• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Social Covid 19 Thread: [no bitching about masks of Fauci edition]

DragoonKain

Neighbours from Hell
Nov 13, 2013
8,332
17,462
1,415
Yeah, no again. The “error” is about a disclaimer “I dont know if it really works” which is seized on to negate everything else said, but in context of many statements he and his guests made is not inaccurate to say the criticism was in error. The “horse paste“ thing is another good example, he and fans obsessively ranted about that and ignored insane, scientifically illiterate errors he and guests made about ivermectin and vaccines that were debunked over and over. And he’s continued to platform those people making elementary errors that in the eyes of qualified experts completely discredits them as a source of information - and yet Rogan is repeating their dumbass talking points (e.g. about monoclonal antibodies being suppressed, uttar pradesh destroyed Covid with ivermectin, etc) on multiple episodes with random guests
That's not how it works. He and his fans are right to criticize the horse paste thing. It's bullshit. If you want to call him out on having people on his show who talk about the effectiveness of Ivermectin, then say that. Don't be disingenuous about the horse paste thing. Publications chose to frame it that way because they wanted to make him look bad. They need to be criticized for it. Sanjay Gupta even admitted it on his show.

Like I said, if you want to criticize him, then criticize him for something legitimate.

And you have to understand that when it comes to errors and misinformation, it's hard to figure out what is true and what isn't. It's essentially one doctor's word against another's. Two things can be true. There's both a lot of misinformation out there on the vaccine and alternative treatments... and legitimate institutions and doctors/experts have really hurt their credibility either through lies, misleading, or purposely distorting information.

It came out the other day that hospitals have been blurring the lines between people hospitalized because of COVID and people hospitalized for another ailment, but happened to have COVID. These are the types of things that have everyday people question everything. You have to understand that Joe's show is basically his own journey to try and discover truth about COVID. And just because people are shouting "Don't listen to Dr. X!" he's going to use his show to listen to them and make that decision for himself. And frankly, for that I can't blame him. You don't take someone's word on something just because.

Even someone like me who is very pro vax and pro masking, I can't fully trust data when it first comes out. I have to wait days, sometimes weeks to see if it holds up via several sources I personally have come to trust over the last couple years. But that's me. You have to put yourself in someone else's shoes and ask yourself, what are they to do if they don't have anyone they trust? Then who are they to believe? Or are they going to listen to every side of every story and try to make a decision on what you believe?

Do I think Joe has some biases? Sure. I think him being driven out of LA has made him really bitter and blinds him on some certain things. But I also know for certain he's not some nut like Majorie Taylor Greene. He genuinely just wants to understand the truth, even if there are some bumps along the way. It's why he's had Peter Hotez and Nicholas Christakis on his show... twice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hari Seldon

Shai-Tan

Member
Mar 16, 2009
6,549
1,027
1,175
That's not how it works. He and his fans are right to criticize the horse paste thing. It's bullshit. If you want to call him out on having people on his show who talk about the effectiveness of Ivermectin, then say that. Don't be disingenuous about the horse paste thing. Publications chose to frame it that way because they wanted to make him look bad. They need to be criticized for it. Sanjay Gupta even admitted it on his show.

Like I said, if you want to criticize him, then criticize him for something legitimate.

And you have to understand that when it comes to errors and misinformation, it's hard to figure out what is true and what isn't. It's essentially one doctor's word against another's. Two things can be true. There's both a lot of misinformation out there on the vaccine and alternative treatments... and legitimate institutions and doctors/experts have really hurt their credibility either through lies, misleading, or purposely distorting information.

It came out the other day that hospitals have been blurring the lines between people hospitalized because of COVID and people hospitalized for another ailment, but happened to have COVID. These are the types of things that have everyday people question everything. You have to understand that Joe's show is basically his own journey to try and discover truth about COVID. And just because people are shouting "Don't listen to Dr. X!" he's going to use his show to listen to them and make that decision for himself. And frankly, for that I can't blame him. You don't take someone's word on something just because.

Even someone like me who is very pro vax and pro masking, I can't fully trust data when it first comes out. I have to wait days, sometimes weeks to see if it holds up via several sources I personally have come to trust over the last couple years. But that's me. You have to put yourself in someone else's shoes and ask yourself, what are they to do if they don't have anyone they trust? Then who are they to believe? Or are they going to listen to every side of every story and try to make a decision on what you believe?

Do I think Joe has some biases? Sure. I think him being driven out of LA has made him really bitter and blinds him on some certain things. But I also know for certain he's not some nut like Majorie Taylor Greene. He genuinely just wants to understand the truth, even if there are some bumps along the way. It's why he's had Peter Hotez and Nicholas Christakis on his show... twice.
Yeah no, sorry, Malone and McCullough are cranks. Just because you’re credulous to it does not put them on the level with genuine experts like Christakis. Science is a system of public knowledge that does not occur via podcasts and its social epistemology requires peer review of the common understanding of facts on the ground and the web of knowledge that make that understanding possible by people with qualifications to judge from which lay people can learn but not easily judge themselves. Cranks like Malone short circuit this process by selling their nonsense directly to the public with messages that tell their audience what they want to hear wrapped in narratives that sow distrust of contrary information. Genuine experts are in a feedback loop with the consensus of their field to check the possibility of systematic error and when talking to the public will flag where their views are idiosyncratic or not accepted by their scientific peers. Cranks spin stories about how everyone but them is corrupt, hiding the truth, has nefarious interests

edit: you may be interested to read or listen to Naomi Oreskes book Merchants of Doubt which drives home the difference between manufactured scientific controversy and genuine scientific controversy.
 
Last edited:

MisterFalcon

Member
Mar 12, 2013
3,524
658
690

That NHS doctor who got some internet fame for telling off the Health Secretary over vaccines has a side hustle for 500 pounds an hour in quack medicine which vaccines are a big threat to. It's always these wellness types when actual doctors speak out against vaccines, the Religion Of The Self where they are the well compensated Church who see a threat to their position in satanic vaccines. The language used to condemn vaccines is like a sermon on Satanic temptations, only by remaining Pure can one's Soul be saved.
 

Barath

Neo Member
Nov 7, 2021
6
3
80
Tell me you didnt read the article without telling me you didnt read it.


Around 93 per cent of adults in NSW have now been fully vaccinated, leaving around 7 per cent of the population not entirely protected. Despite making up a small proportion of the wider community, these 7 per cent now account for more than half of all ICU admissions.

"People making up a very small proportion of the at-risk population, are making up a large proportion of those in ICU," Deakin University epidemiologist Professor Catherine Bennett told news.com.au.

