Negatory
-
Posts
625 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Negatory
-
-
30 minutes ago, torqued said:
Dr. Abortionology, can you back to the part about “my body, my choice”?
I’d be interested to hear it from a PhD perspective.
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).
-
5 hours ago, ClearedHot said:
Horrific argument...there is a HUGE difference between running laps to save time and forcing someone to get a vaccine that may cause harm. For the record, I believe in the vaccine, I got it X 2. That being said I thought we were supposed to follow the science? Saying that having a nuanced policy is too idealistic is a terribly lazy argument. We put 10 men on the moon, I think we can figure out a science based approach to vaccination.
INHO there should be exceptions and I will use my friend "Bob" as an example. He and his wife both had COVID and are in an antibody study at the University of Houston. His wife's test results show her N series is at 29.6. His is at 123. Her spike protein was 638, his is over 2500. Both N & S are off chart. First of all neither one of them need the vaccine, second, where is the science on how people like this are impacted?
If the Clown in Chief is pushing his policy that is the best for everyone, why do illegals get a pass?
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.
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.“
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, dogfish78 said:
TBH it's kinda gay and suspicious that you made your pro-infanticide statement about me wanting to enforce my will on women (as if acting to prevent infanticide is that). Dude...... stop simping for women.
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)
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, dogfish78 said:
Don't try to talk law to me, you're bad at it; plus you don't have a J.D. (Hint: I do).
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.
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, torqued said:
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed."
And your response, inability to address my thought out response, and ultimately you topping it off with this self righteous quote reminded me of an old favorite:
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
See also:-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, torqued said:
Your first response was a copy and paste of another comment stating that there is no evidence that the vaccine increases the risk of heart problems.
Then, your very next comment states that that there may actually be and increased chance of heart problems and that we should consider the risk.
Which is it?
Your responses immediately brought this quote to mind. Not accusing you of it, it's just amusing.
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed."
My first response was 100% written by me. Show me anywhere on the internet it’s copied. Are you referencing the portion of the post that I clearly say is a quote?
There is no evidence presented in your non peer-reviewed, flawed study that the vaccine specifically causes increased CAEs in teen males. The purpose of my post was primarily to point out your issues with sources.
But because I actually like science, I looked into the actual hypothesis of whether or not CAEs increase with the vaccine compared to the unvaccinated (your study never looked at this). And I looked into whether vaccination is worse than a COVID infection. When I found that it may actually be true, I said so and cited an actually well conducted, peer-reviewed study.
And here’s the results for an actual study that compares effects of Covid infection to Covid vaccination:
You’ll note there is a significant increase of lymphadenopathy - or swollen lymph nodes. But you’ll also notice that every other deleterious effect is less prevalent in the vaccinated group.
And here’s the study showing COVID vaccine effects vs control, which is the uninflected population (again, you ignored it in the last one):
You’ll note that the increase myocarditis was 21 in the vaccinated group vs 6 in the control group. You’ll see multiple small statistics like this, including a significant reduction of kidney injury (20 vs 45), arthritis (64 vs 70), intracranial hemorrhage (13 v 30), and arrythmia (298 v 378). But I didn’t see your post about all of the unexpected benefits of the shot?
-
And here is an actually well conducted study that actually sets up a proper control:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475
Preliminary analysis shows that myocarditis and swollen lymph nodes increase in the vaccinated group. But if you want to claim that, I assume you’ll also note:
“Vaccination was substantially protective against adverse events such as anemia, acute kidney injury, intracranial hemorrhage, and lymphopenia”
Now let’s continue this conversation using good data.
-
Now I will say that the CDCs analysis of VAERS shows that there may actually be an increased chance of myopericarditis for teenage boys. It looks like it might even be a real effect that should be looked into, and we should consider the risk.
But the point of your post was to question CDC integrity. The study you posted did not do anything to support your claim that the CDC is intentionally obscuring data.
-
2 hours ago, torqued said:
For anyone who has been convinced that "The Vaccine is safer than COVID."
Researchers at University of California have found that teens are more likely to experience Cardiac Adverse Events (CAE or myocarditis) from the vaccine than they are to experience hospitalization from having COVID.
