Austria first country to make Covid vaccine mandatory

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
4,769
Trophies
3
XP
7,289
Country
United Kingdom
I responded to what was said. I did not alter your post when I quoted it.
I meant in terms of what tabzer said but it's not that important. I just have an issue with these black and white labels being used when convenient to support a particular bias. I recall you saying in the past that you can be vaccinated and anti-vax, so it seemed hypocritical when you said you can't be pro-vax if you're not vaccinated.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
17,355
Trophies
2
XP
16,539
Country
United States
I meant in terms of what tabzer said but it's not that important. I just have an issue with these black and white labels being used when convenient to support a particular bias. I recall you saying in the past that you can be vaccinated and anti-vax, so it seemed hypocritical when you said you can't be pro-vax if you're not vaccinated.
I thought I was clear. If a person is opposed to vaccination, particularly if it's accompanied with unsubstantiated and conspiratorial nonsense, it's anti-vax by definition. I don't know what's confusing about it. Sometimes a black/white issue is a black/white issue.
 

tabzer

RP
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
2,753
Trophies
1
Age
37
XP
2,158
Country
Japan
I thought I was clear. If a person is opposed to vaccination, particularly if it's accompanied with unsubstantiated and conspiratorial nonsense, it's anti-vax by definition. I don't know what's confusing about it. Sometimes a black/white issue is a black/white issue.
That was something you inserted in response to me saying that someone who hasn't been (can't be) vaccinated can still be pro-vax. And you said,"by defintion, blah blah," and then you reinvented everyone's pronouns.
 

SG854

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
4,473
Trophies
1
XP
5,971
Country
Fiji
I don’t know why you’re getting pushback on this - it’s been a well-known fact for many, many years now that obesity is what scientists describe as “socially contagious”. The chances of a given individual becoming overweight increase by an astonishing 57% if they have an obese friend.

https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/PLhSxk

Here’s a NYT article on the matter, with an analysis courtesy of the New England Journal of Medicine. I did everyone a huge solid and bypassed the paywall, since apparently I’m the only person on this website who knows how to do that, given some previous experiences of posting articles from pages with paywalls. Original link for the sake of consistency:

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/health/25cnd-fat.html

Matters look even worse for households - if mom and dad are fat, guess who else is going to be fat? The children. It’s not “glandular”, it’s laziness and ordering take-away 6 days a week. That, and “not moving”. Not really a thread about obesity, just chiming in since it absolutely is contagious, and it spreads through communities just like a contagious pathogen would.
They are not comparable. One has to do with a physical virus that can be spreads. Another is an area psychology has to tackle and it's mental. Your friend is fat so you find it ok to not take care of yourself either. It says like a virus but its not a virus. It's more metaphorical (this is probably not the right word to use I'm drawing a blank right now but you get what I mean).

Like saying Democrat beliefs & thinking on gun control is like a virus to the population, and must be stopped. Or saying Communism thinking is a virus that spreads and destroys countries. This is not comparable to the covid virus in that its a physical virus that spreads. You can reduce the risk of covid by vaccinating. But how do you reduce the risk of fat people having mental influence on other people. Do we ban fat people from places? Or ban people from having fat friends? Do we inject something into fat people?
 

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
28,548
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
26,080
Country
Poland
They are not comparable. One has to do with a physical virus that can be spreads. Another is an area psychology has to tackle and it's mental. Your friend is fat so you find it ok to not take care of yourself either. It says like a virus but its not a virus. It's more metaphorical (this is probably not the right word to use I'm drawing a blank right now but you get what I mean).

Like saying Democrat beliefs & thinking on gun control is like a virus to the population, and must be stopped. Or saying Communism thinking is a virus that spreads and destroys countries. This is not comparable to the covid virus in that its a physical virus that spreads. You can reduce the risk of covid by vaccinating. But how do you reduce the risk of fat people having mental influence on other people. Do we ban fat people from places? Or ban people from having fat friends? Do we inject something into fat people?
Gee, who do I trust, a guy on an Internet forum or established and qualified scientists who have tested this hypothesis multiple times and found it repeatable in the course of the last 14-15 years? This one’s a tough nut to crack.

I am perfectly happy with the idea of a “social contagion”. I refer you to the term “human malware” that was recently coined - idiotic ideas that propagate within society to disasterous effects. Obesity is a disease, and it’s a disease that spreads via enabling and complacency. It’s “contagious” if we accept the definition that it spreads from one organism to another, the definition doesn’t specify the means of how it’s supposed to spread.
 

