RealGM

A large portion of those that are unvaccinated live in Public Housing, are daily heavy drug users (meth) with kids & have contracted all kinds off illnesses that make them fear the side effects, being reported to CPS & losing their housing.

FNQ wrote:

Cartuse wrote:
I take it, from what many posters defend, that many people in this board people regard the State and its extensions as our parents so I think the analogy is appropiate.

Because their job is public safety and creating laws? And since they are adhering to the scientific consensus of wearing masks, social distancing, and getting vaccinated, what is the issue?

The idea that people play no part in a public policy is lunacy man. If they strictly enforced it, it would work better, but it'd be encroaching way too far on freedoms. If they suggest it, people handwave it off. So some places made local mandates which mostly focused on businesses, not individuals. And then...

We literally watched it work on places that had an extremely high seeded rate and a high vector rate..

And so now when we're seeing another spike and some places are using a much lighter form of what we saw last year, and the complaint is about that? I mean I'm guessing your libertarian based on this, and an opportunistic one at that, but the argument doesnt track because it can literally be applied to anything. Age of consent, drinking, smoking, drugs.. "if you listen to the authorities, you act like they are parents".. that's toothless

What do you think of natural immunity?

ReddoverKobe wrote:

Cartuse wrote:

xdrta+ wrote:
Of course it's logical. As I said, even a child...... And if those same protocols were followed permanently, the number would stay that low. But of course we don't. Bars and restaurants re-open, airlines are crowded, people crowd together for all sorts of events, and fools like the governor of Texas do everything in their power to ensure the spread of infectious disease, like banning private employers from requiring vaccines for their workers. So the numbers will jump back up. It's only logical.

Just out of curiosity, why would the Texas governor want to ensure the spread of an infectious disease?

Because democrats took covid seriously. republicans will kill an unlimited amount of people as long as they can go against the dems.

User warned and suspended for baiting and derailing

First there was no warning. 2nd this is 100% true, unless you ignore reality. Third, I have seen people issue death threats on the nets board and i wa laughed at by mods for reporting it. Who do I report mods to because this is a joke?

ReddoverKobe wrote:

ReddoverKobe wrote:

Cartuse wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why would the Texas governor want to ensure the spread of an infectious disease?

Because democrats took covid seriously. republicans will kill an unlimited amount of people as long as they can go against the dems.

User warned and suspended for baiting and derailing

First there was no warning. 2nd this is 100% true, unless you ignore reality. Third, I have seen people issue death threats on the nets board and i wa laughed at by mods for reporting it. Who do I report mods to because this is a joke?

Read the first post and read the announcement.

This topic isn't to discuss if republicans are trying to kill people or if democrats are trying to implant chips. So... any nonsense like that will lead to warnings and suspensions.

If you have any further questions, PM the mods.

Dirk wrote:

ReddoverKobe wrote:

ReddoverKobe wrote:
Because democrats took covid seriously. republicans will kill an unlimited amount of people as long as they can go against the dems.

User warned and suspended for baiting and derailing

First there was no warning. 2nd this is 100% true, unless you ignore reality. Third, I have seen people issue death threats on the nets board and i wa laughed at by mods for reporting it. Who do I report mods to because this is a joke?

Read the first post and read the announcement.

This topic isn't to discuss if republicans are trying to kill people or if democrats are trying to implant chips. So... any nonsense like that will lead to warnings and suspensions.

If you have any further questions, PM the mods.

One of those is true and it was a direct response to the question asked.

Ambrose wrote:

FNQ wrote:

Cartuse wrote:
I take it, from what many posters defend, that many people in this board people regard the State and its extensions as our parents so I think the analogy is appropiate.

Because their job is public safety and creating laws? And since they are adhering to the scientific consensus of wearing masks, social distancing, and getting vaccinated, what is the issue?

The idea that people play no part in a public policy is lunacy man. If they strictly enforced it, it would work better, but it'd be encroaching way too far on freedoms. If they suggest it, people handwave it off. So some places made local mandates which mostly focused on businesses, not individuals. And then...

We literally watched it work on places that had an extremely high seeded rate and a high vector rate..

And so now when we're seeing another spike and some places are using a much lighter form of what we saw last year, and the complaint is about that? I mean I'm guessing your libertarian based on this, and an opportunistic one at that, but the argument doesnt track because it can literally be applied to anything. Age of consent, drinking, smoking, drugs.. "if you listen to the authorities, you act like they are parents".. that's toothless

What do you think of natural immunity?

That’s a really general question, can go many ways with it. In regards to what?

