# Covid-19 miscellany

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Anti vax bully gets bullied by covid
According to this obituary, Wally died on Febuary 3rd, 2022, and according to his GoFundMe the cause was COVID. Now, what's left of Wally's Facebook is simply a bunch of "I trust my immune system" and "I don't care if you're vaccinated" profile frames. Normally, I only post people with these limited anti-vaxx posts who also happen to be Healthcare Professionals. However, someone who knows Wally very well sent me this message and it's the best submission I've gotten. I removed some passages that might have identified this person, but what's left is enough to get the picture:

"This man lived in Bernardsville, NJ his entire life, he bullied the free Covid vaccine clinic in Bernardsville by driving his pickup truck and screaming at anyone who tried to get a vaccine. Wally Harms , the anti-vax menace about town who acted like he was the Mayor (worth noting, this town is right next to Trump Nat'l Golf club in Bedminster, NJ, and Wally was the Pro-Trumo anti-vax poster child. I checked his many obituaries and NONE of them mentioned his cause of death. The final sentence of his obituary says " He will be missed by so many, but the deer and turkey of western NJ can sleep with both eyes closed tonight." You cannot make this stuff up. the reason I am submitting this is because Wally spent the entirety of covid defying any mask , vaccine, social distancing mandates and threatened Bernards High School if they enforced mask wearing upon his children. The reason I am submitting this isnt because Wally relentlessly tortured others from the time he was in grade school, myself included, my reasoning is because I want something GOOD to come out of his death... in addition to the great news that this rabid antivaxxer can scream and bully no more. I can tell my 5 - 17 year old self that I finally stood up to the kid who bullied me for 12 years."

#### crazyfingers

##### Supermagnon
Staff member
I think it goes both ways. If CDC is overly specific on what is immunocompromise, that puts doctors in a box. They know what is and isn't allowed, but could have patients they feel should qualify, but good luck getting that changed. CDC guidelines being lax provides doctors less guidance, which they really do actually want, but provides them with the ability to use their considerable knowledge to make a call. With the vaccine really showing virtually no bad side effects, the pro-con is a bit easier.

If the vaccine had complications, I think the CDC would be more proactive in listing what constituted as qualifying for immunocompromised.
Makes sense but the CDC could say check with your doctor or pharmasist whether your condition qualifies" instead of only providing extreme examples like transplant or cancer patient.

#### TSwizzle

##### Let's Go Brandon!
America's coronavirus tsar, Dr. Anthony Fauci, silenced any discussion about COVID being caused by a lab leak - and not through animal-to-human transmission - after helping a controversial scientist get millions in federal funding to study bats, a Vanity Fair investigation has revealed. Analyzing more than 100,000 leaked documents, the magazine claimed that Fauci's approval of Peter Daszak helped his nonprofit, EcoHealth Alliance, an organization dedicated to shielding society from emerging infectious diseases, to develop the COVID-19 virus in a laboratory in China. They also claim researchers associated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, including Daszak, tried to hide evidence about the pandemic’s early spread as lab leak hypotheses began to emerge.

Daily Mail

All very shifty.

#### TomC

##### Celestial Highness
All very shifty.

As opposed to what?

President Trump claiming that C19 is no worse than a cold and the country will be open again in time for Easter shopping?
Tom

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
All very shifty.

As opposed to what?

President Trump claiming that C19 is no worse than a cold and the country will be open again in time for Easter shopping?
Tom
The fact that literally millions of Americans, (including major media outlets) and billions of people worldwide, have been discussing the highly implausible and evidence-free speculation that COVID originated in a laboratory, stands as an instant disproof of any claim that any individual has silenced such discussions - a feat that would certainly be beyond the powers of any person.

To claim that such discussions have been silenced in an article discussing the topic in a widely read publication is totally insane; To believe that self-refuting claim is even worse.

Of course, you haven't been allowed to read this post, and I haven't been allowed to write it, because TSwizzle has silenced any discussion of the hypothesis that Vanity Fair and the Daily Mail might be full of shit.

How incredibly shifty it was of him to do that.

#### repoman

##### Contributor
Why is so much of this covid policy and science being looked at through the lens of trying to point out hypocrisy and inconsistencies?

I am NOT innocent of this myself, so I am not trying to say I have any high ground.

#### repoman

##### Contributor
All very shifty.

As opposed to what?

President Trump claiming that C19 is no worse than a cold and the country will be open again in time for Easter shopping?
Tom
The fact that literally millions of Americans, (including major media outlets) and billions of people worldwide, have been discussing the highly implausible and evidence-free speculation that COVID originated in a laboratory, stands as an instant disproof of any claim that any individual has silenced such discussions - a feat that would certainly be beyond the powers of any person.

