Coronavirus (COVID-19 Outbreak) (32 Viewers)

Dostoevsky

Tzu
Administrator
May 27, 2007
89,029
Almost every single person on this forum has I'm sure been vaccinated for things less lethal than COVID and seem pretty ok with that.

Nobody in that crowd really gives a shit about the last point, it will be probably by next month anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

California now requiring teachers to get vaccinated or take weekly tests.
Once per week? I don't know how that helps. If it's daily, sure, I guess it'd make sense.
 

IliveForJuve

Burn this club
Jan 17, 2011
18,935
it’s unnecessary when you’re young and healthy and they weren’t gonna die anyways. That’s the replies I’ve gotten when wondering the same

there’s other theories that think it’s a govt/big corporation mind control tool but idk how many people believe that

- - - Updated - - -

Oh yeah, it’s also not FDA approved
I'm pretty sure lots of our anti-vaxxer members have put nasty cut cocaine in their bodies or swallowed god knows what thinking it's MDMA but are scared of a little vaccine.
 
Last edited:

Post Ironic

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2013
42,253
How is it frustrating. I don't get why you would have a problem with the risks other people are taking.
Because he is American and the hospital system in America can’t carry the burden of half the population going unvaccinated, with all restrictions being lifted. Already in multiple states elective surgeries are being delayed again, and icus and hospitals are filling up to the point where field hospitals are being set up again, staffing shortages are becoming a problem, etc.

So no, it’s not just a risk people are individually taking. They are choosing to push the hospital system to the point of collapse. Now if those same anti-vax people were okay with mask mandates and some degree of social distancing, it would be a different story, but majority of them are opposed to both the vaccine and all mitigation efforts.
 

AFL_ITALIA

MAGISTERIAL
Jun 17, 2011
31,828
How is it frustrating. I don't get why you would have a problem with the risks other people are taking.
It's frustrating because I can't understand it. Also generally the people that believe that line of thinking will also tend to do absolutely nothing else instead. I have a few friends that are weary of the vaccines and haven't gotten it, but they'll at least do simple things like wear masks indoors that help contribute to reduction of the spread and protect themselves. As @Post Ironic basically said, the individual choices of people have a societal cost. It's REALLY not a fun time when things get stretched to their limit.

To put it simply, I don't like to see people die or suffer when it could be mostly, if not completely, preventable. Whether I agree with their opinions or not.

- - - Updated - - -

Once per week? I don't know how that helps. If it's daily, sure, I guess it'd make sense.
I'm not either, but I guess they just want to give people an out.
 
OP
Bjerknes

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,254
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #11,748
    Because he is American and the hospital system in America can’t carry the burden of half the population going unvaccinated, with all restrictions being lifted. Already in multiple states elective surgeries are being delayed again, and icus and hospitals are filling up to the point where field hospitals are being set up again, staffing shortages are becoming a problem, etc.

    So no, it’s not just a risk people are individually taking. They are choosing to push the hospital system to the point of collapse. Now if those same anti-vax people were okay with mask mandates and some degree of social distancing, it would be a different story, but majority of them are opposed to both the vaccine and all mitigation efforts.
    All of these people must secretly be rooting for more lockdowns.
     

    GordoDeCentral

    Diez
    Moderator
    Apr 14, 2005
    70,869
    It's frustrating because I can't understand it. Also generally the people that believe that line of thinking will also tend to do absolutely nothing else instead. I have a few friends that are weary of the vaccines and haven't gotten it, but they'll at least do simple things like wear masks indoors that help contribute to reduction of the spread and protect themselves. As @Post Ironic basically said, the individual choices of people have a societal cost. It's REALLY not a fun time when things get stretched to their limit.

    To put it simply, I don't like to see people die or suffer when it could be mostly, if not completely, preventable. Whether I agree with their opinions or not.

    - - - Updated - - -


    I'm not either, but I guess they just want to give people an out.
    Then don't drink, don't do drugs, don't be fat, don't enjoy a single dollar of disposable income that could be saving people, don't even dare to drive or fly. In other words don't dare to be free. The societal cost is incurred no matter what people do. Fortunately in some countries there are unalienable rights that don't suffer the tyranny of the self-anointed.
     