FNQ wrote:

Ambrose wrote:

FNQ wrote:
Because their job is public safety and creating laws? And since they are adhering to the scientific consensus of wearing masks, social distancing, and getting vaccinated, what is the issue?

The idea that people play no part in a public policy is lunacy man. If they strictly enforced it, it would work better, but it'd be encroaching way too far on freedoms. If they suggest it, people handwave it off. So some places made local mandates which mostly focused on businesses, not individuals. And then...

We literally watched it work on places that had an extremely high seeded rate and a high vector rate..

And so now when we're seeing another spike and some places are using a much lighter form of what we saw last year, and the complaint is about that? I mean I'm guessing your libertarian based on this, and an opportunistic one at that, but the argument doesnt track because it can literally be applied to anything. Age of consent, drinking, smoking, drugs.. "if you listen to the authorities, you act like they are parents".. that's toothless

What do you think of natural immunity?

That’s a really general question, can go many ways with it. In regards to what?

Do you think it's an acceptable substitute for being vaccinated or being subjected to continued testing? Under the assumption that there is proof of antibodies.

Ambrose wrote:

FNQ wrote:

Ambrose wrote:
What do you think of natural immunity?

That’s a really general question, can go many ways with it. In regards to what?

Do you think it's an acceptable substitute for being vaccinated or being subjected to continued testing? Under the assumption that there is proof of antibodies.

Well first off, no need to assume. There are antibodies even in weak cases, but how effective they are.. totally case by case. Will circle back

So there are 2 answers to the main question. From a scientific standpoint, yes. The odds are in your favor that if you've had a strong case of COVID in the past, its a more than acceptable substitute. The problem is that we don't have any way of measuring it, and people immune systems have an insanely wide range of strengths and outcomes. We could have the exact same viral load of COVID, exact same timeframe, exact same treatment, and you could develop strong antibodies that mean youll never catch COVID again, while my body could create extremely weak (usually over specialized, like an overcorrection) antibodies. That said I'd say its better than a coin flip that you would develop immunity on par, or better, than a vaccine.

From a societal standpoint, no. And the reasoning is simple - the vaccine is safe, it stacks with natural immunity, and we are not winning the battle right now. COVID has taken 18 months from us and there's no short-term guarantees its going anywhere. Our bodies could fight off a cold without medicine, but Nyquil will erase it quicker. No difference here.

If people choose not to get vaxxed, that's fine. But here's what shouldn't be done:

- bitching if it precludes you from jobs/events that insist on the maximum amount of safety for the people they are responsible for
- citing bunk ass reasoning to try and convince others to follow in their footsteps

Ultimately, this goes back to a phrase older than dirt: Salus populi suprema lex esto - the health of the people is the supreme law. Because with contagions, the butterfly effect is real, and one person deciding that its no big deal can have a domino impact that destroys a family. And most people just don't want to think about that kind of thing, but it is what it is.



As much as people believe they would never be so careless, they always are. And since it would be way over the top to instill an actual mandate for people to get vaccinated, the next best thing is to allow local authorities and/or private entities to protect their people.

I have the.. "benefit".. of seeing people who regretted their decisions way too late. This was pre-vaccine, but a guy who claimed he didn't think COVID was that serious initially was really sick finally got cleared for a ventilator, at 3am. He knew the risks - at the time, most people put on them never came back. He wanted to facetime his family.. and he was told that if we hesitated on the ventilator someone else might get it and his chances were minimal. Predictable end to this

So if people want to justify reasoning for not being max protected and ending this as soon as they can, go for it. Just don't make any **** up about it, and maybe weigh the risks of getting jabbed or not. Because I guarantee you if people are really honest about it, its no contest

FNQ wrote:

Ambrose wrote:

FNQ wrote:
That’s a really general question, can go many ways with it. In regards to what?

Do you think it's an acceptable substitute for being vaccinated or being subjected to continued testing? Under the assumption that there is proof of antibodies.

Well first off, no need to assume. There are antibodies even in weak cases, but how effective they are.. totally case by case. Will circle back

So there are 2 answers to the main question. From a scientific standpoint, yes. The odds are in your favor that if you've had a strong case of COVID in the past, its a more than acceptable substitute. The problem is that we don't have any way of measuring it, and people immune systems have an insanely wide range of strengths and outcomes. We could have the exact same viral load of COVID, exact same timeframe, exact same treatment, and you could develop strong antibodies that mean youll never catch COVID again, while my body could create extremely weak (usually over specialized, like an overcorrection) antibodies. That said I'd say its better than a coin flip that you would develop immunity on par, or better, than a vaccine.