If vaccination didn't protect people from infection or hospitalisation, Bennett said the ratio of vaccinated people in ICU would be the same as those in the general population: 93 per cent. Instead the number in ICU is a lot lower, just 50 per cent in NSW.
 

sinnergy

Member
Jun 16, 2007
5,864
3,381
1,435
US, deaths only 40% higher since last week, #notmyfamily 🤡 but I guess that’s the price they pay for people who want to party and stuff ..
 
Last edited:

Shai-Tan

Member
Mar 16, 2009
6,549
1,027
1,175

That NHS doctor who got some internet fame for telling off the Health Secretary over vaccines has a side hustle for 500 pounds an hour in quack medicine which vaccines are a big threat to. It's always these wellness types when actual doctors speak out against vaccines, the Religion Of The Self where they are the well compensated Church who see a threat to their position in satanic vaccines. The language used to condemn vaccines is like a sermon on Satanic temptations, only by remaining Pure can one's Soul be saved.
Sometimes it's a grifter but often with alternative medicine types they're also a consumer of the belief system which have a lot of excuses to save the pseudoscience nature of it from scrutiny which in turn primes them to distrust legit science (because it's not "holistic" enough or whatever) and from there not far from the conspiracy theories
 

betrayal

Member
Feb 2, 2018
1,788
2,684
445
No you have bright eyes , who says anything about flu, this is a novel corona virus .. and who says instant lock downs .. but it’s clear measures are needed. Seems you can’t think clearly mate .

You are talking nonsense. I understand why you do that, because you are just permanently afraid. But there will and must be a life after the virus. What we are currently seeing with Omicron is a positive development. You're like a newbie in the stock market. As soon as a share price falls, you panic and throw everything into the wind out of fear, without understanding the bigger scheme of things.

Your big problem, and you are not alone in this, is that you always think only in the short term. But if you always think that way about many things, then you don't solve any problems, but rather just postpone them or make them worse.

The fact that we are now seeing extremely high case numbers and, unfortunately, high hospitalization rates again in some countries, is a necessary evil in order to eventually return to normality.

Some countries demonstrably manage to keep the number of deaths and hospitalization rates very low. In some cases, the death rates are so low that COVID-19 victims do not lead to excess mortality in these countries. And since Captain Obvious seems to rarely visit you: That is and must be the goal - no excess mortality with as few restrictive measures as necessary. You have said "He let it mutate and circulate, great strategy for the future" and made fun of it without understanding that EXACTLY THAT is the solution (thanks to vaccines etc.) which in the long run will bring the lowest number of victims and the best life for all of us.



This is wrong. Vaccinated people are less likely to have the virus in the first place, or transmit it if they're infected. This makes the average random unvaccinated person more dangerous than a random average vaccinated person. It's very obvious by looking at the per capita case loads, per capita hospitalizations, viral load studies, etc.

Please stop thinking always just theoretically. There is not only the corona virus. The people we are talking about have to watch out for all viruses. And guess what? There are no vaccinations for most of them.

Protection from infection with Omicron lasts only for a few weeks, if at all, and there are also people with boosters who are not protected.
Vaccination is primarely for self-protection against severe disease.

A vaccinated individual can spread the virus just as likely as an unvaccinated person (see below). It is even possible, that vaccinated people are even more dangerous for high-risk persons, because they are more often without any symptoms, if infected, but can still spread the virus. An unvaccinated individual will more often have obvious symptoms and, if their brain is functioning, will reduce contacts because of that.

Maybe you can now understand, why a high-risk person shouldn't care whether a person is vaccinated or unvaccinated. These people should only care to protect themselves as best as possible.

You can't just pull an unsupported statement like that out of your butt and pretend that it's "probably" true. There's no basis for it. The fact that they're unvaccinated by choice already means that they're not willing to do the easiest and most effective action to protect themselves and their community.

The problem is, again, you can't differentiate. You can be against COVID-19 vaccination and still take COVID-19 very seriously. You won't deny that, will you?

So you have just given proof that my assumption is very well supported - by common sense.

And just to make it a little bit clearer, especially on the issue of "protection for at-risk patients" and how these individuals should behave towards those who are vaccinated or unvaccinated (that is only one of many studies):



Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00768-4/fulltext
 
Last edited:

sinnergy

Member
Jun 16, 2007
5,864
3,381
1,435
You are talking nonsense. I understand why you do that, because you are just permanently afraid. But there will and must be a life after the virus. What we are currently seeing with Omicron is a positive development. You're like a newbie in the stock market. As soon as a share price falls, you panic and throw everything into the wind out of fear, without understanding the bigger scheme of things.

Your big problem, and you are not alone in this, is that you always think only in the short term. But if you always think that way about many things, then you don't solve any problems, but rather just postpone them or make them worse.

The fact that we are now seeing extremely high case numbers and, unfortunately, high hospitalization rates again in some countries, is a necessary evil in order to eventually return to normality.

Some countries demonstrably manage to keep the number of deaths and hospitalization rates very low. In some cases, the death rates are so low that COVID-19 victims do not lead to excess mortality in these countries. And since Captain Obvious seems to rarely visit you: That is and must be the goal - no excess mortality with as few restrictive measures as necessary. You have said "He let it mutate and circulate, great strategy for the future" and made fun of it without understanding that EXACTLY THAT is the solution (thanks to vaccines etc.) which in the long run will bring the lowest number of victims and the best life for all of us.





Please stop thinking always just theoretically. There is not only the corona virus. The people we are talking about have to watch out for all viruses. And guess what? There are no vaccinations for most of them.

Protection from infection with Omicron lasts only for a few weeks, if at all, and there are also people with boosters who are not protected.
Vaccination is primarely for self-protection against severe disease.

A vaccinated individual can spread the virus just as likely as an unvaccinated person (see below). It is even possible, that vaccinated people are even more dangerous for high-risk persons, because they are more often without any symptoms, if infected, but can still spread the virus. An unvaccinated individual will more often have obvious symptoms and, if their brain is functioning, will reduce contacts because of that.

Maybe you can now understand, why a high-risk person shouldn't care whether a person is vaccinated or unvaccinated. These people should only care to protect themselves as best as possible.



The problem is, again, you can't differentiate. You can be against COVID-19 vaccination and still take COVID-19 very seriously. You won't deny that, will you?

So you have just given proof that my assumption is very well supported - by common sense.

