Wartime draft vs vaccine mandate

[Metaphor]

No. It is not defined.

You are incorrect - "when the pandemic is over" defines the end condition. Not understanding a definition does not disqualify it as a definition.

Actually, you are incorrect, because Toni in fact did not mean "when the pandemic is over", even though that's what she said earlier. In post #156, she now says:

Not really— it would be foolish for India to have a lockdown if Covid were eliminated there but still prevalent in Australia, fir example. It would make sense to restrict travel to/from Australia until Covid were contained/eradicated there.

However, it still really isn't clear what Toni means. If it isn't WHO's declaration (which was something in the NPR article she linked), she might mean a declaration from the CDC that America's COVID-19 epidemic is over.

The point, however, was that although you thought Toni had defined her 'stop' condition, not only was her original definition nebulous, it wasn't even what she later claimed. Her stop condition has nothing to do with 'pandemic' status, but more localised status.

 

[Metaphor]

Was that so hard? Though I'm worried by this sentence in your linked article:



And as for WHO

The WHO convenes an international committee every three months to determine if an outbreak should still be considered such a global health emergency. When it's over, the WHO says it's over. That's what it did last summer regarding an Ebola outbreak in Africa.

So, we have some answers there. Indefinite house arrest will continue in three month chunks until WHO says there is no longer a global health emergency.

Not really— it would be foolish for India to have a lockdown if Covid were eliminated there but still prevalent in Australia, fir example. It would make sense to restrict travel to/from Australia until Covid were contained/eradicated there.

In the US, smallpox vaccinations are no longer required —-except for some service members who are deployed where smallpox may still exist. Those from such areas who travel to the US must undergo health screening, proof of vaccination, etc.

The only real difference is that people today have not gone through such pandemics before. They seem not to realize that the reason we no longer are dying from smallpox is because of vaccinations and quarantines.

You might have a point if I were anti-vax or against quarantining of sick people.

 

[Toni]

Not really— it would be foolish for India to have a lockdown if Covid were eliminated there but still prevalent in Australia, fir example. It would make sense to restrict travel to/from Australia until Covid were contained/eradicated there.

In the US, smallpox vaccinations are no longer required —-except for some service members who are deployed where smallpox may still exist. Those from such areas who travel to the US must undergo health screening, proof of vaccination, etc.

The only real difference is that people today have not gone through such pandemics before. They seem not to realize that the reason we no longer are dying from smallpox is because of vaccinations and quarantines.

You might have a point if I were anti-vax or against quarantining of sick people.

My post in no way hinges on your beliefs.

 

[laughing dog]

Actually, you are incorrect, because Toni in fact did not mean "when the pandemic is over", even though that's what she said earlier.

Nope. A pandemic can refer to the entire globe or geographical areas. For example, it is acceptable to say "the covid-19 pandemic is over in Canada but not in Australia".

Hence your entire response is based on a false understanding (as usual) of a word.

 

[Metaphor]

Actually, you are incorrect, because Toni in fact did not mean "when the pandemic is over", even though that's what she said earlier.

Nope. A pandemic can refer to the entire globe or geographical areas. For example, it is acceptable to say "the covid-19 pandemic is over in Canada but not in Australia".

Hence your entire response is based on a false understanding (as usual) of a word.

A pandemic by definition does not occur in one country.

 

[Toni]

Actually, you are incorrect, because Toni in fact did not mean "when the pandemic is over", even though that's what she said earlier. In post #156, she now says:

Not really— it would be foolish for India to have a lockdown if Covid were eliminated there but still prevalent in Australia, fir example. It would make sense to restrict travel to/from Australia until Covid were contained/eradicated there.

However, it still really isn't clear what Toni means. If it isn't WHO's declaration (which was something in the NPR article she linked), she might mean a declaration from the CDC that America's COVID-19 epidemic is over.

The point, however, was that although you thought Toni had defined her 'stop' condition, not only was her original definition nebulous, it wasn't even what she later claimed. Her stop condition has nothing to do with 'pandemic' status, but more localised status.