From a societal standpoint, no. And the reasoning is simple - the vaccine is safe, it stacks with natural immunity, and we are not winning the battle right now. COVID has taken 18 months from us and there's no short-term guarantees its going anywhere. Our bodies could fight off a cold without medicine, but Nyquil will erase it quicker. No difference here.

If people choose not to get vaxxed, that's fine. But here's what shouldn't be done:

- bitching if it precludes you from jobs/events that insist on the maximum amount of safety for the people they are responsible for
- citing bunk ass reasoning to try and convince others to follow in their footsteps

Ultimately, this goes back to a phrase older than dirt: Salus populi suprema lex esto - the health of the people is the supreme law. Because with contagions, the butterfly effect is real, and one person deciding that its no big deal can have a domino impact that destroys a family. And most people just don't want to think about that kind of thing, but it is what it is.

Watch on YouTube

As much as people believe they would never be so careless, they always are. And since it would be way over the top to instill an actual mandate for people to get vaccinated, the next best thing is to allow local authorities and/or private entities to protect their people.

I have the.. "benefit".. of seeing people who regretted their decisions way too late. This was pre-vaccine, but a guy who claimed he didn't think COVID was that serious initially was really sick finally got cleared for a ventilator, at 3am. He knew the risks - at the time, most people put on them never came back. He wanted to facetime his family.. and he was told that if we hesitated on the ventilator someone else might get it and his chances were minimal. Predictable end to this

So if people want to justify reasoning for not being max protected and ending this as soon as they can, go for it. Just don't make any **** up about it, and maybe weigh the risks of getting jabbed or not. Because I guarantee you if people are really honest about it, its no contest

So if I am understanding correctly, on paper-yes, but things aren't that simple, and it's hard to determine when this has been the case. On top of that because the situation thus far has been bungled, and the vaccine is the simplest solution, you would not recommend it as substitute at this time. Is this correct?

Ambrose wrote:

FNQ wrote:

Ambrose wrote:
Do you think it's an acceptable substitute for being vaccinated or being subjected to continued testing? Under the assumption that there is proof of antibodies.

Well first off, no need to assume. There are antibodies even in weak cases, but how effective they are.. totally case by case. Will circle back

So there are 2 answers to the main question. From a scientific standpoint, yes. The odds are in your favor that if you've had a strong case of COVID in the past, its a more than acceptable substitute. The problem is that we don't have any way of measuring it, and people immune systems have an insanely wide range of strengths and outcomes. We could have the exact same viral load of COVID, exact same timeframe, exact same treatment, and you could develop strong antibodies that mean youll never catch COVID again, while my body could create extremely weak (usually over specialized, like an overcorrection) antibodies. That said I'd say its better than a coin flip that you would develop immunity on par, or better, than a vaccine.

From a societal standpoint, no. And the reasoning is simple - the vaccine is safe, it stacks with natural immunity, and we are not winning the battle right now. COVID has taken 18 months from us and there's no short-term guarantees its going anywhere. Our bodies could fight off a cold without medicine, but Nyquil will erase it quicker. No difference here.

If people choose not to get vaxxed, that's fine. But here's what shouldn't be done:

- bitching if it precludes you from jobs/events that insist on the maximum amount of safety for the people they are responsible for
- citing bunk ass reasoning to try and convince others to follow in their footsteps

Ultimately, this goes back to a phrase older than dirt: Salus populi suprema lex esto - the health of the people is the supreme law. Because with contagions, the butterfly effect is real, and one person deciding that its no big deal can have a domino impact that destroys a family. And most people just don't want to think about that kind of thing, but it is what it is.

Watch on YouTube

As much as people believe they would never be so careless, they always are. And since it would be way over the top to instill an actual mandate for people to get vaccinated, the next best thing is to allow local authorities and/or private entities to protect their people.

I have the.. "benefit".. of seeing people who regretted their decisions way too late. This was pre-vaccine, but a guy who claimed he didn't think COVID was that serious initially was really sick finally got cleared for a ventilator, at 3am. He knew the risks - at the time, most people put on them never came back. He wanted to facetime his family.. and he was told that if we hesitated on the ventilator someone else might get it and his chances were minimal. Predictable end to this

So if people want to justify reasoning for not being max protected and ending this as soon as they can, go for it. Just don't make any **** up about it, and maybe weigh the risks of getting jabbed or not. Because I guarantee you if people are really honest about it, its no contest

So if I am understanding correctly, on paper-yes, but things aren't that simple, and it's hard to determine when this has been the case. On top of that because the situation thus far has been bungled, and the vaccine is the simplest solution, you would not recommend it as substitute at this time. Is this correct?