To claim that such discussions have been silenced in an article discussing the topic in a widely read publication is totally insane; To believe that self-refuting claim is even worse.

Of course, you haven't been allowed to read this post, and I haven't been allowed to write it, because TSwizzle has silenced any discussion of the hypothesis that Vanity Fair and the Daily Mail might be full of shit.

How incredibly shifty it was of him to do that.

There is a one hundred percent certainty that Bilby read the entire article with an open mind.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
All very shifty.

As opposed to what?

President Trump claiming that C19 is no worse than a cold and the country will be open again in time for Easter shopping?
Tom
The fact that literally millions of Americans, (including major media outlets) and billions of people worldwide, have been discussing the highly implausible and evidence-free speculation that COVID originated in a laboratory, stands as an instant disproof of any claim that any individual has silenced such discussions - a feat that would certainly be beyond the powers of any person.

To claim that such discussions have been silenced in an article discussing the topic in a widely read publication is totally insane; To believe that self-refuting claim is even worse.

Of course, you haven't been allowed to read this post, and I haven't been allowed to write it, because TSwizzle has silenced any discussion of the hypothesis that Vanity Fair and the Daily Mail might be full of shit.

How incredibly shifty it was of him to do that.

There is a one hundred percent certainty that Bilby read the entire article with an open mind.
The content of the article, and the openness of my mind, are completely irrelevant to my point, which is that the very existence of tne article disproves the claim that Fauci has "silenced any discussion" of the subject.

They are discussing it. WE are discussing it. NOBODY has silenced them, us, or anyone.

#### Keith&Co.

##### Contributor
Why is so much of this covid policy and science being looked at through the lens of trying to point out hypocrisy and inconsistencies?

Probably because of Trump taking the lead in hypocrisy from tge very start? Or even BEFORE the start, closing the office created to deal with outbreaks for petulant reasons?
Hypocrisy that continues as people try to justify Trump's response, demonize Biden's, or make money from fleecing the credible anti-vax crowd.

Just a thought....

#### Rhea

##### Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
America's coronavirus tsar, Dr. Anthony Fauci, silenced any discussion about COVID being caused by a lab leak - and not through animal-to-human transmission - after helping a controversial scientist get millions in federal funding to study bats, a Vanity Fair investigation has revealed. Analyzing more than 100,000 leaked documents, the magazine claimed that Fauci's approval of Peter Daszak helped his nonprofit, EcoHealth Alliance, an organization dedicated to shielding society from emerging infectious diseases, to develop the COVID-19 virus in a laboratory in China. They also claim researchers associated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, including Daszak, tried to hide evidence about the pandemic’s early spread as lab leak hypotheses began to emerge.

Daily Mail

All very shifty.

An interesting context to this emotional outrage porn post of TSwizzle is that the source of the information that causes TSwizzle to think something is “very shifty,” is, in fact, Very Shifty.

Let’s dig into what this means for the discussion.

We can all see that TSwizzle uses the Daily Mail exclusively to report all of the context for his opinions. He relies on and exclusively uses as support a news site that is deemed shifty.

### How Factual Is the Daily Mail?​

Over a dataset of 1,000 articles, the Daily Mail scored an average Factual Grade of 39.7%. This is well below the average of 61.9% for all 240 news sources that we analyzed. This places Daily Mail in the 1st percentile of our dataset — it scored the third-lowest of any news source.

For example, the Daily Mail links to itself as support for itself.

### How Opinionated Is the Daily Mail?​

the algorithm looks for signs of subjective commentary (e.g., first person pronouns, unnecessary adverbs), as well as the emotional nature of selected words, and sees how prevalent they are for a given length of text. Text which is less opinionated gets higher ratings, with “0” being the most opinionated and “1” being the most neutral.

The Daily Mail had an average Writing Tone score of 0.38, placing it in the 18th percentile in our dataset. This suggests that articles from Daily Mail are often highly opinionated. This compares to an average Writing Tone score of 0.54 for all 240 news sources.
So adding emotion and trying to manipulate their audience.

And while “Bias” is not a show-stopper, the Daily Mail has a special place in extremism that demonstrates its use of bias to feed emotional acceptance of falshoods, or perhaps uses emotional acceptance of falsehoods to feed its bias.

### What Is the Daily Mail’s Political Bias?​

The Factual classifies news sites by political bias, as either Left, Moderate Left, Center, Moderate Right, or Right. This classification pulls from third-party assessments from media bias organizations such as AllSides and Media Bias/Fact Check. Based on this data, The Factual assigns Daily Mail a “Right” bias.

An August 2021 review by an AllSides editor found the site to be “sensationalist, tabloid bent, often choosing to highlight individual stories that elicit shock or heightened emotions.”

