Who has a neutral stance in this vaccine

[Daemon Sophic]

That doesn't make sense.

If I go near you, the only thing you have to go by is I'm unvaccinated. The only way you "are" in danger is if I had COVID. You can perceive you're in danger (which is justified)...you can assume or be concerned that I may be (hence potential) danger to you.... but you are not in danger unless there is more factors involved more than just being unvaccinated.

When a doctor sees if a person is in danger to others, he may assume because that person has not vaccinated but he wouldn't make a diagnosis to say his patient is in danger to others until he actually checked me out and diagnose me.

You need more factors before saying "are." Potential yes. Actuality, no.

Hmm…
I think that your concept of potential vs actual threat is a significant part of the problem here. Also, how you feel transmission of viral particles takes place.

Please allow me to give an analogy, to help clarify the picture.

Forget viruses and biology. ImagIne instead that Covid is a brand of miniature hand-grenade. A small explosive with 5 fragments per blast. When you walk around people that have never been hit by a fragment before, the grenade senses that and explodes.
But not to worry. Only 5 people in a crowd of 100 will be hit by fragments from your grenade. Better yet, only a fragment that hits a victim in the forehead (about 3% of the target skin surface area) will actually be killed by your grenade fragments. The other victims get the blast fragments buried in their arms, legs, chests, etc… where they cause temporary pain, are hidden under the victim’s clothing, and quickly grow into new grenades.


So. If you walk into a big crowd, you would start a quick chain-reaction of explosion after explosion, with more and more people getting new grenades, 5 then 25, then 125 explosions, and 625, etc…etc…. But hey! Only 3% are getting killed by it. So that’s all right then, right?

Now, somebody comes along and makes a “anti-fragment spray” that folks can wear like a cologne or perfume. It keeps fragments of grenade from hitting you. 60% of the crowd in the grocery store are wearing the new spray.
The other 40% say they won’t wear silly sprays, some of them won’t because they hate the spray-makers…..while others, like you, because *meh* they’re “neutral” about grenades and sprays, and can’t be bothered with all the work of getting some free spray at the local market.

Question: When you go to the beach, or the bar, or the theater, or the store….wearing your grenade that will now explode against that 40% of the crowd who are not wearing “anti-fragment spray”. (The grenade that might or might not be visible under your clothing). —- Are you a threat to human life? Is the chain reaction explosion that you don’t really care about, yet are primed to set into motion…a threat?

Pffft! Who cares? Am I right?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hmm…
I think that your concept of potential vs actual threat is a significant part of the problem here. Also, how you feel transmission of viral particles takes place.

Please allow me to give an analogy, to help clarify the picture.

Forget viruses and biology. ImagIne instead that Covid is a brand of miniature hand-grenade. A small explosive with 5 fragments per blast. When you walk around people that have never been hit by a fragment before, the grenade senses that and explodes.
But not to worry. Only 5 people in a crowd of 100 will be hit by fragments from your grenade. Better yet, only a fragment that hits a victim in the forehead (about 3% of the target skin surface area) will actually be killed by your grenade fragments. The other victims get the blast fragments buried in their arms, legs, chests, etc… where they cause temporary pain, are hidden under the victim’s clothing, and quickly grow into new grenades.


So. If you walk into a big crowd, you would start a quick chain-reaction of explosion after explosion, with more and more people getting new grenades, 5 then 25, then 125 explosions, and 625, etc…etc…. But hey! Only 3% are getting killed by it. So that’s all right then, right?

Now, somebody comes along and makes a “anti-fragment spray” that folks can wear like a cologne or perfume. It keeps fragments of grenade from hitting you. 60% of the crowd in the grocery store are wearing the new spray.
The other 40% say they won’t wear silly sprays, some of them won’t because they hate the spray-makers…..while others, like you, because *meh* they’re “neutral” about grenades and sprays, and can’t be bothered with all the work of getting some free spray at the local market.