SG854

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
4,473
Trophies
1
XP
5,971
Country
Fiji
Gee, who do I trust, a guy on an Internet forum or established and qualified scientists who have tested this hypothesis multiple times and found it repeatable in the course of the last 14-15 years? This one’s a tough nut to crack.

I am perfectly happy with the idea of a “social contagion”. I refer you to the term “human malware” that was recently coined - idiotic ideas that propagate within society to disasterous effects. Obesity is a disease, and it’s a disease that spreads via enabling and complacency. It’s “contagious” if we accept the definition that it spreads from one organism to another, the definition doesn’t specify the means of how it’s supposed to spread.
Obesity is a disease but you don't need a Science Degree to know how it spreads is way different then how Covid spread's c'mon.
 

SG854

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
4,473
Trophies
1
XP
5,971
Country
Fiji
”How it spreads” wasn’t the point of contention. Follow the conversation.
I was since I was part of the conversation that started with Lacius and Fast.

I have no Idea why Fast brought up Obesity or what his angle was. His main point was about mandates. If obesity is a bigger problem for the Health Care system then Covid then we should include mandates for Obesity to stay logically consistent, this what he was trying to get at. But Mandates for Covid would be obviously different then the mandates for Obesity, because the very nature of these diseases are different. And like I said in my previous post. How do we mandate for Obesity? Do we ban fat people so they won't be contagious and bad influence to other people? Do we ban them from markets, from restaurants, from school until they get skinny? This would be consistent with how we handle covid mandates, on who's vaccinated or not & prevent the negative impact on our health care system from more people getting fat.

Fast was saying he was not drawing comparisons between covid and obesity. But it's obvious he was drawing comparison when it comes to the cost on our health care system. And the two are not comparable because we can't handle them the same. If this wasn't what fast was getting at then I have no idea why he even brought up health care system costs and comparing the two. Or whats the point of bringing it up in a covid debate.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
17,355
Trophies
2
XP
16,539
Country
United States
That was something you inserted in response to me saying that someone who hasn't been (can't be) vaccinated can still be pro-vax. And you said,"by defintion, blah blah," and then you reinvented everyone's pronouns.
Let's be clear that you've been trying unsuccessfully for some time now to argue that a person who is willfully unvaccinated isn't necessarily anti-vax, and I corrected your mistake. If your position has changed to be that you're only creating exemptions from being anti-vax for people who are not medically able to get vaccinated, then you and I might be in agreement depending on the circumstances.

I don't think I said anything relating to pronouns.
 

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
28,548
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
26,080
Country
Poland
I was since I was part of the conversation that started with Lacius and Fast.

I have no Idea why Fast brought up Obesity or what his angle was. His main point was about mandates. If obesity is a bigger problem for the Health Care system then Covid then we should include mandates for Obesity to stay logically consistent, this what he was trying to get at. But Mandates for Covid would be obviously different then the mandates for Obesity, because the very nature of these diseases are different. And like I said in my previous post. How do we mandate for Obesity? Do we ban fat people so they won't be contagious and bad influence to other people? Do we ban them from markets, from restaurants, from school until they get skinny? This would be consistent with how we handle covid mandates, on who's vaccinated or not & prevent the negative impact on our health care system from more people getting fat.

Fast was saying he was not drawing comparisons between covid and obesity. But it's obvious he was drawing comparison when it comes to the cost on our health care system. And the two are not comparable because we can't handle them the same. If this wasn't what fast was getting at then I have no idea why he even brought up health care system costs and comparing the two. Or whats the point of bringing it up in a covid debate.
If he was drawing a comparison in terms of total cost as you claim then “not being able to handle them the same way” is like saying that the sun is warm because ice is cold - one has nothing to do with the other. If you really want to fight this windmill you’ve constructed, at least find counter arguments within the same category. A comparison in terms of cost is rooted in numbers, so unless you have some numbers to provide, you have no rebuttal. I’d argue that obesity is costing the public *more* when it comes to cost of treatment, for reasons I will delve into below.

You’re right - the two diseases are not the same. Obesity leads to 4 out of 10 lead causes of death in the U.S. - heart disease (659k annually), cancer (599k annually), stroke (150k annually) and diabetes (87k annually). It’s also a comorbidity in more diseases than I could possibly list, including COVID 19 - it lowers your survival rate of just about anything, even random accidents. Imagine fracturing a bone when you’re 400lbs, Jesus wept. It costs billions every single year, and it’s not going away because there’s no vaccine for being fat.

