Covid-19 miscellany

[Playball40]

The anti-vaxxers i have met are demanding that they can choose not to get a shot AND that they suffer no inconveniences for this self-inflicted vulnerability o being a plague rat.

Exactly this. Every adult, who doesn't have a bonafide medical contra-indication, should get vaccinated. But I don't want to give the government the power to force people.

Not getting vaccinated should remain a legal choice, but the rest of us shouldn't be forced to tolerate your presence. Whether it's my home, a local bodega, or a cruise ship operator. If we don't want you there because of your choice we should be free to prevent you from being there.
Somehow, lots of politicians like Desantis have managed to sacrifice freedom for political points and convinced their followers that forcing and outlawing is "freedom".

Tom

What should be the result of someone who has a medical contraindication or who has a quick, strong and highly probable reaction to the FIRST dose. Not a hypochondriac level reaction, but something requiring at least a emergency room visit and with clear blood work evidence.

There must be a way forward for these people to be able to go about their lives. They aren't malingerers or selfish.

It is for these people that EVERYONE that CAN get the vaccine, get it. Herd immunity is to help those that CANNOT get vaccinated or for whom vaccines may not work (immunocompromised)

 

[Playball40]

Meanwhile in the UK, anti-vaccine protesters have shown their usual commitment to diligent research, fact based decision making, and the taking of appropriate action based on reality, by storming the BBC Television Centre in West London.

The BBC moved out of Television Centre in 2013, and the majority of the building is now luxury residential apartments, and includes a private member's club. There are still three television studios in the building, which are owned, but not used, by the BBC - they are rented to independent television companies.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/09/confused-anti-vaccine-protesters-storm-bbc-hq-years-after-moved-out

Bloody idiots. FFS.

 

[bilby]

So if the majority would be religious you'd be cool with you being forced following the Bible? Or if they'd be straight up Nazis? Or if some bizarre version of science would be in vogue, you'd be cool being forced to follow that?

This isn't about majority opinion. This is about medical consensus as it exists today... globally... that was peer reviewed. Extrapolating an emergency response into a grotesque hypothetical is ridiculous. Simply put, get vaccinated or deal with the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY of not getting vaccinated. The anti-vaxxers want the cake and want to eat it. Their worldview on this has been so poisoned by the right-wing media circus, they think they are entitled to whatever they want. If they don't want to be vaccinated, there are steps they need to take, because the virus is real, the virus is killing people, the virus will mutate and possibly get worse.

But they think not only is vaccination unnecessary, they think masks are unnecessary, they think spacing is unnecessary, they think any mitigation is a vile incursion of their liberty, and they won't change their minds until they or someone very close is dying from it.

Yeah, opinion is a shit basis for decision making.

Facts exist. Sure, not every question is a question of fact; But some are. And where there's a factual option, opinion should be ignored.

It's a fact that going unvaccinated harms others. So people shouldn't be permitted an opinion on this question.

It's a fact that driving really fast harms others. So we have speed limits, and we don't let people decide for themselves how fast to drive. That's not fascism, it's just civilisation. Your desire for the freedom to drive at 80km/h in a residential street doesn't trump my right to be protected from your dangerous driving.

And if you tell the cops that in your opinion you were completely in control and not causing a hazard, they will quite correctly ignore your opinion - not because they are being mean to you, but because it's factually wrong.

Frequently opinion is all we've got. And then we need to take a liberal approach. But reality doesn't give a shit about our opinions, and so where we know the reality, we must give it precedence.

 

[TomC]

Medical consensus has historically been used for all kinds of nastiness.

Can you give an example of this that's less than a century old?

I know about the horror generally referred to as the Tuskegee Airmen. Some guys were deliberately lied to about syphilis treatment. And I know about Henrietta Lax. I know about the second rate health care blacks recieved during the "Separate but Equal" period.

But here in the 21st century, the local health department is giving the exact same top shelf(Moderna) vaccine to everyone. Nothing to do with historical nastiness, and the information is easily available.
Tom

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It's a fact that going unvaccinated harms others.

It is a fact that it increases the risks.

So people shouldn't be permitted an opinion on this question.

It is more complicated than that, though. Many of the things we do or do not do increase some risks for others. But purely for example, with regards to vaccines, this applies to other illnesses as well, e.g., the flu. The risk of harm is considerably less than with covid, but it's still a risk, and people still die due to flu viruses. Sure, you could mandate that one too. But there are plenty of other behaviors. It's not enough that it increases the risks for others.

It's a fact that driving really fast harms others. So we have speed limits, and we don't let people decide for themselves how fast to drive. That's not fascism, it's just civilisation. Your desire for the freedom to drive at 80km/h in a residential street doesn't trump my right to be protected from your dangerous driving.

