This is sad

[Kooky]

Guys

Let me ask.

I think this debate has nothing much to do with the idea of spreading the virus just the negativity against the unvaccinated people.

The smaller minority cannot get vacinated, so do you feel they should get the same treatment as those who chose not to vaccinate?

I would presume that people who cannot (as opposed to, don't want to) get vaccinated for e.g. health reasons don't tend to swamp entire forums with misinformation on how COVID is a hoax, actually, no worse than the flu, masks are satan's work, and really, just a product of the global liberal media conspiracy, and/or communism and/or Bill Gates.

Do you think this kind of behavior warrants understanding and encouragement? And this is not a hypothetical, this is literally what happened in several threads on COVID I've observed on these boards, despite the staff themselves explicitly taking a stance against hoaxes and deliberate misinformation. (And this is not a knock against staff by any means - I can only imagine how much worse this would be with a forum staff that was indifferent to the issue, or even actively encouraging this spread of misinformation!)

I'm sorry, but instead of yelling "can't we all get along?" I would recommend you to actually look at the reasons for these animosities that chill you so.

 

[ChristineM]

Guys

Let me ask.

I think this debate has nothing much to do with the idea of spreading the virus just the negativity against the unvaccinated people.

The smaller minority cannot get vacinated, so do you feel they should get the same treatment as those who chose not to vaccinate?

If not, why not?

Both can spread the virus. Are you sure it's less about spreading the virus and more the idea someone just doesn't want to get vaccinated?

The vaccines have all been tested on people with various underlying medical conditions, studies indicate the vaccines are safe for all the groups tested

The only people who cannot take the vaccine are those with a medical history of a severe allergic reaction to any of the components of the vaccine. None of the vaccines use live components so allergy to any of the components will be rare.

And there are several different vaccines each using different components. The chances of any person being allergic to all the vaccines is is a statistical improbability.

However it was found that the novavax was less effective for people with hiv so it is suggested that those impacted should discuss this with their doctor. Not that it they should not have the vaccine but should seek advice on the risks with and without the vaccine

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I would presume that people who cannot (as opposed to, don't want to) get vaccinated for e.g. health reasons don't tend to swamp entire forums with misinformation on how COVID is a hoax, actually, no worse than the flu, masks are satan's work, and really, just a product of the global liberal media conspiracy, and/or communism and/or Bill Gates.

Do you think this kind of behavior warrants understanding and encouragement? And this is not a hypothetical, this is literally what happened in several threads on COVID I've observed on these boards, despite the staff themselves explicitly taking a stance against hoaxes and deliberate misinformation. (And this is not a knock against staff by any means - I can only imagine how much worse this would be with a forum staff that was indifferent to the issue, or even actively encouraging this spread of misinformation!)

I'm sorry, but instead of yelling "can't we all get along?" I would recommend you to actually look at the reasons for these animosities that chill you so.

It was just a question. How did you get all that?

I'm just waking from a nap and getting ready to go out in a fresh day without my phone...good feeling.

I mean in some topics I have an ax to grind like LGBTQ stuff but the question was honest, direct, and unloaded.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The vaccines have all been tested on people with various underlying medical conditions, studies indicate the vaccines are safe for all the groups tested

The only people who cannot take the vaccine are those with a medical history of a severe allergic reaction to any of the components of the vaccine. None of the vaccines use live components so allergy to any of the components will be rare.

And there are several different vaccines each using different components. The chances of any person being allergic to all the vaccines is is a statistical improbability.

However it was found that the novavax was less effective for people with hiv so it is suggested that those impacted should discuss this with their doctor. Not that it they should not have the vaccine but should seek advice on the risks with and without the vaccine

They are the minority. Those who choose not to vaccinate are higher, and the vaccinated are the majority. There's two (I think) on RF who can't get vaccinated. Provaxxers didn't push the issue.

Both minorities can spread the virus though. Wouldn't they get the same attention?

 

[ChristineM]

They are the minority. Those who choose not to vaccinate are higher, and the vaccinated are the majority. There's two (I think) on RF who can't get vaccinated. Provaxxers didn't push the issue.

Both minorities can spread the virus though. Wouldn't they get the same attention?

Those who choose not to vax are much higher than s statistical improbability.

 

[Kooky]

It was just a question.

And I was responding.

Sorry you didn't like my answer. I'm sure somebody will come along to agree with you eventually.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Those who choose not to vax are much higher than s statistical improbability.

How so?

Viruses don't have higher spread based on ones choice just whether the person is vaccinated or not.

In other words I have the same risk (not level of) as someone who can't take the vaccine. How does our situations differ on the level of spread probability?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

And I was responding.

Sorry you didn't like my answer. I'm sure somebody will come along to agree with you eventually.

Why would they???

This wasn't orginally a debate. It was a journal entry; so, who cares if they disagree.

The point was how did you get all that from my question not whether or not your info was, right or wrong.

The question has nothing to do with the topic itself.

By the way: I never disagreed with anything provaxxers said about facts, stats, etc; I'm not an antivaxxer. (edited)

I said I disagree with the negativity

 

[ChristineM]

How so?