    Buck Fuddy

    Lara Chedraoui fanboy
    May 22, 2009
    10,895
    Gonna be FDA approved in September unless they find something problematic that we haven’t yet seen.

    I’d imagine majority of people saying it’s not safe and is an experiment because it’s not FDA approved are just going to shift goalposts and pivot to some other reason why they won’t take it, because they are mostly intellectually dishonest clowns anyways.
    You mean inventing other reasons not to take it? That would be a first. :shocked:

    I think this is perhaps where it really starts at its core for me. Why is it assumed that a new vaccine, something designed to prevent harm and developed with hundreds of years of knowledge, would cause more harm than a new virus, something naturally (or even perhaps artificially as some of the same crowd would also have you believe) evolved to cause you harm?

    "You don't know the long term effects of the vaccine" would probably be the reply, but then how could you also know the long term effects of the virus and disease? We already know "long COVID" and circulatory issues are a thing, but even that is unknown. Viruses cause all types of issues longterm, even without killing you. Herpes simplex 1 causes mouth sores. Varicella zoster can become shingles after being dormant in the body for decades. HPV can cause cancers. It could end up being nothing, but it could also be anything. Why is THAT the chosen and acceptable risk to take instead of the vaccine that has already been given to 4.5 billion people? After the risk associated with contracting the virus itself of course. It's frustrating.
    Hey now, don't bring common sense into this!

    All of these people must secretly be rooting for more lockdowns.
    Honestly, that just might be true. It sure would explain a lot.
     

    Buck Fuddy

    Lara Chedraoui fanboy
    May 22, 2009
    10,895
    Then don't drink, don't do drugs, don't be fat, don't enjoy a single dollar of disposable income that could be saving people, don't even dare to drive or fly. In other words don't dare to be free. The societal cost is incurred no matter what people do. Fortunately in some countries there are unalienable rights that don't suffer the tyranny of the self-anointed.
    Probably not the best examples for the point you're trying to make.

    Don't drink, be fat: Sure, but me being drunk doesn't make you drunk. And a fat person cannot infect someone else. (Although judging by certain populations, you would think obesity is an infectious disease :grin:)
    Don't drive: Well, in order to be allowed to drive you need a license. Not unlike a COVID passport to be allowed to enter somewhere, you could say.
    Don't dare to be free: I don't know exactly what you mean, but in general freedom is limited. My freedom stops where yours is/could be endangered.


    Also, I am still very, very interested to hear the answer to a very simple question from everyone who sees the vaccine as purely personal choice: If your hospitals don't have enough beds to treat everyone who needs treatment, how would you decide who to admit & who to sacrifice?
    Based on age? Based on wealth? Based on obesity? Based on having refused the vaccine? Luck of the draw? First come, first served? Based on gender? Based on skin colour? Etc. How do you see this actually working?
     

    Buck Fuddy

    Lara Chedraoui fanboy
    May 22, 2009
    10,895
    Survival of the fittest.
    Ok, that's perfectly fine with me. I mean it, I have no issues with that idea.

    But could you also explain how that would work in the real word though? Because I can't.
    Does that mean not admitting anyone to the hospital? Better yet, as @Nejc mentioned, survival of the fittest basically means hospitals can be closed down immediately.
    And here's the kicker: in terms of COVID, if you compare a vaccinated person vs an unvaccinated person, the vaccinated one will ultimately be "the fittest" (speaking in general, obviously).
     

    Dostoevsky

    Tzu
    Administrator
    May 27, 2007
    89,029
    Ok, that's perfectly fine with me. I mean it, I have no issues with that idea.

    But could you also explain how that would work in the real word though? Because I can't.
    Does that mean not admitting anyone to the hospital? Or life expectancy?
    And here's the kicker: in terms of COVID, if you compare a vaccinated person vs an unvaccinated person, the vaccinated one will ultimately be "the fittest" (speaking in general, obviously).
    If you believe in the vaccine and their effectiveness then you 1) shouldn't end up as a severe case in the hospital, since vaccine helped you have mild symptoms 2) shouldn't worry about those who didn't get one, nor worry about yourself, since, again, you believe in the vaccine. So if you have 10 people in your family and everyone got one, then you're pretty much safe and, yeah, fittest, if you wanna call it like that. So why would you worry about it exactly? If majority took it, then hospitals shouldn't be overwhelmed surely. As for the mutations, even vaccinated people can spread it, so it can mutate anyway.
     