The contention was made that obesity is not contagious because it’s not caused by a pathogen, but rather by greedily chomping through enough calories to feed a platoon. Science disproves that notion by outlining behavioural mechanisms that make it contagious, much like many other self-destructive behaviours. A lot of young people start smoking because their peers are smoking - it’s the exact same “thought virus”, if you will. I came in to make that point, and that point stands, as you’ve provided no evidence to disprove it (not that you could, the phenomenon is pretty well-established). Obesity puts an enormous strain on public healthcare by directly leading to a myriad of diseases that require long-term care and are often not curable - insulin-dependent diabetes isn’t going away just because you saw the light and changed your diet, you’re stuck with it.

If you *wanted* to issue a mandate against obesity, all you really need is a set of scales in front of every McDonald’s and hand out weight passports. How is that any different than officers with thermometers and vaccine passports, as seen in China? There are people driving around right now with breathalysers in their cars, if you can’t imagine similar measures being waged in the fight against excessive consumption of grease, your imagination isn’t very vivid. Should we do that? No, because that’s an invasive limitation of people’s inherent freedom to do whatever they fancy with their bodies, even if it is self-destructive… kind of like refusing to get vaccinated in spite of overwhelming evidence that the vaccines are safe and effective, and will protect you against a given pathogen to a large extent.

Fat people stay fat because they have fat on their brain, and unless they have a sudden epiphany and realise that breathing has gotten much harder compared to what they remember from their youth, they will continue to overeat, and their mere existence in society will propagate obesity in their social circle. People who refuse to vaccinate because they think vaccines have heavy metals in them or some such nonsense, have lead on their brain. They will not vaccinate regardless of what measures you propose and they will continue to be at an elevated risk of infection, propagating the pathogen in their circle if they do become infected. Both of those groups have the freedom to do so, whether you like it or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pwjpssdfvqyuhweuxx

AlexMCS

Human
Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2018
Messages
384
Trophies
0
Age
36
Location
Fortaleza
XP
1,621
Country
Brazil
@Lacius - anti-vax are those who are against any form of vaccination whatsoever. Your definition is wrong.
Most people arguing here against vaccine mandates are even in favor of inactivated virus vaccines.
And even those who reject all CoViD-19 vaccines, aren't fighting against vaccines to prevent polio, tetanus etc.

You are indeed making a grey issue into a black/white one.

Here are some excerpts. Pay attention to the lack of quantifiers, which means all, not some in first order logic:

If a person denies all vaccines but one, they do not fall into the complete definition of anti-vaxxer.
It's a fuzzy set.

"A vaccine denier or anti-vaxxer will be defined in this study as someone who believes vaccines do not work, are not safe or refuse vaccines for themselves and their children if applicable." - https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-021-12114-8

"a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination" - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer

"Vaccine hesitancy is a delay in acceptance, or refusal of vaccines despite the availability of vaccine services. The term covers outright refusals to vaccinate, delaying vaccines, accepting vaccines but remaining uncertain about their use, or using certain vaccines but not others.[1][2][3][4] "Anti-vaccinationism" refers to total opposition to vaccination; in more recent years, anti-vaccinationists have been known as "anti-vaxxers" or "anti-vax"." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_hesitancy
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alexander1970

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
17,355
Trophies
2
XP
16,539
Country
United States
@Lacius - anti-vax are those who are against any form of vaccination whatsoever. Your definition is wrong.
Most people arguing here against vaccine mandates are even in favor of inactivated virus vaccines.
And even those who reject all CoViD-19 vaccines, aren't fighting against vaccines to prevent polio, tetanus etc.

You are indeed making a grey issue into a black/white one.

Here are some excerpts. Pay attention to the lack of quantifiers, which means all, not some in first order logic:

If a person denies all vaccines but one, they do not fall into the complete definition of anti-vaxxer.
It's a fuzzy set.