The research paper: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v1
Why? Why would the vaccine cause more problems in young men with no comorbidities than COVID does?
Our government says it doesn't and that it is completely safe? Who do you believe?
Why is the CDC providing lower estimates while real research presents significantly higher numbers?
"Our post-second-dose-vaccination rates of CAE among adolescent boys aged 12-15 was 162.2/million which exceeded the rates reported by the CDC[2,6] by 143-280% (2.4-3.8 times). Among boys age 16-17, our estimate was 94.0/million, 31.5-41% higher than the CDC estimate. For girls 12-15 years old, our rate was 13.0/million, which was 43-100% higher that the CDC’s estimate.[2,6] Among girls 16-17, our estimate was 13.4/million, which was 47-65% higher than the CDC’s estimate."
"Our report found post-vaccination CAE rates following dose two of 162.2 and 94.0/million for boys 12-15 and 16-17, respectively. For boys with no underlying health conditions, the chance of either CAE, or hospitalization for CAE, after their second dose of mRNA vaccination are considerably higher than their 120-day risk of COVID-19 hospitalization, even at times of peak disease prevalence. The long-term consequences of this vaccine-associated cardiac inflammation are not yet fully defined and should be studied. In lieu of pediatric vaccination mandates, the US may: 1) consider gathering data on previous infection in this age group and/or 2) follow the example of Germany,[31] Sweden [32], Norway [33] and the WHO[34] and hold off on definitively recommending vaccination of low-risk children against COVID-19, or 3) offer one dose to adolescents as the UK has just announced [35] while more information about risks, benefits, harms and alternative dosing or vaccination strategies are studied and considered."
This one was more fun than the last ones. Make sure to pass this message on to whoever sent you the study!
Did you know that teenage boys around the age of 15 actually normally have Cardiac Adverse Events (CAEs) at a rate of ~140/million without any shots whatsoever? I didn’t either, but it’s true. If you look at females age 13-15, they’re at just about 25/million (this is higher than the COVID study lol). That puts the study’s incidence rate at… just about normal. TLDR this study does not present any evidence that COVID vaccination has any effect on standard CAE rates for adolescents.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.116.005306
The authors of your quoted study never do what’s actually important: compare CAE rate of unvaccinated boys to CAE rates of those that got vaccines. Instead he compares potatoes to tomatoes and looks at CAE rates of boys with the vaccine compared to the chances they have a reported COVID hospitalization. Those logically are not an actual good scientific comparison.
If he actually wrote this study fairly, it would say “CAE rates of vaccinated boys aged 12-15 are roughly similar to the unvaccinated population.”
Here’s the graph from the study on baseline CAE rates:
Or, the top commenter on your linked study more eloquently said:“Arola et al. show that the incidence of myocarditis is in the vicinity of 140 per year per million boys aged 15 (in girls, and other boys, the incidence is roughly an order of magnitude smaller). By neglecting the prior probability of myocarditis in all persons, not just those being vaccinated, the authors render their conclusions completely untenable. In other words, while the risk of hospitalization from COVID in boys is arguably smaller than the risk from myocarditis, there is no evidence that vaccination status affects the myocarditis risk.“
-
7
-
-
19 minutes ago, busdriver said:
You don't know who signed off on the strike, or what the approval level was, or what the ROE was, or what the intel was, or anything really. You're looking at an outcome and demanding... something.
What, a public debrief and root cause analysis?
War is messy, innocent people die, mistakes are made, people do horrible things. This has always been. There is no fancy all knowing technology that will make it something else. There will never be a process that will satisfy a libertarian sense of due process prior to engagements. It will always be fucking terrible. The answer is to not engage in it when it isn't absolutely necessary.
I'm not saying accountability and transparency isn't important, or that simple admission that a mistake was made (when a mistake was made) isn't the ethical thing to do. I'm saying the urge to cut off people's heads says something about the people demanding it as much as the act that draws the mob's ire.
I know what the approval level has been the last 10 years - the CFACC. Do you have any reason to believe it’s different? If anything, it might be higher based on the politics, but I doubt it.
I also have intimate knowledge of standard ROE over the last decade, as do probably a lot of people on here - maybe even you.
