Negatory

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y Nature preprint of a large study showing that transmission approaches nearly unvaccinated levels just 3 months post vax.

I guess there is still evidence that vaccines reduce the rate of hospitalization and death, so that would be the argument.

Delta made vaccines obsolete. Very disheartening.

Go with sources on false positive rates.

Maybe underreport is not the precise language I’m trying to use. They are one of the slowest to report, so their graph has looked like we are on a downtrend for weeks. Turns out is just because they are extremely delayed compared to almost every other state.

Cases are coming down naturally. But Florida in particular is such a bad example because they criminally underreport in comparison to most other places. For reference, they have only claimed 2 deaths for yesterday, which is guaranteed to be off by an order of magnitude my friend. And your examples of other countries don’t affect the data that show that, in the USA, we are pretty damn close to peak deaths in the delta surge right now.

It’s a lagging indicator that Florida has been particularly bad at. No surprise that conservative media skews this data, intentionally. I encourage you to check this yourself.

I think you’re misreading this one; I used to believe the same. That study doesn’t compare vaccinated infection rates to infection rates of those who recovered from COVID. It looks only at people who recovered from COVID: it compares people who recovered from COVID in 2020 and were unvaxed to people who recovered from COVID in 2020 and were vaxed. It showed that vaccines help even those who had the disease already. But it doesn’t show what you said. There are actual cited studies on here that show that natural immunity is potentially more effective against the virus than pure vaccination. I think somewhere it was like 5-10x as effective as vaccination, actually, for a time period. It has been posted here. Now there are other factors we can discuss, such as almost a third of Covid infections not resulting in effective antibodies, or natural immunity fading significantly faster than vaccination, but let’s be specific. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947a2.htm

Base rate fallacy.

Let’s dispel the notion that I’m not accountable for my choices. First, I responded to you. And let me double down. When I say I voted against Trump, I mean it. Hell, I maybe even would have voted for Hillary Clinton over Trump. And that comes from someone who voted for McCain what feels like hundreds of years ago. @VMFA187Here’s a few points. Yes, developing coal plants at this point in human history is not just bad, it’s a travesty. It’s short sighted idiocy to get rural voters. Cool. Yeah, I don’t agree with either spending plan. Youre being threatened with a dishonorable discharge because you wouldn’t get a simple vaccine. You’ll see that we don’t agree on this point. I think you should have gotten it. Let’s define net worth as above $50M, like most wealth taxes proposed. If you think that $50M is too low, I guess I just think you’re delusional. Also, your stupid whataboutism with an old poor elderly couple that couldn’t get any of their 7.5M in equity out of their home is ridiculous, and it wouldn’t be a factor in the majority of proposals that entirely discount primary residences. To cap it off, you end with a predictable slippery slope fallacy. You know that’s not the point or an even remotely likely scenario. Something something lick the boot? The 10 year plan started with passing the largest infrastructure and research bill since WWII. It includes provisions on expected changes to combat climate change. As stated, I don’t believe Biden is that great. But I do believe Trump’s worse. We’ll agree to disagree.

I get what you’re saying, and it’s all true. But the scientific reasoning i’m arguing that makes vaccine and mask mandates significantly less palatable to me, now, is that everything changed with delta. The virus won, unless we commit to another few years of this. Even if the vaccine stopped 50-75% of transmission and masking stopped 30-50% more and society was 75-90% vaccinated, the virus would still spread. That’s because it has an estimated R0 of 5-9. You can’t get it below 1. You can see it now, in actual data. We are at phenomenally high levels of infection even with high masking and vaccination rates. I’m starting to believe reports that herd immunity is a myth with Delta - literally impossible: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/08/12/herd-immunity-is-mythical-with-the-covid-delta-variant-experts-say.html https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2 Even with 99% of society vaccinated, we would see the virus spread and cause cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. Will there be less than if only 60% is vaccinated? Sure. But at what cost? To make the remaining 20-30% of society get vaccines against their stubborn wills would require, likely, an overreach of government power. All to still have a virus that exists, mutates, spreads, and continues to cause sickness. Also, I want to understand your data on how many people can’t get vaccinated for medical reasons. I keep hearing it’s “plenty,” but I’ve never seen any numbers to back that up. Those numbers matter, because if it’s 500k people or 50M people changes the calculus. Masking, social distancing, and getting vaccines may seem like a minor inconvenience, but there is a limit to cost benefit societally. Every day that cost increases. At some point, yes, it stops being worthwhile for 300M people to have to change their lives and social interactions to protect a very small subset of society. Unfortunately, I think we’re pretty damn close, honestly. I did my part, societally, and got vaccinated and social distanced. I wear a mask. But I’m about over it. That’s where I’m at.

