NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread

[michaelm]

What many people from around the world don't understand is the ideas of personal freedom. This is the difference. They take it as obvious that they should do things in groups and as such, need a leader to direct the group.

This issue had to be political. Either you believe in individual choice and merely led by recommendations, or you believe in group identity/greater good and you lead by one uniform mandate.

To say that everyone should be vaccinated is a view consistent with personal freedom. To say that everyone must be vaccinated is not. Covid has brought out a lot of the latter.

With rights come responsibilities. No one has ever been free to do absolutely anything they feel like with no consideration for the welfare of others, including in the USA , and particularly in regard to infectious diseases, with neither the constitution nor any amendments thereto giving citizens the freedom to spread communicable diseases afaik. Such freedom certainly hasn't applied to diseases like typhoid, syphillis, and TB, or leprosy for that matter more historically. All manner of restrictions including isolation measures, curfews etc were imposed including in the USA during the Spanish Influenza epidemic post WW1, perhaps somewhat comparable to the current situation with spread being mainly airborne. Perhaps Covid 19 will not be as severe a threat, particularly long term, as those diseases but it has certainly looked fairly nasty at times during the current pandemic.

I have been to the USA probably 40 times, and to many other places in the world, and can't say I have noticed freedom to be particularly greater there than in other western democracies in any case.

Again, I wouldn't particularly argue for mandatory vaccination of NBA players. However, does the NBA have the right to run their business in a manner they consider safe or to regard Covid as a threat to that business ?; it certainly was and curtailed the income of the league last year. There are all manner of regulations covering food providers and governing health workers, including mandatory vaccination for hepatitis B for health workers in most places and declaration of immune status for several other infectious diseases, and restrictions placed on carriers of viruses such as hep c, although some of those medical scientists no one should trust have come up with a cure for hepatitis c infection.

I don't want to go too far down this road since it's veering off topic but laws are generally formed with the idea that you are not allowed to infringe on the freedom of others. To assume that someone who is unvaccinated has covid and is a danger to everyone else is NOT consistent with that structure. It IS consistent with a group worldview, one that sees things in terms of 'we' aka the govt needs to tell everyone else what to do for the good of the group.
These measures are consistent with a leftist worldview are incompatible with individual freedom. Fauci and other experts have addressed this and even they concede that they want to take away individual freedoms for the alleged benefit of society. That is politics, and that is a socialist/leftist POV.

So why is Covid different than other diseases such as hepatitis b ?.

[Neutral 123]

You tell me what the difference is. I've never had to prove I don't have hep B or have been vaccinated against it to go to a restaurant, shopping mall or board a plane. These are the types of insane restrictions being put on perfectly healthy people because Covid.

[michaelm]

The science may be clear, but the nature of science means nothing is final. So it is reasonable for someone who is young and healthy who may get very marginal benefit in terms of risk reduction from the vaccine knowing that the science may change down the line.

As for your second point, I absolutely disagree. The first point should have no bearing on the first. Third parties deciding what is best is antithetical to individual freedom even if said third parties are correct about a particular issue.

You had better move somewhere else then, because such freedom doesn't exist in the USA and never has.

Not completely, but more than most anywhere else and what is going on now is clearly a move away from individual freedom. I still have to chuckle at the my body my choice people being the first ones to support forced injections.

Who supports forced injections ?. Maybe the army since you don't have the option to leave, but not anyone else I can see. As I said, there are many regulations imposed on health workers including previous vaccination requirements, and so there should be.

And what is your basis of comparison for freedom in the USA vs other western democracies btw ?.

[nikster]

The issue is not even about listening to experts at this point. The issue is whether we should be forced to do whatever experts tell us. I don't agree with that, especially when it's painfully obvious when even those with a majority view are seeking fame and fortune. A real shame that people have made gods out of people who represent whatever side they resonate with.

Well there's is 2 separate issues.
First is whether or not everyone should get the vaccine, both for individual and societal benefit. Here the science is clear.

2nd is whether or not there should be mandates or coercion. Here it is impossible to have a rational discussion without both parties accepting the reality of the first point

The science may be clear, but the nature of science means nothing is final. So it is reasonable for someone who is young and healthy who may get very marginal benefit in terms of risk reduction from the vaccine knowing that the science may change down the line.

As for your second point, I absolutely disagree. The first point should have no bearing on the first. Third parties deciding what is best is antithetical to individual freedom even if said third parties are correct about a particular issue.

There is essentially no way the science changes to the point where it is not in the general publics benefit to get the shot. its as close as it gets to final at this point.