Also, being in the targeting cell at the CAOC in the last 5 years should give me some credibility to understanding the process of how intelligence is supposed to go to targeting to make an informed risk based decision.
There is a difference between a standard strike and one that is primarily political, I.e. this one. It’s similar to the multiple Syria strike packages ordered by Obama and Trump. This is a strike while we’re trying to literally withdraw from a theater. This should 100% not escalate our retreat - should it not be held to a higher standard?
I believe that there is a better place we can get to than to never hold the military responsible because “war is messy.” And that is coming from someone who has prosecuted attacks with multiple CIVCAS. Some of those were good and could be argued to be “worth it.” But some of them were f’d and should have had someone be accountable.
To complete the argument, people’s heads should be cut off occasionally when things get fd. They should have been for the last 20 years.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, busdriver said:
Some of you guys are hell bent on demanding someone's head. Doesn't seem to matter who however....
Do you think the Generals were the ones saying "yep that's a secondary, good strike" or that maybe it was some folks sitting in a box? or imagery analysts? or nerds on a staff?
Those at the top can be ultimately responsible, but the guillotine won't fix any of the problems.
Somebody should be held responsible, though. Probably the CFACC who signs off on those targets. Why not? Or if it was a clear intelligence failure, hold them responsible. I guarantee the ROE is to limit CIVCAS to the minimum extent practical - let's get a debrief on what went wrong. The American people deserve it.
Never holding leadership accountable will result in generals that skirt responsibility and never take blame for anything that goes wrong - what we have right now.
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, dogfish78 said:
Clinical trials don't end until 2023. Two senior FDA scientist resigned over how the CDC has unethically infiltrated the FDA's approval committee to get the injections "approved".
Extremely effective? Not according to the data in the modern nation-state of Israel.
There was also precedent to commit infanticide (Roe v. Wade) and look at what the U.S. SCOTUS just said about that. Legal precedent changes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts (the precedent you're probably referencing considering "vaccination") was and still is misread; the State was never allowed to force injections on people. In Buck v. Bell the court errored in how they read Jacobson v. Massachusetts, to which Roe v. Wade later relied on Buck v. Bell. Now that Roe v. Wade is overturned, the reliance upon such further precedent from the erroneously applied Jacobson v. Massachusetts is null and void.
Israel’s rate of hospitalization and ICU admittance has shown that vaccinations 100% work, resulting in a huge improvement for the vaccinated population. Your statement = base rate fallacy. I would love for you to read and internalize this example of numerous similar analyses that I am going to include below. This one is actually pretty easy to follow. After that, you’ll be able to better understand how statistics have been presented to you incorrectly, and, therefore, you can then recognize where you have regurgitated some misleading statements. But let me guess. Nah?
I know you personally want to enforce your personal will on women and men everywhere and dream of creating a handmaid state, but Roe v Wade is not a relevant comparison to this discussion about public health. I would say make another thread, but please for the love of god do not.
Also, while Texas has been successful in legalizing a religious citizen police cyber snitch state (congrats), almost all legal analysts believe that if a case was ever actually brought to trial it would be ruled unconstitutional. Also want to remind you that 2/3s of Americans do not support that law or restrictions on abortion.
Citing nit picked Lawfare that clearly hasn’t finished as an example of how everything else can be overturned is not a good argument. You could make even more outrageous claims. Go ahead and say that since slavery was overturned, legal precedence doesn’t matter anywhere. Anything can be overturned, so therefore I can argue anything is unconstitutional! In fact, you disagreeing with me on here and spreading misinformation intentionally is illegal! It’s unconstitutional! It hasn’t been up to the Supreme Court yet, but it will be, you just wait!
1 hour ago, dogfish78 said:Let's consider your data is correct. All it tells me is that people who were sick still feel somewhat sick after they get through the bulk of their sickness. Sounds like every sickness people have had throughout time. The people dying from covid are killed due to comorbidities and/or the protocols the hospitals are using such as using ventilators and denying other treatments.
The data is correct. Thanks for recognizing. Your “99.9%” data is bullshit misinformation that makes you feel good - go ahead and admit that and we can get back to the adults table. Tell me what other minor transmissible illnesses result in 10-30% of the sick population having medium and long term effects. The onus is on you now to prove my actual scientific statistics don’t matter. But, let me guess? Nah? Instead, you’d rather deflect and argue that everyone who died was unhealthy, instead of also realizing that a ton of fat, old, unhealthy people have been protected by the vaccine.