And just to make it a little bit clearer, especially on the issue of "protection for at-risk patients" and how these individuals should behave towards those who are vaccinated or unvaccinated (that is only one of many studies):



Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00768-4/fulltext
Dude really .. I have a normal life 🤣 a job, work from home , even when there is social pressure, to help stop circulation, because the faster we are back to something that’s manageable. We go out if there is room .. seems you are afraid , mate , afraid to make adjustments.

I am against the deaths , that UK and USA are willing to take .. just because the world that together has enough money aren’t willing to ride it out even if it’s a couple of years more .. our economy for example didn’t really deteriorate the past 2 years, some parts had it rougher, but in these there were people that did nothing to even try to make money.. . For example , I lost my work right before COVID, needed to cut all kinds of expenses, for example ;buy cheaper clothing , look for work , started my own business, found also a employer. In total I had no work for 14 months , needed to spend all my savings to support my family in that time.

Parts of the world economy have it rough .. happens. I had worse shit in my life prior to COVID.

But a economy rebounces , because most people are greedy bastards , a life lost is a life lost.
 
Last edited:

BadBurger

Gold Member
Nov 6, 2019
4,950
8,221
610
Get vaccinated
You are talking nonsense.

You keep making assertions that are nothing more than well-worn speculation on your part (stuff not only debunked in the current iteration of this thread but even now nuked versions from months ago), and/or not supported by firm and what could be considered old data and science at this point, all while lashing out with personal attacks at others. You can point to a few pre-print articles or fresh, yet unscrutinized studies all you want - meanwhile there are plenty of published and peer-reviewed studies that already informed us otherwise, as well as the predicted and ongoing results of this current wave.

According to you we're not freedom minded enough, we have the wrong state of mind, we're talking nonsense, etc, even though we're citing actual valid science and statistics. You're basically one step away from regurgitating grandma-tier Facebook posts here (pretty sure you even took us on a trip back down anti-vaxxer lane of old and defended Ivermectin as a valid treatment or preventative?), so maybe it's time to calm down and take a step back? I mean, I don't really care, we've seen plenty like you come and go in these threads over the past year, but you seem to be winding yourself up for no good reason and it's embarrassing to watch you keep lashing out each time you're gently corrected.

---

Anways, back to pandemic news, it looks like what happened in South Africa and the UK is about to repeat itself in the US, and cases are dropping rapidly following the massive omicron-driven spike. So far this is the case with the typical urban centers that are first hit during each wave. Cases way down in New York City. Encouraging news. We (my healthcare network) serves a much smaller population, but just looking at yesterday's and today's dashboards the percentage of inpatients testing positive for COVID-19 is already way down from just last week overall - though a few hospitals are still struggling with high case loads and hospitalizations - but not enough to cause too much alarm.
 

FunkMiller

Member
Aug 14, 2014
9,197
28,305
990

That NHS doctor who got some internet fame for telling off the Health Secretary over vaccines has a side hustle for 500 pounds an hour in quack medicine which vaccines are a big threat to. It's always these wellness types when actual doctors speak out against vaccines, the Religion Of The Self where they are the well compensated Church who see a threat to their position in satanic vaccines. The language used to condemn vaccines is like a sermon on Satanic temptations, only by remaining Pure can one's Soul be saved.

random GIF
 
  • LOL
Reactions: BadBurger

Chittagong

Gold Member
Jun 8, 2004
19,408
5,381
2,110
Omicron is so powerful that no measures humankind can take will stop it from spreading (= eventually mutating). You can only delay that mutation, but it is inevitable there too - the virus is here to stay. The moment China or Australia drop any of their measures, Omicron spreads like wildfire, like in any other country.

So that really begs the question, what are we delaying that inevitable spread (and mutation) for? It’s not excess deaths anymore. It’s not to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed anymore. There are no worthwhile therapeutics or vaccines we should delay it for.

Why the travel limitations, work from homes, isolations, tests, face masks anymore?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: p_xavier

betrayal

Member
Feb 2, 2018
1,788
2,684
445
Dude really .. I have a normal life 🤣 a job, work from home , even when there is social pressure, to help stop circulation, because the faster we are back to something that’s manageable. We go out if there is room .. seems you are afraid , mate , afraid to make adjustments.

I am against the deaths , that UK and USA are willing to take .. just because the world that together has enough money aren’t willing to ride it out even if it’s a couple of years more .. our economy for example didn’t really deteriorate the past 2 years, some parts had it rougher, but in these there were people that did nothing to even try to make money.. . For example , I lost my work right before COVID, needed to cut all kinds of expenses, buy cheaper clothing , look for work , started my own business, found also a employer.

Parts of the world economy have it rough .. happens. I had worse shit in my life prior to COVID.

But a economy rebounces , because most people are greedy bastards , a life lost is a life lost.

First of all, the death toll in the UK is not particularly high (see below). Also what we see in the US is unfortunately to be expected with the infection figures and the enormously high number of risk patients (overweight, diabetes, ...). But like it or not, it's not going to get that much better for now. This is the new normal.
Everyone can now protect themselves quite well with vaccination, which will only improve over time. Whoever decides against a vaccination, for whatever reason, lives with the possible consequences. Just because some countries are in the middle of a bad peak of a wave doesn't mean the world is coming to an end.

I am also not generally against the implementation of policies to curb the spread. Regionally, they help where it is necessary. But you always have to put things in perspective, and the US is not the whole world.

I recommend you to put the whole topic in the right context (with other causes of death) and to consider that in almost all countries it is not differentiated whether somebody died just with or because of the coronavirus.

It's all quite respectable to say things like "a life lost is a life lost," but that's about as useful as saying "water is wet".



You keep making assertions that are nothing more than well-worn speculation on your part (stuff not only debunked in the current iteration of this thread but even now nuked versions from months ago), and/or not supported by firm and what could be considered old data and science at this point, all while lashing out with personal attacks at others. You can point to a few pre-print articles or fresh, yet unscrutinized studies all you want - meanwhile there are plenty of published and peer-reviewed studies that already informed us otherwise, as well as the predicted and ongoing results of this current wave.

Always talk in generic terms, it's nice and easy, isn't it?

I've backed up everything I've written with studies and official statistics. I have linked every single source. You, and others, had numerous opportunities to refute that, but that didn't happen once.

Instead, you are now deliberately generalizing and mixing several things to build up a perception that what I have written, although objectively proven, is not true.

It's time you start to understand that there are people who are not concerned with me-versus-you or my-optinions-vs-yours, but who are trying to develop as balanced and evidence-based point of view.


