The Silent, Vaccinated, Impatient Majority

[rumak]

7 hours ago, Lacessit said:

You're a decent person, we happen to think differently,

yes, we do .   but we both are civil in our disagreement   LOL

 

as you know,  i am out biking and walking, also in close contact with workers and shop workers as we just built a house.

the mrs and me are still 100%  healthy and believe our natural immune system is the best long term preventative.     

I understand many older folk have medical issues and if they think that taking those "safe and effective"  shots are the right solution for them i have no quarrel. 

 

ok..... go back to my other forum

take care and enjoy life

[Jeffr2]

3 hours ago, rumak said:

yes, we do .   but we both are civil in our disagreement   LOL

 

  as you know,  i am out biking and walking, also in close contact with workers and shop workers as we just built a house.

the mrs and me are still 100%  healthy and believe our natural immune system is the best long term preventative.     

I understand many older folk have medical issues and if they think that taking those "safe and effective"  shots are the right solution for them i have no quarrel. 

 

ok..... go back to my other forum

take care and enjoy life

There's the problem.  Your natural immune system isn't the best option.  People who think like this are extending the pandemic and putting the lives of those around them at risk.  And it's got nothing to do with age.

 

This has nothing to do with MSM messaging.  It's all about the science.

 

And yes, the unvaccinated are the main spreaders of covid now.  That's a proven fact.

[Lacessit]

49 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If I were in LOS I'd not be putting much faith in a test that might result in me having to pay to be isolated in some hotel at my own expense. There has been a fair amount of discussion regarding such on other subforums.

I'd be avoiding taking the chance, UNLESS I had symptoms or was required to have one for some reason that I could not avoid.

I was referring to having the infection, getting over it, and getting tested a month or whatever afterwards.

I went to Mengrai Labs in Chiang Rai, and asked to be tested for COVID antibodies. That was two weeks after my second vaccination. Result 64 U/mL. No vaccine police hauled me off to hospital.

 

OTOH, when myself and my GF tested positive with RAT kits, we were given one hour to assemble our belongings for a 14 day stay in a quarantine ward. Which did not cost me a single baht.

 

IMO the Thai government would do itself a tourism favor by allowing foreigners to choose between a private and a public hospital for quarantine, although I have to say the public facilities were quite spartan.

 

[Lacessit]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO there is a great deal of similarity between the covid dogma and the climate change dogma. I use "dogma" because the proponents of both appear to exhibit religious like fervour.

Of course the dialogue is somewhat different, but IMO both are wont to refer to "science" as the ultimate truth which can never be wrong.

Somewhere along the line they overlooked that science is never fixed, and changes as new information is discovered.

 

Unfortunately, the new information in relation to climate change is trending to worse model predictions, not better.

 

Back on topic, vaccines make progress too, based on new information. Novavax has just been approved for use in Australia.

 

I suppose some in the medical science field are wondering if it is possible to come up with a vaccine that would be acceptable to anti-vaxxers. Or perhaps the dogma of anti-vaxxers would never allow it.

[onthedarkside]

A number of posts have been removed or edited for personal bickering with other forum members, misinformation, conspiracy trolling and off-topic comments.

 

As has been cautioned before here, please discuss and debate the topic, and not personal opinions of other forum members.

 

[rattlesnake]

9 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Here’s the difference between ‘faith/dogma’ and following the science.

 

When the data becomes more complete,  the science is updated and a new understanding follows.

 

Revision and refinement are fundamental to science, and the absolute antithesis of religion and religious faith/dogma.

 

 

Yes and as I said, science proponents can exhibit behaviours akin to faith and dogma. Just as a religious person can exercise critical thinking and open-mindedness.

[Jeffr2]

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

What they also fail to understand is that there is no scientific consensus on these issues, even if institutionalized media claim otherwise. The fact that dissenting scientists are silenced does not make them any less real or relevant.

Wrong. Their is scientific consensus on these issues. You keep falling back to dodgy people posting only on social media. Whom are banned for very good reasons.