Some supplemental headlines Media Bias/Fact Check(MBFC) provides, such as “Woman, 63, ‘becomes PREGNANT in the mouth’ with baby squid after eating calamari,” reveals the often sensationalist and emotionally loaded wording in a misleading headline.

At any rate what this sourse says about the information that it delivers is that
1. It’s likely not true
2. What is true is distorted by adding false emotion and misleading discription such that the truth is no longer detectable, and
3. It has an agenda to move the discussion window away from discovery of factual or reasonable understanding.
Now, the next question would be, “Why does TSwizzle use this source exclusively to contribute to discussions?“. That may be difficult to discern.
• Is it because TSwizzle is unaware of the unreliability of this source? Does he read it and really embrace and believe its content, such as the 63 year old woman becoming pregnant in the mouth with baby squid after eating calamari?
• Is it because TSwizzle has seen that people find this source to be detrimental to meaningful discussion and he likes the idea of attacking and destroying the quality of a discussion? Sort of a deliberate and gleeful vandal?
• Is it because TSwizzle is unaware of other sources of news that can provide a more reliable view of a topic? A parochial bubble that makes him think the whole world is like the Daily Mail?
• Is TSwizzle capable of discerning truth from agitprop? Does he accept anything he hears from any source at all and churn in an ever-changing landscape of uncertainty?

One can’t say. All one knows is that TSwizzle exclusive uses this unreliable media source to support his arguments for things that he then labels “Very Shifty.”

And at that point, TSwizzle‘s arguments at all times sort of become The Daily Mail, like a pop-up advertisement for Increasing Your Manhood! that you can‘t close.

#### crazyfingers

##### Supermagnon
Staff member
At any rate what this sourse says about the information that it delivers is that
Source?

#### Elixir

Warning Level 1
“Why does TSwizzle use this source exclusively to contribute to discussions?“

Confirmation bias is a powerful thing. Ya get it where ya find it...

#### TSwizzle

##### Let's Go Brandon!
An interesting context to this emotional outrage porn post of TSwizzle is that the source of the information that causes TSwizzle to think something is “very shifty,” is, in fact, Very Shifty.

Let’s dig into what this means for the discussion.

We can all see that TSwizzle uses the Daily Mail exclusively to report all of the context for his opinions. He relies on and exclusively uses as support a news site that is deemed shifty.
“Outrage porn”? Behave yourself.

Your odd treatise on the Daily Mail says nothing about the actual content of the article. You could try reading the Vanity Fair version.

#### Rhea

##### Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
At any rate what this sourse says about the information that it delivers is that
Source?

(sorry, I put it into the link to the words “Daily Mail” in the last paragraph.)

#### Rhea

##### Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
An interesting context to this emotional outrage porn post of TSwizzle is that the source of the information that causes TSwizzle to think something is “very shifty,” is, in fact, Very Shifty.

Let’s dig into what this means for the discussion.

We can all see that TSwizzle uses the Daily Mail exclusively to report all of the context for his opinions. He relies on and exclusively uses as support a news site that is deemed shifty.
“Outrage porn”? Behave yourself.
Seems accurate.
TheFactual said:
headlines and text are generally heavily opinionated or sensationalized;

Your odd treatise on the Daily Mail says nothing about the actual content of the article. You could try reading the Vanity Fair version.
Is this like asking me why I haven’t read and commented on an article from the National Enquirer?
You post the Daily Mail every time.

TheFactual said:
The site has failed numerous fact checks, generally linked to deliberate attempts to spread fake news, implying that the publication seeks to profit from hoaxes or disinformation.

There’s enough previous data to stop following your links to that site.

Last edited:

#### TSwizzle

##### Let's Go Brandon!
There are a lot of words in your treatise but still off topic.

#### Angra Mainyu

##### Veteran Member
Rhea said:
An interesting context to this emotional outrage porn post of TSwizzle is that the source of the information that causes TSwizzle to think something is “very shifty,” is, in fact, Very Shifty.

Let’s dig into what this means for the discussion.
Given that the Daily Mail was citing Vanity Fair, a much better way of assessing the matter would be to go to the source and check whether the Daily Mail was misrepresenting it - or just leave aside the Daily Mail and consider the source(s) only.

In fact, the Daily Mail provided the link to the source.

Also, btw, long ago in the thread I already posted good sources on some very shifty behavior, backed up by other sources. But they got moved to another thread. I add them below, together with further sources:

You can look up the sources in different websites, to assess their reliability. For example:

#### Rhea

##### Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Given that the Daily Mail was citing Vanity Fair, a much better way of assessing the matter would be to go to the source and check whether the Daily Mail was misrepresenting it - or just leave aside the Daily Mail and consider the source(s) only.