Viruses don't have higher spread based on ones choice just whether the person is vaccinated or not.

In other words I have the same risk (not level of) as someone who can't take the vaccine. How does our situation influence the spread of the virus?

Those that "cannot", on medical grounds, have the vaccine are a statistical improbability, of course there are those who say "i cannot have it because it might make me break wind" or some equally pathetic excuse. But they count with the don't wants not the can't haves

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Those that "cannot", on medical grounds, have the vaccine are a statistical improbability, of course there are those who say "i cannot have it because it might make me break wind" or some equally pathetic excuse. But they count with the don't wants not the can't haves

True.

But that's irrelevant to my question. Choice or not we both can spread the virus.

I'm asking if the provax argument is less about the spread and more about disagreeing with people's choices.

 

[Jose Fly]

'This' is my point exactly.

Where has the world gone to where we can't even respect people's words and believe they know what's best for themselves "and" others?

A good way to think of this is to liken it to a common experiment conducted in undergrad biology classes, where you culture bacteria in a petri dish that is half neutral agar, and half agar infused with an antibiotic. At first, the bacteria only exist in the neutral half, but give them enough time and they will eventually evolve resistance to the antibiotic and move over to the infused half.

Those of us who are vaccinated are currently in the infused half; we're protected from the pathogen. Those who aren't are the ones allowing the pathogen to persist and evolve, until eventually it'll evolve a way around the vaccine, which will allow it to move over and start infecting those of us who were previously protected.

"This is sad" indeed.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

A good way to think of this is to liken it to a common experiment conducted in undergrad biology classes, where you culture bacteria in a petri dish that is half neutral agar, and half agar infused with an antibiotic. At first, the bacteria only exist in the neutral half, but give them enough time and they will eventually evolve resistance to the antibiotic and move over to the infused half.

Those of us who are vaccinated are currently in the infused half; we're protected from the pathogen. Those who aren't are the ones allowing the pathogen to persist and evolve, until eventually it'll evolve a way around the vaccine, which will allow it to move over and start infecting those of us who were previously protected.

"This is sad" indeed.

I'm not following with the biology. It's sad with the negativity. Generalizing every unvaccinated person at the same level of risk and assuming we are all contagious is sad on itself. But no. I was talking about negativity in the OP.

Most people here know what the others believe but for me it's not about the vaccine.

Do you feel it's alright to accuse a group of people of possible passing on a virus by them being unvaccinated alone?

 

[ChristineM]

True.

But that's irrelevant to my question. Choice or not we both can spread the virus.

I'm asking if the provax argument is less about the spread and more about disagreeing with people's choices.

You cannot compare medical necessity with bloody minded selfishness.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You cannot compare medical necessity with bloody minded selfishness.

Ok. Take away the topic of vaccines.

Why is a justified excuse to do something better than a choice to do the same thing if they both result in the same effect?

 

[Lyndon]

you don't have a justified excuse not to take the vaccine

 

[ChristineM]

Ok. Take away the topic of vaccines.

Why is a justified excuse to do something better than a choice to do the same thing if they both result in the same effect?

Jeesus christona crutch. Are you saying we should penalise medical needs or are you saying its ok to willfully spread a deadly virus?

 

[Vinayaka]

In the neighbouring province east of me, the premier was on national TV giving his pitch. Stats he related were that 95% of new cases were unvaccinated, and 82% of the total hospitalised were unvaccinated. Some restaurants in some places have bubbles for the unvaccinated. The extent that we will be practicing apartheid or untouchability is only going to grow. Still, everyone, in many countries, not all, has free choice.

Health and insurance companies will have higher rates (just like they ask if you smoke), some airlines, stores, sports teams, etc. will make it compulsory.

So what's a guy to do, eh?

 

[Lyndon]

just take the damn vaccine, I guess!

 

[Vinayaka]

just take the damn vaccine, I guess!

Some folks had to stop flying when the 'no smoking' rule hit the airlines. I remember the days of smoking on planes. For a few years, the stewardesses had to monitor washrooms. But I understand the difficulty of quitting smoking, as I've done it twice. Compared to getting a jab, it's 100 times harder. Smokers today are somewhat of an untouchable class. Here in Canada, they have to go outside of pubs, hospitals, etc. in -40C weather to get their hit. And because it's an addiction after awhile, it's tough. They have every right to keep smoking, as to anti-vaxxers. Just be prepared to face similar consequences, which I believe will eventually get harsher than what smokers face. That's only a matter of time.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Jeesus christona crutch. Are you saying we should penalise medical needs or are you saying its ok to willfully spread a deadly virus?

My question suggests neither. It doesn't relate to my question even as an analogy, it doesn't.

I'm still curious with that question.

I'll rephrase. If person A had no choice to use a ramp to get up the stairs and person B could go up the stairs but chose to use the ramp, how does choice and necessity differ morally when they both end at the same destination?

The other question I asked awhile back with taking all unvaccinated people and isolating them so if they had the virus that can't spread it. Would you?

(If for one individual would you do it for many)

Jesus Christ crutch??