B-Man Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 SMART GOVERNMENT: Governor Kathy Hochul Declares a Healthcare Worker Shortage Emergency of Her Own Making. https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2021/09/28/governor-kathy-hochul-declares-an-healthcare-worker-shortage-emergency-of-her-own-making-n1482010 To put a finer point on it, Hochul is declaring an emergency due to a crisis she created by ordering the vaccine mandate.
Big Blitz Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 2 hours ago, oldmanfan said: Umm, you have proven over the last 20 months you don’t. How did "Delta" suddenly plummet in mandate free Florida.....without State mandates? Turn off CNN and answer the question. I know in your warped heads you're thinking "yea....but if they were in place maybe......maybe 100s of lives could have been saved. I can't prove that but we would have saved lives because masks work!" Yep. So why isn't the policy everyone stay home forever or until we completely eradicate the virus? See you made the determination that opening as we have was acceptable - knowing people will get it and die. This is ok. But in Florida, what, maybe a few hundred people more died because they weren't full California? California and the deaths there - you have deemed acceptable because well, Newsome he really cares. Because mandates! But if you care about people not dying, you shut it all down indefinitely. Until a cure! Do you understand the point here? I don't know that you do. We've had this control group right here telling you that the State does not have to intervene. That schools can be open and without masks! Florida may have had a slightly higher death rate then California, but why were those deaths unacceptable and California’s are? When you get into "which State had the fewer deaths," this completely undermines your argument that the State must do something. People were always going to die. The issue has been which country or in our case both State and country would also burn the Constitution in the process. This was never about the virus for the Left. It became instantly about Trump. It became instantly about conformity and ENJOYING watching our rights get set on fire over a severe flu. They should never be put in charge of protecting your liberties. Ever.
oldmanfan Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 54 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: How did "Delta" suddenly plummet in mandate free Florida.....without State mandates? Turn off CNN and answer the question. I know in your warped heads you're thinking "yea....but if they were in place maybe......maybe 100s of lives could have been saved. I can't prove that but we would have saved lives because masks work!" Yep. So why isn't the policy everyone stay home forever or until we completely eradicate the virus? See you made the determination that opening as we have was acceptable - knowing people will get it and die. This is ok. But in Florida, what, maybe a few hundred people more died because they weren't full California? California and the deaths there - you have deemed acceptable because well, Newsome he really cares. Because mandates! But if you care about people not dying, you shut it all down indefinitely. Until a cure! Do you understand the point here? I don't know that you do. We've had this control group right here telling you that the State does not have to intervene. That schools can be open and without masks! Florida may have had a slightly higher death rate then California, but why were those deaths unacceptable and California’s are? When you get into "which State had the fewer deaths," this completely undermines your argument that the State must do something. People were always going to die. The issue has been which country or in our case both State and country would also burn the Constitution in the process. This was never about the virus for the Left. It became instantly about Trump. It became instantly about conformity and ENJOYING watching our rights get set on fire over a severe flu. They should never be put in charge of protecting your liberties. Ever. A virus that is 10-20 times more lethal than the flu is not a severe flu.