Not entirely. The natural immunity vs. vaccine immunity makes it hard to take a finite stance. You can't, from a medical standpoint. And because we can't test it without literally just giving someone COVID and seeing how they react, it might be a while before we can have a finite answer. In medicine, you can't give an answer like that when really you're just playing odds.

I push back on everyone who says natural immunity > vaccine, but always clarify its the exact same in reverse. Because saying something general like that can leave a lot of people vulnerable. If, for example, only 10% of people who contracted COVID had weak or ineffective antibodies from it, and say that 4/10 are either anti-vax or don't want to get it for whatever reason.. then based on our current number of cases to date (44.6M), you'd be giving bad advice to 1.7M people for the sake of simplifying an answer

The situation has been bungled for sure, but I dont think there's much we could have done in the first place. Aside from something that actually resembled fascism - mandatory masking, mandatory lockdowns, mandatory vaccinations (and for the wackos who say "that happened!", show me random people walking down the street getting arrested for not having a mask or look up a country with actual fascism).. we had very little chance here. Lets say everything went right: Trump didnt dissolve the pandemic team. Our heightened awareness begins in December 2019. The CDC does tell people to wear masks as well as socially distance. We isolate and contain.

I mean.. New Zealand was basically COVID free. And now they are being hit, because at the end of the day, much like many things in society, we are only as good as our weakest link, and man do we have some weak ones.

But in short, I would not recommend natural immunity as a substitution because, at a personal level, there is a higher risk of personal injury. At a macro/societal level, there's a higher risk of transmission and potentially being the cause of hurting others. The vaccine, in both cases, does not erase the risk entirely, it simply improves chances, and the more people get jabbed, the more effective it is.

FNQ wrote:

Ambrose wrote:

FNQ wrote:
Well first off, no need to assume. There are antibodies even in weak cases, but how effective they are.. totally case by case. Will circle back

So there are 2 answers to the main question. From a scientific standpoint, yes. The odds are in your favor that if you've had a strong case of COVID in the past, its a more than acceptable substitute. The problem is that we don't have any way of measuring it, and people immune systems have an insanely wide range of strengths and outcomes. We could have the exact same viral load of COVID, exact same timeframe, exact same treatment, and you could develop strong antibodies that mean youll never catch COVID again, while my body could create extremely weak (usually over specialized, like an overcorrection) antibodies. That said I'd say its better than a coin flip that you would develop immunity on par, or better, than a vaccine.

From a societal standpoint, no. And the reasoning is simple - the vaccine is safe, it stacks with natural immunity, and we are not winning the battle right now. COVID has taken 18 months from us and there's no short-term guarantees its going anywhere. Our bodies could fight off a cold without medicine, but Nyquil will erase it quicker. No difference here.

If people choose not to get vaxxed, that's fine. But here's what shouldn't be done:

- bitching if it precludes you from jobs/events that insist on the maximum amount of safety for the people they are responsible for
- citing bunk ass reasoning to try and convince others to follow in their footsteps

Ultimately, this goes back to a phrase older than dirt: Salus populi suprema lex esto - the health of the people is the supreme law. Because with contagions, the butterfly effect is real, and one person deciding that its no big deal can have a domino impact that destroys a family. And most people just don't want to think about that kind of thing, but it is what it is.

Watch on YouTube

As much as people believe they would never be so careless, they always are. And since it would be way over the top to instill an actual mandate for people to get vaccinated, the next best thing is to allow local authorities and/or private entities to protect their people.

I have the.. "benefit".. of seeing people who regretted their decisions way too late. This was pre-vaccine, but a guy who claimed he didn't think COVID was that serious initially was really sick finally got cleared for a ventilator, at 3am. He knew the risks - at the time, most people put on them never came back. He wanted to facetime his family.. and he was told that if we hesitated on the ventilator someone else might get it and his chances were minimal. Predictable end to this

So if people want to justify reasoning for not being max protected and ending this as soon as they can, go for it. Just don't make any **** up about it, and maybe weigh the risks of getting jabbed or not. Because I guarantee you if people are really honest about it, its no contest

So if I am understanding correctly, on paper-yes, but things aren't that simple, and it's hard to determine when this has been the case. On top of that because the situation thus far has been bungled, and the vaccine is the simplest solution, you would not recommend it as substitute at this time. Is this correct?

Not entirely. The natural immunity vs. vaccine immunity makes it hard to take a finite stance. You can't, from a medical standpoint. And because we can't test it without literally just giving someone COVID and seeing how they react, it might be a while before we can have a finite answer. In medicine, you can't give an answer like that when really you're just playing odds.

