Coronavirus (COVID-19 Outbreak) (196 Viewers)

[Buck Fuddy]

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?

I don't remember the abortion debate, but my guess is that I would agree with you on that one 100%. (Pro choice, right?)

I still don't agree with your comparisons though. Sure, driving is not a right. Neither is being allowed to enter location x. Neither is attending event y. Etc.
As for driving above the speed limit, the point is that it isn't allowed, isn't it? Regarldess of there being any sort of enforcement, I think everyone is aware that just driving in itself creates a potential risk for others. Hence the rules that were put in place to limit those risks. We obviously can't get rid of 100% of those risks, but we can minimize them. That's what risk evaluation is, essentially. A numbers game.

Sounds vaguely familiar with COVID, doesn't it?

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?

Well, I am pro subsidized universal healthcare (or insurance).
But I am also pro increased premiums based on risk factors.



And yes, I'm going to keep bitching about the same thing over & over again. What would your solution be to the very simple question below?

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?

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[IliveForJuve]

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) Nobody claims that the vaccine is 100% effective at preventing serious illness.
2) Unvaccinated people are more likely to catch and transmit covid. Thus, they also increase the chance of vaccinated people getting it.

Why should we not worry?

 

[Dostoevsky]

1) Nobody claims that the vaccine is 100% effective at preventing serious illness.
2) Unvaccinated people are more likely to catch and transmit covid. Thus, they also increase the chance of vaccinated people getting it.

Why should we not worry?

Because they said Pfizer had 88% effectiveness against hospitalization and 91% effectiveness against severe illness. If that's the case I see nothing to worry about really.

 

[Buck Fuddy]

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.

Yes, you are beating around the bush. Simple question. Who is allowed treatment, who isn't?

Could you give me one example of a country where currently enough people have taken the vaccine? Enough meaning hospitals being overwhelmed becomes extremely unlikely. Mind you, 70% of your entire population (most likely?) isn't even enough anymore.


We'll see how it evolves the coming months, I guess.
Looking at my own neck of the woods, the idea that everyone of the population (literally 100%) is going to develop antibodies in the next few months is becoming more & more "certain", because of the Delta strain. Either antibodies from the vaccine (great!) or antibodies from the infection (great as well, if you don't get too sick/die). One of those options is clearly safer than the other, but the end result will be the same anyway. I'm fairly optimistic. For the time being, anyway

 

[IliveForJuve]

Because they said Pfizer had 88% effectiveness against hospitalization and 91% effectiveness against severe illness. If that's the case I see nothing to worry about really.

Yeah those seem like good numbers but then you add people with underlying conditions and their chances don't look as good.

If unvaccinated people swamp hospitals because they were too stubborn to get the vaccine, should they be getting treatment over those who chose to improve their odds but unfortunately still got the short end of the stick? Absolutely not.

 

[Dostoevsky]

Yes, you are beating around the bush. Simple question. Who is allowed treatment, who isn't?

Could you give me one example of a country where currently enough people have taken the vaccine? Enough meaning hospitals being overwhelmed becomes extremely unlikely. Mind you, 70% of your entire population (most likely?) isn't even enough anymore.


We'll see how it evolves the coming months, I guess.
Looking at my own neck of the woods, the idea that everyone of the population (literally 100%) is going to develop antibodies in the next few months is becoming more & more "certain", because of the Delta strain. Either antibodies from the vaccine (great!) or antibodies from the infection (great as well, if you don't get too sick/die). One of those options is clearly safer than the other, but the end result will be the same anyway. I'm fairly optimistic. For the time being, anyway

But 70% was more than enough, no? Now all of a sudden even 80 is not enough. Says quite a lot about their data and proofs.

I think you're for a big disappointment. We'll get Peru one and nothing will matter.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

I don't remember the abortion debate, but my guess is that I would agree with you on that one 100%. (Pro choice, right?)

I still don't agree with your comparisons though. Sure, driving is not a right. Neither is being allowed to enter location x. Neither is attending event y. Etc.
As for driving above the speed limit, the point is that it isn't allowed, isn't it? Regarldess of there being any sort of enforcement, I think everyone is aware that just driving in itself creates a potential risk for others. Hence the rules that were put in place to limit those risks. We obviously can't get rid of 100% of those risks, but we can minimize them. That's what risk evaluation is, essentially. A numbers game.

Sounds vaguely familiar with COVID, doesn't it?




Well, I am pro subsidized universal healthcare (or insurance).
But I am also pro increased premiums based on risk factors.



And yes, I'm going to keep bitching about the same thing over & over again. What would your solution be to the very simple question below?

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?

Yours is a loaded question, i don't have data on number of beds available, i also don't see vax as the determinant factor but rather immunity. But if we ever get to a point where hospitals are overwhelmed i believe in same protocol as war time, first come first serve, and after that who in the Doc's opinion has the higher chances of survival. Race and gender have nothing to do with it.

 

[Buck Fuddy]

But 70% was more than enough, no? Now all of a sudden even 80 is not enough. Says quite a lot about their data and proofs.

Hmm. So a change in the virus & its infectiousness leads to a change in the number of people that ideally should be vaccinated. Yes, that is odd & says a lot about data & proof.

Please tell me you're kidding.

- - - Updated - - -

Yours is a loaded question, i don't have data on number of beds available, i also don't see vax as the determinant factor but rather immunity. But if we ever get to a point where hospitals are overwhelmed i believe in same protocol as war time, first come first serve, and after that who in the Doc's opinion has the higher chances of survival. Race and gender have nothing to do with it.