Buffarukus Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 has anyone updated the thread? TIME TO MANDATE BOOSTER SHOTS PART 1 of MANY discuss. 1
oldmanfan Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 11 hours ago, Buffarukus said: just wondering how long it takes to do these studies. those already immune and alternative therapies? you say outside vaccine other studies and trials are lacking. yet you pound the table for vaccines that just recently have been found to require booster shots. all studies on this virus are incomplete, including vaccine info. you seem ok to toss out or not deem it VERY suspicious that we have more "concrete" data on a manufactured immunity and not a natural where they can be discluded if they choose? longer time frame. tons of samples and I'm sure willing participants but, we just dont know! take this vax we have tons of data on and we will fig it out later. not good science. seems pretty skewed or ignored to me. Some studies of the natural immunity have been done. Before going into them, I presume you are not talking about recommending folks get Covid to confer natural immunity, as that could be a death sentence. But if you look at data on the studies of those previously infected and the effect of natural immunity, there is some data. The Israeli study is the one most cited, suggesting that natural immunity confers more protection than vaccination. But that same study also shows that previously infected individuals who have received a vaccination have higher protection: Instagram Post Missing Context About Israeli Study on COVID-19 Natural Immunity By D'Angelo Gore Posted on September 2, 2021 | Updated on September 8, 2021 Here is one suggesting that natural immunity is sufficient for protection: Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals View ORCID ProfileNabin K. Shrestha, Patrick C. Burke, Amy S. Nowacki, Paul Terpeluk, Steven M. Gordon doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176 There is a recent study from Kentucky suggesting that vaccination of previously infected individuals confers greater immunity: Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19 Vaccination — Kentucky, May–June 2021 Weekly / August 13, 2021 / 70(32);1081-1083 On August 6, 2021, this report was posted online as an MMWR Early Release. Alyson M. Cavanaugh, DPT, PhD1,2; Kevin B. Spicer, MD, PhD2,3; Douglas Thoroughman, PhD2,4; Connor Glick, MS2; Kathleen Winter, PhD2,5 (View author affiliations) So the data is conflicting at this point. One of the issues is that you don't know what the strength is of the immunity in a given individual who has been infected. There are estimates I've seen that around a third of infected individuals do not develop an immune response with antibodies; these are mostly asymptomatic infections. What I'd like to see are actual antibody level or titer data on those with natural immunity, to see who has developed a robust response. The reason I advocate for vaccines is because we know from the data that vaccination is highly protective against severe illness and death for anyone infected, and that the more folks that develop immunity, either by natural means or vaccination, the more we starve out the virus from finding hosts and the quicker we bring this things under control.
oldmanfan Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 10 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said: To me immunity means I'm vaccinated and I can't get sick. Period. That is the expectation people have when they get vaccinated for some specific ailment or disease. And that is the expectation officials set with the original vaccine rollouts. Get the shot and life returns to "normal". Now the word used more often than not is "protection" meaning you might get sick but not as bad as if you didn't get the shot. Can you quantify statements like "do not stay infected as long"? Or point me to the source of data that I can access to find or calculate those figures for myself? My suspicion is the data on these kinds of metrics is a bit muddled. As for Ivermectin I would point to actual field use in India that is credited by officials and medical professionals there for significantly contributing to the suppression of the Delta outbreak. And while the drug gets bad mouthed to death here in the US because it is also used to treat animals (not really that unusual a thing) I find it interesting that Pfizer is in the process of trialing a protease inhibitor molecule that is surprising similar to Ivermectin in chemical make up and function. In some respects identical. It would come at no surprise if their new offering gains fast approval as a legitimate treatment at something like 30x the price. I'm not sure you're correct on India and ivermectin. Here is an article from an magazine in India indicating ivermectin is being pulled from recommendation: Why HCQ and Ivermectin were removed from India’s Covid-19 treatment protocol Ivermectin and HCQ were dropped from the clinical guidance after studies found that these drugs have little to no effect on Covid-related mortality or clinical recovery of the patient. This is an article from Nature, one of the most highly respected scientific journals: Flawed ivermectin preprint highlights challenges of COVID drug studies The study’s withdrawal from a preprint platform deals a blow to the anti-parasite drug’s chances as a COVID treatment, researchers say. I would support really good prospective, randomized trials, of ivermectin because, as you state, there is certainly anecdotal evidence suggesting benefit. As for length of infection and such, here is one study from Arizona indicating length of infection in vaccinated is lower. I would also encourage you to search the CDC website; they refer to multiple articles on your topics of interest: COVID-19 Vaccine Reduces Severity, Length, Viral Load for Those Who Still Get Infected Data from the AZ HEROES study show COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections, and when breakthrough infections do occur, the level of infection and impact of the disease are significantly reduced. University of Arizona Health Sciences June 30, 2021
OrangeBills Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 8 hours ago, oldmanfan said: A virus that is 10-20 times more lethal than the flu is not a severe flu. That is nowhere near accurate. Even if you take the absurd 660,000 death number as correct, the new incidence rate from the CDC of 90m "cases" would imply a 0.7% Mortality rate vs. 0.1% for Flu, or 7x. But that's not remotely accurate either. For starters, they've only done one extrapolation on the Case number, when they doubled it from 45m to 90m last month. For Flu, they use multiple layers of guesses and extrapolations to create their "incidence rate". The Covid Incidence rate is at least another double, to 180m, which would imply a 3% Mortality rate, or 3x worse. BUT, that death count is over two years, vs. one year for the Flu (actually 4 months for Flu Seasons) and thus the incidence rate for COVID is actually well over the 180m over two years, so you've likely got a Mortality rate of 0.2%, or maybe twice as bad as Flu, and certainly no reason to do this nonsense. What we had here were 2 lean Flu seasons playing catch-up during a new coronavirus that was a little worse than before.