I buy that masks work. They don’t work 100%, which is the critic’s easiest fallacious black and white argument against them. In fact, evidence suggests an efficacy rate between 20-50%. Sounds bad, but still does something. My issue at this point is how long do we do this? Forever? Forget it. If we had some hope of a vaccine that reduced transmission, I think there would be something to hold out for. But, from what I see, we are setting ourselves into indefinite purgatory. Give the at risk populations the chance to be vaccinated and resume life. Yeah, tons of idiots will die. But it’s their choice. You and I won’t die from the virus, at this point. I really struggle to see the cost benefit in favor of any more control/restrictions.

I know that this is intentional bait, but I’ll respond. Almost everyone on this forum didn’t vote for Biden, per say. They voted against Trump. I bet many would do it again. I think that’s the crux of the issue. In almost no ways do I think we’d be in a better spot as a nation with Trump at the reigns. I agree with your assessment of many of this admin’s errors. It sucks. But do I think it’d be better with Trump? Fuck no. The Trump admin did more to dismantle the credibility of our democracy and give credence to blatant conspiracy theorists and bigots than anyone in recent history. I can think of very few Trump policies domestically, internationally, economically, or militarily that I really wish Biden would implement. Is the economy worse now? No, but it’s not better. We’re fucked and have been ever since Obama era Fed reserves pumped $4T into the stock market. Trumps economic policies pumped $3T in in 12 months. Turns out blue and red are both idiots here who will play fiscal conservative when it’s convenient but still do the same thing. Is the military worse now? It’s good we actually left Afghanistan. How we did it was stupid, but it took some balls to just pull the cord and leave. Withdrawals are messy. But we are going to benefit from that, I think. I have no idea if Trump would have followed through. Are we going to modernize to be relevant on the world stage? No, doubt it. Probably would do better with Trump here, but we could have an argument on whether or not it’s even possible. Tell me if you think a war in the Taiwan straits is actually winnable from not just a military perspective, but a geopolitical one. Are we doing better with COVID? Maybe. Current admin definitely has a more coherent messaging schema and plan. I do believe that vaccines were created and pushed more under Biden than they would have been under Trump, which contributed to higher rates. Delta would have hit regardless, and I’m sure Trump would have been peddling pseudo science, still. Sucks the vaccine doesn’t work nearly as well as we hoped, not really a clear path forward here. From an economic inequality perspective, I have an admin that isn’t literally run by a sociopathic billionaire. The fact that they are talking about finding ways to close loopholes that allow the mega rich to have a lower effective tax rate than a teacher is the right answer. If that involves taxing unrealized gains above a certain threshold, then do it. I wholly believe that Reagan era economic principles of just giving rich people all the money, which is what Trump selfishly pushed, are part of the moral decline of our country that basically started right after the Reagan admin. Are we socially better off? This is the big win. But it’s all only temporary. Putting hateful folks in their place by showing them more than half the country disagree has been nice. I know you guys largely don’t fall into that group, but the idiots that were empowered during the Trump admin to say racist, authoritarian bullshit really helped the unraveling of America. Our our allegiances across the world in a better spot? Yeah, I think so. Public perception of America has shifted an order of magnitude in our favor. And I believe we will not be a superpower by our own choosing, as we were between 1990-2020, anymore. We live and die based on our alliances and diplomacy as China expands. Is the future brighter? I mean, maybe more so than the Trump admin, but the future is pretty god damn dim. Global warming, climate refugees, and water wars are actually going to be catastrophic events in the next century. The Trump admin chose to actively dismantle any efforts to think about that, so that we could compete with China. Not an effective strategy. I appreciate having a 10-20 year plan on how to tackle a problem, as opposed to the Trump admins easy button of “well deal with that later, we have to use coal to beat China,” when we’ll never actually “beat” China. Moral of the story is from a I-voted-against-Trump standpoint I’m happy he’s not there in basically all areas other than military modernization. I would not say I’m happy I got Biden. But it’s the lesser of two evils in this dumbass iteration of a democratic republic that is really just a nicely wrapped 2 party system. Implement ranked choice voting and expand past the biggest issue with our country: 2 party politics. I don’t want Biden. I don’t want Trump. I don’t think anyone is “happy.”