Question: When you go to the beach, or the bar, or the theater, or the store….wearing your grenade that will now explode against that 40% of the crowd who are not wearing “anti-fragment spray”. (The grenade that might or might not be visible under your clothing). —- Are you a threat to human life? Is the chain reaction explosion that you don’t really care about, yet are primed to set into motion…a threat?

Pffft! Who cares? Am I right?

(I read). Your analogy is true. My next question is since people don't know they have a granade on them-and everyone could have one-the spray is just in case one has a granade. It works as you say, the caveat is we don't know whose holding the granade.

What I see is going on is antivaxxers are yelling don't tell me to get the spray; you can't tell me what to do (therefore keeping their risk at the same level instead of lowing it). Provaxxers are saying (but you don't know if you have a granade, so do it just in case to save everyone).

Now I can see the high intensity provaxxers have compared to antivaxxers. Saving lives versus my body, my choice.

Both don't know if they have granade so it's just left to possibility. A HUGE risk depending on where one is, age, etc, but still a possibility. Endanger is in the eye of the beholder in this case.

Does that make sense?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now I can see the high intensity provaxxers have compared to antivaxxers. Saving lives versus my body, my choice.

You're misrepresenting the situation.

It's still your body and still your choice, but:

- the fact that someone has the right to make a reckless, foolish choice doesn't mean that it isn't reckless and foolish.

- a person's right to make a choice does not imply that they're somehow entitled not to be judged for that choice.

- a person's right to make a choice doesn't free them from the consequences of that choice, particularly when their choice puts other people at risk.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

(I read). Your analogy is true. My next question is since people don't know they have a granade on them-and everyone could have one-the spray is just in case one has a granade. It works as you say, the caveat is we don't know whose holding the granade.

What I see is going on is antivaxxers are yelling don't tell me to get the spray; you can't tell me what to do (therefore keeping their risk at the same level instead of lowing it). Provaxxers are saying (but you don't know if you have a granade, so do it just in case to save everyone).

Now I can see the high intensity provaxxers have compared to antivaxxers. Saving lives versus my body, my choice.

Both don't know if they have granade so it's just left to possibility. A HUGE risk depending on where one is, age, etc, but still a possibility. Endanger is in the eye of the beholder in this case.

Does that make sense?

If you thought that there's a good chance you're holding a grenade that's about to go off, it would be deeply unethical and immoral for you to walk into the middle of a crowd, even if you weren't absolutely certain that you really were holding a live grenade.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You're misrepresenting the situation.

It's still your body and still your choice, but:

- the fact that someone has the right to make a reckless, foolish choice doesn't mean that it isn't reckless and foolish.

- a person's right to make a choice does not imply that they're somehow entitled not to be judged for that choice.

- a person's right to make a choice doesn't free them from the consequences of that choice, particularly when their choice puts other people at risk.

The first one, I'd say it's in the eye of the beholder... probably because not everyone interprets risk as endangerment. So, their choices put them at high risk but from how I see it, it's not endangerment. But you are right, people have the right to their opinions about others-good or bad.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

You're misrepresenting the situation.

It's still your body and still your choice, but:

- the fact that someone has the right to make a reckless, foolish choice doesn't mean that it isn't reckless and foolish.

- a person's right to make a choice does not imply that they're somehow entitled not to be judged for that choice.

- a person's right to make a choice doesn't free them from the consequences of that choice, particularly when their choice puts other people at risk.

Yes.

Using another analogy.
This is not like people demanding that they cannot be told to wear seatbelts in their cars or not. That is a personal choice regarding their own bodies, and will only end up killing the fools who refuse.
This is more like people (anti-vaxxers) demanding to be allowed to drive down the busy highways with their eyes shut right, because “They’re my eyes dammit! And I can close ‘em if I want to!”

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Not only do unvaccinated people undeniably endanger the many millions of humans on Earth who are not yet vaccinated, but they also act as viral mutation/variant nurseries, which could lead to mutant strains that are resistant to the vaccines we have developed so far.

 

[Nakosis]

Who has a neutral stance in this vaccine argument?