Most states have already declared a state of emergency. The nation is there. That actually empowers most governments more than you would like. Hospital ICUs are entirely full. And now the majority of people support a common sense vaccination and restrictions. Gotta love a republic/democracy. But let me guess. Nah?
-
3
-
3
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, glockenspiel said:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html
where you getting your nearly 6-9 R0? I seeing 2-4 from the site above, but that might be old info.
Old Covid in 2020 studies was typically 2-4, I believe. Delta estimates are higher, usually 5-9. Although I have seem some studies that estimate 6-7. And a Yale one that estimates 3.5-4. The numbers come from an internal CDC document, page 15:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-variant.html
EDIT: and the source article for that document is here
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, FLEA said:
Dude cool it. Guy was very honestly inquiring about the veracity of the story which has been reported by multiple questionable outlets. It's quite clear he had his own suspicions already and was looking for more info, or as you so eloquently put it, was trying to sort through the bullshit. Noone fell for this story but you come off as a total ass hole with the tone of your post.
Copy shot. My anger is misplaced.
I am tired of misinformation permeating all aspects of everything. This was not a foul on @torquedwho literally asked 3 times if it was real.
My bad.
-
3
-
-
7 hours ago, torqued said:
I keep seeing reports of significant numbers of USAF pilots and crew quitting over the vax, but can't find the source. There's likely not going to be an official statement regarding such.
Specifically, at Langley F-22 and Barksdale B-52 squadrons. I have my doubts, but I personally know 4-5 guard pilots who plan to make it known that they're retiring during tomorrow's drill.
True or False?
https://realrawnews.com/2021/09/27-u-s-air-force-pilots-resign-over-covid-19-vaccination-mandate/
100% false. You guys are falling for the realrawnews story again. If you haven’t seen that website, its the one that will tell you all about how Hillary Clinton has been executed and Trump is running the secret real US government from Gitmo. Look, Bill Gates is on trial, day 4, by the military tribunal. YGBSM.
Every time a smart, educated pilot/military officer gets tricked into even halfway believing that type of news it reminds me that no one actually has the time to sort through not just bullshit, but intentional misinformation. Why should that platform be allowed to spread blatant lies to people like this forum? It makes everyone, and especially the conversation, significantly more stupid.
EDIT: This is the same site that lied and said that a Marine General told SECDEF and POTUS to fuck off when vaccine mandates for military came out. Turns out that Marine General got the vaccine in the first months it was available, of course, but people were still creaming themselves that it might have actually happened.
-
11 minutes ago, dogfish78 said:
Nah. The onus is on you to prove the following:
1. That the injection drugs will not cause short/medium/long-term injury, disability, or death.
1a. That the injection drugs will have zero affect on reproductive systems and offspring.
2. That the manufacturers of the injection drugs are criminally and civilly liable to the injured parties in court.
3. Why Constitutions, both federal and of the respective States, should be shredded in order to allow our tyrannical federal government to use coercion and force (at a minimum) to conduct medical procedures on United States citizens.
4. Why, in spite of the aforementioned concerns, our tyrannical federal government should be acting unconstitutionally to combat a virus that 99.9% of people recover from with no complications?
See: https://ivmmeta.com
1) Biggest clinical study ever on a vaccine shows that the risks are minimal. Not enough though. What will be enough? Making it 50 times bigger? Also, virtually all vaccine side effects for all previous vaccines show up in some form within the first few months. Prove that vaccine side effects can show up at 5-10 years. Prove it, don't just use anecdotal evidence.
2) They aren't. Get over it. Your choice - an extremely effective vaccine that appears to have no significant side effects or years of lockdowns and death rates greater than 2%.
3) They aren't shredded. There is precedent for vaccination for private business, schools, and federal jobs, sorry that hurts your feelings. They haven't mandated anyone outside of those groups.