 

Edited January 28, 2022 by onthedarkside
personal comment removed

[Chomper Higgot]

16 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

What they also fail to understand is that there is no scientific consensus on these issues, even if institutionalized media claim otherwise. The fact that dissenting scientists are silenced does not make them any less real or relevant.

The scientific consensus does not rely upon unanimous agreement, there are always dissenting views, mostly on in matters of nuance or detail, occasionally on whole parts of scientific theory.

 

The existence of dissenting views does not negate the consensus.

 

And nobody gets burned at the stake for dissent.

[Jeffr2]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The scientific consensus does not rely upon unanimous agreement, there are always dissenting views, mostly on in matters of nuance or detail, occasionally on whole parts of scientific theory.

 

The existence of dissenting views does not negate the consensus.

 

And nobody gets burned at the stake for dissent.

Except a few nutters who are trying to make money off being devise. They should be taken down.

[Lacessit]

42 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Yes and as I said, science proponents can exhibit behaviours akin to faith and dogma. Just as a religious person can exercise critical thinking and open-mindedness.

If a religious person exercised critical thinking and open-mindedness about their religion, IMO they would no longer be religious.

Science is not about faith. It's about facts, evidence and observation. The formation of hypotheses, and the testing of those hypotheses to destruction or confirmation.

When science is wrong ( e.g. phlogiston theory ) scientists accept it, and move on. That doesn't happen with religion, it is by definition infallible.

[rattlesnake]

53 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

If a religious person exercised critical thinking and open-mindedness about their religion, IMO they would no longer be religious.

Science is not about faith. It's about facts, evidence and observation. The formation of hypotheses, and the testing of those hypotheses to destruction or confirmation.

When science is wrong ( e.g. phlogiston theory ) scientists accept it, and move on. That doesn't happen with religion, it is by definition infallible.

But science and religion can be courrupted for political (or other) motives and that is where dogma comes into play. A religious person can live their faith without adhering to the Church, just as a scientist can depart from the doxa currently prevailing in the scientific community. 

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

But science and religion can be courrupted for political (or other) motives and that is where dogma comes into play. A religious person can live their faith without adhering to the Church, just as a scientist can depart from the doxa currently prevailing in the scientific community. 

This, of course, is just another conspiracy theory Apparently, to your way of thinking, most of the virologists and epidemiologists in the world are turning out tons of fake results of research due to their political beliefs or for some other dark motive. Do you have any idea of how crazy your kind of thinking is? 

[rattlesnake]

1 hour ago, Jeffr2 said:

Perhaps this isn't the best forum for you. Luckily, they don't allow conspiracy theories here.

Agreed but (unlike you) I find it interesting to move out of my comfort zone and confront my views with people who don't agree with me. And other readers might find it interesting to see different viewpoints. 

 

I think I have made my points abundantly clear though so I will be taking a break for a while (unless I feel compelled to make the odd comment in another topic).

 

Cheers.

[placeholder]

14 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Paradoxically, lots of proponents of science actually exhibit "believer" behaviours in their absolute faith in "the data" which seems to prevent them from exercising critical thinking. "The science" and "the data" seem to have become a modern dogma which hinders meaningful debate. Discussions are abruptly cut short with categorical statements such as "the data is clear...", "it is a fact that...", "science says...", as if talking about a monolithic concept and something fundamentally incontrovertible. Data can be subverted, especially when used for political purposes, and challenging it is a duty for a rational mind.

 

Social media is the only space where freedom still exists nowadays. There are of course tons of BS but also lots of compelling and raw information, and a smart and well-read person will have no trouble in filtering and processing it (something the institutionalized media supporters seem to have trouble grasping).

What's genuinely amusing about your critique is that when scientists change their minds because of new data, such as the effectiveness of mask wearing, they're accused by denialists of having lied either at first or afterwards. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

18 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What's genuinely amusing about your critique is that when scientists change their minds because of new data, such as the effectiveness of mask wearing, they're accused by denialists of having lied either at first or afterwards. 

 

It would be funny, if it wasn't so pathetically sad.

 

Scientists and researchers, the vast majority honest and ethical, base their conclusions on the results of their research and evidence and facts, as best as they can ascertain them. And when the research results or the virus changes, then they change to reflect that.

