OT: The Official COVID/Omicron Variant+ thread

[Clyde_Style]

I don't qualify for a booster shot. Need to eat 10 apple pies in one sitting to induce rapid onset diabetes to meet the criteria

[Moose]

People are fed up. Maybe this is a good thing.

Read on Twitter

?s=20

What about smokers and people who eat themselves to death?

They have been costing us for decades.

[Clyde_Style]

People are fed up. Maybe this is a good thing.

Read on Twitter

?s=20

What about smokers and people who eat themselves to death?

They have been costing us for decades.

A virus is not a cigarette or a twinkie though.

There are laws against smoking in public places so that you don’t have to breathe in that cigarette. And nobody makes you eat cake against your will.

But a virus can’t be legislated to behave in a public place.

So when the unvaccinated clog the medical system they are choosing that fate in a way impacts us all immediately if we need medical care. People with health problems due to smoking and overeating were not overwhelming the medical system all at once.

Your point may be more about sharing the financial burden of people who cost us all more with their self-inflicted illnesses. But it is still quite different from a pandemic where lack of cooperation causes people to become ill through no fault of their own.

The implications to us all of anti-vaxxing and refusing to mask up is not really equivalent to the issue of smoking and obesity burdening the healthcare system.

Smokers do pay higher health care premiums for a reason though I suppose that still may not be enough to offset their cost to us all.

[HarthorneWingo]

People are fed up. Maybe this is a good thing.

Read on Twitter

?s=20

What about smokers and people who eat themselves to death?

They have been costing us for decades.

A virus is not a cigarette or a twinkie though.

There are laws against smoking in public places so that you don’t have to breathe in that cigarette. And nobody makes you eat cake against your will.

But a virus can’t be legislated to behave in a public place.

So when the unvaccinated clog the medical system they are choosing that fate in a way impacts us all immediately if we need medical care. People with health problems due to smoking and overeating were not overwhelming the medical system all at once.

Your point may be more about sharing the financial burden of people who cost us all more with their self-inflicted illnesses. But it is still quite different from a pandemic where lack of cooperation causes people to become ill through no fault of their own.

The implications to us all of anti-vaxxing and refusing to mask up is not really equivalent to the issue of smoking and obesity burdening the healthcare system.

Smokers do pay higher health care premiums for a reason though I suppose that still may not be enough to offset their cost to us all.

I was about to post the same.

[HarthorneWingo]

Comedy from The Heartland

Watch on YouTube

Part II - "The Sun is Bullshyt"

Watch on YouTube

[Moose]

What about smokers and people who eat themselves to death?

They have been costing us for decades.

A virus is not a cigarette or a twinkie though.

There are laws against smoking in public places so that you don’t have to breathe in that cigarette. And nobody makes you eat cake against your will.

But a virus can’t be legislated to behave in a public place.

So when the unvaccinated clog the medical system they are choosing that fate in a way impacts us all immediately if we need medical care. People with health problems due to smoking and overeating were not overwhelming the medical system all at once.

Your point may be more about sharing the financial burden of people who cost us all more with their self-inflicted illnesses. But it is still quite different from a pandemic where lack of cooperation causes people to become ill through no fault of their own.

The implications to us all of anti-vaxxing and refusing to mask up is not really equivalent to the issue of smoking and obesity burdening the healthcare system.

Smokers do pay higher health care premiums for a reason though I suppose that still may not be enough to offset their cost to us all.

I was about to post the same.

Well, it's a good thing I'm talking about financial costs and your moral position against people not caring about their own health, as well as the public burden it creates then.

You want to punish people for something you consider immoral and that puts a financial strain on society..

Then maybe we should punish people for all the burdens that the select some consider immoral that we believe put a burden on society (in whichever way we want to determine that).

[Clyde_Style]

A virus is not a cigarette or a twinkie though.

There are laws against smoking in public places so that you don’t have to breathe in that cigarette. And nobody makes you eat cake against your will.