There are inherently certain limits on freedom in any society. Regulations, laws, licenses, taxes, etc... Especially in emergency situations like this. If your point is there shouldn't be any limits whatsover that just ends all discussion. If you want to have an actual discussion about it, things like the benefit and risks involved are an important baseline. Its not a coincidence that most people opposing the mandate have a fundamentally misinformed perception of the risks and benefits of the vaccine.

[JayMKE]

You had better move somewhere else then, because such freedom doesn't exist in the USA and never has.

What is the 14th amendment? The government doesn’t own our bodies, we are not slaves nor they kings. Who cares what “the science” says has societal benefit? “Science” also says you should amputate baby foreskins routinely and that fetal heartbeats can be detected at like 6 weeks, should we ban abortion and mandate circumcision? I was going to use flu shots as an example but the idea they won’t mandate those eventually seems to remote to me.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of where our freedoms and rights come from, it’s not because the government was gracious enough to grant them to us but rather they always exist with or without our government endowed to us by our creator. Science and medicine without ethics is an abomination akin Dr Mengele or Frankenstein. If you don’t respect the concept of bodily integrity then you are no different than a rapist.

[nikster]

Considering the NBA operated just fine for two postseasons during covid with masks/social distancing/testing, what’s the logic of mandating a vaccine on players now that doesn’t even prevent spread?

Also what’s the point of local ordinances that only apply to home players?

Well when you outright deny some of the basic benefits of getting vaccinated i can see why you would be confused

[Neutral 123]

Well there's is 2 separate issues.
First is whether or not everyone should get the vaccine, both for individual and societal benefit. Here the science is clear.

2nd is whether or not there should be mandates or coercion. Here it is impossible to have a rational discussion without both parties accepting the reality of the first point

The science may be clear, but the nature of science means nothing is final. So it is reasonable for someone who is young and healthy who may get very marginal benefit in terms of risk reduction from the vaccine knowing that the science may change down the line.

As for your second point, I absolutely disagree. The first point should have no bearing on the first. Third parties deciding what is best is antithetical to individual freedom even if said third parties are correct about a particular issue.

There is essentially no way the science changes to the point where it is not in the general publics benefit to get the shot. its as close as it gets to final at this point.

There are inherently certain limits on freedom in any society. Regulations, laws, licenses, taxes, etc... Especially in emergency situations like this. If your point is there shouldn't be any limits whatsover that just ends all discussion. If you want to have an actual discussion about it, things like the benefit and risks involved are an important baseline. Its not a coincidence that most people opposing the mandate have a fundamentally misinformed perception of the risks and benefits of the vaccine.

That is an anti science statement for several reasons. One, the science can change and it can change dramatically. Believing it to be unlikely is one thing, suggesting it's impossible is anti science. Second, there is no 'general public' person getting the vaccine. Individuals get the vaccine, and the benefit to getting the vaccine varies widely based on ones age and overall health.

As I've stated numerous times, I believe if someone is old, in poor health, getting the vaccine is likely a good idea for them. I still wouldn't FORCE them to take it, but I'd highly recommend it. I would not recommend it for someone who is young and healthy. That's a view that Fauci himself agrees with. He admits that a young healthy person would be getting the vaccine for 'society' or someone else. And he sees nothing of using force to reach that aim. That's wrong imo.

[michaelm]

You had better move somewhere else then, because such freedom doesn't exist in the USA and never has.

What is the 14th amendment? The government doesn’t own our bodies, we are not slaves nor they kings. Who cares what “the science” says has societal benefit? “Science” also says you should amputate baby foreskins routinely and that fetal heartbeats can be detected at like 6 weeks, should we ban abortion and mandate circumcision? I was going to use flu shots as an example but the idea they won’t mandate those eventually seems to remote to me.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of where our freedoms and rights come from, it’s not because the government was gracious enough to grant them to us but rather they always exist with or without our government endowed to us by our creator. Science and medicine without ethics is an abomination akin Dr Mengele or Frankenstein. If you don’t respect the concept of bodily integrity then you are no different than a rapist.

Absolutely no one should be forcibly injected, including by the army imo.

! + 1 doesn't equal 3 btw, either.

[Neutral 123]

Considering the NBA operated just fine for two postseasons during covid with masks/social distancing/testing, what’s the logic of mandating a vaccine on players now that doesn’t even prevent spread?

Also what’s the point of local ordinances that only apply to home players?

Well when you outright deny some of the basic benefits of getting vaccinated i can see why you would be confused

Suspected benefits. That has NOT been proven sufficiently that the so called experts are saying this with certainty.
The current vaccines are promised to reduce serious disease.... That's it.