I think it’s largely a conspiracy theory with little proof. The citations, especially towards the end, are not legit. With that being said, it seems ever more plausible to me that this could absolutely be a lab leak. Let’s look into it, I’m down. I don’t buy the claims that Americans specifically collaborated to do this. Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to stupidity. On an unrelated note, my opinions on vaccine mandates for the current releases, at least, have shifted relatively strongly recently. What’s the point? Even if we literally vaccinate 90% of Americans, we’ll still have tons of breakthrough infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. And it won’t stop mutations. The rest of the world will pop out the omicron variant from the Nile river or something. The vaccine only limits spread by maybe 50-75%, which isn’t enough at all. R0 will still be higher than many seasonal flus with full vaccines. Herd immunity is a dead dream. What is the end state of a mostly vaccinated society? I am not prepared to go full retard and become Australia.

I respect your opinion. I obviously disagree, but that’s fine.

My wife has a uterine horn birth defect where they are so split that they can host individual pregnancies. While both can become pregnant, only one can actually host a viable pregnancy. Carrying a pregnancy in the small, messed up horn, doctors estimated, would result in a 50% chance of 2nd to 3rd term miscarriage, a greater than 50% chance of birth defects, and a 15-20% risk of death for my wife. My wife got pregnant twice in the wrong horn. We made the choice to terminate those pregnancies before 12 weeks. Were those moral failings? Or was the correct move to force her to carry those children to term with the risks stated above. I would love for you to address those specific instances.

Also, you guys seem to take specific offense at my "absurd" question about the immorality of contraceptives. Or, as one person put it, the dumbest shit he's ever read on this website. I assume you also take specific offense at the Catholic church, which is what made me intentionally act that very specific question (lol): "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contra­ception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life." - The Vatican, 1997 The point of having you guys fall into the trap of damning this "absurd" black and white viewpoint is to demonstrate that morality does have a sliding scale. In the case of Abortion, I respect your opinions on an individual scale, Guardian/FLEA/Bashi/etc., but none of you hold the keys to societal morality. Also, you guys all don't agree with the Catholic Church's black and white stance, so you clearly are on the gradient. None of you, individually, can say the Catholic church is Wrong or that the people who support abortion to 24-28 weeks are wrong. Society as a whole decides that. Now apply the fact that decisions are on a gradient to COVID. Society determines whether something is morally or ethically alright. There is little justification that COVID vaccines cause harm, so there is justification to have COVID vaccine mandates in certain circumstances. For example, the federal government (check).

I believe humans determine ethics and morality, if that's your question.