That is exactly my point.

#### Elixir

Warning Level 1
Given that the Daily Mail was citing Vanity Fair, a much better way of assessing the matter would be to go to the source and check whether the Daily Mail was misrepresenting it - or just leave aside the Daily Mail and consider the source(s) only.

That is exactly my point.

A hypothetical nothingburger cooked up by republitards to distract voters from their intent to destroy American democracy at the behest of their Orange Jabba the Hutt?

“Ooooohh Noooooes!! Fauci and Hunter cooked up the China virus to destroy Donald the Great!”

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Given that the Daily Mail was citing Vanity Fair, a much better way of assessing the matter would be to go to the source and check whether the Daily Mail was misrepresenting it - or just leave aside the Daily Mail and consider the source(s) only.

That is exactly my point.

A hypothetical nothingburger cooked up by republitards to distract voters from their intent to destroy American democracy at the behest of their Orange Jabba the Hutt?

“Ooooohh Noooooes!! Fauci and Hunter cooked up the China virus to destroy Donald the Great!”
About the paucity of TSwizzle's news sources.

There's an important difference between someone who reads broadly, and stumbles across an article in Vanity Fair that they think interesting or important, and somebody who only sees Vanity Fair articles if they are directed to do so by the Daily Mail, which they use as their exclusive (or almost exclusive) primary source of information.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT SWEDEN 🧵
ICYMI, science journal Nature has published a scathing assessment of Sweden's pandemic response as the country declares COVID's endemicity. 1/16

The damning "Evaluation of science advice during the COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden" by Brusselaers et al paints a grim picture of a country seemingly culling its elderly & vulnerable populations while deliberately infecting children in an effort to reach "herd immunity". 2/16

More on herd immunity & COVID can be found in Nature here: Five reasons why COVID herd immunity is probably impossible (Even with vaccination efforts in full force, the theoretical threshold for vanquishing COVID-19 looks to be out of reach.)

"The Swedish response to this pandemic," the researchers report, "was unique and characterized by a morally, ethically, and scientifically questionable laissez-faire approach." 3/16

The Swedish government avoided mandates & instead relied on people taking "personal responsibility" for their safety (sound familiar, Australia?). The LA Times reported that Sweden shunned lockdowns & masks while keeping schools, restaurants & businesses largely open. 4/16

The researchers included this timeline of Sweden's health measures & key events in the early part of the pandemic correlated against COVID waves:

*It can also be found here: Fig. 1: Timeline. | Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 5/16

According to Brusselaers et al, in Stockholm, triage rules stated that patients with comorbidities were not to be admitted to intensive care units, on grounds that they were "unlikely to recover." 6/16

Many elderly people were administered morphine instead of oxygen despite available supplies, effectively ending their lives, the researchers reported. 7/16

"Potentially life-saving treatment was withheld without medical examination, and without informing the patient or his/her family or asking permission." 8/16

The Swedish government reportedly kept people "in ignorance of basic facts" such as COVID being airborne, that asymptomatic individuals can be contagious & that face masks protect both the carrier & others. 9/16

Many schools did not inform parents or even teachers about confirmed COVID-19 transmission on the premises, nor reported it to official agencies, and urged parents not to tell if their children were infected—since this would “spread fear.” 10/16

Sweden's Twitter account for COVID stats @COVIDSweden hasn't been updated for a while, so we turn to @OurWorldInData which shows Sweden's staggeringly high death rate per million here: 11/16
(most recently: Sweden: 1800, Denmark 960, Finland 520, Norway 440, Iceland 280 -- the US is at 3000)

Clearly, and as Brusselaers et al note, projected "natural herd-immunity" levels remain nowhere in sight.

The research by Brusselaers et al can be found in Nature here: Evaluation of science advice during the COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden | Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 12/16

One of the researchers, David Steadson, observed that while the research has been accessed 112 thousand times, Swedish media have yet to report on any aspect of it:

David Steadson 🇦🇺🇸🇪🇺🇦🇪🇺🌍 on Twitter: "Our paper about the Swedish pandemic response has now been accessed an astounding 112 thousand times in less than 10 days. It's ranked by Altmetric as one of the top 10 papers of the past 8 weeks and currently #301 of the past 11 years! 😬

David Steadson 🇦🇺🇸🇪🇺🇦🇪🇺🌍 on Twitter: "And yet ... as far as I know, *not once* has the paper been mentioned in Swedish media.