According to you we're not freedom minded enough, we have the wrong state of mind, we're talking nonsense, etc, even though we're citing actual valid science and statistics. You're basically one step away from regurgitating grandma-tier Facebook posts here (pretty sure you even took us on a trip back down anti-vaxxer lane of old and defended Ivermectin as a valid treatment or preventative?), so maybe it's time to calm down and take a step back? I mean, I don't really care, we've seen plenty like you come and go in these threads over the past year, but you seem to be winding yourself up for no good reason and it's embarrassing to watch you keep lashing out each time you're gently corrected.

I never said you were against freedom. I'm even pretty sure you are not.
I have never spoken in favor of ivermectin. I personally think nobody needs it or should take it because COVID.

Like i said, see above. You just blur things and ignore context. It's either that or you are a pathological liar.


Anways, back to pandemic news, it looks like what happened in South Africa and the UK is about to repeat itself in the US, and cases are dropping rapidly following the massive omicron-driven spike. So far this is the case with the typical urban centers that are first hit during each wave. Cases way down in New York City. Encouraging news. We (my healthcare network) serves a much smaller population, but just looking at yesterday's and today's dashboards the percentage of inpatients testing positive for COVID-19 is already way down from just last week overall - though a few hospitals are still struggling with high case loads and hospitalizations - but not enough to cause too much alarm.

That's great news. Especially because many of my statements, which were permanently refuted according to your own words, are based on the verifiable developments in the UK and South Africa.



Omicron is so powerful that no measures humankind can take will stop it from spreading (= eventually mutating). You can only delay that mutation, but it is inevitable there too - the virus is here to stay. The moment China or Australia drop any of their measures, Omicron spreads like wildfire, like in any other country.

So that really begs the question, what are we delaying that inevitable spread (and mutation) for? It’s not excess deaths anymore. It’s not to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed anymore. There are no worthwhile therapeutics or vaccines we should delay it for.

Why the travel limitations, work from homes, isolations, tests, face masks anymore?

Regional hospital overloads and very much uncertainties, because Omicron is new.

This is the first wave with Omicron. The next wave will be handled differently.
 
Last edited:

Clear

Member
Feb 2, 2009
13,740
9,947
1,365
In my view the most significant and egregious failing in the way that the Covid response has been handled is in leaning into dire predictions and fear-mongering as a means to drive compliance with public health policy. The "bill" for this error is coming due right now, and its going to really hurt.

In the initial stages of the pandemic, when everyone -especially the scientific and medical community- was dealing with a novel pathogen, absolute caution was advisable because the dimensions of the global threat it posed were completely unknown. Doctors worldwide were struggling heroically to discover viable treatment protocols for their patients, same deal with government and health policy-makers trying to balance economic needs with potentially mass mortality.

In short initially it was a situation where all of us were in it together against an unknown foe.

Then along comes the vaccine and it seems to me that what happened next was that a calculation was made to jointly simplify the issue down to a simple binary: Vaccine versus disease. More of the former means less of the latter, and with that all the heavy social restrictions will relax.

The problem with this of course is that while its on its face accurate and true, its also a gross simplification. The connections are conditional. Most importantly on the disease and our understanding of it not changing, which it did almost immediately and as a results things have gotten increasingly out of hand.

The perception on the politicians parts I suspect was that the public demanded certainty, so they delivered that even when there was none. And the media was more than happy to chime in and hyperbolically reinforce that message -with its own partisan rhetorical and economic spin of course...

Trouble is, noone really factored in how accurately representing the scientific reality was not going to result in this smoothly delivered and consistent "truth", especially in a volatile and quickly evolving situation. It was in fact going to create confusion.

Each strain of Covid, each wave, is its own distinct crisis. However what's kinda happened is a sort of informational hangover has compounded together everything into a singular mostrous threat that embodies all the most frightening traits of those that's gone before it. We're dealing with a threat as "untreatable" as wild strain Sars-Cov2, as deadly as Delta, as transmissible as Omicron, and the only thing that can save us is still the vaccine! And anyone who says different is an irresponsible monster putting lives at risk.

This is not reality. Its a dark fantasy, a chimera constructed of part-related truths.

And noone wants to step any of it back, because to do so is a threat to the integrity of "the message" and makes them an agent of disease and social chaos.

The end product of this is distrust, confusion, and paranoia.
 

Shai-Tan

Member
Mar 16, 2009
6,549
1,027
1,175
^- it's a normal pattern for a respiratory virus to have waves whose peaks lower year over year after vaccine or natural immunity increases and it becomes endemic. like this is all in Christakis book on the pandemic. the variants are not some thing that comes out of nowhere so no, they aren't a distinct crisis and management of fall/winter spike in infection rate follows a familiar pattern for epidemiologists and infectious disease experts (not much different than flu - the difference that makes it a pandemic is that there isn't a lot of natural immunity to sars-cov2)
 

Jsisto

Member
Oct 11, 2019
216
326
285
New Jersey
Its amazing how much people irrationally hate Rogan. I’ll never understand the calls for censorship, from the fucking left of all people. We’re supposed to be for free speech. Are we censoring flat earthers? That’s obviously bogus but I don’t see anyone suggesting that. I realize everyone is tense right now and there’s legitimate things to worry about, but where is the line drawn? In a matter of seconds I can log on to Spotify and find songs that are blatantly homophobic and talk about committing violent acts on women. Why do I see no one calling for them to be removed. Not saying music should be censored either, just pointing out the ridiculous double standard. This has to stop.
 
Last edited:

prinz_valium

Member
Oct 15, 2013
3,122
3,508
1,005
Tell me you didnt read the article without telling me you didnt read it.
Thank god not 100% of all people took the vaccine.

Otherwise there wouldn't be 10% unvaccinated making up 50% of hospitalized while 90% vaccinated make up the other 50%
And no one can make that argument in favor of the vaccine.

That's a ratio of 9x and a vaccine efficacy of just 88.9% against hospitalization.
But that metric isn't controlling for demographic and is quite useless anyways.


Imagine how many people would've taken the jab if they advertised it from the beginning with a 50% efficacy against infection and 90% against serve disease.
Protection against death is also down to 90% or less.