I push back on everyone who says natural immunity > vaccine, but always clarify its the exact same in reverse. Because saying something general like that can leave a lot of people vulnerable. If, for example, only 10% of people who contracted COVID had weak or ineffective antibodies from it, and say that 4/10 are either anti-vax or don't want to get it for whatever reason.. then based on our current number of cases to date (44.6M), you'd be giving bad advice to 1.7M people for the sake of simplifying an answer

The situation has been bungled for sure, but I dont think there's much we could have done in the first place. Aside from something that actually resembled fascism - mandatory masking, mandatory lockdowns, mandatory vaccinations (and for the wackos who say "that happened!", show me random people walking down the street getting arrested for not having a mask or look up a country with actual fascism).. we had very little chance here. Lets say everything went right: Trump didnt dissolve the pandemic team. Our heightened awareness begins in December 2019. The CDC does tell people to wear masks as well as socially distance. We isolate and contain.

I mean.. New Zealand was basically COVID free. And now they are being hit, because at the end of the day, much like many things in society, we are only as good as our weakest link, and man do we have some weak ones.

But in short, I would not recommend natural immunity as a substitution because, at a personal level, there is a higher risk of personal injury. At a macro/societal level, there's a higher risk of transmission and potentially being the cause of hurting others. The vaccine, in both cases, does not erase the risk entirely, it simply improves chances, and the more people get jabbed, the more effective it is.

Understood, thanks for the clarification.

In regards to the false claim made against me by someone else, there is clear difference between vaccines working, and vaccines waning. Both can be true.

Ambrose wrote:In regards to the false claim made against me by someone else, there is clear difference between vaccines working, and vaccines waning. Both can be true.

Yup - I didnt see that or would have aggressively agreed with that. Active theory for mRNA is that since the body hasn't actually fought off the vaccine, it doesn't see the need to continue producing the same antibodies over time, instead using its energy to fight off actual, current threats. Which is why the mRNA booster shot is gaining steam but also shows limitations of mRNA vaccines in humans, potentially.

I dont have nearly as much knowledge about the adenovirus vaccine (J&J) or Novavax, who've had some very promising results looking long-term, but with mRNA there does seem to be a period of time before the body starts "forgetting" what the messenger RNA told them. Its way more detailed than that but its the best analogy I've got

It also goes to show how harmless the mRNA vaccine is, and how the "we've gotta know what it does long-term" truthers aren't really here for the science of it

I have to laugh when people with tattoos all over their bodies profess to be afraid of needles.

Cartuse wrote:

michaelm wrote:I see it as more no brained humanity, with the current conspiracy theories about the Covid pandemic, and the willingness of people to base their life decisions on right wing conspiracy site twitter.

So you think there are some people that, due to political manipulations which they're too stupid to see, cease all thinking and reasoning. Wow

It's easy for you to see how others lack the capacity to understand why you believe what you believe. You don't even consider the inferences and conclusions you draw as only your beliefs or opinions but also as the absolute reality. And some people don't have the proper training or knowledge to understand reality.

But at the same time, you don't even entertain the idea that you lack the capacity to understand why others believe what they believe. They don't get you, but you get them. Or worse, you don't have to get them at all. It's all good as long as they agree with you but when they don't, they're completely invalidated.

You pick a few examples of clearly deluded people to feed your conviction of righteousness and that's all there is to it. You don't even care to understand why such a big portion of the population is going through that process of delusion, let alone consider the possibility that we are ALL going through that same process. No, they must all be like those hand picked idiots.

You chose the easy path of just writing everything off as fear driven and politically motivated idiocy, or as you say "no brained humanity". Coincidentally that's the exact same thought process that many people have on the other side.

Instead of trying to better understand the "idiots" so that you can help rescue them from themselves, you're content with labelling them as a lost cause. It's not your job to turn them around, and that's ok. But stop pretending you care about understanding, when it's obvious you have made up your mind as much as they have. And if that wasn't enough, you see it as a political thing? It's all because of the evil right wing twitter and their complete control of people's minds? Is your analysis really that lazy? I thought you prided yourself in employing scientific reasoning. There's a lot of emotion based prejudice and stereotyping in there my friend.

You have an incredibly paternalistic view of people, and see them as moldable idiots unless they have a certain mindset that coincides with the one you have. In that case they stop being moldable idiots and become good citizens.

michaelm wrote:The USA approach on the other hand which pretty much seems to have involved nihilism from 35% - 40% of the population has produced 2,212 deaths/million.

