Covid-19 vaccine

[SG854]

I mean, the Dunning-Kruger effect is already well-documented. Moreover, people who experience success in one field automatically feel more qualified to speak on all subjects, not just their area of expertise, since how hard could it be compared to X, X being what they're already good at. This reminds me of Neil the ass Tyson routinely making a fool of himself when talking about biology - he's an astrophysicist, his knowledge of biology is on the level of a high school student, and it shows.
https://www.twitter.com/neiltyson/status/708427052433678336
For the record, there are multiple species to which sex is excruciatingly painful or even fatal. His various gaffes will never stop being funny to me, the guy doesn't know how to stay in his lane.

Dunning Kruger may be well documented but you still want to bring in more data especially how different it may have been during covid.

Data during covid may be more impactful then data from other events because its something all of us were affected by and is something people will pay attention to more because of this reason.

FDA grants full approval to Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine. Please put down the horse de-wormers and go get vaccinated.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/23/health/fda-approval-pfizer-covid-vaccine/index.html

Yay that's the one I got.

I can't believe people trusted Horse de-wormers over covid vaccine lol. This is how stupid it's gotten. It amazes me, it really does, the amount of stupid.

You're not a horse FDA says lol.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/aug/23/fda-horse-message-ivermectin-covid-coronavirus


Hopefully now people against the vaccine will go out and get it.

I'm still sure people will still be anti vaccine the ones complaining about long term effects. Or people that are like, I won't take it because you can't tell me what to do na na na. While sticking their tongue out and making a looser symbol with their hand on their forhead.

 

[The Catboy]

I'd posit the argument that there is a difference between a business refusing antivaxers (or to making a gay cake), and a government forcing said business to do so. If you are making the argument that people are free to force you to do something, then ignore that I said anything.

Your freedom to swing your fist stops at the tip of my nose. Anti-vaxxors are a threat to the people around them as they continue to spread Covid. At some point there needs to be an acknowledgment that the movement is wrong and needs to stop. If it requires pressuring businesses to refuse services in order to prevent the spread of Covid, then it’s only the fault of those refusing to get the vaccine. It is the anti-vaccine movement’s fault when they have to face the consequences of their own actions.

 

[m_babble]

Insurance companies should start denying coverage for unvaccinated COVID patients. Let them pay out of pocket.

 

[Dakitten]

I'd posit the argument that there is a difference between a business refusing antivaxers (or to making a gay cake), and a government forcing said business to do so. If you are making the argument that people are free to force you to do something, then ignore that I said anything.

You have the right to kiss every rat in the sewer to your heart's content. You do not have the right, however, to lick doorhandles in a school knowing you've caught the bubonic plague. You have the right to buy fireworks in some states. You do not have the right to light them off in a movie theater. I actually disagree about religious exemptions regarding the cake comparison (broadly speaking, your rules with your imaginary friends are your own business and should not impact others) but when it comes to public health during an outbreak, our bodies literally become potential weapons and need enforcement and regulations.

 

[Foxi4]

I suppose you could have the unvaccinated sequester themselves for a really long time, until herd immunity has been reached and new cases drop way off... Seems costly and like a good motivation for antivaxxers to reevaluate their decisions! But hey, I am sure that if they make good life choices and prayed to Bob, they'll have the resources to pull through just fine.

I'm afraid that the state doesn't get to restrict the freedom of perfectly healthy individuals just because they didn't undergo a medical procedure that's highly recommended for their safety.

Your freedom to swing your fist stops at the tip of my nose. Anti-vaxxors are a threat to the people around them as they continue to spread Covid. At some point there needs to be an acknowledgment that the movement is wrong and needs to stop. If it requires pressuring businesses to refuse services in order to prevent the spread of Covid, then it’s only the fault of those refusing to get the vaccine. It is the anti-vaccine movement’s fault when they have to face the consequences of their own actions.