 

On the other hand, the COVID deniers and vaccine skeptics often live in evidence and fact-free worlds of ginned up conspiracy theories and unproven flights of fancy dreamed up by folks huddled in their basements reading and then re-sharing Telegram and Parler posts, or grasping at the 1% fringe loonies in the science and medical fields. That's their version of doing their own research.

 

Edited January 28, 2022 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Scott]

We are getting a little off-topic, but many of the social and economic impacts have common threads going through previous pandemics from the Black Death, through the Small Pox (in N. and S. America), the Spanish Flu and right up to Covid.   

 

Labor shortages occurred in the Black Plague, primarily because of the huge death toll, during the Spanish Flu, women and children were adopted into the work force as young men died or were fighting the war, and in Covid we've seen a significant loss of the work force for various reasons.   During the Plague, the role of workers was totally reshaped.  People had value and they moved about for the best deal.  They were no longer tied to one lord or landowner.  During Covid, people have suddenly had to relearn to appreciate the role so many unskilled workers paid.  The old man and the teen restocking store shelves were appreciated.   

 

Public responses to pandemics are largely unchanged since the Black Death. Disbelief of disease presence, misinformation, unclear public communication, disregard for governmental proclamations, and poor personal risk assessment were and are still common.  In the 1630's in Italy, Drs were publicly chastised and scorned for warning people of the arrival of the plague.   

There were, of course, many remedies in the past, but they were based largely on a lack of knowledge, today they exist, but we have the tools to know what works and what doesn't.  During the Spanish Flu there was an organized league of Anti-Maskers.  

 

Today, the pandemic was blamed on the Chinese and they experienced a significant rise in cases of violence and discrimination in many countries.  During the Black Death, it was the Jews and they were killed, villages burned etc.   The smallpox outbreaks that hit Native Americans particularly hard was in no small part the reason that conquest was relatively easy.   

It's really SSDD.  We've gained a great deal of knowledge, but we have yet to learn much of anything.   

 

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.630449/full

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews_during_the_Black_Death

[onthedarkside]

A post with misinformation about a public records case in the U.S. involving Pfizer vaccine data held by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been removed.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

On 1/27/2022 at 7:46 AM, ozimoron said:

10% of Australia's population have now had the virus and a good many of those have long covid symptoms which effectively prevent them from working or functioning normally.

 

 

From Johns Hopkins Jan. 27 COVID update:

 

"Researchers continue work to learn more about the clinical presentation and duration of persistent symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection, known as post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) or “long COVID.” Prevalence of the condition—which is characterized by fatigue, shortness of breath, brain fog, stress and anxiety, and other symptoms that last for weeks or years after acute infection—is unknown but estimated to be between 7% to 80% of recovered patients."

...

"preliminary data from Israel and the UK suggest that people who were fully vaccinated when infected were much less likely to report long COVID symptoms than people who were unvaccinated when infected."

...

"Some say the condition could be contributing to a worker shortage in the US, with a recent analysis from the Brookings Institution estimating that long COVID could account for 15% of the nation’s 10.6 million unfilled jobs."

 

https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/resources/COVID-19/COVID-19-SituationReports.html

 

[cdemundo]

4 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Agreed but (unlike you) I find it interesting to move out of my comfort zone and confront my views with people who don't agree with me. And other readers might find it interesting to see different viewpoints. 

 

I think I have made my points abundantly clear though so I will be taking a break for a while (unless I feel compelled to make the odd comment in another topic).

 

Cheers.

All the anti-vax and Covid isn't dangerous ideas have long been answered in the negative.

Two years in the same arguments are resurrected.

Mostly silly, "what about-ism", no significant arguments.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, rumak said:

yes, we do .   but we both are civil in our disagreement   LOL

 

as you know,  i am out biking and walking, also in close contact with workers and shop workers as we just built a house.

the mrs and me are still 100%  healthy and believe our natural immune system is the best long term preventative.     

I understand many older folk have medical issues and if they think that taking those "safe and effective"  shots are the right solution for them i have no quarrel. 