"A vaccine denier or anti-vaxxer will be defined in this study as someone who believes vaccines do not work, are not safe or refuse vaccines for themselves and their children if applicable." - https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-021-12114-8

"a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination" - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer

"Vaccine hesitancy is a delay in acceptance, or refusal of vaccines despite the availability of vaccine services. The term covers outright refusals to vaccinate, delaying vaccines, accepting vaccines but remaining uncertain about their use, or using certain vaccines but not others.[1][2][3][4] "Anti-vaccinationism" refers to total opposition to vaccination; in more recent years, anti-vaccinationists have been known as "anti-vaxxers" or "anti-vax"." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_hesitancy
Thank you for the reply, since I can tell you worked hard on it, but people who are opposed to the COVID-19 vaccines are indeed anti-vaxxers, per just about every definition I'm aware of (including ones you have posted). If you want to make a distinction between "anti-vaxxers" and those who are "vaccine-hesitant," you're free to do that, but it isn't how most people are using the terms, the distinction doesn't appear particularly useful, and I don't think it changes any substantive point I've made about vaccines in this thread and others.

A racist only has to be opposed to one race, and an anti-vaxxer only has to be opposed to one reputable vaccine.

Language is descriptive, not prescriptive, and it should be telling that the anti-vaxxers on this site would rather argue about semantics than talk about the vaccines.

Edit: I also don't agree with you that a lack of qualifiers defaults to "all" in colloquial language, but I'm about done with these semantic arguments that don't really matter to me.
 

tabzer

RP
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
2,753
Trophies
1
Age
37
XP
2,158
Country
Japan
Let's be clear that you've been trying unsuccessfully for some time now to argue that a person who is willfully unvaccinated isn't necessarily anti-vax, and I corrected your mistake. If your position has changed to be that you're only creating exemptions from being anti-vax for people who are not medically able to get vaccinated, then you and I might be in agreement depending on the circumstances.

I don't think I said anything relating to pronouns.
I agree that a person who is willfully unvaccinated isn't necessarily anti-vax, and I know you don't agree, but that definitely was not the argument.

an anti-vaxxer only has to be opposed to one reputable vaccine

That's a nice way to keep the definition subjective for your arbitrary use of it.

When people stop getting their fourth and fifth booster shots, they will be labelled as both unvaccinated and anti-vax.
 
Last edited by tabzer,

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
17,355
Trophies
2
XP
16,539
Country
United States
When people stop getting their fourth and fifth booster shots, they will be labelled as both unvaccinated and anti-vax.
If the science supports fourth or fifth booster shots, then yes, they will be anti-vaxxers, as are those who already willfully refuse the annual flu vaccine.
 

x65943

the end is nigh, buy doge coin
Global Moderator
GBAtemp Patron
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
5,071
Trophies
3
Location
ΗΠΑ
XP
12,266
Country
United States
If the science supports fourth or fifth booster shots, then yes, they will be anti-vaxxers, as are those who already willfully refuse the annual flu vaccine.
imo there is a difference between antivaxxers and those who don't want a vaccine themselves

I think to be called anti-vax you should be actively against the vaccine or vaccines in general

Personally I have still only gotten two doses of pfizer but I am still overwhelmingly pro-vaccine - I just don't want to get the 3rd shot myself at this time
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alexander1970

AlexMCS

Human
Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2018
Messages
384
Trophies
0
Age
36
Location
Fortaleza
XP
1,621
Country
Brazil
but people who are opposed to the COVID-19 vaccines are indeed anti-vaxxers, per just about every definition I'm aware of (including ones you have posted).
Clearly not.

I also don't agree with you that a lack of qualifiers defaults to "all" in colloquial language, but I'm about done with these semantic arguments that don't really matter to me.
Wrong as well. Lack of quantifiers = all in any high order logic.

Colloquial language is full of quirks, including subjectivity, which is why we don't use it when having a serious discussion.

But since logic/semantics isn't the focus of the talk, let us agree to disagree.

If the science supports fourth or fifth booster shots, then yes, they will be anti-vaxxers, as are those who already willfully refuse the annual flu vaccine.

And once again, science is not the ultimate answer to everything. It's a nice tool, not a source of truth.
What is true to science right now, and has been such for millenia, can be false in the very next second.
That is the nature of science.

It's a great way to analyze trends, and an excellent orientation tool, but it is not a way to get definitive answers. Decisions dictated by science alone with no intuition on some sort of external verification method are akin to blind faith, and a dumb one, since science is liable to change.

Science has determined Covid-19 mRNA vaccines are safe, based on experimental statistical sampling methods (I'm majored in Computer Science and post-grad. in Mathematical Modeling), which by themselves are subject to error.

