and propaganda they peddle around the world every day. — Wayfarer
LOL. Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.
You're right, I actually quoted too much from the WSJ article. All I cared about was the 31% number. If I'd known it would trigger you I wouldn't have bothered.
But it's a fascinating point. The stanard mainstream belief is that the unvaxxed are MAGA-hat wearing racist deplorables. But it turns out that the real unvaxxed are blacks and Latinos. And Ph.D.s
. That's right, the single group with the greatest degree of vax avoidance is people who hold PhDs. The article didn't say why, but my guess is that people who have done actual scientific research can recognize the sham, politicized pseudoscience for what it is.
I would never cite or refer to any articles published by any Murdoch outlet in support of any point whatever. — Wayfarer
I gave you a New York Times link reporting much the same information. You seem to have forgotten to argue your own point, you got so triggered by the WSJ.
I acknowledge that all forms of lockdown and restriction of movement are an infringement on civll liberties, but in light of the severity of this illness, I believe that imposing a lockdown is a lesser of two evils. I mean, giving up some freedom of movement and even income, is generally preferable to getting a life-threatening illness, in my opinion. — Wayfarer
Now that is an entirely different matter
that your original suggestion that the unvaxxed should forfeit the right of free movement.
I might (or might not) argue against a general lockdown, but I'm not discussing lockdowns here. Lockdowns affect everyone equally. To implement a lockdown you don't have to Other 75 million people (in the US), subject everyone to demands to show their papers, and add a few million or so daily police/citizen interactions. Those are the issues I'm concerned about.
Lockdowns, regardless of their merits, apply to everyone equally, and therefore don't have the problems I'm concerned about regarding your earlier idea.
Australia generally has succeeded in controlling the infection, although the Delta variant outbreak that started in Sydney June 16 has well and truly escaped the net. — Wayfarer
I looked this up. Australia has some 25M people versus 300M in the US. And the US has only 1.27 times the area. So Australia has a much smaller population and much much sparser population density. You have no idea what it's like to get 300 million crabby Americans to do anything.
And besides, having just discovered that the US government has been lying to us for 20 years about the progress of the war in Afghanistan, which we are even as we speak losing in a majorly humiliating fashion, I doubt that American are inclined to believe anything the government says. I remember the anti-government sentiment of the 1970's after our loss in Vietnam, and I expect the same to happen now. So you can't lock down the US. Can't be done even if was the black plague.
And from what I hear, Australia has surrendered its civil liberties in ways that. to this American, are truly frightening. I always thought of Austrlians as liberty lovers, Crocodile Dundee kinds of folks. Guess that was only a movie.
I'm not saying lockdowns wouldn't be effective. Only that American is an unruly country full of unruly people not currently inclined to believe anything the government says. It's just a practical matter.
There is a lot of commentary that the mistake the NSW Govt made was in not locking down faster and harder - there was a super-spreader event on June 26th that transmitted the virus from Sydney’s East to the vast Western Suburbs, which is when it really began to escape, as there are many more large households and a high degree of geographic mobility. That’s where it remains - yesterday’s case numbers were 344, two deaths, and also cases appearing in regional centres. — Wayfarer
I don't disagree that locking everyone down works in a pandemic. China was apparently successful doing that. But they're a majory authoritarian regime. And like I say, Australia has a much smaller population.
But mainly, why are we talking about lockdowns? I'm not talking about lockdowns. Lockdowns are imposed on everyone equally. To lock down a country you just patrol the streets and shoot or fine or chastize everyone who's out without a good excuse. Your original idea, to restrict the free movement of only the unvaxxed, involved interrogating everyone
, necessitating millions of cop/citizen interactions every day, many of which, if you read the US papers, don't go particularly well, especially when there are minority groups involved. Black people are not interested in being accosted by the police in the US and frankly I can't say I blame them.
And by the way, where are you getting all these extra cops? As a result of the anti-cop sentiment in the US, cops are quitting in droves. You can't find enough cops to enforce a selective lockdown that involves asking everyone for their papers
So a lockdown for all, whether it's a good or bad thing, is completely different than a lockdown for some.
As I think I said earlier, community attitudes to vaccination have dramatically shifted in the last month, due to the insidious nature of this variant, and the fact that there’s a lot of younger people in ICU, with two otherwise healthy and comparatively young people dying. I think everyone now realises that getting a severe case of COVID-19 is a life-changing event even if it doesn’t kill you. So vaccination rates have ticked up enormously, supply problems are being overcome, the Moderna vaccine has now been approved and the country is on track to be around 80-90% vaccinated by year’s end. — Wayfarer
Not disagreeing. Only pushing back hard on the idea that the unvaxxed should have their freedom restricted; especially because there are a lot of breakthrough infections, and that the vaxxed are just as contagious as the unvaxxed. So the statistical argument for restricting only the unvaxxed is false. Let alone the problems of asking for everyone's papers in a country like the US that is in the midst of both an anti-cop hysteria and a crime wave.
Why did you so radically change the subject
As to whether lockdowns have to be enforced, I still don’t see any other option. — Wayfarer
? You can enforce a lockdown easily, just shoot/arrest/fine/shame anyone you see on the street.
lockdown, on the other hand, entails interrogating EVERYONE and asking for their papers. Which entails a lot of cop/citizen interactions; which, in the US, often go south in terrible ways. So that's a bad idea.
AND it's statistically unsound, since your chances of meeting a contagious vaxxed or a contagious unvaxxed person are about the same, and they are equally contagious. So you haven't got a case, and you have a very poorly thought out position.
Have you backed off your earlier proposal, or just changed the subject to universal lockdowns?
The laissez faire approach of some of the US GOP governors simply results in higher rates of infections and more deaths. — Wayfarer
Statistics are mixed. Some red states are doing better. But I am not discussing laissez faire approaches
. I'm pointing out that restricting the free movement of ONLY the unvaxxed would one, be a complete policing disaster; two, would in fact fall heavily on minorities, as I've documented; and three, is flat out wrong anyway since the vaxxed are just as contagious and there are a lot of breaktrhough infections, which in the US the CDC will not even report.
So your idea is a non-starter. Is that why you changed the subject?
Some US states with comparable populations to NSW are having thousands of cases and hundreds of deaths every day, which NSW might easily be matching, had not the lockdowns been enforced. — Wayfarer
Well we're not talking about lockdowns at all. You proposed selective lockdowns against a population that can't be distinguished from the vaxxed and therefore needs to be challenged for their papers; would mostly consist of harassing minorities; would be an unmitigated policing disaster; and wouldn't help anyway, since the vaxxed are potentially just as contagious.
And that's the only point I was making
. A selective lockdown against the unvaxxed wouldn't work and wouldn't help.