The Silent, Vaccinated, Impatient Majority

[Saanim]

On 1/28/2022 at 2:50 AM, Jeffr2 said:

Pfizer is a proven vaccine. Sad some can't get past this. I'm guessing it's due to the information they are reading on social media.

Do you insinuate that social media inseminate misinformation? Not to forget that this forum is also social media, isn't it?

In fact, some social media are strong enough to suppress some information, even from a sitting president. So, wouldn't they suppress a misinformation? 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours 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. 
 

By the same argument, it makes a lot of sense to limit the social interactions of those who refuse to be vaccinated.

 

Since they refuse to voluntarily do what’s necessary to help themselves and help others, they make the case for compulsion.

[Jeffr2]

10 minutes ago, Saanim said:

Do you insinuate that social media inseminate misinformation? Not to forget that this forum is also social media, isn't it?

In fact, some social media are strong enough to suppress some information, even from a sitting president. So, wouldn't they suppress a misinformation? 

I don't insinuate, it's a proven fact.  And yes, this is a social media outlet.  Luckily, the mods here do a fantastic job of removing misinformation.

 

A sitting president?  You mean Trump who lied about 100 times a day!  Best thing that happened to the world, banning his lies from social media.

[Lacessit]

11 hours 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. 

I have always marveled at the ability of religions to claim the high moral ground, when it is entirely possible for an atheist or agnostic to have equivalent or better morals and ethics. I haven't heard of any agnostics who have killed other people in support of their beliefs. Or that a percentage of them use their beliefs to sexually abuse children.

 

I see the purported scientists that depart from majority positions on a regular basis, because an anti-vaxxer and climate sceptic friend sends the links to me. When I examine them, I ask what are their motivations, and where they are getting their funding from. Quite commonly, it's from sheeple anti-vaxxers or climate deniers subscribing to their channels, because they are being told what they want to hear.

 

When I look at the data they put forward ( some don't even bother ) it's usually from dubious sources, or cherry-picked to suit their position.

 

The most comical one I saw was an antimasker who 1/ Did not know the correct diameter of coronavirus ( out by a factor of 8 ) 2/ Did not know water vapor is a gas, not a liquid. His experimental design aimed at demonstrating the ineffectiveness of masks was way off the mark. He had a shelf of tomes behind him to prove he was a scientist.

 

I'd suggest if you think mainstream science is dogmatic, you should see some of these guys on Facebook and YouTube.

[cdemundo]

1 hour ago, Saanim said:

Do you insinuate that social media inseminate misinformation? Not to forget that this forum is also social media, isn't it?

In fact, some social media are strong enough to suppress some information, even from a sitting president. So, wouldn't they suppress a misinformation? 

inseminate ???

[Saanim]

54 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

I don't insinuate, it's a proven fact.  And yes, this is a social media outlet.  Luckily, the mods here do a fantastic job of removing misinformation.

 

A sitting president?  You mean Trump who lied about 100 times a day!  Best thing that happened to the world, banning his lies from social media.

Banning lies. By the fact checker. Although, the fact checker (Facebook) admitted in a congressional hearing that the fact checking is based on opinion.  

[gamb00ler]

1 hour ago, Saanim said:

Do you insinuate that social media inseminate misinformation? Not to forget that this forum is also social media, isn't it?

 

7 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

inseminate ???

555... you must admit that certain social media have spawned some very ugly offspring.

Edited January 29, 2022 by gamb00ler

[Jeffr2]

1 minute ago, Saanim said:

Banning lies. By the fact checker. Although, the fact checker (Facebook) admitted in a congressional hearing that the fact checking is based on opinion.  

I'm not talking about Fakebook.

[Ryan754326]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

By the same argument, it makes a lot of sense to limit the social interactions of those who refuse to be vaccinated.

 

Since they refuse to voluntarily do what’s necessary to help themselves and help others, they make the case for compulsion.

I think you’re more worried about the “help others” part, than the “help themselves” part. 

 

Once again, you’re so focused on the anti-vaxxers, that you disregard all of the people in less developed countries who still don’t have access to a vaccine in the first place, and probably won’t have access for some time yet. These countries are where new mutations are most likely to pop up. Should those people also be forced to shut their lives off and isolate themselves until they have the opportunity to be vaccinated?

 

The countries who do have easy access to vaccines, and high rates of vaccination,  have tried excluding the unvaccinated from society, and it didn’t do anything to slow down the spread. 

If you think compulsion should be used to push people into being vaccinated, in order to take pressure off of our fragile healthcare systems, then why shouldn’t it be used to push people into eating better and exercising regularly? 
Maybe an obesity tax, or tightly controlled access to food that is high in fat and sugar are needed too. 

 

 

 

[Ryan754326]

3 hours ago, Credo said:

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.