Of course I did mean when the pandemic is over! I’m aware that pandemics occur across international borders. But the intensity, the prevalence of disease is not uniform nor is the rate of vaccination and other co tair t strategies, survival rate, access to medicines and important life saving equipment and supplies, etc. As you know very well in Australia, focused locked downs have been very effective at containing breakouts. Now Australia has access to vaccines and should be able to rely less heavily on lockdowns as more people are fully vaccinated. Frankly I wish the US had used/was using such a unified and disciplined apprach. Some states did—and others did not and so the pandemic continues. It makes sense to have rolling lockdowns depending on prevalence if outbreaks/vaccination rates, and other factors best determined by actual epidemiologists. We will need to have every effective tool available to us until we beat back Covid the way we beat back smallpox and polio.

 

[Metaphor]

As you know very well in Australia, focused locked downs have been very effective at containing breakouts.

I 'know' no such thing. Melbourne holds the world record for lockdown, and still Victoria is getting 1,800 cases a day. (To all non-Australians, Melbourne is pronounced "Mel-bin", not "Mel-born".)

Now Australia has access to vaccines and should be able to rely less heavily on lockdowns as more people are fully vaccinated. Frankly I wish the US had used/was using such a unified and disciplined apprach. Some states did—and others did not and so the pandemic continues. It makes sense to have rolling lockdowns depending on prevalence if outbreaks/vaccination rates, and other factors best determined by actual epidemiologists. We will need to have every effective tool available to us until we beat back Covid the way we beat back smallpox and polio.

Yes: I would hope that lockdowns are used less frequently, given their scarring effects on income, mental, and physical health.

 

[laughing dog]

Actually, you are incorrect, because Toni in fact did not mean "when the pandemic is over", even though that's what she said earlier.

Nope. A pandemic can refer to the entire globe or geographical areas. For example, it is acceptable to say "the covid-19 pandemic is over in Canada but not in Australia".

Hence your entire response is based on a false understanding (as usual) of a word.

A pandemic by definition does not occur in one country.

As usual, you are mistaken -
pandemic -(of a disease) prevalent over a whole country or the world (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=definition+of+pandemic).

 

[Toni]

As you know very well in Australia, focused locked downs have been very effective at containing breakouts.

I 'know' no such thing. Melbourne holds the world record for lockdown, and still Victoria is getting 1,800 cases a day. (To all non-Australians, Melbourne is pronounced "Mel-bin", not "Mel-born".)

Now Australia has access to vaccines and should be able to rely less heavily on lockdowns as more people are fully vaccinated. Frankly I wish the US had used/was using such a unified and disciplined apprach. Some states did—and others did not and so the pandemic continues. It makes sense to have rolling lockdowns depending on prevalence if outbreaks/vaccination rates, and other factors best determined by actual epidemiologists. We will need to have every effective tool available to us until we beat back Covid the way we beat back smallpox and polio.

Yes: I would hope that lockdowns are used less frequently, given their scarring effects on income, mental, and physical health.

The ONLY way to avoid lockdowns/stay at home orders is as close to universal vaccination as possible. So far, young children cannot be vaccinated and some people have valid medical reasons they cannot be vaccinated.

I agree that remaining ci fined to ones home is difficult and unpleasant but the fact that some people are refusing to be vaccinated is what is currently causing the spike in cases in Victoria and elsewhere! Rather than force everyone into lockdown, just force the refuseniks into lockdown. They are what is fueling the continued pandemic! If you are fully vaccinated you should be able to move about freely and safely. That safety is removed when those who can be vaccinated dont get vaccinated. Those who can be vaccinated abd dont are causing the problems. They are the ones who should have to stay home.

 

[Metaphor]

A pandemic by definition does not occur in one country.

As usual, you are mistaken -
pandemic -(of a disease) prevalent over a whole country or the world (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=definition+of+pandemic).

And I can produce multiple definitions that emphasise that a pandemic is international.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3127276/
A pandemic is defined as “an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people”

https://intermountainhealthcare.org...pandemic-an-epidemic-endemic-and-an-outbreak/

• AN EPIDEMIC is a disease that affects a large number of people within a community, population, or region.
• A PANDEMIC is an epidemic that’s spread over multiple countries or continents.

https://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/frequently_asked_questions/pandemic/en/
A pandemic is the worldwide spread of a new disease.

I know you think America is the world, but some of us have a different perspective.

