FiremanMike
Just a dude
- 1,201
- 763
- 113
There may be a miscommunication here, I saw you bring up mandatory flu vaccines in your response to someone else. I should have quoted that post for continuity.. my fault
COVID VACCINE - The Megathread
- Thread starter Itomaschik
- Start date
- 11,084
- 1,546
- 113
Pretty sure I was responding to their use of the flu vaccine, but I may be wrong.
Edit: I was responding to their comment about the flu vaccine so my comment about it previously should not have been directed towards you.
DrParasite
The fire extinguisher is not just for show
- 6,289
- 2,161
- 113
no credible person ever called it a hoax... that was media spin to paint President Trump in a negative light, as per https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-remark/ where even snopes says "Trump did not call the coronavirus itself a hoax." and he was referencing the democrats' response and how it was the end of the world; information that is often selectively edited by many in the media
Do people think it's not as bad as some are making it out to be? sure, esp on the right. do people think it's the end of the world, and unless we do everything the government says without questions we are all going to die? absolutely esp on the left.
remember when the lockdowns first started, it was just for 2 weeks just to flatten the curve? and then elected state leaders were ordering covid+ people to be sent back into nursing homes, causing how many deaths? or how you couldn't get together in a restaurant, but it was totally acceptable to protest in the streets, shoulder to shoulder, (and riot and loot in some areas) and that was totally acceptable?
I must have missed those studies... can you share the studies that show how masks are effective at preventing the spread of covid? especially in schools, where some states aren't mandating mask use? And the big part of social distancing, according to the CDC, doesn't prevent the spread, but "suggest that social distancing can provide crucial time to increase healthcare capacity" and allow us to flatten the curve.
I mean, studies show how ineffective masks are, so where are you getting your sources from?
A rapid systematic review of the efficacy of face masks and respirators against coronaviruses and other respiratory transmissible viruses for the community, healthcare workers and sick patients - PubMed
The study suggests that community mask use by well people could be beneficial, particularly for COVID-19, where transmission may be pre-symptomatic. The studies of masks as source control also suggest a benefit, and may be important during the COVID-19 pandemic in universal community face mask...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Do masks actually work? The best studies suggest they don’t - Washington Examiner
Over at City Journal, Jeffrey Anderson has written a very interesting article that dives into many of the studies our public health officials have used to justify mask-wearing. Now that the mask debate is back in full swing as several cities and states reimplement mask mandates, it’s worth...
www.washingtonexaminer.com
also, did you know that 15,790 people in the US have been hospitalized or died of covid following being vaccinated? and of the 3,000 who died, 87% were over 65? So while I strongly support vaccination, considering many of our elected leaders told people not to get vaccinated when it was politically advantageous to them, can you see why there is so much vaccine hesitancy among people?
Last I checked, you have the right to make stupid decisions involving your health. and there are plenty of non-rednecks (who you are implying are the only people not getting vaccinated) that aren't getting vaccinated.
Vaccination rates lag in communities of color, but it's not only due to hesitancy, experts say
Experts say the narrative that communities of color more are vaccine hesitant isn't accurate.
Last edited:
In theory, yes. But inaction isn't something I can support either. I mean break it down to our level. I know I've had arrests where I make frequent, back to back adjustments in plans because A. Someone provides me with new info B. I get more hands on deck C. I catch something I missed D. Someone has a better idea than what I first started with. E. Whatever other relevant factors pop up. Sure, it's a lot of changing my mind, but I adapt my plan in effort to keep up with my best info I have at the time. So yea....in theory I agree with you, in practice I've done exactly what's been done on a large scale. Owning up to bad decisions would be nice to see, but is it really going to make people less entrenched in their beliefs?
Now I do think that even without hindsight, the communication could have been a lot better. It wouldn't satisfy everyone, but I think the "we don't have all the answers yet, but the most up to date research and data suggests that this is our most effective plan and moving forward this is what we are implementing. Its quite possible things will change again and we will make further adjustments as new data comes out." However, this kind of stuff is also dependent on the people who think they know anything not drowning it out and that's not very likely because people are people. Now I can't say I think the lock down we had was all that great of an idea, but on a larger scale than that, I don't realistically expect the right decision to be made every time.
And we aren't 2 years into a global shutdown. I'm sure there are places that are much more restricted, but we as Americans are hardly shut down in many states. COVID hasn't affected my day to day in a very long time. Sure I wear a mask, but I am still in the gym most days, eat out on occasion, grocery shop weekly, travel somewhat regularly, and do whatever else I need to do.
FiremanMike
Just a dude
- 1,201
- 763
- 113
Plenty of people call it a hoax. The poster right above my original diatribe posted a youtube video that said "the vaccine is full of ****" or something to that affect.
I didn't call them credible, I called them idiots.