4) 99.9% of people do not recover from with no complications. 10% of people with MILD infections have long term moderate to severe symptoms that impact their daily lives. Moderate to Severe infections are significantly worse.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210407174321.htm
The onus is on you to stop arguing like a child and use data. -
15 minutes ago, dogfish78 said:
No we have not.
What is Q?
The great thing about a democracy or a republic is that you don’t have to wait to get everyone on board to have consensus.
-
12 minutes ago, dogfish78 said:
And? You want to argue semantics or science? Hydroxycloroquine and vitamins work against covid-19 viruses, you arse.
Prove it.
-
If you guys haven’t seen Contagion (2011), it was very predictive of a lot of how this went down. Even down to the guy pushing alternative treatments against big government.
The one thing they got wrong, though, is that everyone would be lining up at the door or fighting each other to get vaccinated.
-
19 minutes ago, dogfish78 said:
Maybe if their physicians prescribed those patients with ivermectin, vitamins, hydroxycloroquine (zelenko protocol) at the primary care level then they would have not ended up in the ICU to begin with. It's almost as if we should treat a virus with anti-virals.
Ivermectin is the only one of those things that has shown antiviral effects, and never in vivo. HCQ and vitamins are not antivirals, you nit.
-
5 hours ago, torqued said:
Clinicaltrials.gov.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04460703?term=COVID-19+messaging&draw=2&rank=12
Persuasive Messages for COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake: a Randomized Controlled Trial, Part 1
Guilt, Embarassment, Anger, Trust, Cowardice.
Do you guys have any argument as to why this is actually something that is bad? We have agreed as a nation we need to be vaccinated to take control of this disease. Turns out humans are emotional creatures. They make emotional, uninformed decisions. Case in point: @dogfish78 was clearly emotionally preyed on by people closer to Q than any other group. They used the “distrust in government,” “make fun of redditors,” “don’t be a sheep,” and “own the libs” messaging they knew would touch him right where he likes.
Trying to get maximum opinion shifted for a public health decision in no way proves that the public health decision is not the correct decision. I promise that disinformation groups are going through the exact same studies to figure out how to hit your emotions.
If the public health decision is a good decision, there’s nothing to this story. Prove that the public health decision to push vaccines is harmful - that’s the actual undistracted argument you have to make.
-
6 hours ago, brabus said:
@NegatorySo in spirit of attempting to have rational/unemotional conversation, here’s why I think much of this discussion is just stuck in a luftberry - we (and others on here) actually agree there are a lot of people in this country who should get the vaccine, and that by not getting it they are hurting others…filling up ICU beds, etc. There’s actually no argument there from me or a lot of other so-called-“anti-vaxxers”…what the discussion really should focus on so we’re not talking past each other is two-fold. The vaccination necessity for low risk people (<50, no underlying medical conditions, have natural immunity), especially with consideration to what the vaccine actually accomplished for that group, and the more difficult/subjective discussion of liberty, federal overreach, etc…where’s the line for “you do you.” When people just scream about “but muh ICU is full and it’s every unvax’d person’s fault!” or “the fuck I will get the jab…now back to my 15th slurpee and Big Mac for the week” there is no real conversation, because while there may shreds of truth/honest sentiment in statements, they are just pieces, not the entire picture, and it becomes a discussion based on omission of facts and not the whole enchilada.
If your point is that there would be benefit in being more nuanced in saying who should be vaccinated, you are right. In an idealistic world, you’d be able to do that. Just like how in an ideal world, I shouldn’t have to run my PFA if I ran a half marathon the week prior. But realistic employment of idealistic policy runs into several issues, and that’s why there is no way I can tell the PT monitor to accept my 1:27 half as a passing score. I still have to run the 6 laps.
1) How does the government assess if you’re not at risk to say that you probably don’t need the vaccine? You don’t even tell the flight doc the actual amount of whiskey you drink each week; how will big government know if a random 40 year old is actually an unhealthy risk factor that’s going to clog up a hospital? First, the government would have to get everyone’s health records, which would be seen as a gigantic breach of privacy, I am sure. There is no government mandated health screening. There is no government oversight of your medical records.
Lets go down this path further. The gov mandates that all people over the age of 50 get the vaccine, because they can tell age with the SSA. I’m sure there’s still be bitching and moaning, but let’s pretend that this was popularly accepted. Okay, that solves this pandemic for a giant group that is at risk.