[michaelm]

The science may be clear, but the nature of science means nothing is final. So it is reasonable for someone who is young and healthy who may get very marginal benefit in terms of risk reduction from the vaccine knowing that the science may change down the line.

As for your second point, I absolutely disagree. The first point should have no bearing on the first. Third parties deciding what is best is antithetical to individual freedom even if said third parties are correct about a particular issue.

There is essentially no way the science changes to the point where it is not in the general publics benefit to get the shot. its as close as it gets to final at this point.

There are inherently certain limits on freedom in any society. Regulations, laws, licenses, taxes, etc... Especially in emergency situations like this. If your point is there shouldn't be any limits whatsover that just ends all discussion. If you want to have an actual discussion about it, things like the benefit and risks involved are an important baseline. Its not a coincidence that most people opposing the mandate have a fundamentally misinformed perception of the risks and benefits of the vaccine.

That is an anti science statement for several reasons. One, the science can change and it can change dramatically. Believing it to be unlikely is one thing, suggesting it's impossible is anti science. Second, there is no 'general public' person getting the vaccine. Individuals get the vaccine, and the benefit to getting the vaccine varies widely based on ones age and overall health.

As I've stated numerous times, I believe if someone is old, in poor health, getting the vaccine is likely a good idea for them. I still wouldn't FORCE them to take it, but I'd highly recommend it. I would not recommend it for someone who is young and healthy. That's a view that Fauci himself agrees with. He admits that a young healthy person would be getting the vaccine for 'society' or someone else. And he sees nothing of using force to reach that aim. That's wrong imo.

No one is forcing or should force patients to have any therapy, that actually is completely immoral by any standard including medical ethics going back to Hippocrates.

[JayMKE]

Considering the NBA operated just fine for two postseasons during covid with masks/social distancing/testing, what’s the logic of mandating a vaccine on players now that doesn’t even prevent spread?

Also what’s the point of local ordinances that only apply to home players?

Well when you outright deny some of the basic benefits of getting vaccinated i can see why you would be confused

I am not a kool aid drinker like yourself, actually read “the science” you guys claim to worship.

[JayMKE]

You had better move somewhere else then, because such freedom doesn't exist in the USA and never has.

What is the 14th amendment? The government doesn’t own our bodies, we are not slaves nor they kings. Who cares what “the science” says has societal benefit? “Science” also says you should amputate baby foreskins routinely and that fetal heartbeats can be detected at like 6 weeks, should we ban abortion and mandate circumcision? I was going to use flu shots as an example but the idea they won’t mandate those eventually seems to remote to me.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of where our freedoms and rights come from, it’s not because the government was gracious enough to grant them to us but rather they always exist with or without our government endowed to us by our creator. Science and medicine without ethics is an abomination akin Dr Mengele or Frankenstein. If you don’t respect the concept of bodily integrity then you are no different than a rapist.

Absolutely no one should be forcibly injected, including by the army imo.

! + 1 doesn't equal 3 btw, either.

Saying this and still supporting mandates doesn’t add up. Is rape by coercion still rape if they’re not held down?

[Neutral 123]

You had better move somewhere else then, because such freedom doesn't exist in the USA and never has.

What is the 14th amendment? The government doesn’t own our bodies, we are not slaves nor they kings. Who cares what “the science” says has societal benefit? “Science” also says you should amputate baby foreskins routinely and that fetal heartbeats can be detected at like 6 weeks, should we ban abortion and mandate circumcision? I was going to use flu shots as an example but the idea they won’t mandate those eventually seems to remote to me.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of where our freedoms and rights come from, it’s not because the government was gracious enough to grant them to us but rather they always exist with or without our government endowed to us by our creator. Science and medicine without ethics is an abomination akin Dr Mengele or Frankenstein. If you don’t respect the concept of bodily integrity then you are no different than a rapist.

What's wild is that this very thing aka a forced breeding program IS consistent with the worldview of doing whatever is 'best for society' or for 'the greater good'. It's happened before and for that exact reason. A ruler decided that's what was best, so women, being part of the collective, had no say in the matter. In principle, what's happening now is no different. Forced impregnation, forced injections all for the greater good because the experts said so. These people have no idea where this stuff has led and always eventually leads.

[Neutral 123]

There is essentially no way the science changes to the point where it is not in the general publics benefit to get the shot. its as close as it gets to final at this point.

There are inherently certain limits on freedom in any society. Regulations, laws, licenses, taxes, etc... Especially in emergency situations like this. If your point is there shouldn't be any limits whatsover that just ends all discussion. If you want to have an actual discussion about it, things like the benefit and risks involved are an important baseline. Its not a coincidence that most people opposing the mandate have a fundamentally misinformed perception of the risks and benefits of the vaccine.