Total non-argument. Other people are not burdened with keeping you safe - that responsibility falls on you. You have the agency to get the jab to ensure that you are immunised, which greatly reduces your risk of contracting the virus and becoming ill - that agency doesn't extend to forcing third parties to do the same. Just because something is good, which the vaccine definitely is, doesn't mean that you have the right to force it on others without their consent. It's a simple matter of bodily autonomy - I was under the impression that you guys were in favour of it, but I may be mistaken.

Insurance companies should start denying coverage for unvaccinated COVID patients. Let them pay out of pocket.

I wonder if lack of immunity against a virus is a pre-existing condition.

 

[gene0915]

Don't worry sheep..... big pharma always has your best interests at heart and would never ever ever lie about anything, ESPECIALLY the safety of COVID-1984 "vaccines":

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/merck-...y-neutralize-or-discredit-dissenting-doctors/

https://www.seegerweiss.com/drug-injury/vioxx-lawsuit/

https://www.npr.org/series/5033105/vioxx-the-downfall-of-a-drug

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/just...gest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history

https://streamable.com/ighq44 (and trolls like lacius will reply...."of course the CDC is flip flopping, they are just going off of newly released data duh!"

Funny..... I knew what the CDC is now flip flopping about as soon as delta landed. Guess that makes me smarter than Fauci the fraudster and everyone at the CDC? Or maybe I have a special ability that lets me see into the future?

 

[Lacius]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/merck-...y-neutralize-or-discredit-dissenting-doctors/

https://www.seegerweiss.com/drug-injury/vioxx-lawsuit/

https://www.npr.org/series/5033105/vioxx-the-downfall-of-a-drug

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/just...gest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history

That's why you should listen to the independent scientists who don't have a financial or political interest in what's being claimed. If you do that, you will see that the overwhelming consensus from independent scientists is that the vaccines are safe and effective. You generally can't find a lot of dissenting opinions with regard to COVID-19 vaccination in the medical community that aren't financially or politically motivated.

https://streamable.com/ighq44 (and trolls like lacius will reply...."of course the CDC is flip flopping, they are just going off of newly released data duh!"

Funny..... I knew what the CDC is now flip flopping about as soon as delta landed. Guess that makes me smarter than Fauci the fraudster and everyone at the CDC? Or maybe I have a special ability that lets me see into the future?

The delta variant is different from previous variants. With older variants, the vaccines made one less likely to contract COVID-19, and even if there was a breakthrough infection, the viral load was must lower.

Unfortunately, with the delta variant, the viral load in a vaccinated person suffering from a breakthrough infection is comparable to the viral load of someone infected who is unvaccinated. Fortunately though, the vaccines are still pretty effective against getting infected with the delta variant in the first place.

The more people who are vaccinated, the less likely anybody (vaccinated or not) will be exposed to the virus and get infected.

I wonder if lack of immunity against a virus is a pre-existing condition.

Yes and no. "Pre-existing conditions" as a reason for denying coverage or raising prices is illegal in the United States, but certain voluntary behaviors like smoking, not getting an annual check-up, etc. are allowed to result in higher prices. The same should go for not getting vaccinated, and I don't think this should be limited to COVID-19 vaccines.

 

[gene0915]

That's why you should listen to the independent scientists who don't have a financial or political interest in what's being claimed. If you do that, you will see that the overwhelming consensus from independent scientists is that the vaccines are safe and effective. You generally can't find a lot of dissenting opinions with regard to COVID-19 vaccination in the medical community that aren't financially or politically motivated.

The delta variant is different from previous variants. With older variants, the vaccines made one less likely to contract COVID-19, and even if there was a breakthrough infection, the viral load was must lower.

Unfortunately, with the delta variant, the viral load in a vaccinated person suffering from a breakthrough infection is comparable to the viral load of someone infected who is unvaccinated. Fortunately though, the vaccines are still pretty effective against getting infected with the delta variant in the first place.

The more people who are vaccinated, the less likely anybody (vaccinated or not) will be exposed to the virus and get infected.


Yes and no. "Pre-existing conditions" as a reason for denying coverage or raising prices is illegal in the United States, but certain voluntary behaviors like smoking, not getting an annual check-up, etc. are allowed to result in higher prices. The same should go for not getting vaccinated, and I don't think this should be limited to COVID-19 vaccines.

The independent scientists that are blacklisted by all social media? You crack me up, seriously, I'm lulzing over here!! I see the genius in your right wing trolling and love it!!

 

[Lacius]

The independent scientists that are blacklisted by all social media? You crack me up, seriously, I'm lulzing over here!! I see the genius in your right wing trolling and love it!!

If someone is "blacklisted on social media," it probably means they're peddling misleading and unscientific claims. I'd have to know what you're talking about.

 

[gene0915]

If someone is "blacklisted on social media," it probably means they're peddling misleading and unscientific claims. I'd have to know what you're talking about.

HAHAHA, I hear ya! wink wink nod nod lulz!!!!!

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Guess some teachers in NYC need to learn to code: https://www.zerohedge.com/political...l-staff-either-get-vaccinated-or-find-new-job

 

[JoeBloggs777]

Don't worry sheep..... big pharma always has your best interests at heart and would never ever ever lie about anything, ESPECIALLY the safety of COVID-1984 "vaccines":

I trust the misses who works in A&E, nearly everyone who comes to A&E now with covid symptoms had refused to take one of the vaccines when they were offered one. some are their pants when they get asked why they didn't take the vaccine and are sent home to isolate and get a telling off for going to A&E with covid and risk spreading covid further.

 

[Lacius]

HAHAHA, I hear ya! wink wink nod nod lulz!!!!!

I'll take your lack of a substantive response to be a concession.

Guess some teachers in NYC need to learn to code: https://www.zerohedge.com/political...l-staff-either-get-vaccinated-or-find-new-job

No need to do that when you can just get vaccinated instead of potentially putting your students and their families at risk.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

I'm not against mask mandates, it's a piece of cloth - grow up. I am against vaccination mandates, even though I am pro vaccine all the way. Nobody should be forced to undergo any medical procedure or take any drug they don't want just because the government tells them to, even if they refuse for boneheaded reasons.

You can be against mask mandate all you want, but grow up. I also said nothing about mandates to force anyone to take the actual vaccination.

Someone already pointed out schools and children. How about the military where big, tough, strong anti-vaxxer adults would be given nice vax cocktails so they can go fight their wars and play army men... yet I don't hear any of those gung go Call of Duty hyper-Patriotic junkies complain bout vaccines. I imagine theres going to be a bunch of pussy vaccinated libs fighting our wars for us now.

 

[Foxi4]

Yes and no. "Pre-existing conditions" as a reason for denying coverage or raising prices is illegal in the United States, but certain voluntary behaviors like smoking, not getting an annual check-up, etc. are allowed to result in higher prices. The same should go for not getting vaccinated, and I don't think this should be limited to COVID-19 vaccines.

That's not a response to what was suggested. The suggestion was that people who did not receive their vaccine or refuse to take it should be *denied* coverage. If we're only talking about an increase in price then I'm absolutely in favour as it's a known risk factor that the insurer has to account for when selling a plan to a customer, same as a history smoking etc., my contention was that until 5 minutes ago everyone "deserved health insurance and coverage as a right" whereas now I see calls for denying insurance based on people's decisions regarding their own personal health. Not that I want to lump all liberals into one basket since that's silly, but you guys need to figure out what policies you actually support. From where I'm sitting it's looking like some weather vane action going on. If you're on the "healthcare is a right" train then you don't get to pull that rug out from under people when you feel like it. The conservative side of the argument is much more consistent on this - insurance and healthcare are not rights and you get to slam stupid people with premiums if they make decisions hazardous to their health. I'm fairly surprised that it's also*your* position, but then again, your position includes a vaccine mandate from what I gathered, so in your ideal world it would be a non-issue as compliance would be a requirement in the first place.