As a matter of indisputable fact/truth, no mathematical model has correctly predicted the outcome of the pandemic, since there is only so much the tool called science can do for you, since one of the main drawbacks of scientific research is that
knowledge itself is limited: you can't know everything you need to study a certain subject.

Not to mentions the limits of "nature": there is a point where you just have to stop asking "why?".

"Why gravity exists?"
"Why negative and positive attract each other?"

And so on.
Every question begets another one in an endless cycle.

Sorry for the philosophical digression, but it's sad to see someone take science as a religion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tabzer

x65943

the end is nigh, buy doge coin
Global Moderator
GBAtemp Patron
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
5,071
Trophies
3
Location
ΗΠΑ
XP
12,266
Country
United States
Clearly not.


Wrong as well. Lack of quantifiers = all in any high order logic.

Colloquial language is full of quirks, including subjectivity, which is why we don't use it when having a serious discussion.

But since logic/semantics isn't the focus of the talk, let us agree to disagree.



And once again, science is not the ultimate answer to everything. It's a nice tool, not a source of truth.
What is true to science right now, and has been such for millenia, can be false in the very next second.
That is the nature of science.

It's a great way to analyze trends, and an excellent orientation tool, but it is not a way to get definitive answers. Decisions dictated by science alone with no intuition on some sort of external verification method are akin to blind faith, and a dumb one, since science is liable to change.

Science has determined Covid-19 mRNA vaccines are safe, based on experimental statistical sampling methods (I'm majored in Computer Science and post-grad. in Mathematical Modeling), which by themselves are subject to error.

As a matter of indisputable fact/truth, no mathematical model has correctly predicted the outcome of the pandemic, since there is only so much the tool called science can do for you, since one of the main drawbacks of scientific research is that
knowledge itself is limited: you can't know everything you need to study a certain subject.

Not to mentions the limits of "nature": there is a point where you just have to stop asking "why?".

"Why gravity exists?"
"Why negative and positive attract each other?"

And so on.
Every question begets another one in an endless cycle.

Sorry for the philosophical digression, but it's sad to see someone take science as a religion.
It's not that science is a religion, but generally it's a good way to decide which path to take when several are afforded to you

I mean let's say you want to decrease infection and there are multiple options - I would rather pick the option with numbers and logic behind it - even if as you say there is always room for error
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alexander1970

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
17,355
Trophies
2
XP
16,539
Country
United States
imo there is a difference between antivaxxers and those who don't want a vaccine themselves
I see little to no difference between someone who is against vaccines and someone who doesn't get the vaccine because of opposition to the vaccine.

I think to be called anti-vax you should be actively against the vaccine or vaccines in general
I don't think a person can be willfully unvaccinated at this point without being actively against the vaccine.

Colloquial language is full of quirks, including subjectivity, which is why we don't use it when having a serious discussion.
Except the conversation was literally about colloquial language and nothing else.

And once again, science is not the ultimate answer to everything. It's a nice tool, not a source of truth.
What is true to science right now, and has been such for millenia, can be false in the very next second.
That is the nature of science.

It's a great way to analyze trends, and an excellent orientation tool, but it is not a way to get definitive answers. Decisions dictated by science alone with no intuition on some sort of external verification method are akin to blind faith, and a dumb one, since science is liable to change.

Science has determined Covid-19 mRNA vaccines are safe, based on experimental statistical sampling methods (I'm majored in Computer Science and post-grad. in Mathematical Modeling), which by themselves are subject to error.

As a matter of indisputable fact/truth, no mathematical model has correctly predicted the outcome of the pandemic, since there is only so much the tool called science can do for you, since one of the main drawbacks of scientific research is that
knowledge itself is limited: you can't know everything you need to study a certain subject.

Not to mentions the limits of "nature": there is a point where you just have to stop asking "why?".

"Why gravity exists?"
"Why negative and positive attract each other?"

And so on.
Every question begets another one in an endless cycle.

Sorry for the philosophical digression, but it's sad to see someone take science as a religion.
I don't think anybody claims science to be a source of absolute truth. It is, however, the best (and only) tool we have. When our scientific understanding changes, it's because the evidence changes, not because the methodology changed.

The fact that our scientific understanding about things has changed is a feature of science, not a bug.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    KennieDaMeanie @ KennieDaMeanie: Well I bought the 20th anniversary Xbox controller should be here tomorrow