Meaning you're not for or against it, but just choose what's best for you and others with no overarching opinion either way?

I don't feel anti/pro are needed. Maybe just those who take it and those who don't.

Does one need a side to make a decision and how is that justification true?

I'm pretty neutral.
Those who choose not to get vaccinated are no danger to me. No greater than a 1000 other things that might cause me harm. Like the guy driving down the road next to me. He could swerve into me, or a plane could fall out of the sky. The building I live in could collapse and bury me.
Folks standing next to me with Covid or not, tiny risk of harm to me.

Those not vaccinated are a real risk to each other, not me. Not getting vaccinated is a choice. Those making that choice choose to accept that risk for themselves. Their problem not mine.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That doesn't make sense.

If I go near you, the only thing you have to go by is I'm unvaccinated. The only way you "are" in danger is if I had COVID. You can perceive you're in danger (which is justified)...you can assume or be concerned that I may be (hence potential) danger to you.... but you are not in danger unless there is more factors involved more than just being unvaccinated.

When a doctor sees if a person is in danger to others, he may assume because that person has not vaccinated but he wouldn't make a diagnosis to say his patient is in danger to others until he actually checked me out and diagnose me.

You need more factors before saying "are." Potential yes. Actuality, no.

You could make the EXACT SAME argument about social distancing, masks, or ANY of the other measures that were put in place to combat the pandemic.

Sure, you can go and cuddle with 20 people at some restaurant with a big buffet along with 30 other tables with in total 500 customers.

And it's "only" a "potential" danger. Everybody is "safe" unless someone there has Covid.



If everybody thought like that, then all hospitals would be overflown and the corpses would be thrown on a big pile in the streets and burned, because cremation centers would be overflown as well.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Something else. What doctor would tell his patient he is in danger to others if he has nothing to go off of other than that person not being vaccinated?

For the exact same reason that doctors (and every other medical professional) tells people they are a danger to others if they do not respect social distancing, masks, or any of the other measures.

Why do you think these rules are in place?

Do you realize they will STAY in place until the pandemic is over and / or under control?

And do you realize that there are only 2 ways by which that is going to happen?
1. vaccinate the vast majority of the population - preferably everybody - and attain group immunity
or
2. gain group immunity by letting the virus run freely, with massive death and a total collapse of health care

There is no third option. Except perhaps some miracle cure, but I wouldn't count on that one.

What medical proof can he provide to show others are in danger if the patient does not have symptoms to warrant a diagnosis?

It seems you don't realize that the vast majority of the spread happens through people who are infected and HAVE NO SYMPTOMS. Or not yet.

What proof? How about the entire field of epidemiology?
Why exactly, do you think that social distancing for example is important? And why do you think that medical professionals stress how important it is?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just saying if I were next to you, you wouldn't be in danger. If I were asymptomatic, you would be. Being unvaccinated doesn't tell you if I'm asymptomatic or not.

But being vaccinated AND asymptomatic, reduces the chance of you infecting someone else TREMENDOUSLY.

The point. You keep missing it.

So the danger is your perception justified or not, but not a fact until you know I have COVID.

And that goes for every single one of the measures put in place.
The difference is that if you're vaccinated AND infected (with or without symptoms), the chance of you infecting someone else, is tremendously lower.

And that's how you slow down the spread and eventually put a complete stop to it.


Or perhaps you simply don't want a return to normality and you enjoy business losing money, people not being able to see their families and friends, concerts and other events not being able to take place, etc?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. I just think you're getting offended over all this. This kind of sums up how I feel about debates especially when they start off civil. This is me in a RF debate

What I get offended about, is your seemingly willful ignorance on the topic.
And you don't seem to be open to learning and correcting your mistakes and false assumptions at all.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You could make the EXACT SAME argument about social distancing, masks, or ANY of the other measures that were put in place to combat the pandemic.

Sure, you can go and cuddle with 20 people at some restaurant with a big buffet along with 30 other tables with in total 500 customers.