But a virus can’t be legislated to behave in a public place.

So when the unvaccinated clog the medical system they are choosing that fate in a way impacts us all immediately if we need medical care. People with health problems due to smoking and overeating were not overwhelming the medical system all at once.

Your point may be more about sharing the financial burden of people who cost us all more with their self-inflicted illnesses. But it is still quite different from a pandemic where lack of cooperation causes people to become ill through no fault of their own.

The implications to us all of anti-vaxxing and refusing to mask up is not really equivalent to the issue of smoking and obesity burdening the healthcare system.

Smokers do pay higher health care premiums for a reason though I suppose that still may not be enough to offset their cost to us all.

I was about to post the same.

Well, it's a good thing I'm talking about financial costs and your moral position against people not caring about their own health, as well as the public burden it creates then.

You want to punish people for something you consider immoral and that puts a financial strain on society..

Then maybe we should punish people for all the burdens that the select some consider immoral that we believe put a burden on society (in whichever way we want to determine that).

Viruses have no morals. They just look for a host. Cigarettes don’t attach themselves to you randomly.

[thebuzzardman]

A virus is not a cigarette or a twinkie though.

There are laws against smoking in public places so that you don’t have to breathe in that cigarette. And nobody makes you eat cake against your will.

But a virus can’t be legislated to behave in a public place.

So when the unvaccinated clog the medical system they are choosing that fate in a way impacts us all immediately if we need medical care. People with health problems due to smoking and overeating were not overwhelming the medical system all at once.

Your point may be more about sharing the financial burden of people who cost us all more with their self-inflicted illnesses. But it is still quite different from a pandemic where lack of cooperation causes people to become ill through no fault of their own.

The implications to us all of anti-vaxxing and refusing to mask up is not really equivalent to the issue of smoking and obesity burdening the healthcare system.

Smokers do pay higher health care premiums for a reason though I suppose that still may not be enough to offset their cost to us all.

I was about to post the same.

Well, it's a good thing I'm talking about financial costs and your moral position against people not caring about their own health, as well as the public burden it creates then.

You want to punish people for something you consider immoral and that puts a financial strain on society..

Then maybe we should punish people for all the burdens that the select some consider immoral that we believe put a burden on society (in whichever way we want to determine that).

Did I miss something or isn't this what half the laws are?

I think there maybe could be some repercussions for not getting vaccinated, but denying health care or making it outrageously expensive isn't the way to go. At least, not any more expensive than what fat people or smokers pay in premiums. Actually, I'd be against that too, considering how corrupt the entire US medical and insurance systems are.

[HarthorneWingo]

I was about to post the same.

Well, it's a good thing I'm talking about financial costs and your moral position against people not caring about their own health, as well as the public burden it creates then.

You want to punish people for something you consider immoral and that puts a financial strain on society..

Then maybe we should punish people for all the burdens that the select some consider immoral that we believe put a burden on society (in whichever way we want to determine that).

Did I miss something or isn't this what half the laws are?

I think there maybe could be some repercussions for not getting vaccinated, but denying health care or making it outrageously expensive isn't the way to go. At least, not any more expensive than what fat people or smokers pay in premiums. Actually, I'd be against that too, considering how corrupt the entire US medical and insurance systems are.

I just don't think that people with medical conditions not of their own fault or doing should be denied treatment due to those who overwhelm hospitals because they simply chose not to vaccinate. We can't punish those who are ill through no choice of their own while rewarding those whose illness could have been avoided, given a limited medical provider network. Obviously, if we could just treat everybody, including those who make dumb decisions, I'd favor that.

[Moose]

Well, it's a good thing I'm talking about financial costs and your moral position against people not caring about their own health, as well as the public burden it creates then.

You want to punish people for something you consider immoral and that puts a financial strain on society..

Then maybe we should punish people for all the burdens that the select some consider immoral that we believe put a burden on society (in whichever way we want to determine that).

Did I miss something or isn't this what half the laws are?