That is fair enough!

Although it does mean that, as an unvaccinated person, your chances of survival are certainly (or say 99% of the time) lower than those of a vaccinated person. If an unvaccinated person is fine with that, then who am I to disagree with. Hell, I'm all for it. If that is something that everyone is fine with, just completely open up society immediately. (Well, immediately as in once everyone has had the chance to get or refuse a vaccine.)

 

[IliveForJuve]

Hmm. So a change in the virus & its infectiousness leads to a change in the number of people that ideally should be vaccinated. Yes, that is odd & says a lot about data & proof.

Please tell me you're kidding.

- - - Updated - - -





That is fair enough!

Although it does mean that, as an unvaccinated person, your chances of survival are certainly (or say 99% of the time) lower than those of a vaccinated person. If an unvaccinated person is fine with that, then who am I to disagree with. Hell, I'm all for it. If that is something that everyone is fine with, just completely open up society immediately. (Well, immediately as in once everyone has had the chance to get or refuse a vaccine.)

It would also help humanity get rid of bad stock/low IQ people and therefore improve as a civilization.

 

[swag]

Once per week? I don't know how that helps. If it's daily, sure, I guess it'd make sense.

I honestly like Stanford U's take of weekly testing regardless of vaccinated status. It makes more sense.

Yes, daily would be more accurate. But there's a cost/inconvenience/risk ratio that has to be danced around.

Because they said Pfizer had 88% effectiveness against hospitalization and 91% effectiveness against severe illness. If that's the case I see nothing to worry about really.

That's you. There are people who need 100% to feel like they can leave their basements again.

Yours is a loaded question, i don't have data on number of beds available, i also don't see vax as the determinant factor but rather immunity. But if we ever get to a point where hospitals are overwhelmed i believe in same protocol as war time, first come first serve, and after that who in the Doc's opinion has the higher chances of survival. Race and gender have nothing to do with it.

Triage will have to rear its ugly head though.

It would also help humanity get rid of bad stock/low IQ people and therefore improve as a civilization.

I used to think that. But now I think they play a role that we don't quite fully understand a lot of the times. Because if it were truly that simple of an answer, natural selection would have weeded that out of the population by now.

 

[IliveForJuve]

.
I used to think that. But now I think they play a role that we don't quite fully understand a lot of the times. Because if it were truly that simple of an answer, natural selection would have weeded that out of the population by now.

But it could help in the short term until we sort out climate change.

Perhaps it's what mother nature intended. This is her way of helping us.

 

[Ronn]

If you want survival of the fittest hospitals should be closed permanently.

Living in 21st century while having 14th century mentality

 

[pavelnel]

Living in 21st century while having 14th century mentality

The thing is that most of these tough keyboard libertarian Vikings are anorexic shits in real life who will be the first to die if their dream world comes into existence.

Изпратено от моят XQ-AU52 с помощта на Tapatalk

 

[Enron]

Hmm. So a change in the virus & its infectiousness leads to a change in the number of people that ideally should be vaccinated. Yes, that is odd & says a lot about data & proof.

Please tell me you're kidding.

- - - Updated - - -





That is fair enough!

Although it does mean that, as an unvaccinated person, your chances of survival are certainly (or say 99% of the time) lower than those of a vaccinated person. If an unvaccinated person is fine with that, then who am I to disagree with. Hell, I'm all for it. If that is something that everyone is fine with, just completely open up society immediately. (Well, immediately as in once everyone has had the chance to get or refuse a vaccine.)

I think the interesting question would be covid vs non covid related issues. The non vaccinated covid patient vs the car accident victim. Hospital legal teams must be praying the day that decision gets made never happens.

 

[lgorTudor]

I think the interesting question would be covid vs non covid related issues. The non vaccinated covid patient vs the car accident victim. Hospital legal teams must be praying the day that decision gets made never happens.

First it must be determined if the car accident was intoxicated or otherwise guilty. If not, both patients' social media history must be laid out and a score system needs to be applied. +10 pts for a BLM hashtag, +20pts LGBTQ signal, -100pts if if the car was V6 or bigger.

 

[Ronn]

First it must be determined if the car accident was intoxicated or otherwise guilty. If not, both patients' social media history must be laid out and a score system needs to be applied. +10 pts for a BLM hashtag, +20pts LGBTQ signal, -100pts if if the car was V6 or bigger.

-500 if they had their Pfizer shot earlier than 6 weeks.

 

[lgorTudor]

-500 if they had their Pfizer shot earlier than 6 weeks.

But that's +500pts for self-harm in support of government statpadding, basically an Ippon. Car accident instawins.

 

[DAiDEViL]

That is fair enough!

Although it does mean that, as an unvaccinated person, your chances of survival are certainly (or say 99% of the time) lower than those of a vaccinated person. If an unvaccinated person is fine with that, then who am I to disagree with. Hell, I'm all for it. If that is something that everyone is fine with, just completely open up society immediately. (Well, immediately as in once everyone has had the chance to get or refuse a vaccine.)

Good idea.

 

[Post Ironic]

Living in 21st century while having 14th century mentality

So edgy. So tough. 21st century feudalism baby!

 

[Enron]

First it must be determined if the car accident was intoxicated or otherwise guilty. If not, both patients' social media history must be laid out and a score system needs to be applied. +10 pts for a BLM hashtag, +20pts LGBTQ signal, -100pts if if the car was V6 or bigger.

Keep an eye on the state of Arkansas, we’re about to find out!