And it's "only" a "potential" danger. Everybody is "safe" unless someone there has Covid.



If everybody thought like that, then all hospitals would be overflown and the corpses would be thrown on a big pile in the streets and burned, because cremation centers would be overflown as well.

Of course you can play safe than sorry, but that doesn't change the 'fact' that you can't spread something you don't have.

If a person isn't asymptomatic and doesn't have COVID, whoever he is around is safe. The other is not in danger.

There is a risk, I just choose not to say endanger because it assumes people have COVID or are asymptomatic and intentionally trying to infect people when people should also be concerned by the level of risk not just the risk itself.

Someone else used potential, I just repeated it. Risk is a better word.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Does that make sense?

No. It's incredibly ignorant and irresponsible.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

For the exact same reason that doctors (and every other medical professional) tells people they are a danger to others if they do not respect social distancing, masks, or any of the other measures.

Why do you think these rules are in place?

Do you realize they will STAY in place until the pandemic is over and / or under control?

And do you realize that there are only 2 ways by which that is going to happen?
1. vaccinate the vast majority of the population - preferably everybody - and attain group immunity
or
2. gain group immunity by letting the virus run freely, with massive death and a total collapse of health care

There is no third option. Except perhaps some miracle cure, but I wouldn't count on that one.





It seems you don't realize that the vast majority of the spread happens through people who are infected and HAVE NO SYMPTOMS. Or not yet.

What proof? How about the entire field of epidemiology?
Why exactly, do you think that social distancing for example is important? And why do you think that medical professionals stress how important it is?

It's more. If I go to the docs office, I don't expect him to say I am in danger because I'm not vaccinated. I'd expect him to say you are at risk just in case you get COVID-so I suggest you get vaccinated, but (ethically) it's your choice.

Shrugs. I go off level of risk, not risk itself.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But being vaccinated AND asymptomatic, reduces the chance of you infecting someone else TREMENDOUSLY.

The point. You keep missing it.

I don't think so. Can you phrase it in two sentences or three?

The difference is that if you're vaccinated AND infected (with or without symptoms), the chance of you infecting someone else, is tremendously lower.

And that's how you slow down the spread and eventually put a complete stop to it.


Or perhaps you simply don't want a return to normality and you enjoy business losing money, people not being able to see their families and friends, concerts and other events not being able to take place, etc?

Well, depends on level of risk. You're generalizing. If I were at high risk that would be a bit different. But I'm not around people and my family live two or three hours from me so does my friend. The only people I come in contact with is at work, but we wear masks. I assume they are vaccinated, and they can't ask because of liability anyhow.

I wish I could go to events. I just don't have the means to.

Everyone's situation is different.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What I get offended about, is your seemingly willful ignorance on the topic.
And you don't seem to be open to learning and correcting your mistakes and false assumptions at all.

Mistakes?

You guys keep repeating the same thing. Do you want my opinions to change so you can agree that I get it?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No. It's incredibly ignorant and irresponsible.

How so?

(Does it matter who says it provaxxer or antivaxxer or does it genuinely not make sense?)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But being vaccinated AND asymptomatic, reduces the chance of you infecting someone else TREMENDOUSLY.

The point. You keep missing it.

I had to look back.

I know this.

I know all the facts you guys are telling me.

What did "you" want me to say?

And that goes for every single one of the measures put in place.
The difference is that if you're vaccinated AND infected (with or without symptoms), the chance of you infecting someone else, is tremendously lower.

And that's how you slow down the spread and eventually put a complete stop to it.


Or perhaps you simply don't want a return to normality and you enjoy business losing money, people not being able to see their families and friends, concerts and other events not being able to take place, etc?

I know. Now what?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If you thought that there's a good chance you're holding a grenade that's about to go off, it would be deeply unethical and immoral for you to walk into the middle of a crowd, even if you weren't absolutely certain that you really were holding a live grenade.

True.

It depends on level of risk.

This seems like generalizing the whole crowd just because the authorities say everyone might have a bomb.