This is Germany:


And no, that is not the already expected drop due to omicrom that didn't happen yet.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rentahamster

Shai-Tan

Member
Mar 16, 2009
6,549
1,027
1,175
Its amazing how much people irrationally hate Rogan. I’ll never understand the calls for censorship, from the fucking left of all people. We’re supposed to be for free speech. Are we censoring flat earthers? That’s obviously bogus but I don’t see anyone suggesting that. I realize everyone is tense right now and there’s legitimate things to worry about, but where is the line drawn? In a matter of seconds I can log on to Spotify and find songs that are blatantly homophobic and talk about committing violent acts on women. Why do I see no one calling for them to be removed. This has to stop.
the counter argument to that is (i) the two cases aren't equivalent via Mill's harm principle in On Liberty, which carved out exceptions where speech translates into specific harm like deaths. Maybe it isn't justified when considering scope of harms and/or the response (it emboldens victimology, resistance, and conspiracy theories) <- my sense of that, in addition to the problem of the censor; and (2) the argument rests above all else on empiricism and the notion that more speech is always self correcting is questionable, particularly in the short term where there is a lot of motivated reasoning (and the litany of bullshit posted in this thread from partisan twitter accounts and "alternative" media sources attests to that)
 
Last edited:

Hari Seldon

Member
Dec 5, 2008
17,089
1,867
1,360
In my view the most significant and egregious failing in the way that the Covid response has been handled is in leaning into dire predictions and fear-mongering as a means to drive compliance with public health policy. The "bill" for this error is coming due right now, and its going to really hurt.

In the initial stages of the pandemic, when everyone -especially the scientific and medical community- was dealing with a novel pathogen, absolute caution was advisable because the dimensions of the global threat it posed were completely unknown. Doctors worldwide were struggling heroically to discover viable treatment protocols for their patients, same deal with government and health policy-makers trying to balance economic needs with potentially mass mortality.

In short initially it was a situation where all of us were in it together against an unknown foe.

Then along comes the vaccine and it seems to me that what happened next was that a calculation was made to jointly simplify the issue down to a simple binary: Vaccine versus disease. More of the former means less of the latter, and with that all the heavy social restrictions will relax.

The problem with this of course is that while its on its face accurate and true, its also a gross simplification. The connections are conditional. Most importantly on the disease and our understanding of it not changing, which it did almost immediately and as a results things have gotten increasingly out of hand.

The perception on the politicians parts I suspect was that the public demanded certainty, so they delivered that even when there was none. And the media was more than happy to chime in and hyperbolically reinforce that message -with its own partisan rhetorical and economic spin of course...

Trouble is, noone really factored in how accurately representing the scientific reality was not going to result in this smoothly delivered and consistent "truth", especially in a volatile and quickly evolving situation. It was in fact going to create confusion.

Each strain of Covid, each wave, is its own distinct crisis. However what's kinda happened is a sort of informational hangover has compounded together everything into a singular mostrous threat that embodies all the most frightening traits of those that's gone before it. We're dealing with a threat as "untreatable" as wild strain Sars-Cov2, as deadly as Delta, as transmissible as Omicron, and the only thing that can save us is still the vaccine! And anyone who says different is an irresponsible monster putting lives at risk.

This is not reality. Its a dark fantasy, a chimera constructed of part-related truths.

And noone wants to step any of it back, because to do so is a threat to the integrity of "the message" and makes them an agent of disease and social chaos.

The end product of this is distrust, confusion, and paranoia.
Amen. Step 1 to getting people to trust you: Be Trustworthy. The US government completely failed at this step. So now the strategy is apparently to create a Ministry of Truth and censor all apposing voicing. This also fails step 1 as it is again the opposite of being trustworthy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jsisto

caffeware

Banned
Oct 17, 2012
2,850
3,370
1,040
People have to realize, when you have one group of doctors saying they're right and another group saying no we're right, it's almost impossible for your average person to figure out who is actually right. This has to be done in scientific circles over time with research and studies.
Answer can't be to censor the opposing views and create a false consensus.
 
Last edited:

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,710
19,779
1,910
Best Coast
The fact that we are now seeing extremely high case numbers and, unfortunately, high hospitalization rates again in some countries, is a necessary evil in order to eventually return to normality.
Again, no. The flaw in you plan is that you think this is a necessary evil. It is not. This is an entirely UNECESSARY evil. This "evil" if you can even call it that, is highly preventable and able to be mitigated with the vaccine. It is true that everyone catching the virus will eventually lead us back to "normal". This is how pandemics play out in nature once everyone develops natural immunity. This is caveman shit. We have technology to skip the "getting sick" step entirely. Instead of everyone catching COVID to gain immunity, everyone takes the vaccine to gain immunity. Much better plan.
Some countries demonstrably manage to keep the number of deaths and hospitalization rates very low. In some cases, the death rates are so low that COVID-19 victims do not lead to excess mortality in these countries. And since Captain Obvious seems to rarely visit you: That is and must be the goal - no excess mortality with as few restrictive measures as necessary.
Which countries are these, is there data reliable, how do you know this, and is their model adaptable to other countries too?

Please stop thinking always just theoretically. There is not only the corona virus. The people we are talking about have to watch out for all viruses. And guess what? There are no vaccinations for most of them.
I'm not thinking theoretically. It's a fact that unvaccinated people catch COVID19 and go to the hospital a lot more than unvaccinated people. Guess what? Yes there are other diseases around, but they aren't as big of a threat to us as COVID19 is right now.



Protection from infection with Omicron lasts only for a few weeks, if at all, and there are also people with boosters who are not protected.
Vaccination is primarely for self-protection against severe disease.
Stop thinking that complete prevention of infection is the main thing that matters, because it's not. NO vaccine other than the HPV vaccine has complete "protection from infection". You are putting the COVID19 vaccines up to some sort of unrealistic standard. Antibodies wane after time, this is a fact for most all other vaccines in existence. The important thing is that T and B cells still do their job and prevent severe disease. That the COVID19 vaccine also cuts down on transmission and infection is a bonus.

A vaccinated individual can spread the virus just as likely as an unvaccinated person (see below). It is even possible, that vaccinated people are even more dangerous for high-risk persons, because they are more often without any symptoms, if infected, but can still spread the virus. An unvaccinated individual will more often have obvious symptoms and, if their brain is functioning, will reduce contacts because of that.

Maybe you can now understand, why a high-risk person shouldn't care whether a person is vaccinated or unvaccinated. These people should only care to protect themselves as best as possible.
Wrong again. Unvaccinated people can also be asymptomatic too. This has always been true since the beginning and is one of the reasons this pandemic has been so tricky to contain. You are again making a pie-in-the-sky caricature of the hypothetical ideal unvaccinated super cautious individual and portraying that like it's how they all act. This is not supported by data, or by actual actions. Don't tell me to stop thinking theoretically when all you keep going to is the theoretical hypothetical unvaccinated person who is oh so much more cautious than vaccinated people and totally exists.