I think there maybe could be some repercussions for not getting vaccinated, but denying health care or making it outrageously expensive isn't the way to go. At least, not any more expensive than what fat people or smokers pay in premiums. Actually, I'd be against that too, considering how corrupt the entire US medical and insurance systems are.

I just don't think that people with medical conditions not of their own fault or doing should be denied treatment due to those who overwhelm hospitals because they simply chose not to vaccinate. We can't punish those who are ill through no choice of their own while rewarding those whose illness could have been avoided, given a limited medical provider network. Obviously, if we could just treat everybody, including those who make dumb decisions, I'd favor that.

So someone who smokes for 40 years or eats themselves to the point they define greed and gluttony isn't "through no choice of their own" if they get lung cancer or diabetes or heart disease?

And what about excessive drug use? If on one of our wild nights, if there was an accidental overdose, is that through no fault of our own?

Or maybe the hospital shouldn't waste its resources on a junkie?

Or someone has unprotected sex and gets HIV. Let em die for their poor decision?

There are some who think the certain things I listed above to be morally wrong. Maybe we should just let people die or shun them or look down on them or punish them simply because they don't do what we think is right.

Also, the people you are hurting the most in this anti vax punishment scenario: https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-data-on-covid-19-vaccinations-by-race-ethnicity/

On a side note, the common reply will be "well those decisions don't hurt the health of others", but plenty of decisions people make every day hurt others, society, or the planet. Even abortion is killing off a life, but we allow for it to happen.

And just to be clear, I'm vaxxed, I think people should get vaxxed, and I'm also pro choice.

[HarthorneWingo]

Did I miss something or isn't this what half the laws are?

I think there maybe could be some repercussions for not getting vaccinated, but denying health care or making it outrageously expensive isn't the way to go. At least, not any more expensive than what fat people or smokers pay in premiums. Actually, I'd be against that too, considering how corrupt the entire US medical and insurance systems are.

I just don't think that people with medical conditions not of their own fault or doing should be denied treatment due to those who overwhelm hospitals because they simply chose not to vaccinate. We can't punish those who are ill through no choice of their own while rewarding those whose illness could have been avoided, given a limited medical provider network. Obviously, if we could just treat everybody, including those who make dumb decisions, I'd favor that.

So someone who smokes for 40 years or eats themselves to the point they define greed and gluttony isn't "through no choice of their own" if they get lung cancer or diabetes or heart disease?

And what about excessive drug use? If on one of our wild nights, if there was an accidental overdose, is that through no fault of our own?

Or maybe the hospital shouldn't waste its resources on a junkie?

Or someone has unprotected sex and gets HIV. Let em die for their poor decision?

There are some who think the certain things I listed above to be morally wrong. Maybe we should just let people die or shun them or look down on them or punish them simply because they don't do what we think is right.

Also, the people you are hurting the most in this anti vax punishment scenario: https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-data-on-covid-19-vaccinations-by-race-ethnicity/

On a side note, the common reply will be "well those decisions don't hurt the health of others", but plenty of decisions people make every day hurt others, society, or the planet. Even abortion is killing off a life, but we allow for it to happen.

And just to be clear, I'm vaxxed, I think people should get vaxxed, and I'm also pro choice.

Okay. Well, I’m glad we can agree on those row issues.

You’re injecting issues that are not relevant to this discussion. We were not stretched so thin, like we are now compared to before the pandemic. Pre-COVID we were still able to treat the obese and the COPD cigarette patients AND the cancer patients, etc. You’re mis-framing the argument. Btw, if we had a M4A healthcare system, then we could better treat the cigarette smokers, the obese, and the mentally ill.

[Moose]

I just don't think that people with medical conditions not of their own fault or doing should be denied treatment due to those who overwhelm hospitals because they simply chose not to vaccinate. We can't punish those who are ill through no choice of their own while rewarding those whose illness could have been avoided, given a limited medical provider network. Obviously, if we could just treat everybody, including those who make dumb decisions, I'd favor that.