Here's a typical example of doublethink where morality fits you when you like. This one actually plays directly into the abortion debate that helped get us here. I sincerely hope that you, and anyone else claiming to have moral issues with how the vaccine was created, never used any of these drugs (I am 100% certain you have, as you're in the military and have been vaccinated):

Fetal viability outside of the womb. Anywhere from 24-28 weeks. Not that that information is going to be useful for this discussion. You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to believe that sperm+egg equaling life immediately is the dumbest shit I have ever read on this website. Is it dumb because it shows a black and white argument is dumb? Mission accomplished, brosef.

Do you ever think about how every time you have had sex with someone using a condom or birth control, you intentionally denied life to a future human being? If we want to go down playing the heart strings of all life is precious, how many human souls have you, personally, failed?

Sure, it all comes down to whether or not what you choose to do with your body causes harm to others. Not getting vaccinated on a societal scale hurts people, as people are unnecessarily hospitalized and die from COVID spread. Abortion doesn’t harm other people, up to a certain number of weeks of life, as the cells are not capable of viability/don’t meet criteria to be called living any more than your gallbladder. Which is why almost all people support bans on abortions at a certain point in the pregnancy, as it now causes harm. See, reasonable limits on bodily autonomy. See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon Now I’m not trying to get into a debate with folks about whether a fetus or embryo is a human. Some of you think it is at one point. Some of us think that point is significantly different. And some people think it’s black and white and always is morally unjust - these are the people that many disagree with. And what it comes down to is religious pandering that won’t be solved on this forums. Facts are, 60% of Americans support the right to Abortion. Those 60% virtually all support a ban at some point (nowhere in America is abortion legalized to 40 weeks).

Horrific argument. (Sorry, I had to) I agree with your premise that you can’t force everyone to take something that will cause harm, but you have to prove the harm. There is almost no proof of any significant harm that the vaccines have or will cause. And they have done significant studies to make sure of this. If they don’t cause harm, how does your argument fare? Also your example does not follow your logic. Your logic you initially postulated was, simply: “If forced harm, regardless of magnitude of harm, then unethical” But the example you provided was “If unnecessary, then unethical” If Bob goes to get his unnecessary vaccine and it doesn’t hurt him, but it helps society in that they don’t have to hire and pay both money and time for 69000 medical waiver reviewers to trudge through paperwork, then it was an overall benefit with no harm. Other than Bobs political feelings. Oh by the way, that’s why I run the 1.5 miles. Because it doesn’t cause harm. If the PT test was actually a life expectancy altering event, then I would absolutely call it a moral question to unnecessarily require people to get it. There are a few counter arguments that I am expecting: 1) haven’t you seen the study on teen male myocarditis? Yes, see the other thread. The study is flawed. There is actually a minor increase in lymph node swelling and cardiac events for society that is being monitored, but those studies resulted in small numbers with huge confidence intervals. Also, they showed about 10 benefits of the shot that were not advertised, but I digress. 2) How do you know that it won’t give us all lasting side effects in 5-10 years? Because that has never happened before, similar vaccines have been created and have been studied, and virtually all side effects for a vaccine show up within two months. Prove that it can happen. https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/how-do-we-know-covid-19-vaccine-wont-have-long-term-side-effects If you say Anthrax, be prepared to refute this claim: “While recent studies have demonstrated the vaccine is highly reactogenic,[51] and causes motor neuron death in mice,[52] there is no clear evidence or epidemiological studies on Gulf War veterans linking the vaccine to Gulf War illness. Combining this with the lack of symptoms from current deployments of individuals who have received the vaccine led the Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses to conclude that the vaccine is not a likely cause of Gulf War illness for most ill veterans.“

And if you wanna take this offline - me and my wife have had 2 abortions for unplanned high risk pregnancies after contraceptives failed. So go ahead and judge me however you wish. (This is where I got my PhD, they give them out at the Doctor after you pay)

Oh yeah? Well since we’re on the internet, I thought you should know about my PhD in Abortionology, so really you shouldn’t talk about that anymore until you get back to school.