oldmanfan Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 28 minutes ago, OrangeBills said: That is nowhere near accurate. Even if you take the absurd 660,000 death number as correct, the new incidence rate from the CDC of 90m "cases" would imply a 0.7% Mortality rate vs. 0.1% for Flu, or 7x. But that's not remotely accurate either. For starters, they've only done one extrapolation on the Case number, when they doubled it from 45m to 90m last month. For Flu, they use multiple layers of guesses and extrapolations to create their "incidence rate". The Covid Incidence rate is at least another double, to 180m, which would imply a 3% Mortality rate, or 3x worse. BUT, that death count is over two years, vs. one year for the Flu (actually 4 months for Flu Seasons) and thus the incidence rate for COVID is actually well over the 180m over two years, so you've likely got a Mortality rate of 0.2%, or maybe twice as bad as Flu, and certainly no reason to do this nonsense. What we had here were 2 lean Flu seasons playing catch-up during a new coronavirus that was a little worse than before. Here are estimated flu deaths data: Table 1: Estimated Influenza Disease Burden, by Season — United States, 2010-11 through 2019-20 Influenza Seasons 2010-2011 37,000(32,000 – 51,000) 2011-2012 12,000(11,000 – 23,000) 2012-2013 43,000(37,000 – 57,000) 2013-2014 38,000(33,000 – 50,000) 2014-2015 51,000(44,000 – 64,000) 2015-2016 23,000(17,000 – 35,000) 2016-2017 38,000(29,000 – 61,000) Preliminary estimates*Estimate95% UIEstimate95% UIEstimate95% UIEstimate95% UI 2017-2018* 61,000(46,000 – 95,000) 2018-2019* 34,000(26,000 – 53,000) 2019-2020* 22,000(18,000 – 29,000) * Estimates from the 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020 seasons are preliminary and may change as data are finalized. The average is around 36,000. Compare that to about 500,000 deaths the first year of Covid. So 500,000/36,000 = about 14, such that Covid is 10-20 times more deadly than the flu. That the flu is seasonal and burns out within 4 months is immaterial, as is your insistence that Covid deaths aren't really deaths.
Orlando Buffalo Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 9 hours ago, oldmanfan said: A virus that is 10-20 times more lethal than the flu is not a severe flu. For those of us healthy people under 50 what is the Covid death rate and what is the flu death rate? It is about the same. Those over 70, or unhealthy, it is much more dangerous. I fully support people protecting themselves, but this idea of a mandate is unethical. Children are not responsible for protecting older people but apparently liberals are all for it.
oldmanfan Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 1 hour ago, Buffalo Timmy said: For those of us healthy people under 50 what is the Covid death rate and what is the flu death rate? It is about the same. Those over 70, or unhealthy, it is much more dangerous. I fully support people protecting themselves, but this idea of a mandate is unethical. Children are not responsible for protecting older people but apparently liberals are all for it. Well, first of all I am not liberal. I am independent, very conservative on some topics and much more liberal on others. When it comes to a global pandemic and getting us through it, I would say I'm more liberal, true. You get through it by having the population become immune to the virus. You get that by vaccination or by having enough people get infected. Of course, the latter leads to more deaths. Younger folks are much less prone to death, around 470 or so as of last week, but they do get infected (about 3 million infected kids 18 and younger as of last week) and they can carry and spread the virus. They also may be prone to long term complications of the virus, something that is given too little attention by everyone including public health officials. This debate really comes down to this: do you believe in public health or do you not?