So someone who smokes for 40 years or eats themselves to the point they define greed and gluttony isn't "through no choice of their own" if they get lung cancer or diabetes or heart disease?

And what about excessive drug use? If on one of our wild nights, if there was an accidental overdose, is that through no fault of our own?

Or maybe the hospital shouldn't waste its resources on a junkie?

Or someone has unprotected sex and gets HIV. Let em die for their poor decision?

There are some who think the certain things I listed above to be morally wrong. Maybe we should just let people die or shun them or look down on them or punish them simply because they don't do what we think is right.

Also, the people you are hurting the most in this anti vax punishment scenario: https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-data-on-covid-19-vaccinations-by-race-ethnicity/

On a side note, the common reply will be "well those decisions don't hurt the health of others", but plenty of decisions people make every day hurt others, society, or the planet. Even abortion is killing off a life, but we allow for it to happen.

And just to be clear, I'm vaxxed, I think people should get vaxxed, and I'm also pro choice.

Okay. Well, I’m glad we can agree on those row issues.

You’re injecting issues that are not relevant to this discussion. We were not stretch so thin like we are now compared to before the pandemic. We were able to treat the obese and the COPD cigarette patients AND the cancer patients, etc. You’re mis-framing the argument.

Haha glad we can agree somewhere. But as to the other points...

If we can't treat them now, so someone has to go. Save the 35 year old who isn't vaxxed vs the 55 year old who smoked for 30 years. You choose.

In NYC, we accept the homeless, undocumented, the unidentified...should turn we them away? Some are even breaking the law in that very moment.

My point is, I find it tough to form an argument around punishing people for a personal choice I disagree with, even if those choices may have an impact on society we believe hurts it. This happens every day in different forms.

We should do our best to help society as a whole, but there are limits to what we can enforce if we want to ensure we continue to live in a "free" society.

One day, someone may disagree with your personal choices. Do you want to be looked down upon and punished for them?

That would be as wild as being president and not helping people in the 80s with HIV because you felt it was due to lifestyle choice, oh wait...

But to be honest, I don't really have a solution to stop people from making decisions I disagree with. I guess all we can do is be open and educate with real data that isn't driven by emotion as opposed to shaming and using propaganda like we've been doing for decades.

It's a difficult topic, but this is how I currently see it.

[HarthorneWingo]

So someone who smokes for 40 years or eats themselves to the point they define greed and gluttony isn't "through no choice of their own" if they get lung cancer or diabetes or heart disease?

And what about excessive drug use? If on one of our wild nights, if there was an accidental overdose, is that through no fault of our own?

Or maybe the hospital shouldn't waste its resources on a junkie?

Or someone has unprotected sex and gets HIV. Let em die for their poor decision?

There are some who think the certain things I listed above to be morally wrong. Maybe we should just let people die or shun them or look down on them or punish them simply because they don't do what we think is right.

Also, the people you are hurting the most in this anti vax punishment scenario: https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-data-on-covid-19-vaccinations-by-race-ethnicity/

On a side note, the common reply will be "well those decisions don't hurt the health of others", but plenty of decisions people make every day hurt others, society, or the planet. Even abortion is killing off a life, but we allow for it to happen.

And just to be clear, I'm vaxxed, I think people should get vaxxed, and I'm also pro choice.

Okay. Well, I’m glad we can agree on those row issues.

You’re injecting issues that are not relevant to this discussion. We were not stretch so thin like we are now compared to before the pandemic. We were able to treat the obese and the COPD cigarette patients AND the cancer patients, etc. You’re mis-framing the argument.

Haha glad we can agree somewhere. But as to the other points...

If we can't treat them now, so someone has to go. Save the 35 year old who isn't vaxxed vs the 55 year old who smoked for 30 years. You choose.

In NYC, we accept the homeless, undocumented, the unidentified...should turn we them away? Some are even breaking the law in that very moment.