 

ok..... go back to my other forum

take care and enjoy life

You are, IMO, quite correct in your assumptions, but I doubt that will stop certain posters coming up with reasons why you are wrong and should conform to the dictat, else be branded a menace to society.

Seems to me there isn't much compromising going on, from either side of the debate.

 

I'll probably be attacked just for supporting you.

[Credo]

5 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Agreed but (unlike you) I find it interesting to move out of my comfort zone and confront my views with people who don't agree with me. And other readers might find it interesting to see different viewpoints. 

 

I think I have made my points abundantly clear though so I will be taking a break for a while (unless I feel compelled to make the odd comment in another topic).

 

Cheers.

I have been well outside my comfort zone and I've listened to the noise surrounding various debates.   On one side, we have what I can only describe as a cheerleading squad for the virus.   Here's a few of their arguments:

 

1.  It's not much more than flu.   Well look at the actual data on flu hospitalizations and deaths.   The answer is it is much more than flu.  It's much more contagious and it's much harder to treat.   That is simply a fact, and it can be substantiated by statistics from numerous countries.   

 

2.   It's mostly older people and people with comorbitities that are dying.   That assumption has some grounding in truth, but is there some reason that elderly people should be allowed to die?  Is it OK for obese people, people with diabetes, people undergoing cancer treatment and those with immune disorders to die?   This type of reasoning is not rational thinking and is just a way of minimizing the significance of the deaths. 

 

3.  Masks don't work.  They do.  Again look at the countries/cities with strong mask mandates and you will see a definite slow of the spread.  Don't cloud the issue with statistics from sparsely populated areas with those with dense populations.  Density matters.   If that isn't enough, take a look at mask mandates in schools in the US and compare it to those without any.  In the US the difference is stark and shows that masks most certainly do work.  They aren't perfect, but they work.   Oh, and most people forget that masks AND social distancing go together.

 

4.   Vaccines are dangerous/bad/ineffective.   Well, compare vaccinated to unvaccinated in any area and by almost any metric and it's clear that vaccinated people are faring significantly better than their unvaxxed counterparts.   Even the earliest and less reliable vaccines have a pretty decent track record in keeping people out of the hospital or the graveyard.   As far as being dangerous, they aren't.  With absolutely anything we put in our body, from eggs, peanuts to vaccines, there is a possibility of an anaphylactic reaction and death.  Deaths from all of the vaccines is minuscule on any metric you put it.    

 

5.  Lockdowns:  Again, they work, but they happen at a potentially huge cost both economically and socially.   People are social creatures and we do not do well in isolation.  The arguments against lockdowns is understandable and is one that needs to be looked at carefully when this is over.  Should they occur?  How far ranging should they be?  How long can they be sustained?

 

I hate wearing a mask.  When I put it on I feel like I am smothering.  I am sure I am not getting enough oxygen, yet the last time I went to the Dr., I wore it for over an hour and my O₂ level was at 98%.  So much for what I read about it causing a build up of CO₂. 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, Credo said:

2.   It's mostly older people and people with comorbitities that are dying.   That assumption has some grounding in truth, but is there some reason that elderly people should be allowed to die?  Is it OK for obese people, people with diabetes, people undergoing cancer treatment and those with immune disorders to die?   This type of reasoning is not rational thinking and is just a way of minimizing the significance of the deaths. 

At the risk of being accused of being "non caring" it's called "survival of the fittest". I don't wish to get into an argument as to the morality of allowing people to die or not, and I'm NOT advocating putting people on ice floes to be eaten by polar bears; just pointing out what is IMO nature's way of keeping species healthy.

 

[Credo]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

At the risk of being accused of being "non caring" it's called "survival of the fittest". I don't wish to get into an argument as to the morality of allowing people to die or not, and I'm NOT advocating putting people on ice floes to be eaten by polar bears; just pointing out what is IMO nature's way of keeping species healthy.

 

Elderly people have nothing to do the health of a species.  They are done reproducing.   So, you won't put them on an ice flow, but dying of a disease which is preventable is OK?

 

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, Credo said:

Elderly people have nothing to do the health of a species.  They are done reproducing.   So, you won't put them on an ice flow, but dying of a disease which is preventable is OK?