 

[Toni]

Actually, you are incorrect, because Toni in fact did not mean "when the pandemic is over", even though that's what she said earlier. In post #156, she now says:

Not really— it would be foolish for India to have a lockdown if Covid were eliminated there but still prevalent in Australia, fir example. It would make sense to restrict travel to/from Australia until Covid were contained/eradicated there.

However, it still really isn't clear what Toni means. If it isn't WHO's declaration (which was something in the NPR article she linked), she might mean a declaration from the CDC that America's COVID-19 epidemic is over.

The point, however, was that although you thought Toni had defined her 'stop' condition, not only was her original definition nebulous, it wasn't even what she later claimed. Her stop condition has nothing to do with 'pandemic' status, but more localised status.

I believe the NPR link mentioned both WHO and the CDC (for the US). I'm certain that most if not all nations have their own equivalent of the CDC.

Please don't decide you know what I meant or speak for me. It's rude and not usually correct.

 

[Toni]

A pandemic by definition does not occur in one country.

As usual, you are mistaken -
pandemic -(of a disease) prevalent over a whole country or the world (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=definition+of+pandemic).

And I can produce multiple definitions that emphasise that a pandemic is international.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3127276/
A pandemic is defined as “an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people”

https://intermountainhealthcare.org...pandemic-an-epidemic-endemic-and-an-outbreak/

• AN EPIDEMIC is a disease that affects a large number of people within a community, population, or region.
• A PANDEMIC is an epidemic that’s spread over multiple countries or continents.

https://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/frequently_asked_questions/pandemic/en/
A pandemic is the worldwide spread of a new disease.

I know you think America is the world, but some of us have a different perspective.

No one here thinks that America is the world/


Pandemic can mean both international and national. There is more than one meaning to the word.

A pandemic (or, if you prefer, epidemic) in Australia might have implications for what needs to be done in the US--or it might not. The reverse is true. Or insert any other two nations, especially if they do not share borders.

 

[laughing dog]

A pandemic by definition does not occur in one country.

As usual, you are mistaken -
pandemic -(of a disease) prevalent over a whole country or the world (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=definition+of+pandemic).

And I can produce multiple definitions that emphasise that a pandemic is international.

Rather than engage in further pointless pendantic quibbles , that does not rebut the fact that pandemic need not mean what you claim.

I know you think America is the world, but some of us have a different perspective.

Your confidence in your knowledge is unwarranted. However, your ability to pull straw men out of your ass is truly amazing.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, since when did the existence or absence of a border across it's spread mean jack shit for whether a disease was seriously in need of remedial efforts to contain it?

It is a meaningless distinction.

What matters is that this virus right here that we are dealing with is a pandemic disease.

The same things that stop pandemics are the things that prevent them, as well: staying home when you are sick, wearing masks when many in your area are sick and when you are sick.

This is like "shitting in the toilet" level stuff. The only people who get a pass are the ones that, well, all the people on the other side of the aisle on this issue are super critical of even homeless people who are shooed away from public accomodations getting a pass...

Maybe step away from the propaganda faucets?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And I do not believe that it is a proportionate or measured response to put my brother under indefinite house arrest, in a community that is over 80% vaccinated and will probably reach 90%. It is not proportionate. It is not measured. It is a sadistic vengeance game.

It is warranted. The problem is vaccines are always subject to the freeloader problem. If everyone else is vaccinated there's no need to do so personally--the best choice is not to get the shot. But if everyone makes that choice you're a lot worse off than if people behave.

Unfortunately, that means that state compulsion is a good idea. Vaccines for schools have long been accepted by almost everyone, why are people treating this differently?

I've already explained this in this thread.

We do not let children make medical decisions for themselves, because they are children. But even if you need a certain vaccine to attend a certain school, the government does not ban those children from going grocery shopping with their parents, or going on planes, or going to birthday parties if they don't have a particular vaccine.

We generally do let adults make decisions about their own bodies, especially medical decisions. But that alleged freedom does not actually exist if we make life for somebody wretched, by government force, if they choose one decision over another. Technically, every person tried as a witch in Europe first had to agree to be tried. Of course, if they did not agree to be tried, they could be tied to the ground by force and have stones piled on to their bodies until they knew no end of torment.