My point is, I find it tough to form an argument around punishing people for a personal choice I disagree with, even if those choices may have an impact on society we believe hurts it. This happens every day in different forms.

We should do our best to help society as a whole, but there are limits to what we can enforce if we want to ensure we continue to live in a "free" society.

One day, someone may disagree with your personal choices. Do you want to be looked down upon and punished for them?

That would be as wild as being president and not helping people in the 80s with HIV because you felt it was due to lifestyle choice, oh wait...

But to be honest, I don't really have a solution to stop people from making decisions I disagree with. I guess all we can do is be open and educate with real data that isn't driven by emotion as opposed to shaming and using propaganda like we've been doing for decades.

It's a difficult topic, but this is how I currently see it.

Difficult topic, agreed.

I think comparing someone who suffered physically from getting addicted to cigarettes, alcohol, or drugs over a long period of time (or not) is different than someone making the deliberate choice to not take an FDA-approved, safe, effective, and free vaccine proven to protect you while helping to keep your family, and your friends/community safe. I think there's a different level of culpability.

Obviously, our healthcare system, which already had big problems even before the pandemic, was subjected to undue stress due to it which it was not prepared to deal with (another issue). So, it would seem to me that in restructuring it we should do so with this present-day reality check in mind because I understand that future pandemics/endemics are not out of the question. Of course, this is way beyond my pay grade. Perhaps others here have more insight into this. Or we can simply chose to let those you are unfortunate enough to not get the care they need to die.

If we're forced to ration healthcare, I guess I find the food, tobacco, alcohol, and/or drug-addicted individual less responsible for their medical issues compared to those who are offered a safe option of not being sick. Under the law, particularly in criminal cases, the addicted individual is considered to have diminished-capacity to form the requisite level of "intent" required to prove criminal acts. So, I guess we can extrapolate from that.

[Clyde_Style]

So someone who smokes for 40 years or eats themselves to the point they define greed and gluttony isn't "through no choice of their own" if they get lung cancer or diabetes or heart disease?

And what about excessive drug use? If on one of our wild nights, if there was an accidental overdose, is that through no fault of our own?

Or maybe the hospital shouldn't waste its resources on a junkie?

Or someone has unprotected sex and gets HIV. Let em die for their poor decision?

There are some who think the certain things I listed above to be morally wrong. Maybe we should just let people die or shun them or look down on them or punish them simply because they don't do what we think is right.

Also, the people you are hurting the most in this anti vax punishment scenario: https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-data-on-covid-19-vaccinations-by-race-ethnicity/

On a side note, the common reply will be "well those decisions don't hurt the health of others", but plenty of decisions people make every day hurt others, society, or the planet. Even abortion is killing off a life, but we allow for it to happen.

And just to be clear, I'm vaxxed, I think people should get vaxxed, and I'm also pro choice.

Okay. Well, I’m glad we can agree on those row issues.

You’re injecting issues that are not relevant to this discussion. We were not stretch so thin like we are now compared to before the pandemic. We were able to treat the obese and the COPD cigarette patients AND the cancer patients, etc. You’re mis-framing the argument.

Haha glad we can agree somewhere. But as to the other points...

If we can't treat them now, so someone has to go. Save the 35 year old who isn't vaxxed vs the 55 year old who smoked for 30 years. You choose.

In NYC, we accept the homeless, undocumented, the unidentified...should turn we them away? Some are even breaking the law in that very moment.

My point is, I find it tough to form an argument around punishing people for a personal choice I disagree with, even if those choices may have an impact on society we believe hurts it. This happens every day in different forms.

We should do our best to help society as a whole, but there are limits to what we can enforce if we want to ensure we continue to live in a "free" society.

One day, someone may disagree with your personal choices. Do you want to be looked down upon and punished for them?

That would be as wild as being president and not helping people in the 80s with HIV because you felt it was due to lifestyle choice, oh wait...