The problem is, again, you can't differentiate. You can be against COVID-19 vaccination and still take COVID-19 very seriously. You won't deny that, will you?

So you have just given proof that my assumption is very well supported - by common sense.
Again with the theoretical nonsense. What proof? Your imagination?

Someone can choose to refuse the vaccine but still THINK that they are taking COVID19 seriously, but they are making a mistake in judgement. Willingly refusing our best tool to end this pandemic is not the action of someone who takes this pandemic seriously.

And just to make it a little bit clearer, especially on the issue of "protection for at-risk patients" and how these individuals should behave towards those who are vaccinated or unvaccinated (that is only one of many studies):



Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00768-4/fulltext

Yes it's clear, but not in the way you think it is. Did you read the supporting studies or are you only relying on the faulty analysis of one dude?

The scientific rationale for mandatory vaccination in the USA relies on the premise that vaccination prevents transmission to others
Not off to a great start. This is not the scientific rationale. The primary goal of the vaccine is to prevent disease, suffering, and death.

How about the line you highlighted?
This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people.

LET'S TAKE A LOOK, SHALL WE



How about that.

It's also no surprise that transmission is high among a household packed full of sick people, vaccinated or not. Even against those odds, the vaccinated group still fared better.

They also go on to talk about how viral load probably clears faster among vaccinated individuals, which would most likely reduce the time they are infectious. Someone who is sick for a less amount of time has a small chance of passing that sickness on to others. It's math.

Moving along... let's look at his other sources...



0.4%



So much for the safety of your imaginary super safe and cautious unvaccinated person.



This is your proof that vaccinated people are more of a danger or the same level of danger as unvaccinated people? It's actually the opposite.




"The vaccine has also been shown to reduce the incidence of asymptomatic infection and the associated infectivity."

Stop cherry picking your data.
 

caffeware

Banned
Oct 17, 2012
2,850
3,370
1,040
Its amazing how much people irrationally hate Rogan. I’ll never understand the calls for censorship, from the fucking left of all people. We’re supposed to be for free speech. Are we censoring flat earthers? That’s obviously bogus but I don’t see anyone suggesting that. I realize everyone is tense right now and there’s legitimate things to worry about, but where is the line drawn? In a matter of seconds I can log on to Spotify and find songs that are blatantly homophobic and talk about committing violent acts on women. Why do I see no one calling for them to be removed. Not saying music should be censored either, just pointing out the ridiculous double standard. This has to stop.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,710
19,779
1,910
Best Coast
I've backed up everything I've written with studies and official statistics. I have linked every single source. You, and others, had numerous opportunities to refute that, but that didn't happen once.
OK I just noticed this in your reply to BadBurger BadBurger

Are you serious? I've responded to and refuted nearly every false or misleading thing you've ever wrote in this thread either with more reliable sources than the ones you've posted, or analysis about how you're interpreting your own sources wrong and are overreaching conclusions that aren't supported by the data.
 
  • Triggered
Reactions: betrayal

caffeware

Banned
Oct 17, 2012
2,850
3,370
1,040
Thank god not 100% of all people took the vaccine.

Otherwise there wouldn't be 10% unvaccinated making up 50% of hospitalized while 90% vaccinated make up the other 50%
And no one can make that argument in favor of the vaccine.
So 90% of population is vaccinated now? How high do we have to go to move on?
 

Hari Seldon

Member
Dec 5, 2008
17,089
1,867
1,360
Big difference though. 9/11 killed 3,000 Americans.

COVID19 so far has killed 800,000 and counting.

So that's like, 277 9/11s.

You weren't around for 9/11. The Patriot Act was rolled out because people were scared of dirty bombs and all kinds of additional high casualty events.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,710
19,779
1,910
Best Coast
You weren't around for 9/11. The Patriot Act was rolled out because people were scared of dirty bombs and all kinds of additional high casualty events.
Unreasonable legislation and executive orders that shit on the Constitution (domestic spying, authorizing torture, assassinating US citizens, reduced protections against search and seizure) were enacted based on 3K actual deaths and the theoretical but implausible (as we now know) threat of hundreds of thousands more.

Contrast that to today, where reasonable legislation and executive orders that both have Constitutional precedent and are supported by most courts were enacted based on 800k actual deaths and the theoretical yet plausible threat of more. Not to mention the millions of dead worldwide.
 

Hari Seldon

Member
Dec 5, 2008
17,089
1,867
1,360
Unreasonable legislation and executive orders that shit on the Constitution (domestic spying, authorizing torture, assassinating US citizens, reduced protections against search and seizure) were enacted based on 3K actual deaths and the theoretical but implausible (as we now know) threat of hundreds of thousands more.

Contrast that to today, where reasonable legislation and executive orders that both have Constitutional precedent and are supported by most courts were enacted based on 800k actual deaths and the theoretical yet plausible threat of more. Not to mention the millions of dead worldwide.
Some of the legislation is reasonable, some is not. But what concerns me most is all the people that support all of this censorship. That is the same level of anti-constitutional action as the patriot act.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,710
19,779
1,910
Best Coast
Some of the legislation is reasonable, some is not. But what concerns me most is all the people that support all of this censorship. That is the same level of anti-constitutional action as the patriot act.
Not the same level. The Patriot act is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, our own intelligence agencies spy on us without warrant, we've assassinated US citizens, we've "legally" tortured, and we went to war (without Congressional declaration) with other countries for 20 years because of 3K deaths.

The vaccine mandate is settled law that dates back 100 years.

 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,710
19,779
1,910
Best Coast
At this point, it's abundantly clear how well the vaccines work, and people like Malone who are dissuading people from getting it based on faulty information are being irresponsible.

 

Hari Seldon

Member
Dec 5, 2008
17,089
1,867
1,360
Not the same level. The Patriot act is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, our own intelligence agencies spy on us without warrant, we've assassinated US citizens, we've "legally" tortured, and we went to war (without Congressional declaration) with other countries for 20 years because of 3K deaths.

The vaccine mandate is settled law that dates back 100 years.

We are talking about different things. Vaccine mandates may be legal, if properly authorized by congress and not this horseshit Osha backdoor. But I'm talking about the Approved Propaganda Only Ministry of Truth bullshit that the federal government is forcing the tech companies to do. That is waaaay worse for democracy than anything in the patriot act.
 