Buffarukus Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 2 hours ago, oldmanfan said: Some studies of the natural immunity have been done. Before going into them, I presume you are not talking about recommending folks get Covid to confer natural immunity, as that could be a death sentence. But if you look at data on the studies of those previously infected and the effect of natural immunity, there is some data. The Israeli study is the one most cited, suggesting that natural immunity confers more protection than vaccination. But that same study also shows that previously infected individuals who have received a vaccination have higher protection: Instagram Post Missing Context About Israeli Study on COVID-19 Natural Immunity By D'Angelo Gore Posted on September 2, 2021 | Updated on September 8, 2021 Here is one suggesting that natural immunity is sufficient for protection: Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals View ORCID ProfileNabin K. Shrestha, Patrick C. Burke, Amy S. Nowacki, Paul Terpeluk, Steven M. Gordon doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176 There is a recent study from Kentucky suggesting that vaccination of previously infected individuals confers greater immunity: Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19 Vaccination — Kentucky, May–June 2021 Weekly / August 13, 2021 / 70(32);1081-1083 On August 6, 2021, this report was posted online as an MMWR Early Release. Alyson M. Cavanaugh, DPT, PhD1,2; Kevin B. Spicer, MD, PhD2,3; Douglas Thoroughman, PhD2,4; Connor Glick, MS2; Kathleen Winter, PhD2,5 (View author affiliations) So the data is conflicting at this point. One of the issues is that you don't know what the strength is of the immunity in a given individual who has been infected. There are estimates I've seen that around a third of infected individuals do not develop an immune response with antibodies; these are mostly asymptomatic infections. What I'd like to see are actual antibody level or titer data on those with natural immunity, to see who has developed a robust response. The reason I advocate for vaccines is because we know from the data that vaccination is highly protective against severe illness and death for anyone infected, and that the more folks that develop immunity, either by natural means or vaccination, the more we starve out the virus from finding hosts and the quicker we bring this things under control. well the question becomes how accurate are antibody tests? you like to see this, so would the world before vax mandates fire people. if there is a certain level that can be considered to be "strong" why is there not a concerted effort to do these tests and then determine whether they should be given exempt status. sounds like the science is still out. on a subject that had much longer time to study then vax. you bring up Israel study, who is also in full blown booster mode at this point from what i understand. so not looking to good for the vax longevity...but take it and keep taking it until some unknown time frame at which has never been decided? thats where we are going and every time you are talking about another longterm risk. what's the longterm risk of full vax? now of adding booster 1? ect ect ect. no info on any of this it hasn't happened yet but it does good things at this moment so who cares. as a person of science you have to say pumping vax boosters indefinitely is not a solution to the problem. maybe it is, but shouldn't be. either way the point i made was LOTS of certainty in vax. zero seems to be invested in alternatives from a mainstream perspective. zero talk about effects to true immune compromised for higher vax complications. their fired regardless as well! a major effort should be made to find all this out before you cost people their careers, ESPECIALLY if you have faith in YOUR saftey being vaxed. but the narrative is shut your mouth take the vax soon to be shut your mouth take the booster #1....because we care. the scientific method never worked like that when i studied it. the liberal party i used to know never trampled on others rights like that either. but this is a upside down world where a basic study on natural immunity with millions of participants has no conclusion in a world pandemic but a new vax after a fast track study does.