But to be honest, I don't really have a solution to stop people from making decisions I disagree with. I guess all we can do is be open and educate with real data that isn't driven by emotion as opposed to shaming and using propaganda like we've been doing for decades.

It's a difficult topic, but this is how I currently see it.

Moose, those decisions will have to be made in the future. This pandemic was a dry run for the next pandemic. Covid is not as savage as Ebola which was narrowly averted as a global pandemic. If this society can’t reach any consensus around something as simple as a vaccine there really is no way to anticipate how ugly things will get in the next pandemic.

We’ve been taking vaccines our whole lives and all of a sudden 40-50% of the population develops suspicions about vaccines? It is pretty damn juvenile IMO. So, sure, people have a right to not get vaccinated, but the reality of a pandemic is absolutely nothing like the other health issues you mentioned simply because (a) the majority of those not choosing to get vaccinated is mostly instances of unfounded paranoia or low-intellect political conspiracy thinking and (b) millions will die because others chose not to cooperate first with masking and then vaccinating. They are complicit in prolonging the pandemic.

Other health issues stemming from lifestyle choices only affect the individual, regardless of the other line of reasoning about long-term costs to the system.

Frankly, I find most anti-vaxxers to lack any consideration for others. Their notion of freedom is tied to things as trivial as wearing a mask. That the majority of them are Republicans is not a coincidence as the GOP has devolved into a power hungry fork of evangelist tainted politics. They whine about the right to life while showing great indifference to 700,000 dead Americans, most of whose deaths should have and could have been prevented if this country really had each other’s backs. How many are dead in New Zealand? Do you think that country hates their government for their covid policies?

So of course it has become a moral divide even if a virus has no morals. If people are going to prolong a pandemic over their right to do anything while most of them blithely support the insurrectionists who tried to overthrow our democracy for their MAGA overlord, then I don’t think the majority of fervid anti-maskers have any moral integrity to stand on in the matters of freedom and civil rights.

This is an emergency. I’d rather have a government that uses its powers to impose restrictions to stop a pandemic than I would have an administration that would use its powers to overthrow free and fair elections.

Also, while I concede that most of the health issues in this country are due to the modern American diet and addictions, to blur the issues of a pandemic by saying Hey, Let’s reform the junk food industrial complex, big tobacco, pill pushers and booze dispensers while we’re at it is disingenuous. It is still fundamentally a separate topic about the state of our civilization and our values when it comes to lifestyle choices. Getting a virus from some guy who refuses to mask up is not a lifestyle choice and it never was.

Costs to the health care system and who should get treatment when there is excess demand for services is not the a priori subject. The issue of freedom to mask or not and vax or not is still the leading edge topic when it comes to stopping a pandemic. The health care system’s issues are a by-product. I have an opinion about who should get treated, but my primary concern is that we don’t get diverted from the cause of that conundrum even if treatment considerations are a damn serious issue now.

But telling someone to comply with government edicts like masking should never have to be debated as a moral issue in the first place. People who shout about their freedom to breathe are the ones who moralize the situation. Their complicity in spreading the virus is what ups the moral ante, not people who comply or who seek to not get the virus.

[DOT]

The bedrock of the "I'm not an antivaxxer but" argument relies on vaccination being just a personal choice

The issue is, it's not just a personal choice, and the antivaxxer crowd never gives a defense of that belief, we're just supposed to accept it as fact

The argument makes sense logically if it is just a personal choice, but it's not, so the logic falls apart

It's like arguing that washing your hands is just a personal choice, and the people who handle your food should be free to not wash their hands.

[Clyde_Style]

Did I miss something or isn't this what half the laws are?

I think there maybe could be some repercussions for not getting vaccinated, but denying health care or making it outrageously expensive isn't the way to go. At least, not any more expensive than what fat people or smokers pay in premiums. Actually, I'd be against that too, considering how corrupt the entire US medical and insurance systems are.