DrParasite
The fire extinguisher is not just for show
- 6,289
- 2,161
- 113
That's the vaccine, not the illness. And that's often out of ignorance because people hear vaccines and think "if I get vaccinated, I won't get the disease" and this virus isn't following that traditional rule. Or "If I get the vaccine, life can return to normal" which hasn't happened, especially since the people in charge want vaccinated people to wear masks to protect the unvaccinated.
There has been a lot of bad information shared from historically credible sources, and a lot of information has completely reversed over the past year and a half... is there any wonder why people are hesitant to believe a government that has changed their guidance, often with little to no scientific evidence supporting their positions?
Kevinf
Forum Captain
- 397
- 171
- 43
I implied nothing, but it's interesting that's where you went. Since you brought up Trump in your post, the media doesn't need to spin anything. He was a conspiracy nut before the presidency, and the nonsense he spewed after failing to gain a second term surprised nobody and no one. Hey, did you know the recall election in CA was rigged too? Newsmax and Trump said so, before the first ballot was counted!
I just wish this political nonsense would stay out of vaccinations, but we've dragged even that into politics and made it a talking point. We've literally invented a safe, effective miracle cure for many horrible diseases and here we are, debating about whether or not to use them. I can't wait for a planet killer asteroid to become the next political talking point. Let's filibuster the response to that and listen to talk show hosts and Facebook instead of NASA.
- 11,084
- 1,546
- 113
The vaccine itself should not be political, but alas both sides have made it so.
What is political, and always has been, are some of the other steps to combat this disease such as shutting down the economy. The government mandating the vaccine is also a political decision, even if it is based on the best science and reasons available.
Kevinf
Forum Captain
- 397
- 171
- 43
A political decision with precedent and case law to support it, along with science and reason. Refer to the 'Jacobsen v. Massachusetts' case from 1905.
Maybe I won't get a booster if it's available, I wouldn't want my testicles to swell up, per Dr. Minaj. /s
Maybe I won't get a booster if it's available, I wouldn't want my testicles to swell up, per Dr. Minaj. /s
- 11,084
- 1,546
- 113
One major difference though...Jacobsen v Massachusetts dealt with a *law* mandating a vaccine, not an executive order. This would be a different discussion if the Covid vaccine mandate was based upon an actual law, and not an executive order.
Kevinf
Forum Captain
- 397
- 171
- 43
The vaccine is also not mandated except for federal workers and contractors. OSHA requires vaccination OR weekly testing.
- 11,084
- 1,546
- 113
OSHA doesn't require anything yet...they've been directed to implement a Federal Rule to do that but have yet to go through the actual rule making process.
If the government wants to mandate the vaccine, then pass a law. Don't use an unelected federal agency to mandate by executive fiat.
Kevinf
Forum Captain
- 397
- 171
- 43
The vaccine isn't being mandated as you said, why are you concerned? Surely testing is a reasonable alternative.
- 11,084
- 1,546
- 113
Because the time to have the discussion about the mandate is *before* it happens, not after.
The President has come out and said he intends to mandate the vaccine/testing for any company with over 100 employees via an OSHA rule. What is special about the number 100 but not 99 employees that would concern OSHA? If this "mandate" is so important, then why not make every emoloyer do it? Does COVID not affect companies with less than 100 employees?
Or is this an end run around the lawmaking process, seeking to implement a rule using arbitrary cutoff numbers to determine who it affects? (Assuming they even go through the formal rule making process and don't just churn out a "Dear Colleague 2.0" letter).
Last edited:
I agree the number seems arbitrary -- sort of like drug doses -- but I don't think there's any bad intent. We're in the middle of a national health crisis that hasn't been resolved through public health imperatives. I'd rather the government think outside the box and try new ways of increasing participation in vaccination than to give in to the "Americans don't like to be told what to do" vibe and offer no direction. (Yes, I know the Fed's direction has been inconsistent. They're learning. They're also, I believe, largely trying to keep people healthy.)
Meanwhile, in my state, there's a movement to prohibit vaccinated folks from receiving monoclonal antibody treatment, regardless of the severity of breakthrough infections. No one claimed the vaccines were 100% effective. This feels like a form of punishment for trying to reduce the chances of needing advanced care. Kinda hard to wrap my head around this one.
Kevinf
Forum Captain
- 397
- 171
- 43
I find this to be a particularly funny twist. You have people refusing an inexpensive to produce vaccine that allows their own immune system to generate antibodies to help guard against getting deathly sick in the first place... but gladly welcome a ludicrously expensive lab-derived protein antibody-analog treatment after they begin suffering from (and likely spreading) the disease.
It boggles the mind.
Yep. If I'm unlucky and end up in the "no monoclonal antibodies for you" group, I figure there's a chance my heirs will own Tennessee.
Summit
Critical Crazy
- 2,702
- 1,323
- 113
Clarify they are trying to stop which peope from getting MaB? Vaccine or no vaccine?
Vaccine.
Summit
Critical Crazy
- 2,702
- 1,323
- 113
Who is trying to restrict and why?