Reuters wrote about Sweden's declaration that the pandemic was over here: Sweden declare pandemic over, despite warnings from scientists | Reuters

Nonetheless, the LA Times wrote about the Brusselaers et al research in Nature here: (link) 15/16
Los Angeles Times on Twitter: ""The details of Swedish policies as described [in a new study] are horrifying. The Swedish government...deliberately tried to use children to spread COVID-19 and denied care to seniors and those suffering from other conditions."

Here's hoping Australia can learn from the mistakes outlined in this paper & that the Swedish Government is held accountable moving forward. 16/16
Seems like a total disaster.

#### Metaphor

##### Zarobljenik u hrastu
Banned
Update, all statistics 7-day averages, and peaks refer to current wave (all time refers to highest of any wave).

Daily new cases and deaths have fallen worldwide and in the US since the 16 March update.

New cases:
Latest worldwide     1.41m (daily - 2 Apr 2022)

Peak worldwide       3.44m (daily - 24 Jan 2022)

All time worldwide   3.44m (daily - 24 Jan 2022)

Latest US        30k (daily - 2 Apr 2022)

Peak US         807k (daily - 14 Jan 2022)

All time US     807k (daily - 14 Jan 2022)

Deaths:
Latest worldwide       4,191 (daily - 2 Apr 2022)

Peak worldwide       10,926 (daily - 10 Feb 2022)

All time worldwide   14,706 (daily - 26 Jan 2021)

Latest US       646 (daily - 2 Apr 2022)

Peak US       2,670 (daily - 1 Feb 2022)

All time US   3,347 (daily - 13 Jan 2021)

#### Swammerdami

Staff member
I was saddened to see this article. Lies are spreading on Facebook that only vaccinated people are eligible for aid from the Ukrainian government. Totally false. I didn't click again but it appears that ... guess who ... Americans are the principal liars.

The anti-Vax idiocy really is a rapture-like cult!

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member

Deciding it's over doesn't make it so. ID docs are going to have a much better understanding than QOP "docs".

#### Elixir

Warning Level 1

Deciding it's over doesn't make it so. ID docs are going to have a much better understanding than QOP "docs".
Does it even matter?
The window of opportunity to quell this disease closed around February 2020.
We will go forward as a sicker population, at least for a while. No matter who is in denial, or who is proactive about suppressing transmission, we are stuck with this new contagion … none of our beliefs or counter-measures matter any more.
I have some sniffles for the first time in a few years (got from my wife, I’m pretty sure). Also have some COVID tests, but no inclination to even take one (or two, per the recommendation). Why bother?

#### TSwizzle

##### Let's Go Brandon!
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is receiving mounting opposition to its approval of fourth COVID-19 vaccine doses for all Americans aged 50 and older. The agency broke standard practice when it made the decision last month, electing not to take advice from a panel of independent experts. Some of those who would have advised on the decision are now voicing their objections to the authorization, and the lack of transparency the FDA displayed in the lead up to it. Dr Marty Makary, a medical commentator and public policy expert from Johns Hopkins University, wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) this week criticizing the FDA and its lack of transparency in the process of approving the additional shot. While federal regulators push for more Covid vaccines, cases in the U.S. have fallen below 30,000 per day once again and deaths from the virus remain low as well. 'Some of the FDA's own experts disagree with the decision, but the agency simply ignored them,' Makary wrote.

Daily Mail

I doubt I will get a second booster anytime soon, I'm not convinced it is necessary. I will get an annual flu shot later in the year.

#### Artemus

##### Veteran Member

I doubt I will get a second booster anytime soon, I'm not convinced it is necessary. I will get an annual flu shot later in the year.

I got a second booster because I'm not convinced it is not necessary. Maybe we should adjust Pascal's wager to something meaningful: You should get it because if you needed it will prevent premature death or long Covid and if you didn't need it it cost nothing.

#### Metaphor

##### Zarobljenik u hrastu
Banned

I doubt I will get a second booster anytime soon, I'm not convinced it is necessary. I will get an annual flu shot later in the year.

I got a second booster because I'm not convinced it is not necessary. Maybe we should adjust Pascal's wager to something meaningful: You should get it because if you needed it will prevent premature death or long Covid and if you didn't need it it cost nothing.
That fails for the same reason Pascal's wager fails. Being religious doesn't cost you nothing. In fact, it is often time-consuming and expensive and boring.

#### Artemus

##### Veteran Member

I doubt I will get a second booster anytime soon, I'm not convinced it is necessary. I will get an annual flu shot later in the year.

I got a second booster because I'm not convinced it is not necessary. Maybe we should adjust Pascal's wager to something meaningful: You should get it because if you needed it will prevent premature death or long Covid and if you didn't need it it cost nothing.
That fails for the same reason Pascal's wager fails. Being religious doesn't cost you nothing. In fact, it is often time-consuming and expensive and boring.

