This is sad

[Unveiled Artist]

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

That's not the question.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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?

Follow their rules. Some like to protest in the states. People are getting killed over it. I'm not sure of other countries.

 

[ChristineM]

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??

In your opinion

What it is you comparing is extremely rare medical requirement with bloody minded ignorance. And no matter how often you refudge the question it remains the same

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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

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

No one said everyone unvaccinated person has.

Here's the question.

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

Those who cannot take the vaccine (even here on RF) and those who choose not to can both spread the virus.

If it's all about the possible spread, why is there name calling (one exame) for the latter and not the former?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In your opinion

What it is you comparing is extremely rare medical requirement with bloody minded ignorance. And no matter how often you refudge the question it remains the same

The question does not say the word vaccine in it. If not for the topic, you would not even know what I'm speaking of because it doesn't suggest otherwise anything vaccine related.

To answer your question, I am not.

 

[ChristineM]

The question does not say the word vaccine in it. If not for the topic, you would not even know what I'm speaking of because it doesn't suggest otherwise anything vaccine related.

To answer your question, I am not.

Oh ii see, so pro vaxers and anti vaxers have no connection with vaccine.. how convenient.


Actually you are bugging me to make that comparison, the comparison you made because you didn't like the answers you were getting so added another goalpost

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Oh ii see, so pro vaxers and anti vaxers have no connection with vaccine.. how convenient.


Actually you are bugging me to make that comparison, the comparison you made because you didn't like the answers you were getting so added another goalpost

The question has nothing to do with vaccines and spread of them.

It didn't mention the word vaccine in the question.

Where did I say that provaxxers and antivaxxers have no connection?

I also said the question was not an analogy.

 

[ChristineM]

The question has nothing to do with vaccines and spread of them.

It didn't mention the word vaccine in the question.

Where did I say that provaxxers and antivaxxers have no connection?

I also said the question was not an analogy.

I can refer you to the OP and all the goalpost moving you've done since

Look up the meaning of analogy, when you set one against the other, see it it matches anything in the definition

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I can refer you to the OP and all the goalpost moving you've done since

Look up the meaning of analogy, when you set one against the other, see it it matches anything in the definition

You're back peddling: The OP was talking about negativity and it was a journal thread. It was moved because people either didn't read where it was posted or just like to rehash a debate. Either they didn't care or have an itchy trigger finger, I don't know.

We're talking about unvaccinated and vaccinated people and how you said unvaccinated people are selfish etc.

I was just asking because unvaccinated people are selfish and have the possibility of spreading the virus, would you take all unvaccinated people and put them away so they can't possibility spread the virus.

Edit:
Putting people away (not being sarcastic) would help not spread the virus, and people would live longer to go on with their business. With this in mind, would you?

Later I asked what's the difference between necessity and choice when they both end up with the same result.

Any intention you add here you'd have to ask if you are correct first. Assumptions are not facts.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm not following with the biology.

Those who refuse to get vaccinated are serving as a reservoir for the virus and allowing it to evolve, which means eventually it will evolve its way around our vaccines. IOW, the unvaccinated are putting us all at greater risk.

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.

But it's accurate. Those who aren't vaccinated are at risk of getting and spreading the virus.

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

In general, yes. Of course there are a tiny handful who physically can't get vaccinated, but sadly those who don't get it by choice are putting them at risk as well.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Those who refuse to get vaccinated are serving as a reservoir for the virus and allowing it to evolve, which means eventually it will evolve its way around our vaccines. IOW, the unvaccinated are putting us all at greater risk.

I'd phrase it more like:

Those who are not vaccinated (whether they chose to or can't) may serve as a reservoir for the virus and may allow it to evolve. Which means eventually, it may evolve its way around our vaccines. In other words, the unvaccinated (whether they choose not to be or can't by doctors discretion) may put non-vaccinated people at greater risk.

I changed it to where it's not focused and blame on people since people who cannot be vaccinated can possibility spread the virus too.

I also changed it from will to "may" because vaccinated people don't know if unvaccinated have the virus, but not knowing doesn't mean they do or will, it just means the risk is higher in unvaccinated than vaccinated.

But it's accurate. Those who aren't vaccinated are at risk of getting and spreading the virus.

They could be.

Depends on many factors.

All people are at a risk of getting COVID-both vaccinated and unvaccinated.

The difference is unvaccinated people (choice or not) are at a higher risk of probability. Since vaccinated people make up the majority, the minority would basically be killing themselves off since vaccinated people feel they are immune.

In general, yes. Of course there are a tiny handful who physically can't get vaccinated, but sadly those who don't get it by choice are putting them at risk as well.

Yes. But both can spread the virus.

Therefore, it's less about one's concern about virus spreading and people dying (vaccinated or not) and more about blaming the minority for their choices.

 

[ChristineM]

You're back peddling: The OP was talking about negativity and it was a journal thread. It was moved because people either didn't read where it was posted or just like to rehash a debate. Either they didn't care or have an itchy trigger finger, I don't know.

