Vaccine

what-happened said:
This doesn't even make sense. Upticks in vaccinted deaths and hospitalizations are happening everywhere. Your next statement is likely that this is now a pandemic of the unvaccinated. It was a silly statement a few months ago, and it remains a silly statement.
Click to expand...
I‘m not denying that vaccinated immunocompromised people are dying. They are. And the rest of us could choose to prevent most of those deaths by getting vaccinated and masking up. Expect this board to attack anyone who proposes it.

But that is not the majority of the deaths. The vast majority of the deaths are people who were not vaccinated. The unvaccinated risk of infection is over 5X as high as for the vaccinated. The unvaccinated risk of death is about 14x as high as the unvaccinated.

covid.cdc.gov

COVID Data Tracker

CDC’s home for COVID-19 data. Visualizations, graphs, and data in one easy-to-use website.
covid.cdc.gov

I think it’s entirely fair to say that delta has become a pandemic of the unvaccinated, which then leaks over into the vaccinated population.
 
what-happened said:
Yes of course, 100% isolation would have saved some lives. That approach would have shut most human to human contact: grocery stores, hardware stores, distribution centers (which I'm sure you leverage and continue to leverage on a weekly basis).

The overused "virus is going to virus" statement is unfortunately the only constant. It's proven itself to be the ony constant since this whole thing began. Lockdowns are not going to work, they were never going to work. Human nature won't allow it. Some will comply, most will not. Time isn't/wasn't on our side. Rapid vaccine development didn't stand in the way of increasing deaths, the numbers this year speak to that. It's too bad society was promised something that was nearly impossible to deliver on. Pharma has a way of convincing government that their biased, greedy ideas will solve problems. Remember when you were told how the vaccines would bring everything back to normal? July 4th BBQs in backyards with friends and families. They were lying through their teeth, fully knowing vaccines were mediocore at best.
Click to expand...
There’s that all or nothing in an attempt to bolster your needs.
 
espola said:
" EVERYTHING we need to know and EVERYTHING we've suspected about you"
Click to expand...

What? We've always suspected his preferred solution is Australia, NZ, China but he's never (until now) come out and said it. You know it, I know it, he knows it. Instead he's danced around the issue because he hasn't wanted to point blank say it. Again you know it, I know it, he knows it. This despite several times he's been asked about what his preferred solution really is (which he tries to cover by saying masks + indoor dining/bars/casinos) but we all suspected was this list. Again, per your test, its about the argument raised (and the past dishonesty with that argument) and not his character.
 
dad4 said:
I think it’s entirely fair to say that delta has become a pandemic of the unvaccinated, which then leaks over into the vaccinated population.
Click to expand...
That's an assumption that fits your narrative that is likely not true, or only partially true. The vaccinated can spread the virus to the vaccinated and there is zero evidence that the vaccinated can't spread it to the unvaccinated.

That's why the vaccination is primarily for your benefit in terms of protecting you from serious illness. Anecdotal, but I know quite a number of people that have breakthrough cases, far more than I know that were infected pre-vaccination (likely because of Delta?).

If the vaccination was significantly more effective at preventing infection, you'd have a more compelling argument "for the benefit of the community". However, its not and breakthrough infections are common. Vaccines should be highly recommended but not mandated.
 
Grace T. said:
What? We've always suspected his preferred solution is Australia, NZ, China but he's never (until now) come out and said it. You know it, I know it, he knows it. Instead he's danced around the issue because he hasn't wanted to point blank say it. Again you know it, I know it, he knows it. This despite several times he's been asked about what his preferred solution really is (which he tries to cover by saying masks + indoor dining/bars/casinos) but we all suspected was this list. Again, per your test, its about the argument raised (and the past dishonesty with that argument) and not his character.
Click to expand...

That statement does not directly address his character?

Lrt's see it again --

" EVERYTHING we need to know and EVERYTHING we've suspected about you"
 
espola said:
That statement does not directly address his character?

Lrt's see it again --

" EVERYTHING we need to know and EVERYTHING we've suspected about you"
Click to expand...

Again, what we've suspected is that he supports the policies of China, NZ, and Oz but didn't want to come out and say it. You saying that's something he should be ashamed of and speaks to his character?
 
watfly said:
That's an assumption that fits your narrative that is likely not true, or only partially true. The vaccinated can spread the virus to the vaccinated and there is zero evidence that the vaccinated can't spread it to the unvaccinated.

That's why the vaccination is primarily for your benefit in terms of protecting you from serious illness. Anecdotal, but I know quite a number of people that have breakthrough cases, far more than I know that were infected pre-vaccination (likely because of Delta?).

If the vaccination was significantly more effective at preventing infection, you'd have a more compelling argument "for the benefit of the community". However, its not and breakthrough infections are common. Vaccines should be highly recommended but not mandated.
Click to expand...
How effective would a vaccine need to be for a mandate to have your support? I doubt there is such a level.

Moving a gathering outside is tremendously effective at reducing transmission. Somewhere in the 90-95% range. An outdoor mandate is also far less intrusive than a vaccine mandate. Moving outside ought to be a very easy decision.

But an outdoor gathering rule has never had much support here. It tends to get responses like “people aren’t willing to do that and you can’t make us.”