oldmanfan Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 1 minute ago, Buffarukus said: well the question becomes how accurate are antibody tests? you like to see this, so would the world before vax mandates fire people. if there is a certain level that can be considered to be "strong" why is there not a concerted effort to do these tests and then determine whether they should be given exempt status. sounds like the science is still out. on a subject that had much longer time to study then vax. you bring up Israel study, who is also in full blown booster mode at this point from what i understand. so not looking to good for the vax longevity...but take it and keep taking it until some unknown time frame at which has never been decided? thats where we are going and every time you are talking about another longterm risk. what's the longterm risk of full vax? now of adding booster 1? ect ect ect. no info on any of this it hasn't happened yet but it does good things at this moment so who cares. as a person of science you have to say pumping vax boosters indefinitely is not a solution to the problem. maybe it is, but shouldn't be. either way the point i made was LOTS of certainty in vax. zero seems to be invested in alternatives from a mainstream perspective. zero talk about effects to true immune compromised for higher vax complications. their fired regardless as well! a major effort should be made to find all this out before you cost people their careers, ESPECIALLY if you have faith in YOUR saftey being vaxed. but the narrative is shut your mouth take the vax soon to be shut your mouth take the booster #1....because we care. the scientific method never worked like that when i studied it. the liberal party i used to know never trampled on others rights like that either. but this is a upside down world where a basic study on natural immunity with millions of participants has no conclusion in a world pandemic but a new vax after a fast track study does. I agree completely more effort needs to be put into antibody testing. I am not concerned with supposed long term effects of these vaccines because classically side effects of vaccines are noted within weeks or months. This has been noted with the very rare myocarditis and blood clot issues found with Covid vaccines, and is actually an argument for the rigor with which the effects of the vaccines are followed. Plus the ingredients of the mRNA vaccines indicate there is nothing that realistically from a scientific perspective should cause any long term effects. What I hope to also see is increased study of treatment options like the one Pfizer is apparently working on. If we can treat those with Covid that would be extraordinarily helpful.
Buffarukus Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 4 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: I agree completely more effort needs to be put into antibody testing. I am not concerned with supposed long term effects of these vaccines because classically side effects of vaccines are noted within weeks or months. This has been noted with the very rare myocarditis and blood clot issues found with Covid vaccines, and is actually an argument for the rigor with which the effects of the vaccines are followed. Plus the ingredients of the mRNA vaccines indicate there is nothing that realistically from a scientific perspective should cause any long term effects. What I hope to also see is increased study of treatment options like the one Pfizer is apparently working on. If we can treat those with Covid that would be extraordinarily helpful. im glad we agree on that as its a major issue in vax hesitance, for starters. i think we need to look at this as a personal choice as well. seatbelts save lives no question. if your not wearing one you get fined and put your life at risk if not. no one is being fired for not wearing a seat belt so why is this different? if your under some assumption the unvaxed are not paying a huge penalty in med bills and health for their choice, we are mistaken. so how about we stop trying to penalize people pre emptivley for somthing that isn't even certain when they may have very valid reason that we aren't even inquiring about or considering. we will extricate you from society and take your career to make ourselves feel safer and virtuous. that's not how freedom works. so many have forgotten that.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 12 hours ago, B-Man said: SMART GOVERNMENT: Governor Kathy Hochul Declares a Healthcare Worker Shortage Emergency of Her Own Making. https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2021/09/28/governor-kathy-hochul-declares-an-healthcare-worker-shortage-emergency-of-her-own-making-n1482010 To put a finer point on it, Hochul is declaring an emergency due to a crisis she created by ordering the vaccine mandate. Which, of course, isn't a mandate at all, rather a selective mandate, targeting some, ignoring others, all leading and contributing to hesitancy and distrust of public officials. Step up, Kathy, and have the moral courage to mandate the vax for all NYers. Fill in the gaps created by BIden and his silly 100+ employees pseudo-mandate vax shenanigans.
Governor Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 3 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said: For those of us healthy people under 50 what is the Covid death rate and what is the flu death rate? It is about the same. Those over 70, or unhealthy, it is much more dangerous. I fully support people protecting themselves, but this idea of a mandate is unethical. Children are not responsible for protecting older people but apparently liberals are all for it. Imagine being so trapped in a cult that you find a way to be on the wrong side during a global pandemic and vaccines. That’s pretty hard to do but you succeeded.
oldmanfan Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 1 hour ago, Buffarukus said: im glad we agree on that as its a major issue in vax hesitance, for starters. i think we need to look at this as a personal choice as well. seatbelts save lives no question. if your not wearing one you get fined and put your life at risk if not. no one is being fired for not wearing a seat belt so why is this different? if your under some assumption the unvaxed are not paying a huge penalty in med bills and health for their choice, we are mistaken. so how about we stop trying to penalize people pre emptivley for somthing that isn't even certain when they may have very valid reason that we aren't even inquiring about or considering. we will extricate you from society and take your career to make ourselves feel safer and virtuous. that's not how freedom works. so many have forgotten that. The difference is that this is an infectious agent. Your behavior can get me sick and vice versa. This really becomes an issue of whether you are concerned about the public - your neighbors and family - or yourself. In previous viral pandemics such as poliowe were concerned about each other. When and why did that change?