What exactly did the booster cost me? (Not time. My wife gave it to me when I picked her up for dinner.)

#### marc

##### Veteran Member

I doubt I will get a second booster anytime soon, I'm not convinced it is necessary. I will get an annual flu shot later in the year.

I got a second booster because I'm not convinced it is not necessary. Maybe we should adjust Pascal's wager to something meaningful: You should get it because if you needed it will prevent premature death or long Covid and if you didn't need it it cost nothing.
That fails for the same reason Pascal's wager fails. Being religious doesn't cost you nothing. In fact, it is often time-consuming and expensive and boring.

What exactly did the booster cost me? (Not time. My wife gave it to me when I picked her up for dinner.)
Got my second booster at a pharmacy around the corner. Could walk there in under 5 minutes, and pick up prescriptions at the same time.

#### Metaphor

##### Zarobljenik u hrastu
Banned

I doubt I will get a second booster anytime soon, I'm not convinced it is necessary. I will get an annual flu shot later in the year.

I got a second booster because I'm not convinced it is not necessary. Maybe we should adjust Pascal's wager to something meaningful: You should get it because if you needed it will prevent premature death or long Covid and if you didn't need it it cost nothing.
That fails for the same reason Pascal's wager fails. Being religious doesn't cost you nothing. In fact, it is often time-consuming and expensive and boring.

What exactly did the booster cost me? (Not time. My wife gave it to me when I picked her up for dinner.)
I have no idea what it cost you. If it was free to you, that means someone else paid. If you don't mind a needle in the arm, you didn't pay that price.

Why on earth do you think your subjective evaluation of something is everyone else's?

#### Metaphor

##### Zarobljenik u hrastu
Banned

I doubt I will get a second booster anytime soon, I'm not convinced it is necessary. I will get an annual flu shot later in the year.

I got a second booster because I'm not convinced it is not necessary. Maybe we should adjust Pascal's wager to something meaningful: You should get it because if you needed it will prevent premature death or long Covid and if you didn't need it it cost nothing.
That fails for the same reason Pascal's wager fails. Being religious doesn't cost you nothing. In fact, it is often time-consuming and expensive and boring.

What exactly did the booster cost me? (Not time. My wife gave it to me when I picked her up for dinner.)
Got my second booster at a pharmacy around the corner. Could walk there in under 5 minutes, and pick up prescriptions at the same time.
I'm so glad nobody has ever paid any price for a booster, including the government providing it to you.

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor

I doubt I will get a second booster anytime soon, I'm not convinced it is necessary. I will get an annual flu shot later in the year.

I got a second booster because I'm not convinced it is not necessary. Maybe we should adjust Pascal's wager to something meaningful: You should get it because if you needed it will prevent premature death or long Covid and if you didn't need it it cost nothing.
That fails for the same reason Pascal's wager fails. Being religious doesn't cost you nothing. In fact, it is often time-consuming and expensive and boring.

What exactly did the booster cost me? (Not time. My wife gave it to me when I picked her up for dinner.)
I have no idea what it cost you. If it was free to you, that means someone else paid. If you don't mind a needle in the arm, you didn't pay that price.

Why on earth do you think your subjective evaluation of something is everyone else's?
So is that anti-vax or just being argumentative? I mean, it isn't much more than a stone throw to say the same about measles and mumps, and that kills fewer.

We have the stats showing that vax'ing greatly reduces need for hospitalizations (which costs a lot of money to insurance companies and corporations that provide health care to their workers), and death (a terminal condition). We also have the data showing there is a waning of the vaccine over a six to eight month period of time. And we currently have two philosophies as to whether a second booster is needed (and for whom)... none of which invoke a Pascal Wager.