That is an anti science statement for several reasons. One, the science can change and it can change dramatically. Believing it to be unlikely is one thing, suggesting it's impossible is anti science. Second, there is no 'general public' person getting the vaccine. Individuals get the vaccine, and the benefit to getting the vaccine varies widely based on ones age and overall health.

As I've stated numerous times, I believe if someone is old, in poor health, getting the vaccine is likely a good idea for them. I still wouldn't FORCE them to take it, but I'd highly recommend it. I would not recommend it for someone who is young and healthy. That's a view that Fauci himself agrees with. He admits that a young healthy person would be getting the vaccine for 'society' or someone else. And he sees nothing of using force to reach that aim. That's wrong imo.

No one is forcing or should force patients to have any therapy, that actually is completely immoral by any standard including medical ethics going back to Hippocrates.

I'm not sure what your point is? That's what's going on right now and you appear to be in favor of what's going on right now.

[nikster]

The science may be clear, but the nature of science means nothing is final. So it is reasonable for someone who is young and healthy who may get very marginal benefit in terms of risk reduction from the vaccine knowing that the science may change down the line.

As for your second point, I absolutely disagree. The first point should have no bearing on the first. Third parties deciding what is best is antithetical to individual freedom even if said third parties are correct about a particular issue.

There is essentially no way the science changes to the point where it is not in the general publics benefit to get the shot. its as close as it gets to final at this point.

There are inherently certain limits on freedom in any society. Regulations, laws, licenses, taxes, etc... Especially in emergency situations like this. If your point is there shouldn't be any limits whatsover that just ends all discussion. If you want to have an actual discussion about it, things like the benefit and risks involved are an important baseline. Its not a coincidence that most people opposing the mandate have a fundamentally misinformed perception of the risks and benefits of the vaccine.

That is an anti science statement for several reasons. One, the science can change and it can change dramatically. Believing it to be unlikely is one thing, suggesting it's impossible is anti science. Second, there is no 'general public' person getting the vaccine. Individuals get the vaccine, and the benefit to getting the vaccine varies widely based on ones age and overall health.

As I've stated numerous times, I believe if someone is old, in poor health, getting the vaccine is likely a good idea for them. I still wouldn't FORCE them to take it, but I'd highly recommend it. I would not recommend it for someone who is young and healthy. That's a view that Fauci himself agrees with. He admits that a young healthy person would be getting the vaccine for 'society' or someone else. And he sees nothing of using force to reach that aim. That's wrong imo.

Any short term side effects we havent detected yet would have to be so rare they wouldnt change the risk/benefit equation. Any effects that suddenly appear several months are so extremely unlikely, and if they were the chances that they are worse than any long term effects of covid is also negligible. So yeah I would say the idea that anything fundamentally changes the risk/benefit is virtually impossible. And by general population I meant the individuals it consists of.

And once again, your showing those opposing the mandates have a fundamentally wrong view of the current science.What Fauci said was that the young are less likely to get severe disease, that does not mean the risk/benefit does not support being vaccinated for individual benefit because the science is still clear there. And since when do you give a **** what Fauci thinks? You just cherry pick an out of context quote when it suits your agenda and otherwise don't take any thing else he says seriously.

[JayMKE]

You had better move somewhere else then, because such freedom doesn't exist in the USA and never has.

What is the 14th amendment? The government doesn’t own our bodies, we are not slaves nor they kings. Who cares what “the science” says has societal benefit? “Science” also says you should amputate baby foreskins routinely and that fetal heartbeats can be detected at like 6 weeks, should we ban abortion and mandate circumcision? I was going to use flu shots as an example but the idea they won’t mandate those eventually seems to remote to me.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of where our freedoms and rights come from, it’s not because the government was gracious enough to grant them to us but rather they always exist with or without our government endowed to us by our creator. Science and medicine without ethics is an abomination akin Dr Mengele or Frankenstein. If you don’t respect the concept of bodily integrity then you are no different than a rapist.

What's wild is that this very thing aka a forced breeding program IS consistent with the worldview of doing whatever is 'best for society' or for 'the greater good'. It's happened before and for that exact reason. A ruler decided that's what was best, so women, being part of the collective, had no say in the matter. In principle, what's happening now is no different. Forced impregnation, forced injections all for the greater good because the experts said so. These people have no idea where this stuff has led and always eventually leads.

We are a lot closer to that these people realize and ironic thing is if Roe gets struck down these same people who can’t comprehend this concept of bodily integrity now will scream bloody murder because their political leaders/media will tell them to. Literal sheep without independent thought is scary ****.