I just don't think that people with medical conditions not of their own fault or doing should be denied treatment due to those who overwhelm hospitals because they simply chose not to vaccinate. We can't punish those who are ill through no choice of their own while rewarding those whose illness could have been avoided, given a limited medical provider network. Obviously, if we could just treat everybody, including those who make dumb decisions, I'd favor that.

So someone who smokes for 40 years or eats themselves to the point they define greed and gluttony isn't "through no choice of their own" if they get lung cancer or diabetes or heart disease?

And what about excessive drug use? If on one of our wild nights, if there was an accidental overdose, is that through no fault of our own?

Or maybe the hospital shouldn't waste its resources on a junkie?

Or someone has unprotected sex and gets HIV. Let em die for their poor decision?

There are some who think the certain things I listed above to be morally wrong. Maybe we should just let people die or shun them or look down on them or punish them simply because they don't do what we think is right.

Also, the people you are hurting the most in this anti vax punishment scenario: https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-data-on-covid-19-vaccinations-by-race-ethnicity/

On a side note, the common reply will be "well those decisions don't hurt the health of others", but plenty of decisions people make every day hurt others, society, or the planet. Even abortion is killing off a life, but we allow for it to happen.

And just to be clear, I'm vaxxed, I think people should get vaxxed, and I'm also pro choice.

But can you identify another public health crisis that overwhelmed the health care system prior to this pandemic resulting in people being denied treatment?

We both know the answer to that

Access is the pressing issue now, not the cost to the health care system (and all of us) due to other people’s lifestyle choices like smoking or eating big macs.

If there were not so many instances of hospitals overflowing with covid patients in beds in the hallways causing people with life threatening emergencies to be turned away, then we could have a reasonable discussion about the health care system’s flaws and its funding. But that is NOT the issue right now.

[Clyde_Style]

The bedrock of the "I'm not an antivaxxer but" argument relies on vaccination being just a personal choice

The issue is, it's not just a personal choice, and the antivaxxer crowd never gives a defense of that belief, we're just supposed to accept it as fact

The argument makes sense logically if it is just a personal choice, but it's not, so the logic falls apart

It's like arguing that washing your hands is just a personal choice, and the people who handle your food should be free to not wash their hands.

Plus, the idea that we’re being moralistic by soliciting their compliance is actually nothing more than gaslighting when the anti-vaxxers are most guilty of over-moralizing some very clearcut considerations when it comes to the public’s health.

[Clyde_Style]

There are two ways to deal with it. Mandates or incentives. Some mandates incentivize as well.

Los Angeles is saying you want to drink in your favorite bar? Vax or stay home

That’s a mandate. It may incentivize some to get vaxxed, because there is a portion of the population that is just thoughtless or lazy, instead of intransigent or militant, who will then get off their butts and get vaccinated. A good number that fit that profile are younger people, many of whom selflishly thought their youth would protect them. Crimp their social life and you will get compliance from a number of them.

And incentives will soon inform many high level medical ethics policies. Decision making is a skill some doctors study and they will start to make recommendations on treatment criteria. This is already being pushed by insurance companies for obvious reasons.

Incentives to preserve your health care coverage will motivate a few more.

I’m sure there are plenty of incentives that companies and governments can impose, particularly travel requirements which I fully endorse. Airlines can offer two rates as well. Not vaxxed? Your airfare is tripled.

Over time, it would create some form of social hierarchy that would be pronounced in some regions and not so much in others unless federal mandates get imposed.

[Jalen Bluntson]

There are two ways to deal with it. Mandates or incentives. Some mandates incentivize as well.

Los Angeles is saying you want to drink in your favorite bar? Vax or stay home

That’s a mandate. It may incentivize some to get vaxxed, because there is a portion of the population that is just thoughtless or lazy, instead of intransigent or militant, who will then get off their butts and get vaccinated. A good number that fit that profile are younger people, many of whom selflishly thought their youth would protect them. Crimp their social life and you will get compliance from a number of them.

And incentives will soon inform many high level medical ethics policies. Decision making is a skill some doctors study and they will start to make recommendations on treatment criteria. This is already being pushed by insurance companies for obvious reasons.