Regarding costs, the company I work for paid out $1 million in hospital costs due to Covid-19 transmission. And we aren't a huge company. #### Artemus ##### Veteran Member What exactly did the booster cost me? (Not time. My wife gave it to me when I picked her up for dinner.) I have no idea what it cost you. If it was free to you, that means someone else paid. If you don't mind a needle in the arm, you didn't pay that price. Why on earth do you think your subjective evaluation of something is everyone else's? Pascal's wager applies at the personal level. In terms of societal cost, boosters save far more money in terms of health care costs and lost productivity than they cost to administer. So zero to lose, much to gain at both personal and societal levels. If you don't mind a needle in the arm That is not a cost for anyone. #### Jimmy Higgins ##### Contributor Exactly. It saves corporations money. It saves the potential patient money. It helps the economy by reducing temporary worker shortages. AND the vaccinated people have a much less chance at hospitalization and death. This is a two foot putt on a flat green to win the US Open at the 18th hole and Metaphor (the golfer), starts thinking to himself: "I'm an awesome golfer. Why do I need to sink this putt to get a bunch of golf establishment types approval of my greatness? I don't need the US Open, I don't their adoration. I'm the greatest!" *grabs driver and smacks the ball, which crushes into some person's skull* #### Metaphor ##### Zarobljenik u hrastu Banned I doubt I will get a second booster anytime soon, I'm not convinced it is necessary. I will get an annual flu shot later in the year. I got a second booster because I'm not convinced it is not necessary. Maybe we should adjust Pascal's wager to something meaningful: You should get it because if you needed it will prevent premature death or long Covid and if you didn't need it it cost nothing. That fails for the same reason Pascal's wager fails. Being religious doesn't cost you nothing. In fact, it is often time-consuming and expensive and boring. What exactly did the booster cost me? (Not time. My wife gave it to me when I picked her up for dinner.) I have no idea what it cost you. If it was free to you, that means someone else paid. If you don't mind a needle in the arm, you didn't pay that price. Why on earth do you think your subjective evaluation of something is everyone else's? So is that anti-vax or just being argumentative? I mean, it isn't much more than a stone throw to say the same about measles and mumps, and that kills fewer. We have the stats showing that vax'ing greatly reduces need for hospitalizations (which costs a lot of money to insurance companies and corporations that provide health care to their workers), and death (a terminal condition). We also have the data showing there is a waning of the vaccine over a six to eight month period of time. And we currently have two philosophies as to whether a second booster is needed (and for whom)... none of which invoke a Pascal Wager. Regarding costs, the company I work for paid out$1 million in hospital costs due to Covid-19 transmission. And we aren't a huge company.
I am not anti-vax. I am vaxxed and boostered. But it's simply dishonest to say getting another shot costs nothing.

#### Metaphor

##### Zarobljenik u hrastu
Banned

What exactly did the booster cost me? (Not time. My wife gave it to me when I picked her up for dinner.)
I have no idea what it cost you. If it was free to you, that means someone else paid. If you don't mind a needle in the arm, you didn't pay that price.

Why on earth do you think your subjective evaluation of something is everyone else's?

Pascal's wager applies at the personal level. In terms of societal cost, boosters save far more money in terms of health care costs and lost productivity than they cost to administer. So zero to lose, much to gain at both personal and societal levels.
Do you mean a second booster, a third, a fourth?

Do you think we can go on vaxxing the entire population every six months forever?

If you don't mind a needle in the arm
That is not a cost for anyone.
Of course it is.

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Do you think we can go on vaxxing the entire population every six months forever?
Yes, if need be. Why do you think we can't?

#### Metaphor

##### Zarobljenik u hrastu
Banned
Do you think we can go on vaxxing the entire population every six months forever?
Yes, if need be. Why do you think we can't?
Because we can't. It's ludicrous to think vaccinating 7 billion people every six months is sustainable. It's not. It is politically impossible because the population won't do it.

#### TomC

##### Celestial Highness
Do you think we can go on vaxxing the entire population every six months forever?

Assuming you're talking about 1st world people as "the entire population" (a common issue amongst 1st world people) there's no reason why vaccination every six months is a problem.

It's a cost/benefit equation. Is providing vaccines a more economical policy than not providing them?
I'm pretty sure it is.
Tom

#### TomC

##### Celestial Highness
It's ludicrous to think vaccinating 7 billion people every six months is sustainable.
Do you understand the point to herd immunity?

Herd immunity is where so many people are protected from a particular illness that most people don't need to worry about it.

The antivaxxers who insist on remaining plague rats are the moral problem. Not the people who don't have access to the vaccines.
Tom

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor

I doubt I will get a second booster anytime soon, I'm not convinced it is necessary. I will get an annual flu shot later in the year.

I got a second booster because I'm not convinced it is not necessary. Maybe we should adjust Pascal's wager to something meaningful: You should get it because if you needed it will prevent premature death or long Covid and if you didn't need it it cost nothing.
That fails for the same reason Pascal's wager fails. Being religious doesn't cost you nothing. In fact, it is often time-consuming and expensive and boring.

What exactly did the booster cost me? (Not time. My wife gave it to me when I picked her up for dinner.)
I have no idea what it cost you. If it was free to you, that means someone else paid. If you don't mind a needle in the arm, you didn't pay that price.

Why on earth do you think your subjective evaluation of something is everyone else's?
So is that anti-vax or just being argumentative? I mean, it isn't much more than a stone throw to say the same about measles and mumps, and that kills fewer.

We have the stats showing that vax'ing greatly reduces need for hospitalizations (which costs a lot of money to insurance companies and corporations that provide health care to their workers), and death (a terminal condition). We also have the data showing there is a waning of the vaccine over a six to eight month period of time. And we currently have two philosophies as to whether a second booster is needed (and for whom)... none of which invoke a Pascal Wager.