For someone that's so data and science driven, you're certainly quick to assign blame and draw sweeping conclusions based on numbers and arguments that have no factual basis outside of your imagination and common sense opinion.

Do you understand what you're doing when you say that a portion of the population is to be seen as directly responsible for the deaths of thousands? Do you think for a second what kind of thinking and reasoning you're inviting in?

I honestly hope it's just a way for you to do catharsis and not much else, I really do.

Which numbers do you dispute ?.

If you don't like the Worldometer site which some don't but I have found reliable for a quick update during the course of the pandemic then I can give you the similar numbers from the Johns Hopkins coronavirus site.
USA 218.28 deaths per 100,000 population.
Sweden 145.06 deaths per 100,000 population.
Denmark 45.99 deaths per 100,000 population.
Australia 5.83 deaths per 100,00 population.

Obviously other factors come into the above numbers including population density, demographics and geography with Australia and NZ able to close their borders and NZ being on the way to nowhere and Australia being on the way to nowhere except NZ, although Australia despite having similar acreage to the US mainland has a much more urbanised population.

I was being sarcastic with the nihilism comment, sarcasm being something with which you are perhaps unfamiliar, but was basically referring to the vaccination rate in the USA, which imo only of course it is not a wild assumption to correlate with opposition to other measures to limit the coronavirus pandemic such as mask wearing, which it certainly does in your case. The vaccination rate in the USA again according to the Johns Hopkins site was 66% partly vaccinated and 57% fully vaccinated on 12th October 2021.

I actually neither drew the conclusion nor sought to imply that a proportion of the US population is responsible for the deaths of other US citizens, that was an implication entirely drawn by you, my purpose was merely to point out that there is data which at least suggests that public policy decried by you and others on this thread has worked elsewhere, and to counter the claim by another poster who is a fellow traveller with you that Denmark and Sweden have had similar outcomes from their approaches, which are not as different than that poster suggested anyway.

I have realised now that I been naive in all this in assuming that others have actually done their own research as I have myself, but it is becoming increasingly clear to me that much of the 'evidence' against vaccination claimed to have been found by personal research involved research confined to US conspiracy sites.

FNQ wrote:

Ambrose wrote:In regards to the false claim made against me by someone else, there is clear difference between vaccines working, and vaccines waning. Both can be true.

Yup - I didnt see that or would have aggressively agreed with that. Active theory for mRNA is that since the body hasn't actually fought off the vaccine, it doesn't see the need to continue producing the same antibodies over time, instead using its energy to fight off actual, current threats. Which is why the mRNA booster shot is gaining steam but also shows limitations of mRNA vaccines in humans, potentially.

I dont have nearly as much knowledge about the adenovirus vaccine (J&J) or Novavax, who've had some very promising results looking long-term, but with mRNA there does seem to be a period of time before the body starts "forgetting" what the messenger RNA told them. Its way more detailed than that but its the best analogy I've got

It also goes to show how harmless the mRNA vaccine is, and how the "we've gotta know what it does long-term" truthers aren't really here for the science of it

The vaccines up till now have been against the spike protein not the virus itself. There is some data which suggests the Astra Zeneca viral vector vaccine may give more prolonged immunity in terms of drop off of antibody levels and very good protection against hospitalisation and death even if not as good protection initially against actually contracting the delta variant. If so perhaps it is down to how the viral vector presents the spike protein. I am lead to believe the VITTS seen with the AZ vaccine is not much of a feature with the Russian viral vector vaccine, and some including me speculate that the AZ vaccine using a chimpanzee adenovirus as the viral vector, although replication inactivated, may be involved.

Again speculation at this stage, but while the drop off in antibody levels with the Pfizer vaccine has been established whether this is the final outcome is not so clear, some have suggested the ideal dose intervals were one thing not established in an emergency situation, and there are other vaccines including Hep B vaccine which require more than 2 doses. Tetanus vaccine requires both more than 2 doses and booster doses, and if the mRNA vaccines required a booster every 10 years like tetanus I would be fine with that, although a booster jab every 6 months would be less practical. My own speculation is that vaccination against the spike protein may be like tetanus vaccination which is against the tetanus toxin rather than the bacteria involved itself.

There are other options for vaccines with one against a less mutable component of the virus already undergoing clinical trial in the UK. As you know there is already data which suggests infection once vaccinated leads to very strong immunity without the risks of infection without immunity.