    Buck Fuddy

    Lara Chedraoui fanboy
    May 22, 2009
    10,895
    If you believe in the vaccine and their effectiveness then you 1) shouldn't end up as a severe case in the hospital, since vaccine helped you have mild symptoms 2) shouldn't worry about those who didn't get one, nor worry about yourself, since, again, you believe in the vaccine. So if you have 10 people in your family and everyone got one, then you're pretty much safe and, yeah, fittest, if you wanna call it like that. So why would you worry about it exactly? If majority took it, then hospitals shouldn't be overwhelmed surely. As for the mutations, even vaccinated people can spread it, so it can mutate anyway.
    1) Yes.
    2) Yes.

    But stop beating around the bush. Who gets admitted to the hospital & who doesn't. It's a simple enough question.

    Or if you want to use the example of a family. You also have 10 people in your family. All 10 require hospital treatment. There are 5 beds available. Who deserves treatment, who doesn't?
     

    GordoDeCentral

    Diez
    Moderator
    Apr 14, 2005
    70,869
    Probably not the best examples for the point you're trying to make.

    Don't drink, be fat: Sure, but me being drunk doesn't make you drunk. And a fat person cannot infect someone else. (Although judging by certain populations, you would think obesity is an infectious disease :grin:)
    Don't drive: Well, in order to be allowed to drive you need a license. Not unlike a COVID passport to be allowed to enter somewhere, you could say.
    Don't dare to be free: I don't know exactly what you mean, but in general freedom is limited. My freedom stops where yours is/could be endangered.


    Also, I am still very, very interested to hear the answer to a very simple question from everyone who sees the vaccine as purely personal choice: If your hospitals don't have enough beds to treat everyone who needs treatment, how would you decide who to admit & who to sacrifice?
    Based on age? Based on wealth? Based on obesity? Based on having refused the vaccine? Luck of the draw? First come, first served? Based on gender? Based on skin colour? Etc. How do you see this actually working?
    If you are fat you are draining resources that could go to others, if you drive and go one mile above speed limit you are risking others lives. As for comparing driving license and covid passport, silly comparison, driving is not a right, control of one's body is one. Remember the whole abortion debate?

    Really simple actually, we get rid of subsidized universal insurance, except for very specific protected classes, and we let insurance companies increase premiums based on risk factors. Choices have concequences right?
     

    Dostoevsky

    Tzu
    Administrator
    May 27, 2007
    89,029
    You don't really believe that, do you?
    It sounds cruel but you have to look at the bigger picture because a simple yes or no can't answer your question. (You know, that thing like: do your parents know you're gay? Like that, a simple yes or no is not enough or even possible).

    When I say that I'm not looking forward to seeing people die but rather trying not to see so many people dead. I don't see how can one rule be applied for all countries. But we don't know how long will this last, we don't know whether it will mutate or not, we don't know how it will affect countries even with vaccines. Lockdowns and curfews might be applied by some but it's not possible to compare all countries and apply the same rule. Like I said: consequences. Just because we had quite strict measure we're seeing crazy spikes in prices (at least here) to the point that it's becoming hilarious and sad at the same time. It's literally huge. Then, we see many companies go to the shitter. People are being left without job and finding one is not a piece of a cake.

    What is a solution? Have majority vaccinated, have restrictions, wear masks, have social distancing until.... when? Until the whole thing disappears? I just don't see that happening and I don't think it's even possible to stop the world/economy like that. Shortly, I think we're going to live with it. And imo living is not having restrictions, lockdowns, curfews and hyperinflation. Maybe more people would die (maybe) but everyone ignores money that would keep others alive and have others financially secured.

    1) Yes.
    2) Yes.

    But stop beating around the bush. Who gets admitted to the hospital & who doesn't. It's a simple enough question.

    Or if you want to use the example of a family. You also have 10 people in your family. All 10 require hospital treatment. There are 5 beds available. Who deserves treatment, who doesn't?
    But it's not beating around the bush, isn't it? How do we get overwhelmed hospitals if so many people took the vaccine? If that happens then it looks like a fraud to me.
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 12)