Incentives to preserve your health care coverage will motivate a few more.

I’m sure there are plenty of incentives that companies and governments can impose, particularly travel requirements which I fully endorse. Airlines can offer two rates as well. Not vaxxed? Your airfare is tripled.

Over time, it would create some form of social hierarchy that would be pronounced in some regions and not so much in others unless federal mandates get imposed.

According to CDC and tests that were done...the vaccine hardly prevents the spread of the virus. After 3 months that prevention is basically nothing. So mandates and the battles that go with them are BS.

All narratives around this pandemic have changed multiple times and there is zero reason to trust anyone who is trying to force this on you.

If the vaccine only protects the vaccinated predominantly...then mandates are basically BS and people judging others for not getting one are white noise. Period.

We're supposed to get shots every 3-6 months? That's not a vaccine then. The fact that hospitals can't handle the next wave is on the hospitals. Turning away cancer patients for Covid surge is mostly bull. Again...that falls on the healthcare system for not being prepared after almost two years of this going on.

Freedom of choice should matter to everyone. Vax or no vax. My advice to anyone high risk or living with high risk people. Protect yourselves. Makes...vaccines...social distance etc. Then mind your business.

[Clyde_Style]

There are two ways to deal with it. Mandates or incentives. Some mandates incentivize as well.

Los Angeles is saying you want to drink in your favorite bar? Vax or stay home

That’s a mandate. It may incentivize some to get vaxxed, because there is a portion of the population that is just thoughtless or lazy, instead of intransigent or militant, who will then get off their butts and get vaccinated. A good number that fit that profile are younger people, many of whom selflishly thought their youth would protect them. Crimp their social life and you will get compliance from a number of them.

And incentives will soon inform many high level medical ethics policies. Decision making is a skill some doctors study and they will start to make recommendations on treatment criteria. This is already being pushed by insurance companies for obvious reasons.

Incentives to preserve your health care coverage will motivate a few more.

I’m sure there are plenty of incentives that companies and governments can impose, particularly travel requirements which I fully endorse. Airlines can offer two rates as well. Not vaxxed? Your airfare is tripled.

Over time, it would create some form of social hierarchy that would be pronounced in some regions and not so much in others unless federal mandates get imposed.

According to CDC and tests that were done...the vaccine hardly prevents the spread of the virus. After 3 months that prevention is basically nothing. So mandates and the battles that go with them are BS.

All narratives around this pandemic have changed multiple times and there is zero reason to trust anyone who is trying to force this on you.

If the vaccine only protects the vaccinated predominantly...then mandates are basically BS and people judging others for not getting one are white noise. Period.

We're supposed to get shots every 3-6 months? That's not a vaccine then. The fact that hospitals can't handle the next wave is on the hospitals. Turning away cancer patients for Covid surge is mostly bull. Again...that falls on the healthcare system for not being prepared after almost two years of this going on.

Freedom of choice should matter to everyone. Vax or no vax. My advice to anyone high risk or living with high risk people. Protect yourselves. Makes...vaccines...social distance etc. Then mind your business.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/unvaccinated-covid-patients-cost-the-u-s-health-system-billions-of-dollars/

Based on the number of breakthrough hospitalizations (hospitalizations among those who are fully vaccinated with a COVID-19 diagnosis) reported to the CDC, we estimate that 98.6% of people hospitalized with a COVID-19 diagnosis between June and August 2021 were unvaccinated.

So now you’re telling us that if 1.4% of covid hospitalizations were vaccinated people it doesn’t protect people against the virus?

The virus would have no hosts left if we were all vaccinated. It would not spread contrary to this fictional narrative you’ve created around the vaccines.

Do you have an explanation for why over 90% of covid-related hospitalizations have consistently been people who are not vaccinated?

Why isn’t it 50% vaccinated and 50% unvaccinated since according to you the vaccine does not stop covid from spreading?