[Texas Chuck]

It's absolutely appalling someone would try and equate a vaccine with rape. Of course when you realize you have no real arguments you attempt this kind of blatantly false correlation to try and claim some sort of moral high ground you don't actually possess.

But let's do better please.

And the irony of repeating the same talking points over and over that every other anti-vaxxer does while labeling others sheep is so rich. Just so incredibly rich.

[Neutral 123]

There is essentially no way the science changes to the point where it is not in the general publics benefit to get the shot. its as close as it gets to final at this point.

There are inherently certain limits on freedom in any society. Regulations, laws, licenses, taxes, etc... Especially in emergency situations like this. If your point is there shouldn't be any limits whatsover that just ends all discussion. If you want to have an actual discussion about it, things like the benefit and risks involved are an important baseline. Its not a coincidence that most people opposing the mandate have a fundamentally misinformed perception of the risks and benefits of the vaccine.

That is an anti science statement for several reasons. One, the science can change and it can change dramatically. Believing it to be unlikely is one thing, suggesting it's impossible is anti science. Second, there is no 'general public' person getting the vaccine. Individuals get the vaccine, and the benefit to getting the vaccine varies widely based on ones age and overall health.

As I've stated numerous times, I believe if someone is old, in poor health, getting the vaccine is likely a good idea for them. I still wouldn't FORCE them to take it, but I'd highly recommend it. I would not recommend it for someone who is young and healthy. That's a view that Fauci himself agrees with. He admits that a young healthy person would be getting the vaccine for 'society' or someone else. And he sees nothing of using force to reach that aim. That's wrong imo.

Any short term side effects we havent detected yet would have to be so rare they wouldnt change the risk/benefit equation. Any effects that suddenly appear several months are so extremely unlikely, and if they were the chances that they are worse than any long term effects of covid is also negligible. So yeah I would say the idea that anything fundamentally changes the risk/benefit is virtually impossible. And by general population I meant the individuals it consists of.

And once again, your showing those opposing the mandates have a fundamentally wrong view of the current science.What Fauci said was that the young are less likely to get severe disease, that does not mean the risk/benefit does not support being vaccinated for individual benefit because the science is still clear there. And since when do you give a **** what Fauci thinks? You just cherry pick an out of context quote when it suits your agenda and otherwise don't take any thing else he says seriously.

You conveniently omit the long term risks that may exist with these vaccines. You also incorrectly assume that because more incidents have not been linked to the vaccine that they don't exist.

Proving a causal link between the vaccine and negative health outcomes is a very difficult task, that's especially true when the vaccine may only increase your risk of a certain outcome. If for instance these vaccines raised heart attack risk, it would likely express itself in people who were already at high risk of heart attack. Linking increased risk to the vaccine would likely take years.

And your second point shows you still don't get it. Opposing mandates is not about the science, it's about whether people have a right to make their own personal decisions. I believe someone has a right to be wrong.

I've also pointed out that the risk/benefit is not even across the population either, so it's anti science to even suggest that what's best for an 85 year old in a nursing home is what's best for a healthy 19 year old man.

[JayMKE]

It's absolutely appalling someone would try and equate a vaccine with rape. Of course when you realize you have no real arguments you attempt this kind of blatantly false correlation to try and claim some sort of moral high ground you don't actually possess.

But let's do better please.

And the irony of repeating the same talking points over and over that every other anti-vaxxer does while labeling others sheep is so rich. Just so incredibly rich.

It's not false because you say it is and the comparison should tell you how serious of violation of our individual rights this all is, the concept of consent and bodily integrity are pretty straight forward and easy to understand. The mental gymnastics one has to do to pretend like you're not forcing people to get jabbed because you're not literally holding them down is akin to saying "she wanted it, she didn't fight back". Just be straight out about opposing individual liberty and your authoritarian impulse, you want to fight for that then be my guest.

[Neutral 123]

It's absolutely appalling someone would try and equate a vaccine with rape. Of course when you realize you have no real arguments you attempt this kind of blatantly false correlation to try and claim some sort of moral high ground you don't actually possess.

But let's do better please.

And the irony of repeating the same talking points over and over that every other anti-vaxxer does while labeling others sheep is so rich. Just so incredibly rich.

Really? What's the difference between forcing an injection and forcing sex? You do realize that there's a history of forced breeding programs for the greater good of society? How is that different from forced injections for the greater good of society? And like I said, this stuff has ACTUALLY happened. No one is speaking theoretically here. The exact same worldview has led to just that.