Buffarukus Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, oldmanfan said: The difference is that this is an infectious agent. Your behavior can get me sick and vice versa. This really becomes an issue of whether you are concerned about the public - your neighbors and family - or yourself. In previous viral pandemics such as poliowe were concerned about each other. When and why did that change? your vaxed and all your data shows how effective it is. you aren't showing much confidence in the very science you been showing in this thread. you can be concerned but you should not force that concern onto others with threats of punishment and loss of livelihood with little to no knowledge for their personal reasoning. you care about others? then you should include caring for their decision and the fact they are willing to sacrifice the food put on their table, which requires hell of alot more conviction then a strangers fear their vax is not as effective then what they themselves are preaching it is. (not you personally, im talking in general. your showing good data that should be concidered but many are just taking a side regardless of ANY conciderations) at this point non vaxers are taking on the risk involved by choice! segregating people that pose no logical threat to me is a line i will never cross as well and i am fully vaxed. thats a disgusting precedent we have been through before. it leads to awful things thats a liberal idea that only changed with times. not personal integrity. so i will not be showing my vax card for entrance and i will stand with those being segregated. its who i am. thats coming together as i see it. maybe by booster # whatever when those segragate lower booster numbers you will draw a line and join me. i hope so. it seems this is where its going. your response might be it will lead to death and suffering. so will smoking, eating unhealthy, drinking, skydiving and a limitless other reasons in free society we live in. all made by personal choice. Edited September 30, 2021 by Buffarukus
oldmanfan Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 1 hour ago, Buffarukus said: your vaxed and all your data shows how effective it is. you aren't showing much confidence in the very science you been showing in this thread. you can be concerned but you should not force that concern onto others with threats of punishment and loss of livelihood with little to no knowledge for their personal reasoning. you care about others? then you should include caring for their decision and the fact they are willing to sacrifice the food put on their table, which requires hell of alot more conviction then a strangers fear their vax is not as effective then what they themselves are preaching it is. (not you personally, im talking in general. your showing good data that should be concidered but many are just taking a side regardless of ANY conciderations) at this point non vaxers are taking on the risk involved by choice! segregating people that pose no logical threat to me is a line i will never cross as well and i am fully vaxed. thats a disgusting precedent we have been through before. it leads to awful things thats a liberal idea that only changed with times. not personal integrity. so i will not be showing my vax card for entrance and i will stand with those being segregated. its who i am. thats coming together as i see it. maybe by booster # whatever when those segragate lower booster numbers you will draw a line and join me. i hope so. it seems this is where its going. your response might be it will lead to death and suffering. so will smoking, eating unhealthy, drinking, skydiving and a limitless other reasons in free society we live in. all made by personal choice. What I would say you are not seeing is in your last paragraph. Everything you list are personal choices. Viral pandemics are not.
Buffarukus Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 4 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: What I would say you are not seeing is in your last paragraph. Everything you list are personal choices. Viral pandemics are not. your missing the major point. your vax works. you have confidence in it just like all others that are vaxed. you no longer should be worried or effected. that equates to them making a personal choice, exactly the same as what i listed.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 2 hours ago, oldmanfan said: The difference is that this is an infectious agent. Your behavior can get me sick and vice versa. This really becomes an issue of whether you are concerned about the public - your neighbors and family - or yourself. In previous viral pandemics such as poliowe were concerned about each other. When and why did that change? The challenge is you’re framing the argument from your perspective only. The anti-vax or vax hesitant are no less concerned about the public, friends or family than you or anyone else, they simply don’t trust what they are being told. Some of that distrust is based on the history of our country, some based on the history of this particular virus, some based on the politicization of the virus, some based on the questionable management of the virus etc. Some, of course is because people weigh out the impact of maybe getting sick with COVID, developing natural immunity and the relative risk factor to themselves. My youngest finally got vaxxed this week, he’s young, healthy and recovered from COVID a few months back. He loves and cares about people and his community no less than anyone else. Ironically, he has felt pretty nasty post-vax, chills and a nasty headache.
Recommended Posts