Now they have to cover everyone under 50 that is high risk. They try to figure out how to mandate high risk under 50s to get the vaccine. They realize that 42% of Americans are Obese. 75% of Americans are overweight. And they can’t tell anything else about these humans individually based on privacy. Almost impossible to assess cardiovascular health by looking at someone. You can’t ask everyone to send in their BMI. People won’t tel you if they are smokers or drinkers. They also realize humans are notoriously bad at self reporting their health, especially if it’s about something they don’t want. The only way to capture a sufficient amount of the at risk population is to have everyone be vaccinated. Which it turns out makes sense anyways because the vast majority of Americans actually have risk factors because we are an extremely unhealthy nation.
2) This virus spreads quickly and in a shitty way that is not easy to control. It has an R0 value of 5-9. Yes, I wanted to say 6-9, but I feel that would have been nit picked. That means that if you send your healthy, not at risk, kids to school sick, they’re gonna end up getting a looooot of other people sick through secondary infections.
You ever played the six degrees of Kevin Bacon? Where it almost always proves that we are way more interconnected as a society than you would ever assume? Well apply that to this scenario. Your kids - who won’t interact with any old people or at risk folks directly (other than tons of teachers, but we’ll ignore that) - will get kids of at risk people infected. They will get kids of caregivers infected. They will get people who work in critical industry infected. And it only takes 2-4 jumps to hit a huge percentage of a specific subset of society.
It doesn’t have to just be kids. It can be young fighter pilots. They spreads it to an enlisted maintainer, who spreads it to the entire MXG. One of you is going to hit the commissary or the gym, which will open up the whole base. And everyone’s spouse and their place of work is now at risk. It quickly becomes unmanageable, exposing tons of high risk folks to the illness even though the first person was not “at risk.”
Additionally, it spreads both asymptomatically and before symptoms emerge. So there is no real way you can stop this effect, no matter how well intentioned you are to keep your sick kids - or your sick self - at home.
You cannot insulate the effects of spread via good intentions.
3) Human beings, whether you like it or not, are not as well intentioned as we wish. There is a natural range of support for individualism vs the collective across Americans, leaning more heavily on individualism than almost any other country.
Here’s an anecdote. My parents, who are old, are at high risk for COVID. They aren’t healthy, they don’t take precautions, and they meet many other risk factors. Due to the politicization of this virus, instead of getting vaccinated, they have paid for fake vaccine cards. They may die for their insistence on listening to idiots on talk radio, and I think about that a lot, but the point is that folks don’t want to tell the government anything. They will go as far as intentionally obscuring truthful data if they think that it will give them a shred of liberty. Some people will do it just to give the democrats/republicans a middle finger. Doesn’t help public policy.
How many people would lie about if they were actually at risk if we tried to implement a nuanced policy?
The gods honest truth is that this disease is not easy to detect. It’s not easy to find symptoms. It has lasting health effects that are significantly worse than the vaccine. It randomly hits some demographics that we could not predict. And we don’t know everything about it.
The worst part about this whole thing is that the vaccine didn’t end up providing nearly the protection from spread we were hoping it would.
The only reasonable public policy decision is to include everyone, or the vast majority of society, because we have no realistic way for the government to comb through your records to say that you aren’t at risk based on limitations of privacy and manpower. Not to mention the exponential increase in work for almost no population benefit.
Idealism is no reason to nitpick public policy that, by and large, does good for the public. Just like how I shouldn’t waste everyone’s time signing a waiver for my PFA to get my half marathon to count - I should just run it.
-
3
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, brabus said:
It does matter. And another thing that matters to this specific article that was left out - staffing shortages. It’s not a literal bed/equipment shortage in many places, it’s a shortage of staffing. This has been a problem all over the country; so interesting that so many health workers have been laid off over the past year. Yet, such significant CFs as this are swept under the rug because the only thing being currently sold is the “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” which is complete bullshit.