If we aren’t willing to move our party to the patio, I don’t think we’re capable of much.
 
dad4 said:
How effective would a vaccine need to be for it to have your support? I doubt there is such a level.
Click to expand...
I fully support the vaccination with its current effectiveness. I recommend vaccinations but that's a decision between you and your doctor.

There is a lot more than just effectiveness to be considered like side effects, course of treatment and severity of disease your vaccinating against. But yes I don't think the government should be mandating personal medical treatment, particularly without compelling evidence. There are some legitimate reasons not to be vaccinated and their are other courses of action to prevent you from serious disease from Covid.

The burden of proof should be on those proposing the mandates. Hope is not a compelling reason.
 
espola said:
No, you're saying that.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am. I find it strangely curious that on the one hand you and he are taking it as a sleight, but on the other hand you guys (I assuming as to you, but feel free to correct the record) are curiously in favor of such policies. Almost as if ashamed of em. Which is it?
 
Grace T. said:
Yes, I am. I find it strangely curious that on the one hand you and he are taking it as a sleight, but on the other hand you guys (I assuming as to you, but feel free to correct the record) are curiously in favor of such policies. Almost as if ashamed of em. Which is it?
Click to expand...

You're erecting that strawman so you know right where to light it.
 
espola said:
You're erecting that strawman so you know right where to light it.
Click to expand...
Me? You're the one that built up presumptions in something that's not even about you, and are trying to deflect criticism away because he's embarrassed by his own list. If I'm building a strawman, you are building an entire row of scarecrows buddy.

p.s. the strawman thing...drink!
 
Grace T. said:
Me? You're the one that built up presumptions in something that's not even about you, and are trying to deflect criticism away because he's embarrassed by his own list. If I'm building a strawman, you are building an entire row of scarecrows buddy.

p.s. the strawman thing...drink!
Click to expand...

All I did was quote your own words.
 
watfly said:
I fully support the vaccination with its current effectiveness. I recommend vaccinations but that's a decision between you and your doctor.

There is a lot more than just effectiveness to be considered like side effects, course of treatment and severity of disease your vaccinating against. But yes I don't think the government should be mandating personal medical treatment, particularly without compelling evidence. There are some legitimate reasons not to be vaccinated and their are other courses of action to prevent you from serious disease from Covid.

The burden of proof should be on those proposing the mandates. Hope is not a compelling reason.
Click to expand...
Most of the non-workplace vaccines “mandates” don’t actually require you to get a vaccine. They require a vaccine if you want to do a specific thing.

The SF vaccine requirement is a good example. You can choose to be vaccinated. Or you can choose to avoid indoor dining. Either course of action reduces your odds of giving covid to someone else, and either course of action is permitted.

What you can’t do is be unvaccinated while dining indoors, because that is a course of action with a higher risk of infecting other people.
 
dad4 said:
Most of the non-workplace vaccines “mandates” don’t actually require you to get a vaccine. They require a vaccine if you want to do a specific thing.

The SF vaccine requirement is a good example. You can choose to be vaccinated. Or you can choose to avoid indoor dining. Either course of action reduces your odds of giving covid to someone else, and either course of action is permitted.

What you can’t do is be unvaccinated while dining indoors, because that is a course of action with a higher risk of infecting other people.
Click to expand...
Restricting dining indoors is arbitrary when transmission at home is significantly more likely. I don't believe in arbitrary restrictions like masking children. I also don't believe its the responsibility of private businesses, particularly restaurants, to verify someone's medical status and being used as a tool to enforce the government's mandates. The mandates also discriminate against those that actually have superior immunity.
 
Grace T. said:
Breaking: statewide mask mandate.....

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1470508377948123136
Click to expand...
I guess it's not obvious to me how that will affect Santa Clara County. We currently need to wear a mask in stores. Fortunately, the virus can't get you when you are seated at a restaurant or bar, so we don't have to wear masks then - only during the dangerous walk from the front door of the establishment to the table or barstool. I assume this means San Diego will see the same restrictions as SC County - unlike at the Showcase in November where it was up to the individual store to decide.
 
Grace T. said:
now you are out right fibbing. You asked a question, which I answered.

I can't help it if you don't like your own rules for what is and isn't an ad.
Click to expand...

"Ad hominem" translates to "at the person". That's the only rule I need.

I tend to ignore any post that calls me an idiot, a communist, or a child molester (those have all happened). I figure the poster has nothing valid to say and is just trying to get away with cheap insults.
 
watfly said:
Restricting dining indoors is arbitrary when transmission at home is significantly more likely. I don't believe in arbitrary restrictions like masking children. I also don't believe its the responsibility of private businesses, particularly restaurants, to verify someone's medical status and being used as a tool to enforce the government's mandates. The mandates also discriminate against those that actually have superior immunity.
Click to expand...
Arbitrary? Public indoor dining was one of the very first things to be identified as a transmission vector. The rule is the opposite of arbitrary: the scope is limited to a specific high risk activity.

If your complaint is that private indoor gatherings are unaffected, imagine how loudly you would complain if they passed a rule that affected private gatherings. You’d hate that rule even more than you hate this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top