It seems to me like the people who don’t want to get vaccinated really don’t care what the obese do with themselves. 
 

It’s the minority of people who are most vulnerable to covid that seem to be the ones who want to put restrictions on others lives; not the other way around. 

If you’re afraid of getting hit by a car, it’s your job to stay off of the road. You can’t expect everyone else to stop driving so that you feel safe walking down the sidewalk. 

[gamb00ler]

8 minutes ago, Ryan754326 said:

If you think compulsion should be used to push people into being vaccinated, in order to take pressure off of our fragile healthcare systems, then why shouldn’t it be used to push people into eating better and exercising regularly? 

The answer is not that complicated.  By pushing an individual to eat better and exercising you improve only that one individuals outcome.  In pushing for vaccinations, the health of the individual PLUS those around them is improved.  In other words killing/wounding several birds with one shot.

[Ryan754326]

4 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

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.

No, it’s not the best way around. Those who are highly vulnerable to covid represent a tiny portion of the population.
Right now, there are more unvaccinated people on this planet who simply can’t get a vaccine if they want one, than there are highly vulnerable people.

Edited January 29, 2022 by Ryan754326

[Ryan754326]

12 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

The answer is not that complicated.  By pushing an individual to eat better and exercising you improve only that one individuals outcome.  In pushing for vaccinations, the health of the individual PLUS those around them is improved.  In other words killing/wounding several birds with one shot.

I disagree. How much extra capacity would our hospitals have if we took all of the people out of the picture who only remain alive today because of medical intervention, or a steady diet of prescription drugs?

People who neglect their overall health by eating poorly and living a sedentary lifestyle are every bit as much of a strain on our hospitals as the willingly unvaccinated are.

Edited January 29, 2022 by Ryan754326

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours 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. 
 

Agree 100%, and I've been saying from the start that vulnerable people should be isolated while everyone else just gets on with living. It MIGHT be all over had that happened.

Making everyone suffer to save a few has not worked very well, IMO, and the unintended consequences will be felt for many years to come, with the inflation and business collapse etc.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 minutes ago, Ryan754326 said:

I disagree. How much extra capacity would our hospitals have if we took all of the people out of the picture who only remain alive today because of medical intervention, or a steady diet of prescription drugs?

People who neglect their overall health by eating poorly and living a sedentary lifestyle are every bit as much of a strain on our hospitals as the willingly unvaccinated are.

I wonder what life would be like now if the vaccines were still under development. Would government have accepted reality and freed the people, or would we be in permanent lockdown?

[Jeffr2]

33 minutes ago, Ryan754326 said:

I think you’re more worried about the “help others” part, than the “help themselves” part. 

 

Once again, you’re so focused on the anti-vaxxers, that you disregard all of the people in less developed countries who still don’t have access to a vaccine in the first place, and probably won’t have access for some time yet. These countries are where new mutations are most likely to pop up. Should those people also be forced to shut their lives off and isolate themselves until they have the opportunity to be vaccinated?

 

The countries who do have easy access to vaccines, and high rates of vaccination,  have tried excluding the unvaccinated from society, and it didn’t do anything to slow down the spread. 

If you think compulsion should be used to push people into being vaccinated, in order to take pressure off of our fragile healthcare systems, then why shouldn’t it be used to push people into eating better and exercising regularly? 
Maybe an obesity tax, or tightly controlled access to food that is high in fat and sugar are needed too.

What?  This has nothing to do with those who can't get the jabs.  Just those who refuse for ridiculous reasons or help spread the propaganda that they are bad.

 

It's a terrible situation for many who don't have access. With that being said, one of the main reasons people are not getting the jabs in South Africa is misinformation.  All the BS misinformation we see in the West, they see the same, and worse.

 

The only way to get these people vaccinated is via incentives.  Positive or negative.  But that's about all we have to end this pandemic and stop the mutations.

 

Not appropriate to digress about those with underlying conditions.  Not all of them are based on weight or diet.  Some are hereditary.

[Jeffr2]

27 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

The answer is not that complicated.  By pushing an individual to eat better and exercising you improve only that one individuals outcome.  In pushing for vaccinations, the health of the individual PLUS those around them is improved.  In other words killing/wounding several birds with one shot.

That's what many here miss.  Vaccines help our entire society.  Individuals choice to get fat or not is their problem.  Not mine...for the most part.

[Jeffr2]

26 minutes ago, Ryan754326 said:

No, it’s not the best way around. Those who are highly vulnerable to covid represent a tiny portion of the population.
Right now, there are more unvaccinated people on this planet who simply can’t get a vaccine if they want one, than there are highly vulnerable people.

Sad you're OK throwing the vulnerable under the bus and allowing those who won't vaccinate for ridiculous reasons to continue to spread the virus and put even those who aren't vulnerable at risk...and massively stress our health care systems.