I am perfectly fine with the pandemic receding due to herd immunity consequent on a combination of natural and vaccine induced immunity, and if it does do and there is no need for ongoing programmes of vaccination that would be great obviously.

michaelm wrote:Which numbers do you dispute ?.

35-40% of the population with a sarcastically nihilistic attitude. Numbers that I might as well pull out of my behind.

michaelm wrote:...basically referring to the vaccination rate in the USA, which imo only of course it is not a wild assumption to correlate with opposition to other measures to limit the coronavirus pandemic such as mask wearing, which it certainly does in your case.

That is a wild assumption indeed. Where I live the compliance to social distancing, mask wearing and hygene was pretty much 100% absolute compliance in all public and workplaces for pretty much the entire year. If it was the same with vaccines we wouldn't be having this conversation. That already indicates a difference. Not to even mention the assumption that being unvaccinated implies a sarcastically nihilistic attitude...

You also wildly assume I have an opposition against mask wearing. I wear a mask every single day to this day. I'm allowed to not like it if I still do it, right?

michaelm wrote:I actually neither drew the conclusion nor sought to imply that a proportion of the US population is responsible for the deaths of other US citizens, that was an implication entirely drawn by you

Really?

michaelm wrote:The USA approach on the other hand which pretty much seems to have involved nihilism from 35% - 40% of the population has produced 2,212 deaths/million.

Subject: The USA approach which seems to have involved nihilism from 35%- 40% of people
Predicate: has produced 2,212 deaths/million.

It sounds like you're definitely implying that a proportion of the US is responsible for deaths. Maybe it scares you to think it out loud, but that's what you're doing. And this is what I keep trying to tell you:

You say someone's attitude is to blame for the existence of death itself. That person becomes a bringer of death in your and other people's minds. What do you do with something that brings death?

I don't know how else to say it. All good with science, all good with vaccines, all good with the Church of Science and the intellects that spend so much time looking down and sideways that forget the sky above. That's all fine.

What's not good is demonizing people. Never, for any reason, under no circumstance. You don't burn your fellow human beings nor give up on them. We've been practising demonization of fellow humans at an all time accelerated rythm, with an array of different topics. I don't blame my equals, I own their failures as they own mine.

How can you assign blame on the individual for the failure of a public policy? A public policy is not right or wrong independent of its reception. A public policy is assessed as right or wrong PRECISELY in how it's received.

Cartuse wrote:

michaelm wrote:Which numbers do you dispute ?.

35-40% of the population with a sarcastically nihilistic attitude. Numbers that I might as well pull out of my behind.

michaelm wrote:...basically referring to the vaccination rate in the USA, which imo only of course it is not a wild assumption to correlate with opposition to other measures to limit the coronavirus pandemic such as mask wearing, which it certainly does in your case.

That is a wild assumption indeed. Where I live the compliance to social distancing, mask wearing and hygene was pretty much 100% absolute compliance in all public and workplaces for pretty much the entire year. If it was the same with vaccines we wouldn't be having this conversation. That already indicates a difference. Not to even mention the assumption that being unvaccinated implies a sarcastically nihilistic attitude...

You also wildly assume I have an opposition against mask wearing. I wear a mask every single day to this day. I'm allowed to not like it if I still do it, right?

michaelm wrote:I actually neither drew the conclusion nor sought to imply that a proportion of the US population is responsible for the deaths of other US citizens, that was an implication entirely drawn by you

Really?

michaelm wrote:The USA approach on the other hand which pretty much seems to have involved nihilism from 35% - 40% of the population has produced 2,212 deaths/million.

Subject: The USA approach which seems to have involved nihilism from 35%- 40% of people
Predicate: has produced 2,212 deaths/million.

It sounds like you're definitely implying that a proportion of the US is responsible for deaths. Maybe it scares you to think it out loud, but that's what you're doing. And this is what I keep trying to tell you:

You say someone's attitude is to blame for the existence of death itself. That person becomes a bringer of death in your and other people's minds. What do you do with something that brings death?

I don't know how else to say it. All good with science, all good with vaccines, all good with the Church of Science and the intellects that spend so much time looking down and sideways that forget the sky above. That's all fine.

What's not good is demonizing people. Never, for any reason, under no circumstance. You don't burn your fellow human beings nor give up on them. We've been practising demonization of fellow humans at an all time accelerated rythm, with an array of different topics. I don't blame my equals, I own their failures as they own mine.

How can you assign blame on the individual for the failure of a public policy? A public policy is not right or wrong independent of its reception. A public policy is assessed as right or wrong PRECISELY in how it's received.