We're talking about unvaccinated and vaccinated people and how you said unvaccinated people are selfish etc.

I was just asking because unvaccinated people are selfish and have the possibility of spreading the virus, would you take all unvaccinated people and put them away so they can't possibility spread the virus.

Edit:
Putting people away (not being sarcastic) would help not spread the virus, and people would live longer to go on with their business. With this in mind, would you?

Later I asked what's the difference between necessity and choice when they both end up with the same result.

Any intention you add here you'd have to ask if you are correct first. Assumptions are not facts.

I dont back pedal qnd you know it. The IP is what it is, you keep changing the goalposts, thats not my problem

 

[Jose Fly]

I'd phrase it more like:

Those who are not vaccinated (whether they chose to or can't) may serve as a reservoir for the virus and may allow it to evolve. Which means eventually, it may evolve its way around our vaccines. In other words, the unvaccinated (whether they choose not to be or can't by doctors discretion) may put non-vaccinated people at greater risk.

I changed it to where it's not focused and blame on people since people who cannot be vaccinated can possibility spread the virus too.

As has been pointed out in this thread already, the number of people medically unable to be vaccinated isn't large enough by itself to create this situation. It's only when the people who deliberately refuse to be vaccinated are added in that the effect is realized.

I also changed it from will to "may" because vaccinated people don't know if unvaccinated have the virus, but not knowing doesn't mean they do or will, it just means the risk is higher in unvaccinated than vaccinated.

That doesn't make sense. This isn't about the vaccinated knowing or not knowing who the unvaccinated are; it's about how having large numbers of unvaccinated people allows a virus to persist and evolve.

They could be.

Depends on many factors.

All people are at a risk of getting COVID-both vaccinated and unvaccinated.

The difference is unvaccinated people (choice or not) are at a higher risk of probability. Since vaccinated people make up the majority, the minority would basically be killing themselves off since vaccinated people feel they are immune.

But again, by refusing the vaccine, they are allowing the virus to persist and evolve, which gives it the opportunity to evolve ways around the vaccine, which puts everyone at risk.

Had they just gotten vaccinated, the virus would likely be eradicated.

Yes. But both can spread the virus.

Therefore, it's less about one's concern about virus spreading and people dying (vaccinated or not) and more about blaming the minority for their choices.

They are to blame. They made a choice that puts everyone else at risk, so they can't expect to be shielded from criticism.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I get what you guys are saying. Do you get what I am saying?

No one has to agree with each other.

That doesn't make sense. This isn't about the vaccinated knowing or not knowing who the unvaccinated are; it's about how having large numbers of unvaccinated people allows a virus to persist and evolve.

It is. For example, vaccinated people don't know if I have the virus or not. So they "think" that because I'm not vaccinated I "am" going to infect people.

They say if you are vaccinated you "will not" infect people.

I am saying that

My not being vaccinated means I "am at a higher risk" of catching COVID than vaccinated people.

Risk factor is higher but that is not the same as saying one will spread the disease unless, maybe, the risk factor is so high "in my area" that 99% of people have COVID.

I don't know the statistics here, but I assume the higher hte statistics and faster the spread, the more likely one may catch it. So, if one is in a country where its a tight population, of course their risk is Higher than mine who is at the same risk but at a lower risk level compared.

But again, by refusing the vaccine, they are allowing the virus to persist and evolve, which gives it the opportunity to evolve ways around the vaccine, which puts everyone at risk.

Had they just gotten vaccinated, the virus would likely be eradicated.

They are putting themselves at a higher risk of possible spread.

It does in itself. Experts will always says it depends on many factors not make a blanket statement. But yes.

To add a caveat. Those who can't take the vaccine are in the same situation as those who choose not to. So, it sounds like it's less about concern of spread and more about blaming people for their choices. That's how it appears to me.

They are to blame. They made a choice that puts everyone else at risk, so they can't expect to be shielded from criticism.

I don't go by unknown factors. If I know someone has COVID and they're not social distancing, I'll blame their behavior. If I know they are not vaccinated "and" they do not have COVID, it doesn't bother me.

There's always a risk.

Don't you think the risk should be based on more than one factor and not just that someone is unvaccinated?

No expert will go off of one factor to determine if people are at risk.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I dont back pedal qnd you know it. The IP is what it is, you keep changing the goalposts, thats not my problem

You just don't agree with me and assume something that's not true.

It's also avoiding the questions, which were not loaded and accusational (if that's even a word) in nature.

I think you do have a huge problem with me and I can't help that. What I can do is be nice and ask out of curiosity about your opinions-as per the nature of RF.

Best I can do is be nice and inquisitive if/when you decide to engage in a conversation with me or comment on my post.

People make false assumptions on me on RF, but one thing with some of them I respect is that even though they got most of their opinions wrong, it's not worth their getting themselves frustrated.