It is a fact that the risks increase. But then, even with a speed limit of say 100km/h in a road, the risk is surely greater than with say 40km/h. And road trips - for example - create risks that remaining at home would not create. And so on. The point is that plenty of things that are allowed create more risks than banning them or further restricting them. And the question(s) of what is proper for a government to ban is a difficult one. It's not fascism to have some restrictions to people's freedoms obviously. But that does not make all restrictions okay, even if they reduce risks, and the question is difficult: it's about how much freedom is it obligatory, permissible or impermissible for a person in a government position to choose to restrict in order to achieve which goals. In many cases, it is really hard.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Aha... so the people who aren't fascists are guilty of the holocaust of WW2. Got it

You can't sit back and allow people to kill millions of other people because of libertarianism. That isn't what libertarianism is supposed to be about. My freedom to wave my arms around ends when my arms are in your face affecting your movement or worse hitting you. My freedom to be a Nazi ends well before I am running around killing Jews. The same with wearing masks or vaccinating. My freedom to not wear a mask or be vaccinated ends when I am spreading infections to the populace, killing people. If you see some idiot waving their arms in someone else's face to hit them, tell them to stop. If you see a Nazi about to kill a Jew, defend the Jew. You might have to kill some Nazis to do it. If you have a population of idiots not vaccinating or wearing masks such that there are covid surges with people dying excessively, you make some policies or allow businesses to make rules requiring masks and vaccinations. This isn't rocket science.

It's insane calling my position libertarian. You're so off the rails now.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It is a fact that it increases the risks.


It is more complicated than that, though. Many of the things we do or do not do increase some risks for others. But purely for example, with regards to vaccines, this applies to other illnesses as well, e.g., the flu. The risk of harm is considerably less than with covid, but it's still a risk, and people still die due to flu viruses. Sure, you could mandate that one too.

I used to work for a hospital and the flu vaccine was mandated for employees. So if covid mandates are more in scope, while as you said covid is more of a risk, then it is perfectly compatible with risk assessment for flu deaths.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Aha... so the people who aren't fascists are guilty of the holocaust of WW2. Got it

You can't sit back and allow people to kill millions of other people because of libertarianism. That isn't what libertarianism is supposed to be about. My freedom to wave my arms around ends when my arms are in your face affecting your movement or worse hitting you. My freedom to be a Nazi ends well before I am running around killing Jews. The same with wearing masks or vaccinating. My freedom to not wear a mask or be vaccinated ends when I am spreading infections to the populace, killing people. If you see some idiot waving their arms in someone else's face to hit them, tell them to stop. If you see a Nazi about to kill a Jew, defend the Jew. You might have to kill some Nazis to do it. If you have a population of idiots not vaccinating or wearing masks such that there are covid surges with people dying excessively, you make some policies or allow businesses to make rules requiring masks and vaccinations. This isn't rocket science.

It's insane calling my position libertarian. You're so off the rails now.

Your post has no substance. You've completely lost the argument you created.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It is a fact that it increases the risks.


It is more complicated than that, though. Many of the things we do or do not do increase some risks for others. But purely for example, with regards to vaccines, this applies to other illnesses as well, e.g., the flu. The risk of harm is considerably less than with covid, but it's still a risk, and people still die due to flu viruses. Sure, you could mandate that one too.

I used to work for a hospital and the flu vaccine was mandated for employees. So if covid mandates are more in scope, while as you said covid is more of a risk, then it is perfectly compatible with risk assessment for flu deaths.

I'm not claiming that that is incompatible. I was replying to bilby's post in which he went from the fact that is harms others (or rather, creates risks to others) to the assessment that people should not be allowed to choose.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is a fact that it increases the risks.

Individual, it increases risk. In aggregate, people died. To hang a hat on "risk" is just... there really aren't any words to describe it.

It is more complicated than that, though. Many of the things we do or do not do increase some risks for others. But purely for example, with regards to vaccines, this applies to other illnesses as well, e.g., the flu. The risk of harm is considerably less than with covid, but it's still a risk, and people still die due to flu viruses. Sure, you could mandate that one too. But there are plenty of other behaviors. It's not enough that it increases the risks for others.

Not increasing risk... filling hospitals, entire wards running out of oxygen. Massive fires killing patients. Running out of ICU beds. Flu hasn't done that since... well... we tried to mask up last.

It is a fact that the risks increase. But then, even with a speed limit of say 100km/h in a road, the risk is surely greater than with say 40km/h. And road trips - for example - create risks that remaining at home would not create. And so on. The point is that plenty of things that are allowed create more risks than banning them or further restricting them. And the question(s) of what is proper for a government to ban is a difficult one. It's not fascism to have some restrictions to people's freedoms obviously. But that does not make all restrictions okay, even if they reduce risks, and the question is difficult: it's about how much freedom is it obligatory, permissible or impermissible for a person in a government position to choose to restrict in order to achieve which goals. In many cases, it is really hard.

The question is whether one's freedom is allowed to cast its shadow on another's coffin.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It is a fact that it increases the risks.

The consequences of those risks are being actualized so they are not just statistically hypothetical results. So it is fair to say that it is in fact harming others, as evidenced by the vast majority of hospitalizations and deaths being among the unvaccinated.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It is a fact that it increases the risks.