 

How about this?  You don't want to vax, you need a special health insurance.  That would change things quickly.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Credo said:

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.

I can only speak for my own posts, but I've never ( far as I remember ) advocated forcing the vulnerable to isolate. I have said that they should be given the option if they so wished. I'm not into locking up people that have committed no crime, against their will, as has happened to all of us during lockdowns.

Far as I'm concerned, we should all be able to carry on living, but given the option of protection if worried about it.

[Ryan754326]

9 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

 

 

How about this?  You don't want to vax, you need a special health insurance.  That would change things quickly.

I’d be perfectly fine with a policy like that, as long as it also applies to those who drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or eat too much McDonald’s. 
 

And I’m not throwing anyone under the bus. I’m arguing that they should take it upon themselves to do whatever they feel is necessary to protect themselves, rather than expecting everyone else to do it for them.
 

 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Ryan754326

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Sad you're OK throwing the vulnerable under the bus and allowing those who won't vaccinate for ridiculous reasons to continue to spread the virus and put even those who aren't vulnerable at risk...and massively stress our health care systems.

 

How about this?  You don't want to vax, you need a special health insurance.  That would change things quickly.

Should never happen. If can do that should also mandate special insurance for those that are unhealthy through choosing to smoke or eat too much bad food. They cost taxpayers millions in preventable costs to the public hospitals.

I get that you think covid is the only game in town, but I don't see it that way.

[Jingthing]

Just now, Ryan754326 said:

I’d be perfectly fine with a policy like that, as long as it also applies to those who drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or eat too much McDonald’s. 
 

 

Those aren't infectious.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Ryan754326 said:

I’d be perfectly fine with a policy like that, as long as it also applies to those who drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or eat too much McDonald’s. 
 

 

You just beat me to it!

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, Jingthing said:

Those aren't infectious.

So what? They are caused by choosing bad options for health, and cost everyone when they end up in hospital. IMO the same argument as saying those that choose to not be vaxxed are a cost to the taxpayer.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Sad you're OK throwing the vulnerable under the bus and allowing those who won't vaccinate for ridiculous reasons to continue to spread the virus and put even those who aren't vulnerable at risk...and massively stress our health care systems.

 

How about this?  You don't want to vax, you need a special health insurance.  That would change things quickly.

Are you deliberately ignoring that he said the vulnerable should be protected?

[Ryan754326]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Those aren't infectious.

This again???

 

It’s been shown again and again that the vaccinated are still spreading covid, and when it gets shown to those here, they come back with, “yes, but it’s about saving the hospitals from being overwhelmed”. 
Well, drinkers, smokers, and and anyone else who lives a generally unhealthy lifestyle are straining healthcare systems too, and were doing so long before covid ever came along. 
 

So which is it? Do people need to get vaccinated because covid might kill them, even if they’ve already survived covid?
Or is it about saving our overwhelmed healthcare systems? because if it’s that one, then those living unhealthy lifestyles are just as much to blame. 

[Jeffr2]

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I can only speak for my own posts, but I've never ( far as I remember ) advocated forcing the vulnerable to isolate. I have said that they should be given the option if they so wished. I'm not into locking up people that have committed no crime, against their will, as has happened to all of us during lockdowns.

Far as I'm concerned, we should all be able to carry on living, but given the option of protection if worried about it.

Here's your vulnerable.  Shame on your guys for not wanting to protect them.  It's easy.  Get the jab, booster, and practice the normal safety precautions.  Easy.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/kelsey-wesley-effects-of-covid-1.6302262

 

After 3-month-old son admitted to ICU, N.L. mom urges people to 'protect the vulnerable' against COVID-19

 

Wesley Blais spent 3 nights in an intensive care unit

[Jeffr2]

10 minutes ago, Ryan754326 said:

I’d be perfectly fine with a policy like that, as long as it also applies to those who drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or eat too much McDonald’s. 
 

And I’m not throwing anyone under the bus. I’m arguing that they should take it upon themselves to do whatever they feel is necessary to protect themselves, rather than expecting everyone else to do it for them.

Agreed! But they're not infecting others, extending this pandemic, and allowing variants to crop up.  No comparison at all.  Though I do agree with you.

[Jeffr2]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Are you deliberately ignoring that he said the vulnerable should be protected?

Not agreeing with his approach. 

[Ryan754326]

24 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

  Individuals choice to get fat or not is their problem.  Not mine...for the most part.

So as a young, healthy person who has been vaccinated, should I have the right to bump the fat old lung cancer patient out of his hospital bed if there aren’t enough left for me when I show up with a covid infection? 
 

Your denial that all of these self-inflicted health issues have any effect on anyone else is mind-blowing. 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Ryan754326