ProudClod

Non-existent Member
Dec 20, 2008
1,438
93
1,315
Toronto
At this point, it's abundantly clear how well the vaccines work, and people like Malone who are dissuading people from getting it based on faulty information are being irresponsible.
I think the evidence for older, at risk populations is clear. Anyone that tries to argue that people 65+ or those with severe comorbidities (regardless of age) wouldn't benefit from a vaccine is a bad actor. I think it's also safe to assume that the cost-benefit analysis for most western adults (relatively unhealthy, sedentary, no exercise, high processed food diets, inadequate micronutrients, weak immune systems etc.) should swing in favor of getting a vaccine.

However, the argument for vaccinating teenagers is a lot more murky, and your post is a perfect example of why.

"Good evidence" is a sample size of less than 1,000? Where only 7 total deaths have been recorded? When there's been more than 300M cases worldwide?

This is cherry-picking to an insane degree. It's fixating on insignificant data points, when we have ABUNDANCE of data to suggest that COVID is essentially harmless for teenagers. It's missing the forest for the trees.
 
Oct 26, 2018
23,297
32,732
885
I think the evidence for older, at risk populations is clear. Anyone that tries to argue that people 65+ or those with severe comorbidities (regardless of age) wouldn't benefit from a vaccine is a bad actor. I think it's also safe to assume that the cost-benefit analysis for most western adults (relatively unhealthy, sedentary, no exercise, high processed food diets, inadequate micronutrients, weak immune systems etc.) should swing in favor of getting a vaccine.

However, the argument for vaccinating teenagers is a lot more murky, and your post is a perfect example of why.

"Good evidence" is a sample size of less than 1,000? Where only 7 total deaths have been recorded? When there's been more than 300M cases worldwide?

This is cherry-picking to an insane degree. It's fixating on insignificant data points, when we have ABUNDANCE of data to suggest that COVID is essentially harmless for teenagers. It's missing the forest for the trees.
The problem with government is that the senior citizen bracket has been clearly hit the hardest with covid. From there it's a giant sliding slope down where school age kids barely get affected (even though many didnt even get the vax until recently when govs open up vax to 12 and under!).

However, students have been in a rotating merri-go-round of in class and online when they hardly get affected and it's a hassle to parents to accommodate home learning if they dont have a WFH job.... which I have no idea how an on-site working parent handles kids doing online learning at home if they cant do WFH with a laptop. I work in an office so all my peers can just do WFH. So all my peers are ok.

But not once has there ever been any guidelines about old people (being the biggest risk group) changing their access or lifestyle. They dont seem to have the balls to implement policies where 70 year olds on the fringe with a double dose of existing health issues combined with covid risk should be different rulesets. When I walk around I see just as many old people mingling with everyone.

Given the effect of covid, it should not be everyone with the same exact policies.

And gov policies dont even make sense anyway. Every gov seems to have "religious exemptions" which makes zero sense. Although likely a small pool of people, thats still a group of people who are at risk to themselves and to others for something that is literally based on non-scientific data.

So on one hand govs want covid cases and deaths to drop like a rock, yet the biggest risk group (old people) are free to do whatever they want and they allow religious exemptions. That sure makes sense.
 
Last edited:

Jsisto

Member
Oct 11, 2019
216
326
285
New Jersey
Some of the legislation is reasonable, some is not. But what concerns me most is all the people that support all of this censorship. That is the same level of anti-constitutional action as the patriot act.
I'm 100 percent with you on this. This is my main concern. I was a dumb teenager during 9/11 and too high on the fear porn to realize the implications, but not this time. The fact that private social media companies and news networks are being overtly pressured to censor content, regardless of whether we agree with it or not, should concern us ALL. Unfortunately, doesn't seem to...
 

ProudClod

Non-existent Member
Dec 20, 2008
1,438
93
1,315
Toronto
The problem with government is that the serior citizen bracket has been clearly hit the hardest with covid. From there it's a giant sliding slope down where school age kids barely get affected (even though many didnt even get the vax until recently when govs open up vax to 12 and under!).

However, students have been in a rotating merri-go-round of in class and online when they hardly get affected and it's a hassle to parents to accommodate home learning if they dont have a WFH job.... which I have no idea how an on-site working parent handles kids doing online learning at home if they cant do WFH with a laptop. I work in an office so all my peers can just do WFH. So all my peers are ok.

But not once has there ever been any guidelines about old people (being the biggest risk group) changing their access or lifestyle. They dont seem to have the balls to implement policies where 70 year olds on the fringe with a double dose of existing health issues combined with covid risk should be different rulesets.

Given the effect of covid, it should not be everyone with the same exact policies.
Yeah, I've been talking about this with my friends since the beginning (or at least since we started getting data about death-rates by age).

Most of the policies / lockdowns / mandates seem to be either virtue signaling or just fanning the flames of left vs. right tribalistic bullshit... All to secure their base's support.

I'm in Canada, and our policies have been absolute nonsense (unless you look at them from the angle of "will this politician be re-elected if people die and they're seen as complicit?"). We close restaurants and gyms, driving thousands of small businesses to bankruptcy, while people flood to the malls and stand in line to buy scented candles (which everyone pulls their masks down to sniff). We close schools for remote learning when most parents have to take their kids to daycare instead (costing them money, and exposing them all the same). We outlaw gatherings of more than 10 people, yet we have millions of people taking public transit, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with strangers every day. We fire nurses and doctors for not getting vaccinated, yet we have a national shortage of medical staff for testing, vaxxing, and treating patients.

It's all fucking nonsense.

And yet, the sort of policies that might actually decrease death rates (i.e. policies targeted specifically towards the elderly) are not even considered. How about we dedicate a large portion of our stimulus budgets to getting every at risk person the best PPE money can buy? How about we use that stimulus to expand healthcare capacity so that we don't have to triage, and every at-risk person receives adequate care and attention. How about we ensure that every COVID unit has monoclonal antibodies read for use. And if that doesn't work -- how about we lock down just the at risk population? (Although, this would never happen, given how that would piss of a major voting base...)
 
Oct 26, 2018
23,297
32,732
885
Yeah, I've been talking about this with my friends since the beginning (or at least since we started getting data about death-rates by age).

Most of the policies / lockdowns / mandates seem to be either virtue signaling or just fanning the flames of left vs. right tribalistic bullshit... All to secure their base's support.

I'm in Canada, and our policies have been absolute nonsense (unless you look at them from the angle of "will this politician be re-elected if people die and they're seen as complicit?"). We close restaurants and gyms, driving thousands of small businesses to bankruptcy, while people flood to the malls and stand in line to buy scented candles (which everyone pulls their masks down to sniff). We close schools for remote learning when most parents have to take their kids to daycare instead (costing them money, and exposing them all the same). We outlaw gatherings of more than 10 people, yet we have millions of people taking public transit, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with strangers every day. We fire nurses and doctors for not getting vaccinated, yet we have a national shortage of medical staff for testing, vaxxing, and treating patients.