 

[Lacius]

That's not a response to what was suggested. The suggestion was that people who did not receive their vaccine or refuse to take it should be *denied* coverage. If we're only talking about an increase in price then I'm absolutely in favour as it's a known risk factor that the insurer has to account for when selling a plan to a customer, same as a history smoking etc., my contention was until 5 minutes ago everyone "deserved health insurance and coverage as a right" whereas now I see calls for denying insurance based on subjective feelings regarding people's decisions regarding their own health. Not that I want to lump all liberals into one basket since that's silly, but you guys need to figure out what policies you actually support. From where I'm sitting it's looking like some weather vane action going on. If you're on the "healthcare is a right" train then you don't get to pull that rug out from under people when you feel like it. The conservative side of the argument is much more consistent on this - insurance and healthcare are not rights and you get to slam stupid people with premiums if they make decisions hazardous to their health. I'm fairly surprised that's also *your* position, but then again, your position is also a vaccine mandate from what I gathered, so in your ideal world it would be a non-issue since compliance would be a requirement in the first place.

My only "position" was that pre-existing conditions denials are illegal in the United States, but increases in insurance prices for specific voluntary behaviors are not.

My positions on health care are that it should be a right, and we should have Medicare for All, regardless of whether or not someone is a smoker, anti-vaxxers, etc.

 

[SG854]

that agency doesn't extend to forcing third parties to do the same. Just because something is good, which the vaccine definitely is, doesn't mean that you have the right to force it on others without their consent. It's a simple matter of bodily autonomy - I was under the impression that you guys were in favour of it, but I may be mistaken.
I wonder if lack of immunity against a virus is a pre-existing condition.

Whether or not people should have a choice in bodily autonomy should be situation dependent.

A Woman and on the topic of abortion, the women should have bodily autonomy to choose to get abortion if she wants too. And getting abortion can help with not being dependent on gov programs like food stamps and give the women opprotunities to not worry about a kid and easily pursue a career which forcing a women to have a baby makes it harder. People make mistakes and forcing a women to deal with those mistakes and having a baby she can't afford or want, can be a public bad also with gov programs taking care of her and/or the child growing up neglected by the mother that never wanted that kid.

But in the situation of covid the vaccine has shown to be effective and has gotten FDA approval and is for the good of the public to end covid. There is hardly any negatives to getting the vaccine besides the small % of people who will react negatively to the vaccine and they should be exempt.

Bodily autonomy should only be if it can provide a benifit to the person and to the general public. I don't see negative's to granting women bodily autonomy. But I see negatives to granting anti vaxxers bodily autonomy.

I would only grant bodily autonomy to vaccines that have not much scientific backing on it. Then bodily autonomy in this situation makes sense. Again bodily autonomy being situation dependent.


These are my thoughts right now as I haven't formulated well thought out points on this topic as I am still unsure about medical mandates like vaccines. So my initial thoughts can change on this. I can see people against vaccine mandates so i'm not hating on them. I just haven't thought this through yet so I am still working out different points and scenarios. A brain storming basically.

 

[Foxi4]

My only "position" was that pre-existing conditions denials are illegal in the United States, but increases in insurance prices for specific voluntary behaviors are not.

My positions on health care are that it should be a right, and we should have Medicare for All, regardless of whether or not someone is a smoker, anti-vaxxers, etc.

Oh, I was referencing previous discussions on this subject. Glad that you're at least consistent with your stance - that's a good thing. I'm happy to shake on higher premiums for people at higher risk, that makes perfect sense to me, particularly if it's self-inflicted. It's a good motivator too - "do this good thing and your bill goes down, don't do it and we'll just keep charging you". Beautifully capitalist solution.

Whether or not people should have a choice in bodily autonomy should be situation dependent.

