pawnman

Yes, I am. And you're so secure in your convictions you'd let a vaccinated person die over an unvaccinated one.

I didn't answer them because I'm tired of playing the game where you poke a hole in every answer. There is a limit to hospital capacity. I'm with you...help as much as we can, for as many people as we can. But at some point, we're gonna have more sick people than we have capacity. What's your answer to increasing hospital capacity in an area over-run with Covid? Where do you get additional bed space, doctors, nurses, ventilators, medication...? It sounds great to "just increase capacity". Hell, why didn't the President think of that? Just put more people in hospitals, problem solved! While we're at it, why don't we just increase capacity in Afghanistan until we've airlifted everyone? Why are we making decisions about who gets refugee status - just increase the capacity! It's so simple!

Alright...so what's your answer, with your friends on the operating table? What's your decision matrix? Go ahead...walk me through the one righteous moral path.

I'm curious why you think VAERS data isn't being taken seriously. Did you comb through the VAERS data on the flu shot before taking it every year you've been in the military? Did you look up the VAERS data for MMR, polio, or diptheria vaccines before taking them? I know that I'm not an epidemiologist or microbiologist. So...I'm gonna go with the experts on this one.

Someone's not getting a ventilator. If there are 20 patients and 20 ventilators - great, everyone gets treatment. But if there aren't enough resources to go around, then yeah, I'd prioritize the vaccinated people. Not for any moral judgements, but because the data shows that vaccinated people are more likely to recover than unvaccinated people. Just like if there's one heart for a transplant, boards are much more likely to give it to the marathon runner with a congenital problem than to the 400 pound couch potato, because the prognosis for long-term recovery is better. What would you do...first come, first served, outcomes be damned? "Sorry, you got sick at the wrong time after doing everything right, I have to go put this guy who was eating horse dewormer on a ventilator now"?

Would I, given equal medical situations? Yep.

Like when you have 20 ventilators in a hospital and 30 patients... vaccinated patients get the ventilators before unvaccinated people.

Maybe, but we do make triage decisions. An otherwise healthy person will get bumped to the front of the line for a liver transplant over an alcoholic. So maybe we don't refuse all treatment to unvaccinated people... but if we run out of capacity, vaccinated people get priority when decisions need to be made.

How long would you consider a "long-term" study? A year? Two? Ten?

Now do the odds of getting hospitalized or dying from the vaccine.

Just don't take the version made for horses.

He's less coherent than either of those two. And I don't recall them using memes in every other post.

Just like folks who won't get the Covid vaccine.

So the best course of action would be to have Covid patients cough on everyone they meet until everyone has gotten it?

So this seems to suggest that getting vaccinated even after an infection is better than just getting infected and hoping for the best...am I reading that correctly?

Do I need to post the CDC's Kentucky study again? If you're unvaccinated, and you had Covid once already, you're still more than twice as likely to get Covid again as someone who got Covid and then got vaccinated.

I have a feeling that "economy" is low on the list of Taliban priorities.

Mostly "It's not tested" (it is). We don't know the long-term effects (most vaccine side-effects happen within the first two weeks. It's extremely rare for a vaccine to have a side-effect years later). "I shouldn't be forced to do something I don't want to do" (One wonders if these people pay taxes, obey traffic laws, or especially in the military, pitch this kind of fit over flu shots every year) "The vaccine doesn't do anything" (even though it's been shown that breakthrough infections are rare, infection rates among the unvaccinated are far higher, and that vaccines have been shown to decrease the severity and length of Covid symptoms) "I don't trust the FDA and CDC" (So...I guess these folks are growing their own food in their backyard?) "I've done my research" (I hardly think that the five YouTube videos you watched from a doctor with a revoked license is "research" on the scale of a $6.5 billion organization staffed with people who have studied viral infections for a decade, but hell, maybe these people have their own microbiology lab set up in the garage I don't know about).

When it gets anywhere near the number of Covid deaths. For a group that keeps touting a 99% survival rate for the illness, y'all seem awfully skittish about a 99.999% survival rate for the vaccine.

Can't help with the VAERS data, other than that it's self-reported, which leads to some wild inconsistencies in the raw data. CDC doesn't use it alone as a decision making tool...it's a canary in a coal mine to show when something may need further study. As for natural immunity - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm

Vaccinated spread it at the same rate as unvaccinated IF THEY GET INFECTED. But the vaccines help reduce the total number of infected people, which helps prevent the spread to others.

Well, it was a Strike Eagle... so both could be true.

Not to mention "flattening the curve" as a course of action never meant "two weeks and Covid will disappear". It was designed to spread the inevitable infections out in time so as not to overwhelm the health care system. Which I would say was moderately successful.

I have a feeling they'll pivot from "unapproved vaccine" to a different talking point.

Unleashing airstrikes on the Taliban while their cooperation is still required for the evacuations may not be the best course of action...