It is more complicated than that, though. Many of the things we do or do not do increase some risks for others. But purely for example, with regards to vaccines, this applies to other illnesses as well, e.g., the flu. The risk of harm is considerably less than with covid, but it's still a risk, and people still die due to flu viruses. Sure, you could mandate that one too.

I used to work for a hospital and the flu vaccine was mandated for employees. So if covid mandates are more in scope, while as you said covid is more of a risk, then it is perfectly compatible with risk assessment for flu deaths.

I'm not claiming that that is incompatible. I was replying to bilby's post in which he went from the fact that is harms others (or rather, creates risks to others) to the assessment that people should not be allowed to choose.

And that assessment is compatible with flu vaccination mandates so why even bring them up?

 

[Worldtraveller]

We've discussed this before. I think you're a fucking fascist. Sorry to be blunt. But there it is. Your idea of liberalism isn't liberalism at all IMHO.

Bullshit. Living in a society comes with responsibilities. That's why we have these things called laws.

Or do you run red lights, drive on the wrong side of the road, and just drive as fast as you want? You're idea of liberalism is akin to a toddler's. Freedom is not a catchall caveat to do whatever the fuck you want, especially when it impacts other people's lives.

I think i should be free to just come in your house and take whatever I want. You cool with that right, because fuck anyone that wants to restrict MY freedom!

Funny that you called me childish. Lol.

Great argument. That sure showed me. Going to someone's house stealing their stuff is EXACTLY THE SAME

So, you got nothing.

 

[repoman]

I'm not claiming that that is incompatible. I was replying to bilby's post in which he went from the fact that is harms others (or rather, creates risks to others) to the assessment that people should not be allowed to choose.

And that assessment is compatible with flu vaccination mandates so why even bring them up?

where are there flu vaccine mandates?

 

[Swammerdami]

It's insane calling my position libertarian. You're so off the rails now.

I must be insane or off the rails also, because I find that your posts here and in other threads often reek of a "libertarian" philosophy.

Would it be possible for you to construct a calm, brief and objective paragraph explaining how your views on this matter differ from those of libertarians?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm not claiming that that is incompatible. I was replying to bilby's post in which he went from the fact that is harms others (or rather, creates risks to others) to the assessment that people should not be allowed to choose.

And that assessment is compatible with flu vaccination mandates so why even bring them up?

where are there flu vaccine mandates?

At various hospitals, for employees. Since covid is worse risk than flu, it makes sense covid vaccine mandates would be bigger in scope.

 

[Toni]

where are there flu vaccine mandates?

At various hospitals, for employees. Since covid is worse risk than flu, it makes sense covid vaccine mandates would be bigger in scope.

Not just hospitals but a lot of health care facilities. In my opinion, ALL ethical health care facilities mandate for all employees with exceptions for those with a valid medical reason to not be vaccinated. My employer mandates flu vaccines annually and also Hep B if you haven't already been vaccinated. They have mandated COVID19 since the vaccines became available. All these vaccinations are done in the work place, on company time. It's an expectation, just as it's an expectation that children are vaccinated against various illnesses before attending school or daycare. Or college.

 

[Toni]

It is a fact that it increases the risks.


It is more complicated than that, though. Many of the things we do or do not do increase some risks for others. But purely for example, with regards to vaccines, this applies to other illnesses as well, e.g., the flu. The risk of harm is considerably less than with covid, but it's still a risk, and people still die due to flu viruses. Sure, you could mandate that one too.

I used to work for a hospital and the flu vaccine was mandated for employees. So if covid mandates are more in scope, while as you said covid is more of a risk, then it is perfectly compatible with risk assessment for flu deaths.

I'm not claiming that that is incompatible. I was replying to bilby's post in which he went from the fact that is harms others (or rather, creates risks to others) to the assessment that people should not be allowed to choose.

It DOES harm others if you contract the illness and spread it to others or become sufficiently ill that you require hospitalization, eating up valuable resources that divert the ability of hospitals to provide care for others who may have cancer, be suffering from heart attacks, be giving birth, or in some way require hospital services that they are denied or which are compromised because of the diversion to treat critically ill COVID19 patients.

Of course, we haven't begun to get the bill for all of this.

 

[Worldtraveller]

where are there flu vaccine mandates?

At various hospitals, for employees. Since covid is worse risk than flu, it makes sense covid vaccine mandates would be bigger in scope.

Also public have had vaccine requirements since what, the 50s?

I grew up in the military. I had to get vaccines for things most people have probably never heard of. And they kept track of the mundane things like tetanus and stuff so we were always up to date.

But muh freedoms. Your freedom to risk other people can get fucked.

I'm against nanny state laws that protect idiots from themselves, but there's this thing called 'general welfare'. If your actions (such as dunk driving) cause a danger to others, that is exactly what the government is for you fucking selfish pig headed idiots!

 

[Rhea]

It’s not about some “right” to have parents say what their kids can wear…. It never was.