>let's also round up all the fatties and fire them until they work out
Surely you realize this is a false equivalency. One cannot 'contract' obesity from someone else in an elevator.
Surely you realize this is a false equivalency. One cannot 'contract' obesity from someone else in an elevator.
if it were a proper vaccine, the vaccinated wouldn't be able to contract covid at all.
What exactly does this mean? Some vaccines confer sterilizing immunity, some confer non-sterilizing immunity. Both classes of vaccines have been used successfully in humans and animals to control disease outbreaks for decades. It's difficult to confer sterilizing immunity to coronaviruses as they are more likely to mutate. That doesn't mean the vaccines 'don't work.'
That's moving goal posts. There won't be a 100.00% vaccine at any time.
since we don't have a 100% vaccine we should do everything we can. next step, everyone can have a 1x1 jail cell to be 100% safe.
You can still get it so what's the point of vaccination! Fat people! Maybe there are side effects! Vaers! Liberty! Not a proper vaccine!
Whenever one is countered, just swap to the next one, and cycle back to the first when you run out. We've seen all of these before. It's very tiresome and a bit sad.
> Oh those pesky anti-vaxxers taking up ICU beds, that's how they harm vaccinated!
Ok so we should make sure all the risks of covid are minimized, lets encourage the reducing of the leading morbidity of covid and other diseases by forcing people to eat healthy.
It seems to me people like you are more accepting to force people to inject something into them than you are to force people to exercise or eat right.
Both are appalling, one you see is appalling, the other you do not.
If the vaccine works for you, great. Unvaccinated people are not a risk, the ICU is not going to crumble and there are much more dangerous things in life to give up your freedoms for.
Just incase your precious ICU fills up, first you could kick out the "anti-vaxxers", then the fatties, then anyone with a criminal background, next we can have a government panel decide who does or doesn't get care!
The argument isn't unvaccinated people are spreading covid directly to vaccinated people, it's now that unvaccinated people are taking up ICU space and resources.
Under that logic we should start cracking down on other things that stress the healthcare system.
We should start looking at the other leading causes of hospitalizations.
That's heart disease, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. Got any idea what those have in common?
Maybe if you're a PoS person, and your social score is low enough, you don't get care.
Likewise, maybe if you caused that car collision, you don't get care?
All because the ICU might hit capacity. Talk about fear mongering.
call 1-800-950-NAMI they will explain
We’ve been at that point for, literally, all of recorded history. You are a little late to the realization.
> I don't see why we can't just ban sugar.
We can. The question is whether we should; banning popular, habituating substances has a pretty bad track record of doing more to exacerbate than solve the problems associated with consumption, as well as being a source for all kinds of additional problems.
“Banning” isn't the same thing as “magically eliminating”.
Yeah that's my point. The backlash of banning things is warranted for many reasons.
But why care when we've already moved on to forced injections through career intimidation.
There's plenty of things uncontroversially, unproblematically banned. There arr particular classes of things that have historically been notably problematic to ban.
> But why care when we've already moved on to forced injections through career intimidation.
Jobs with vaccination requirements are also not new, though not quite as old as banning things.
I’m not sure why the existence of such requirements makes the real problems with banning certain classes of things any less important. This seems to be a complete non-sequitur.
And if COVID would stop mutating, we wouldn’t have a vaccine be (possibly) less effective as time goes on. Surely you realize that a vaccine is not (and never was or is) 100% effective?
> Two doses of inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) are 90% effective or more against polio; three doses are 99% to 100% effective.
> It is not known how long people who received IPV will be immune to poliovirus, but they are most likely protected for many years after a complete series of IPV.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-dur...
Seriously, check the vaccines that a standard UK person gets: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/nhs-vaccinations-...
All the "6-in-1", "4-in-1", "3-in-1" include anti-tetanus, diphtheria and Polio shots. A 15-year-old UK citizen has had Five doses against those diseases in this standard schedule.
But these diseases are not a problem any more, not widespread? Yeah, vaccination is the reason for that.
For example, one of the highest vaccinated countries in the world, Singapore, is now experiencing a covid spike with cases in the same order as Texas or Florida, the supposed bastions of stubborn resistance to vaccines. Deaths are still way behind, so those vaccines are good for something.
That's quite possible, and we'll know more in a few years. Israel has good stats after a 3rd shot within 6 months of the second ( https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1444675839904210951 ), but we don't know if that will be the end of it.
However the saying is: "you go to war with the army that you have now, not the army that you want to have". We're very fortunate to have fairly effective COVID-19 vaccines within a year of the pandemic starting - in early 2020 we did not expect vaccines so soon. We should use them as well as we can. Dismissing the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for not being 100% effective or everlasting after 1 or 2 shots, when we still give 5 Polio shots, decades later, is lunacy.
The contention of this general thread is whether imposing vaccine mandates at the cost of destroying livelihoods is just. Sorry, the mRNA vaccine performance is too weak to justify such measures. For all we know (epidemiological data from UK, Singapore) there is not much difference in infection rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated people / populations.
The following two statements are consistent:
* Covid mRNA vaccines are effective in preventing severe disease and death, especially in adults.
* Covid mRNA vaccines are NOT that effective in preventing infection, and pretending they are to justify unheard of drastic vaccine mandates is BadJuju.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/singapore
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
> "Either mRNA vaccines are best thing since slice bread, or they are completely useless" How about neither?
The either/or is not the real situation at all, it's the oversimplified straw man that detractors use. There are numerous examples in this discussion.
As for the argument that vaccination against COVID just not effective enough, that doesn't seem very realistic.