More feelings and anecdotal evidence. Or maybe you should consider that having to care for folks that won't care for themselves - by and large the unvaccinated - drive unsustainable work schedules and made 30% of the healthcare force - and by the way, up to 48% of ICU workers - consider quitting in the last year! There is absolutely no evidence that doctors not being hired or being fired because they can't comply with hospital mandates is even close to that effect. In fact, firings are literally just starting now, which would drive almost no effect on these ICU shortages. Prove me wrong.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/31/covid-is-driving-an-exodus-among-health-care-workers.html
Here's some more data for you to address some of your other points. In the South 25-40% of state ICUs are COVID-19 patients. Here's two articles, the second of which says that nationwide it's 28% of ICU beds. Which is a huge portion of ICU surge capability - i.e. it is basically taking all of it.
https://www.benefitspro.com/2021/08/12/10-states-where-covid-19-has-filled-the-hospital-icu-beds-412-119893/?slreturn=20210809204237
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/569368-three-quarters-of-icu-beds-across-country-are-full
Onto your next fallacy.2 hours ago, brabus said:Remember that MA study the CDC conducted that I brought up where 75% of the ICU COVID patients were vaccinated…no you probably don’t remember, because you block absolutely everything out of your brain that doesn’t conform to your holier-than-thou opinion, even when it’s irrefutable data from credible sources.
This one made me laugh. @brabusI will try to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't just trying to straight up lie here, and instead you're forgetting your sources. But I can tell you misinterpreted the study when you read it. The actual study you quoted wasn't talking about ICU patients at all and only ever talked about positive infections. Which by the way, in a highly vaccinated society, even with breakthroughs, you can easily get to a point where the majority of infections are in the vaccinated population. You're falling for a standard base rate fallacy, which is pretty standard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
Here's your quoted study that you are saying we don't read. Well, ironically, you are the one that needs to read it.On 9/4/2021 at 5:50 AM, brabus said:1. CDC study on MA 3-17 Jul:
- 74% of cases occurred in fully vaccinated persons
- Among this group, 5 people were hospitalized. 4 were vaccinated, aged 20-70, and 2 of those had underlying med conditions. 1 was unvaccinated, age 50-59, and had multiple med conditions
- CDC: “Delta infection resulted in similarly high SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated people.”
To be 100% clear, that study never, ever, talks about ICU rates. I've included it for your reading. And the CDC maintains that vaccination provides overwhelming protection against hospitalization and ICU admittance - just not simple infection.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e1.htm
For the record, there is no state, city, county, or other area in America right now where a majority of COVID ICU patients are vaccinated. That is a bold, ridiculous, honestly stupid claim. In reality, in places where ICU beds fill up with COVID folks, they are almost entirely with unvaccinated folks.
https://www.wabi.tv/2021/08/26/maines-icu-beds-fill-up-covid-surge-continues/
Here's the most recent study that shows that in a relatively vaccinated area, LA, 90% of ICU beds for folks with COVID were entirely unvaccinated individuals. 84% of hospitalizations were entirely unvaccinated. And 85% of deaths were unvaccinated. LA, for the record, has 59% of it's population fully vaccinated, with 66% having at least one dose. That means that 34% of the population - those who are unvaccinated - make up 84-90% of medical interventions that go to the level of admittance up to an ICU bed.
https://data.news-leader.com/covid-19-vaccine-tracker/california/los-angeles-county/06037/
Tell me. Does any of this matter?-
3
-
9
-
-
1 hour ago, Guardian said:
Kick out the people that are labeled obese from the hospitals and healthcare system first. Since being overweight is a a causal factor in many of the leading causes of death in the us. As well as covid deaths. We should attack being over weight and put a vaccine bandaid on those people if they choose. But being overweight is a far greater issue to this country than covid. But we aren’t doing hardly anything about it. Let’s lock down in a gym
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929#alzheimers-diseaseI would unironically support a tax deduction if you could prove a certain level of cardiovascular health and weight/BMI. Or hell, just increase taxes on unhealthy folks. Why not? Being healthy means you won't cost the government as much from an actuarial perspective, and it incentivizes good behavior for society. You can still do what you want, it's just a luxury tax to be an unhealthy uninformed person.
Just like vaccinated folks will, per capita, not cost the government as much. You've convinced me the solution is to just give tax breaks to folks for being vaccinated.
Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss
in General Discussion
Posted
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?