Well is it not a bit of both? Would you say drunk drivers are a bringer of death? There is societal responsibility to help ensure drunk driving is minimized through norms and policy but ultimately the individual is responsible for getting behind the wheel of the car

infinite11285 wrote:

Roco14 wrote:

Da ThRONe wrote:I don't even understand the logic of mandating any vaccine that doesn't prevent infection or transmission.

This was never about public health - none of it makes sense. If it was, Canada's government would allow those with antibodies the same freedoms that the vaccinated have, considering that antibodies offer significantly more protection than the vaccine (this has been proven and confirmed). But that's not the case. Anybody with half a brain should be asking questions right now.

Have either of you consulted with your respective doctors? They would be the best source to alleviate any confusion you may have.

I always look for a reference link when people make claims like these.

Curmudgeon wrote:As a poster wisely said over on the Celtics forum, science is science. It doesn't care what you think. It doesn't care if you distrust the government or big pharma. It doesn't care about your personal liberty. The science is overwhelming that the vaccines work and that those who refuse to take them endanger themselves and others. End of story.

When asked to comment on Bishop Berkeley's 18th century theory that the material world doesn't really exist (and the corollary that Newtonian physics was incorrect), Dr. Johnson went over to a large rock and started beating his head against it until he started to bleed. "I refute it thus!" Johnson exclaimed.

I guess you could say I understand science somewhat. I was an Air Force meteorologist. A staff weather officer back in the day. On the way to getting my bachelor of science (even though it was in mathematics) I do remember studying the scientific method. I later earned a master’s of science in education. Taught at various levels k-12, also and I including was a college facilitator in the past.

I am also a Christian. Started going to Sunday school maybe 55 years ago when I was in kindergarten. The Christian Bible has 66 different books starting with Genesis and ending with Revelations. I bring that up to interject the idea of a Creator or divinity responsible for what we mortals can only best describe scientifically.

I remember Newton’s laws of physics. I’m sort of familiar with quantum physics. I’m no virologist But I do have a basic understanding of what the human genome is. DNA and RNA I’ve heard of. The science behind the coronavirus?

Now that I’ve said a whole Lotta nothing I will say that forcing everyone to take the vaccine would be one way for some end of times prophecy come true. Won’t go into mark of the beast. Will say that in theory a malevolent entity could make a vaccine that would wipe us out in time.

I have no opinion about anything. Thanks. I am double vaccinated.

nikster wrote:

Cartuse wrote:How can you assign blame on the individual for the failure of a public policy? A public policy is not right or wrong independent of its reception. A public policy is assessed as right or wrong PRECISELY in how it's received.

Well is it not a bit of both? Would you say drunk drivers are a bringer of death? There is societal responsibility to help ensure drunk driving is minimized through norms and policy but ultimately the individual is responsible for getting behind the wheel of the car

Yes, it is a bit of both. The collective results are handled in the collective sphere, and the individual responsibilities are addressed in the individual sphere.

Drunk driving has been around for many decades, during which overwhelming social consensus has been built that says drunk driving is wrong and dangerous.

At the same time. we have the technology to make intoxication-proof vehicles, and we've had it for decades. And I don't mean a crappy breathalyzer that anyone can blow into. There are more effective ways that would pretty much solve the issue by making it physically impossible for an intoxicated person to sit at the wheel of a moving car.

But our policy makers prefer to keep it the way it is. Why?

Because they either don't have the interest, money, power or all three to make car manufacturers comply with what should be a very simple fix. There's no profit in solving drunk driving. Human tragedy is not necessarily a waste of resources for companies that have the State's legal blessing, as evidenced most obviously by the contents of our food.

For drunk driving, It's easier to keep the punishment scheme and keep many cops employed. It's very important for the State to keep cops on their payroll and under their control, and that's one reason why they're always gonna favor the punishment schemes instead of solution schemes. It's cheaper, faster, and it keeps the gun on their side.

The public policy on drunk driving is a bad policy for the simple fact that it's neither the easiest, most efficient, nor the more humane solution. It's a stopgap policy that's still there because of lack of interest in a real solution. And we accept it because it's the only alternative we're given, and it's better than nothing. And most importantly, The Experts among us will defend it because look at the numbers! It clearly shows it diminishes drunk driving, right?

I mean for crying out loud, we'll reach the stage of self driving cars before we could come up with a more simple solution to prevent intoxicated people from driving. How crazy is that.

In this case we're talking about a policy that is in the stage of building consensus, two completely different things.

Bottom-line is:

If I can't excuse my misbehavior by blaming it on the policy.
then
The policy can't excuse it's failure by blaming it on my misbehavior

You can't have it both ways.