 

[ChristineM]

It is. For example, vaccinated people don't know if I have the virus or not. So they "think" that because I'm not vaccinated I "am" going to infect people

Wrong, what they are saying is you may infect people, you may even be responsible for another persons death.

They say if you are vaccinated you "will not" infect people.

Again wrong, but the chance of a vaccinated person becoming infected and hence passing the vaccine on is around 90% less than a non vaxinated person.

Please get your facts straight before making accusations

 

[ChristineM]

You just don't agree with me and assume something that's not true.

It's also avoiding the questions, which were not loaded and accusational (if that's even a word) in nature.

I think you do have a huge problem with me and I can't help that. What I can do is be nice and ask out of curiosity about your opinions-as per the nature of RF.

Best I can do is be nice and inquisitive if/when you decide to engage in a conversation with me or comment on my post.

People make false assumptions on me on RF, but one thing with some of them I respect is that even though they got most of their opinions wrong, it's not worth their getting themselves frustrated.

Look in the mirror before making such accusations. I have bo problem with you, i do have a problem with anyone who willfully puts other people at risk.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

As has been pointed out in this thread already, the number of people medically unable to be vaccinated isn't large enough by itself to create this situation. It's only when the people who deliberately refuse to be vaccinated are added in that the effect is realized.


That doesn't make sense. This isn't about the vaccinated knowing or not knowing who the unvaccinated are; it's about how having large numbers of unvaccinated people allows a virus to persist and evolve.


But again, by refusing the vaccine, they are allowing the virus to persist and evolve, which gives it the opportunity to evolve ways around the vaccine, which puts everyone at risk.

Had they just gotten vaccinated, the virus would likely be eradicated.


They are to blame. They made a choice that puts everyone else at risk, so they can't expect to be shielded from criticism.

I guess a shorter way to put it is the risk factors of catching COVID varies-some more than others.

No expert will say that people are at the same risk of spreading. All they can say is that everyone is at A level of risk of catching COVID.

It IS helpful to get the vaccine depending on one's situation and moral concern.

That does not mean it applies to all people-that's the problem. It's not the vaccine. It's the negativity (OP) and blanketing everyone as non-caring and possible killers. I'd be press to find any expert that would say something like that.

 

[ChristineM]

It's not the vaccine. It's the negativity (OP) and blanketing everyone as non-caring and possible killers. I'd be press to find any expert that would say something like that.

Except maybe ...

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: 12 Things You Need to Know

 

[Jose Fly]

I get what you guys are saying. Do you get what I am saying?

You seem to be trying to have it both ways, where you want to be free to refuse the vaccine, while also being shielded from any criticism or consequences for that choice.

My view is....sorry, it doesn't work that way. When you make choices that put everyone else at risk, including people who are already medically vulnerable, you have to own those choices and face whatever consequences and criticism that comes your way.

It is. For example, vaccinated people don't know if I have the virus or not. So they "think" that because I'm not vaccinated I "am" going to infect people.

They say if you are vaccinated you "will not" infect people.

I am saying that

My not being vaccinated means I "am at a higher risk" of catching COVID than vaccinated people.

Risk factor is higher but that is not the same as saying one will spread the disease unless, maybe, the risk factor is so high "in my area" that 99% of people have COVID.

I don't know the statistics here, but I assume the higher hte statistics and faster the spread, the more likely one may catch it. So, if one is in a country where its a tight population, of course their risk is Higher than mine who is at the same risk but at a lower risk level compared.

None of that addresses the point I've been making.

Unvaccinated people basically serve as a petri dish for the virus to evolve in. Given enough time, the virus will evolve a way around the vaccine and then wreak havoc on everyone.

They are putting themselves at a higher risk of possible spread.

And everyone else at higher risk from an evolved strain.

To add a caveat. Those who can't take the vaccine are in the same situation as those who choose not to. So, it sounds like it's less about concern of spread and more about blaming people for their choices. That's how it appears to me.

Because you're not listening to what multiple people have tried to convey to you. Again, the population of those who medically cannot take the vaccine is not large enough to serve as a reservoir for the virus to evolve and spread again. It's only when you add in those who deliberately refuse the vaccine that it happens.

If everyone who can take the vaccine gets vaccinated, the virus would be eradicated. People like you are preventing that outcome. I know you don't like hearing that, but it's just reality.

I don't go by unknown factors. If I know someone has COVID and they're not social distancing, I'll blame their behavior. If I know they are not vaccinated "and" they do not have COVID, it doesn't bother me.

That doesn't make sense. Both of those are deliberate choices and behaviors that put others at risk. Why is one okay but the other not?

Don't you think the risk should be based on more than one factor and not just that someone is unvaccinated?

No expert will go off of one factor to determine if people are at risk.

Is the problem here that you just don't understand the concepts I've been trying to explain? Do you understand how the unvaccinated can serve as a petri dish for the virus and allow it to evolve?