 

I never said it's OK. Please stick to what I actually said and stop claiming to know what I'm thinking. You don't.

[Ryan754326]

2 hours ago, Credo said:

 

 

2.   It's mostly older people and people with comorbitities that are dying.   That assumption has some grounding in truth, but is there some reason that elderly people should be allowed to die?  Is it OK for obese people, people with diabetes, people undergoing cancer treatment and those with immune disorders to die?   This type of reasoning is not rational thinking and is just a way of minimizing the significance of the deaths. 

 

 

 

 

I’ve never heard anyone suggest that old people, or those with co-morbidities should just be allowed to die.
What is being said, is that going forward, those people should be ones who have to take extra precautions to protect their own health, rather than the whole of society. 
We can all make the world a safer place for the old and vulnerable by avoiding social contact with others in some hopeless attempt to slow the spread, but that will cause major disruptions in society. The way I see it, it makes a lot more sense for those vulnerable people to be the ones who limit their own social interactions, if they feel that they need to. 
 

[Jeffr2]

8 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Agreed but (unlike you) I find it interesting to move out of my comfort zone and confront my views with people who don't agree with me. And other readers might find it interesting to see different viewpoints. 

 

I think I have made my points abundantly clear though so I will be taking a break for a while (unless I feel compelled to make the odd comment in another topic).

 

Cheers.

Sorry, but moving into the realm of fake news and conspiracy theories isn't for me.  It's one of the reasons this pandemic is extending.  Those who fall for such junk.  These viewpoints do nothing to help our society. 

 

Again, luckily, links to those sites aren't allowed here.  For very good reason.

[Jeffr2]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

At the risk of being accused of being "non caring" it's called "survival of the fittest". I don't wish to get into an argument as to the morality of allowing people to die or not, and I'm NOT advocating putting people on ice floes to be eaten by polar bears; just pointing out what is IMO nature's way of keeping species healthy.

 

OMG.  Terrible anyone would think like that.  Horrible.  One of the biggest problems we have with the current pandemic, is covid deniers, skeptics, those who fall for misinformation, and those who feel it's good to thin the herd.  Pure insanity.

 

There are much better ways of keeping our species healthy rather then let them die off with a tube jammed down their throat.  Heartless to even think that.

[Jeffr2]

17 minutes ago, Ryan754326 said:

I’ve never heard anyone suggest that old people, or those with co-morbidities should just be allowed to die.
What is being said, is that going forward, those people should be ones who have to take extra precautions to protect their own health, rather than the whole of society. 
We can all make the world a safer place for the old and vulnerable by avoiding social contact with others in some hopeless attempt to slow the spread, but that will cause major disruptions in society. The way I see it, it makes a lot more sense for those vulnerable people to be the ones who limit their own social interactions, if they feel that they need to. 
 

Best way around this is for those who are not vaccinated to take the extra precautions.  Have them avoid social contact.  Makes a lot of sense and many nations are moving forward with this.  No jab, stay home.

[Credo]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I never said it's OK. Please stick to what I actually said and stop claiming to know what I'm thinking. You don't.

Well, your are certainly IMPLYING that it's OK.  Minimizing the significance of people's deaths is a typical trick.   

[Credo]

1 hour ago, Ryan754326 said:

I’ve never heard anyone suggest that old people, or those with co-morbidities should just be allowed to die.
What is being said, is that going forward, those people should be ones who have to take extra precautions to protect their own health, rather than the whole of society. 
We can all make the world a safer place for the old and vulnerable by avoiding social contact with others in some hopeless attempt to slow the spread, but that will cause major disruptions in society. The way I see it, it makes a lot more sense for those vulnerable people to be the ones who limit their own social interactions, if they feel that they need to. 
 

Oh, you haven't been paying close attention.  Have you not read some of the posts from those who blame the overweight for catching Covid because they have allowed themselves to get fat?   

 

The same people who demand the freedom not to wear masks or get vaccinated have no problem of making the elderly 'be careful' and isolate.  Apparently, their rights and freedom of movement doesn't matter.