And, of course, government mandate violates freedom of association as well. It is not permissible for a store to say 'we are vaccine agnostic', and let people decide for themselves whether it's worth the risk to shop there. No, people are too fucking dumb and evil to make decisions for themselves.

This doesn't address my point at all.

It's not about your own health, it's about the risk to others.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not really— it would be foolish for India to have a lockdown if Covid were eliminated there but still prevalent in Australia, fir example. It would make sense to restrict travel to/from Australia until Covid were contained/eradicated there.

In the US, smallpox vaccinations are no longer required —-except for some service members who are deployed where smallpox may still exist. Those from such areas who travel to the US must undergo health screening, proof of vaccination, etc.

The only real difference is that people today have not gone through such pandemics before. They seem not to realize that the reason we no longer are dying from smallpox is because of vaccinations and quarantines.

Smallpox is eradicated. Servicemembers vaccinate against it because of biowarfare possibilities, and all except those with skin condition waivers get it, as of 2010. It's been 10 years, so that may have changed?

There are other immunizations, like TB and Hepatitis and such, they do offer for that reason though, so your point is still intact.

Perhaps you are correct. When my son was deployed to Afghanistan I believe that there was concern that small pockets might exist in some places. I could be wrong, though. He definitely was vaccinated fir it abd a host of other things. I am aware that the primary threat of smallpox outbreaks is through bio terrorism

Smallpox was taken out 45 years ago. The only people at direct risk are virologists that deal with it. Other than that, the only threat is bioterrorism as nobody is going to use it for biowar--vaccinating their own population in preparation would give away what they were up to.

 

[Shadowy Man]

vaccinating their own population in preparation would give away what they were up to.

Not if you snuck it into everyone through their salads.

 

[Metaphor]

I've already explained this in this thread.

We do not let children make medical decisions for themselves, because they are children. But even if you need a certain vaccine to attend a certain school, the government does not ban those children from going grocery shopping with their parents, or going on planes, or going to birthday parties if they don't have a particular vaccine.

We generally do let adults make decisions about their own bodies, especially medical decisions. But that alleged freedom does not actually exist if we make life for somebody wretched, by government force, if they choose one decision over another. Technically, every person tried as a witch in Europe first had to agree to be tried. Of course, if they did not agree to be tried, they could be tied to the ground by force and have stones piled on to their bodies until they knew no end of torment.

And, of course, government mandate violates freedom of association as well. It is not permissible for a store to say 'we are vaccine agnostic', and let people decide for themselves whether it's worth the risk to shop there. No, people are too fucking dumb and evil to make decisions for themselves.

This doesn't address my point at all.

It's not about your own health, it's about the risk to others.

Your response doesn't address anything I wrote.

 

[zorq]

And, of course, government mandate violates freedom of association as well. It is not permissible for a store to say 'we are vaccine agnostic', and let people decide for themselves whether it's worth the risk to shop there. No, people are too fucking dumb and evil to make decisions for themselves.

Your example here proves your take on the drunk driving analogy is poorly constructed. Drunk people are often evicted from privately owned public venues simply because of their state of intoxication. Even drunk people wandering the streets are often picked up by the police. BECAUSE THEY ARE DANGEROUS. Choosing to become intoxicated is a medical choice people are allowed to make but because it introduces danger to other people, the freedoms of drunks are restricted. It IS okay for a stores restaurants and bars to kick out dangerous drunk people, which proves that it is okay for them to kick out dangerous unvaccinated people too.

 

[Metaphor]

Your example here proves your take on the drunk driving analogy is poorly constructed. Drunk people are often evicted from privately owned public venues simply because of their state of intoxication. Even drunk people wandering the streets are often picked up by the police. BECAUSE THEY ARE DANGEROUS.

Drunk people are not confined to their homes while they are drunk by government mandate. Also, unvaccinated people are not drunk.

Choosing to become intoxicated is a medical choice people are allowed to make but because it introduces danger to other people, the freedoms of drunks are restricted. It IS okay for a stores restaurants and bars to kick out dangerous drunk people, which proves that it is okay for them to kick out dangerous unvaccinated people too.

You are very muddled. I did not suggest that private businesses could not decide for themselves whether to reject the unvaccinated.