Regarding costs, the company I work for paid out $1 million in hospital costs due to Covid-19 transmission. And we aren't a huge company. I am not anti-vax. I am vaxxed and boostered. But it's simply dishonest to say getting another shot costs nothing. Cost to immunize, what 25 to 100 people, costs about the the price hospitalize 1 person. That Immunize price includes every cost since day one to develop. #### Loren Pechtel ##### Super Moderator Staff member Do you mean a second booster, a third, a fourth? Do you think we can go on vaxxing the entire population every six months forever? Why not? We do annual flu shots. #### Metaphor ##### Zarobljenik u hrastu Banned Do you think we can go on vaxxing the entire population every six months forever? Assuming you're talking about 1st world people as "the entire population" (a common issue amongst 1st world people) there's no reason why vaccination every six months is a problem. It's a cost/benefit equation. Is providing vaccines a more economical policy than not providing them? I'm pretty sure it is. Tom No. I'm not talking about only the first world. I said nothing about providing vaccines, though if course there is a cost to that. The world is not going to do it. It is not going to set up a vaccinate forever model for its entire population. #### Loren Pechtel ##### Super Moderator Staff member Cost to immunize, what 25 to 100 people, costs about the the price hospitalize 1 person. That Immunize price includes every cost since day one to develop. And that way understates the cost of Covid. What about the death and disability? And even the days off work? Vaccines are generally a very good deal. #### Metaphor ##### Zarobljenik u hrastu Banned Do you mean a second booster, a third, a fourth? Do you think we can go on vaxxing the entire population every six months forever? Why not? We do annual flu shots. No, you don't. Select people get annual flu shots. The entire population has never gotten vaxxed every six months. It won't happen. I'm not even making a moral argument. It is political reality. #### Metaphor ##### Zarobljenik u hrastu Banned I doubt I will get a second booster anytime soon, I'm not convinced it is necessary. I will get an annual flu shot later in the year. I got a second booster because I'm not convinced it is not necessary. Maybe we should adjust Pascal's wager to something meaningful: You should get it because if you needed it will prevent premature death or long Covid and if you didn't need it it cost nothing. That fails for the same reason Pascal's wager fails. Being religious doesn't cost you nothing. In fact, it is often time-consuming and expensive and boring. What exactly did the booster cost me? (Not time. My wife gave it to me when I picked her up for dinner.) I have no idea what it cost you. If it was free to you, that means someone else paid. If you don't mind a needle in the arm, you didn't pay that price. Why on earth do you think your subjective evaluation of something is everyone else's? So is that anti-vax or just being argumentative? I mean, it isn't much more than a stone throw to say the same about measles and mumps, and that kills fewer. We have the stats showing that vax'ing greatly reduces need for hospitalizations (which costs a lot of money to insurance companies and corporations that provide health care to their workers), and death (a terminal condition). We also have the data showing there is a waning of the vaccine over a six to eight month period of time. And we currently have two philosophies as to whether a second booster is needed (and for whom)... none of which invoke a Pascal Wager. Regarding costs, the company I work for paid out$1 million in hospital costs due to Covid-19 transmission. And we aren't a huge company.
I am not anti-vax. I am vaxxed and boostered. But it's simply dishonest to say getting another shot costs nothing.
Cost to immunize, what 25 to 100 people, costs about the the price hospitalize 1 person. That Immunize price includes every cost since day one to develop.
I bought some pork yesterday and ate it. It was delicious and I would buy it again. But just because I got net value from the pork doesn't mean it cost me nothing. I still paid for the pork.

#### Metaphor

##### Zarobljenik u hrastu
Banned
It's ludicrous to think vaccinating 7 billion people every six months is sustainable.
Do you understand the point to herd immunity?

Herd immunity is where so many people are protected from a particular illness that most people don't need to worry about it.

The antivaxxers who insist on remaining plague rats are the moral problem. Not the people who don't have access to the vaccines.
Tom
No country is going to set up a permanent vaccine every six months model for the entire population. I'm sorry if this reality bothers you.

#### TSwizzle

##### Let's Go Brandon!
Do you mean a second booster, a third, a fourth?

Do you think we can go on vaxxing the entire population every six months forever?

If it is being administered every six months or more regular, is it really a vaccine?

#### TomC

##### Celestial Highness
No country is going to set up a permanent vaccine every six months model for the entire population. I'm sorry if this reality bothers you.
No country will have reason to do so once we reach herd immunity.

It's not impossible. But there are better ways to accomplish the goal of reducing C19 to a problem on par with colds.
Tom