A Woman and on the topic of abortion, the women should have bodily autonomy to choose to get abortion if she wants too. And getting abortion can help with not being dependent on gov programs like food stamps and give the women opprotunities to not worry about a kid and easily pursue a career which forcing a women to have a baby makes it harder. People make mistakes and forcing a women to deal with those mistakes and having a baby she can't afford or want, can be a public bad also with gov programs taking care of her and/or the child growing up neglected by the mother that never wanted that kid.

But in the situation of covid the vaccine has shown to be effective and has gotten FDA approval and is for the good of the public to end covid. There is hardly any negatives to getting the vaccine besides the small % of people who will react negatively to the vaccine and they should be exempt.

Bodily autonomy should only be if it can provide a benifit to the person and to the general public. I don't see negative's to granting women bodily autonomy. But I see negatives to granting anti vaxxers bodily autonomy.

I would only grant bodily autonomy to vaccines that have not much scientific backing on it. Then bodily autonomy in this situation makes sense. Again bodily autonomy being situation dependent.


These are my thoughts right now as I haven't formulated well thought out points on this topic as I am still unsure about medical mandates like vaccines. So my initial thoughts can change on this. I can see people against vaccine mandates so i'm not hating on them. I just haven't thought this through yet so I am still working out different points and scenarios. A brain storming basically.

Rights are not "granted" or "taken away" at the behest of the government, nor are they conditional. They're immutable and inalienable, that's what makes them "rights" as opposed to "privileges". Bodily autonomy is not a privilege, it is a right. I don't find the common/greater good to be compelling - I don't care about any common or greater good, I care about my rights, and about the state not infringing them, or being given a mandate to do so. Keep in mind, I'm 100% Pro vaccine, everyone should get it as soon as they can, however I'm not in favour of forcing it on people at the point of a gun, which is what the government is. If you point that loaded gun at one person, don't be surprised if at some point you'll be looking at the barrel yourself. There's a heck of a lot of things that are for "the greater good" that you wouldn't want anything to do with.

 

[The Catboy]

Total non-argument. Other people are not burdened with keeping you safe - that responsibility falls on you. You have the agency to get the jab to ensure that you are immunised, which greatly reduces your risk of contracting the virus and becoming ill - that agency doesn't extend to forcing third parties to do the same. Just because something is good, which the vaccine definitely is, doesn't mean that you have the right to force it on others without their consent. It's a simple matter of bodily autonomy - I was under the impression that you guys were in favour of it, but I may be mistaken.

People not being vaccinated are the problem and them choosing to not get vaccinated is a threat to everyone around them. I am not suggesting forcing them to get vaccinated, but I am suggesting that everyone has to right to refuse service to them for continuing to spread Covid. Anti-vaxxors are harmful, the recent spike in viruses almost completely eliminated is more than enough proof that they are dangerous to others around them. I am protecting myself and I am vaccinated but that only goes so far when people are refusing to get vaccinated and the virus continues to mutate as a result. Anti-vaxxors are the problem.

 

[Foxi4]

People not being vaccinated are the problem and them choosing to not get vaccinated is a threat to everyone around them. I am not suggesting forcing them to get vaccinated, but I am suggesting that everyone has to right to refuse service to them for continuing to spread Covid. Anti-vaxxors are harmful, the recent spike in viruses almost completely eliminated is more than enough proof that they are dangerous to others around them. I am protecting myself and I am vaccinated but that only goes so far when people are refusing to get vaccinated and the virus continues to mutate as a result. Anti-vaxxors are the problem.

I am 100% in support of the right of any business to refuse service to anyone based on whatever benchmark the business sets, I'm just surprised to see liberals advocating for the same thing. I'm pro freedom and anti coercion.

 

[The Catboy]

I am 100% in support for the right of any business to refuse service to anyone based on whatever benchmark the business sets, I'm just surprised to see liberals advocating for the same thing. I'm pro freedom and anti coercion.

I am not a Liberal, I am an ancom.