It's all fucking nonsense.

And yet, the sort of policies that might actually decrease death rates (i.e. policies targeted specifically towards the elderly) are not even considered. How about we dedicate a large portion of our stimulus budgets to getting every at risk person the best PPE money can buy? How about we use that stimulus to expand healthcare capacity so that we don't have to triage, and every at-risk person receives adequate care and attention. How about we ensure that every COVID unit has monoclonal antibodies read for use. And if that doesn't work -- how about we lock down just the at risk population? (Although, this would never happen, given how that would piss of a major voting base...)
I hear ya. I'm in Toronto.

Isnt the latest temp lockdown great?

How about this beauty in 2020? Big box stores were allowed to stay open (makes sense because they sell food and everyday items). But some reason important medical places like opticians and physio places were on lockdown (places that have hardly any customers at any given time). But then every KFC and Pizza shop was allowed to stay open. I dont even think McDonalds even shut down one day. Somehow their drive thru service has been open the whole time, yet it was a struggle for mom and pop places to open up for take out.

It's been almost two years of covid (shit hit the fan March 2020). They still have no idea what they are doing.

PS: Another great one. That time when Ontario flip flopped on lockdowns only after two weeks giving only 48 or 72 hours notice. Then all the restaurant owners were like WTF? We just stocked up on supplies. Now what gov?
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
23,297
32,732
885

betrayal

Member
Feb 2, 2018
1,788
2,684
445
Again, no. The flaw in you plan is that you think this is a necessary evil. It is not. This is an entirely UNECESSARY evil. This "evil" if you can even call it that, is highly preventable and able to be mitigated with the vaccine. It is true that everyone catching the virus will eventually lead us back to "normal". This is how pandemics play out in nature once everyone develops natural immunity. This is caveman shit. We have technology to skip the "getting sick" step entirely. Instead of everyone catching COVID to gain immunity, everyone takes the vaccine to gain immunity. Much better plan.

That's why I said that most people in many countries have had the chance to be vaccinated and have to live with the consequences of their decision. I never said that everyone should get infected unvaccinated. On the contrary, I have emphasized several times that I am clearly in favor of vaccination.

Which countries are these, is there data reliable, how do you know this, and is their model adaptable to other countries too?

Really, what the fucking fuck? Are you trolling me?

I have posted the official figures of South Africa and UK several times. These are not my numbers and they are not made up.




I'm not thinking theoretically. It's a fact that unvaccinated people catch COVID19 and go to the hospital a lot more than unvaccinated people. Guess what? Yes there are other diseases around, but they aren't as big of a threat to us as COVID19 is right now.


Again what fuck?

I never said that unvaccinated people do not make up the majority in hospitals. Of course, they are the overwhelming majority and the people who are by far the most at risk.

Please take a serious look to make sure you're not accidentally confusing me with someone else.


Stop thinking that complete prevention of infection is the main thing that matters, because it's not. NO vaccine other than the HPV vaccine has complete "protection from infection". You are putting the COVID19 vaccines up to some sort of unrealistic standard. Antibodies wane after time, this is a fact for most all other vaccines in existence. The important thing is that T and B cells still do their job and prevent severe disease. That the COVID19 vaccine also cuts down on transmission and infection is a bonus.

Please don't deliberately leave out the context.

It was about the risk of infection for high-risk patients when they have contact with vaccinated or unvaccinated people, both of whom have been shown to be similarly infectious.

I have also posted studies and excerpts about this


Wrong again. Unvaccinated people can also be asymptomatic too. This has always been true since the beginning and is one of the reasons this pandemic has been so tricky to contain. You are again making a pie-in-the-sky caricature of the hypothetical ideal unvaccinated super cautious individual and portraying that like it's how they all act. This is not supported by data, or by actual actions. Don't tell me to stop thinking theoretically when all you keep going to is the theoretical hypothetical unvaccinated person who is oh so much more cautious than vaccinated people and totally exists.

What. The. Fuck.

Here is what i wrote:
"It is even possible, that vaccinated people are even more dangerous for high-risk persons, because they are more often without any symptoms, if infected, but can still spread the virus. An unvaccinated individual will more often have obvious symptoms and, if their brain is functioning, will reduce contacts because of that."


Again with the theoretical nonsense. What proof? Your imagination?

Someone can choose to refuse the vaccine but still THINK that they are taking COVID19 seriously, but they are making a mistake in judgement. Willingly refusing our best tool to end this pandemic is not the action of someone who takes this pandemic seriously.

What does one have to do with the other?

I know enough people who are unvaccinated (for reasons that are stupid and incomprehensible to me), but who no longer visit their sick elderly parents (or other high-risk persons), for example.

Please stop always putting all people under the same umbrella.



Yes it's clear, but not in the way you think it is. Did you read the supporting studies or are you only relying on the faulty analysis of one dude?

What is this crap? Do you read the things you talk about?


This is not "one dude". What makes it even more funny is that you pick specific statements from these individual studies (and leave out all the rest, that do not prove your point) to refute me and then you say to me "Stop cherry picking your data." This is comedy gold.

To make it even more absurd, you also have to consider what it was all about. It was solely about why a high-risk patient will certainly not and should not behave differently towards a vaccinated patient than an unvaccinated one, since the risk of infection is similarly high in both cases. If you want to argue about a few percentage points and think that this is relevant for high-risk patients, then find someone who is interested in such pointless discussions.
 
Last edited:

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
13,046
21,519
935
And people are still gonna whine, bitch, and moan about how Covid is still around and wonder why we keep getting variants. Clown shoes from the top down man lol

Hopefully businesses do the right thing and still optionally enforce some kind of internal policies when it comes to protecting themselves and their employees.
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: Ma-Yuan

Nobody_Important

“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
May 22, 2018
13,046
21,519
935
Maybe pass laws in congress instead of backdoor OSHA shit? If congress cannot pass laws, then I shouldn't have to pay taxes.
Even if that was possible it would take too long with how drag ass the system works.


Luckily most business aren't that stupid and will most likely just continue their own versions of the mandate behind closed doors or will go back to how they operated before it. My boss sent out email when all this first made it to the SCOTUS to tell us that regardless of the outcome they will "expect" all current and future employees to be up to date on their vaccinations in order to maintain a safe and productive environment. I assume most large businesses (especially those that work in large office spaces with many employees) will do the same.
 
Last edited: