The coronavirus
Comments
-
I don't think anyone is blaming Trump solely at all. There was a lot that was unknown at the time, and of course a lot that the leaders in the medical community got wrong, through no fault of their own. It was a brand new virus. The same was said by Dr. Tam in Canada, and of course, after she said "don't bother masking up" and then did a 180 when more information was known, the right went absolutely nuts.gvn2fly1421 said:
I don't know why that is as far as bringing up population and I damn sure do not know what makes New Zealand different from the US, but I do know if I am herding cattle, I would certainly rather herd 1 cow opposed to 65 cattle (5 mil vs 330 mil). While their covid cases are currently low, they just posted their biggest number since January of active cases, so again, was anything accomplished by hard lockdowns? Virus gonna virus.HughFreakingDillon said:
the population size of NZ is brought up time and again by anti-lockdowners as being non-comparable. why is that? Because as far as I know, every successful society in the first world has the same infrastructure in place relative to their population size. so what makes NZ different from the US? so population SIZE shouldn't matter theoretically.gvn2fly1421 said:
Thanks Hugh for the response!HughFreakingDillon said:
you can't be serious you haven't heard of how New Zealand handled it. if you are, lockdowns + good leadership (which has a big effect on public buy-in) = success. simple as that.gvn2fly1421 said:
Hugh, you mentioned New Zealand earlier. Like New Brunswick, I know nothing about it. Can you explain how they have handled covid so well?HughFreakingDillon said:some people don't like evidence or science. and when you point them to it, they switch gears to conspiracy theories. it's not worth anyone's time to debate such nonsense.
Also, care to give your opinion on how you would have handled it?
I would have handled it similarly to how my province has, and we have a conservative PM, but he also listens to the science. they have made policy mistakes, but they have tried to correct them, (except helping the homeless, but that's another story). it's all about protecting the health care system, while also protecting our most vulnerable. that includes lockdowns when necessary, and when cases subside, open as much as you can to keep the economy going and people sane. it's a balancing act on the head of a pin. it ain't easy.
but doing nothing is absurd.
Honestly, I have "heard" of some of the harsh lockdown measures that New Zealand had, but I do not truly know what they have done. I was hoping for a broader explanation than "lockdown and good leadership". I guess California was missing the "good leadership" since they locked down pretty hard?
I googled New Zealand and a few points stick out, the first being the population. The population there according to the google is 4.9 million. My home state of Tennessee is 6.8 million. Secondly, the location. Obviously an island nation secluded from the rest of the world to a degree. Climate does vary it appears so you cannot point to a warmer year round climate. The death rates for New Zealand and the US are the exact same.
I did look at case count too. Did you know that they reported their largest case count in the past 4 months yesterday? So have they successfully managed the virus? Is Covid Zero your strategy? Because it seems like no matter what any of these countries do, covid will still be around.
As far as your strategy to defeating the virus, sounds great. What province are you in?
sure, there are geographical differences and culture differences. But when you have the POTUS telling people to NOT mask, to NOT worry about how it will magically disappear, that means something. people listen to their leaders, for better or worse. had trump acted like a responsible leader, even an adult for that matter, I believe the situation would be much worse.
Not to derail this thing cause every time I bring up Fauci everyone loses their minds, but our very own lead doctor in this was telling people not to mask up back in March of last year. While Trump certainly had his blunders during this, I do not put it all on him. He had a team, in my best Trump voice, "The best doctor and medical team a pandemic has ever faced" so to blame solely him is a bit disingenuous.
Science is constantly evolving in this. Science gonna science.
The problem with Trump, is that he kept giving bad advice to the country AFTER new knowledge came to light.
Lockdowns work, but obviously you can only do that for so long. And it accomplishes the death toll not getting out of control, while we wait for full vaccine roll out. But I fear we'll never get to herd immunity because of so much vaccine hesitancy. not just in the US, but around the world.
we'll be dealing with this virus for a long fucking time.Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0 -
Yay you, you go on with your life. You get vaccinated yet? Or you skipping it?gvn2fly1421 said:
I am sure the first line is a typo with the 5 million dead Americans so I will leave that alone.Halifax2TheMax said:That someone is okay with approximately 5,700,000 dead +/- 'Muricans so they can live normally? WTF? Nobody is stopping you from going about your life. Go to a ball game, refuse to wear a mask, don't wash your hands or socially distance, find a job and go to work, the economy is booming, find an underground rave or restaurant scene, hell go to Flo Rida. What are you scared? Staying in your basement? Stop being controlled. Fuck man, live.
There is no hope for someone who can't discern the differences and the reasons for them. Only Q knows.
Are you ok with the lives that are destroyed that are still on this Earth?
Nobody has really stopped me from going about my life. Since last May my daughter has been playing softball. She had one "outbreak" at school around Thanksgiving that kept her out for two weeks but other than that, my life hasn't been interrupted. Is it not ok to look around me and the state of the country and not question what is going on?
I extrapolated the percentage of the WaPo dead to confirmed cases and came up with a percentage death rate and applied it to the US population of 320M. Not an exact methodology but it seems to hold and helps an idiot in math like me understand shit. If all 558,000 dead 'Muricans have at least 10 friends, family or acquaintances, would that be 5 million lives thus "destroyed?" Have we not taken care of the living via the PPP, stimulus, rent freeze, etc.? Or are those inconvenient truths? And how about all of those covid survivors? You know the ones, one third who will have, perhaps, a lifetime of adverse effects? Or do they not count in your calculus of harm/benefit analysis? How many deaths are you comfortable with? Seems your "do nothing herd mentality" approach would have clearly resulted in more deaths than we have now, inclusive of cascading impacts on our healthcare delivery systems. Give me a number, how many is enough, or worth it, or indicates a failure, or a success?
Perhaps you might explain why NYC, MA, RI and NJ, all blue states with dem governors, except MA, with a dem legislature lead the pack? What commonality do they share? What were the approaches? How did they differ? And maybe most importantly, what level of compliance did they have? Did they storm the capitol to oppose mask mandates? Have you seen Michigan's numbers lately? Thoughts?
That you voted for POOTWH after 4 years of his incompetence and still don't see the light? More than I need to know. Sure, question what's going on but don't pretend you know the answers. Or provide them with links to bullshit artists out to make a buck. I'll continue to listen to the science, review history and live my life in such a way so as to keep me as safe as possible, during a global pandemic, no less. Do you look both ways before you cross the street? Why do you do that? Are you controlled?
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.mrussel1 said:
You're focused on the throw away line. The point still stands which you didn't address. It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities. But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead. The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy. So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors.gvn2fly1421 said:
I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff. The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary. When did I ever say that?mrussel1 said:
For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead. Stop minimizing that very important fact. All lives matter... remember?gvn2fly1421 said:
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.mrussel1 said:
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.gvn2fly1421 said:
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.oftenreading said:
Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented and where people obey them.gvn2fly1421 said:
At one point do you end the lockdown? If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that. I know I would. The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule. So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
*For most healthy people.
As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020. I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that. I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion. I believe in stricter gun laws. ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!
One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.
OK, please do not derail off of that post... Back to covid...
Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine. What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?
0 -
I wish people would stop wishing for the quick fix. This isn't a one-pronged solution.gvn2fly1421 said:
And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.mrussel1 said:
You're focused on the throw away line. The point still stands which you didn't address. It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities. But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead. The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy. So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors.gvn2fly1421 said:
I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff. The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary. When did I ever say that?mrussel1 said:
For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead. Stop minimizing that very important fact. All lives matter... remember?gvn2fly1421 said:
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.mrussel1 said:
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.gvn2fly1421 said:
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.oftenreading said:
Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented and where people obey them.gvn2fly1421 said:
At one point do you end the lockdown? If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that. I know I would. The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule. So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
*For most healthy people.
As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020. I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that. I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion. I believe in stricter gun laws. ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!
One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.
OK, please do not derail off of that post... Back to covid...
Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine. What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?
the scientific/medical community is being honest that protection against variants, current and future, is completely unpredictable. That's why we need to continue to be vigilant even after vaccination. otherwise vaccination on its own could end up being a complete fucking waste and we're in wave 6 with 18 new variants that are vaccine resistant.
healthy adults should get it to get as close to herd immunity as possible. the vaccine doesn't prevent one getting the virus; it may prevent symptoms, hence preventing further spread to someone who may not be as protected as they are.
there is also a lot of data that shows that "healthy adults" can die from this, and if not, have long term negative affects from it.
it would nice if we had people who saw "keeping the vulnerable safe" as an incentive, not just their own selfish convenience.Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0 -
The vaccine definitely prevents people fromHughFreakingDillon said:
I wish people would stop wishing for the quick fix. This isn't a one-pronged solution.gvn2fly1421 said:
And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.mrussel1 said:
You're focused on the throw away line. The point still stands which you didn't address. It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities. But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead. The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy. So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors.gvn2fly1421 said:
I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff. The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary. When did I ever say that?mrussel1 said:
For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead. Stop minimizing that very important fact. All lives matter... remember?gvn2fly1421 said:
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.mrussel1 said:
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.gvn2fly1421 said:
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.oftenreading said:
Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented and where people obey them.gvn2fly1421 said:
At one point do you end the lockdown? If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that. I know I would. The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule. So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
*For most healthy people.
As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020. I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that. I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion. I believe in stricter gun laws. ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!
One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.
OK, please do not derail off of that post... Back to covid...
Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine. What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?
the scientific/medical community is being honest that protection against variants, current and future, is completely unpredictable. That's why we need to continue to be vigilant even after vaccination. otherwise vaccination on its own could end up being a complete fucking waste and we're in wave 6 with 18 new variants that are vaccine resistant.
healthy adults should get it to get as close to herd immunity as possible. the vaccine doesn't prevent one getting the virus; it may prevent symptoms, hence preventing further spread to someone who may not be as protected as they are.
there is also a lot of data that shows that "healthy adults" can die from this, and if not, have long term negative affects from it.
it would nice if we had people who saw "keeping the vulnerable safe" as an incentive, not just their own selfish convenience.
getting the virus - asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic cases are significantly reduced in those vaccinated compared to those who are not. Newer population based studies are showing that.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
I will be skipping the vaccine. See my post above, what incentive do I have to get the vaccine. I am a healthy, 38 year old man, who by government standards is "overweight" but reality is I am 6' and weigh 195. Visit the gym frequently. I feel like looking at the data from around the globe, I will take my chances with the virus. Hell, I may have already had the virus and might never know. I have never been tested. And to be totally honest, the vaccine scares me more than the virus. What are the long term effects of the vaccine? No one knows. Even the short term effects scare me a bit. I have posted several things in here of people getting the vaccine and passing away a couple of weeks later. Is the vaccine truly effective for getting back to normal? Again, see my post above. What's my incentive?Halifax2TheMax said:
Yay you, you go on with your life. You get vaccinated yet? Or you skipping it?gvn2fly1421 said:
I am sure the first line is a typo with the 5 million dead Americans so I will leave that alone.Halifax2TheMax said:That someone is okay with approximately 5,700,000 dead +/- 'Muricans so they can live normally? WTF? Nobody is stopping you from going about your life. Go to a ball game, refuse to wear a mask, don't wash your hands or socially distance, find a job and go to work, the economy is booming, find an underground rave or restaurant scene, hell go to Flo Rida. What are you scared? Staying in your basement? Stop being controlled. Fuck man, live.
There is no hope for someone who can't discern the differences and the reasons for them. Only Q knows.
Are you ok with the lives that are destroyed that are still on this Earth?
Nobody has really stopped me from going about my life. Since last May my daughter has been playing softball. She had one "outbreak" at school around Thanksgiving that kept her out for two weeks but other than that, my life hasn't been interrupted. Is it not ok to look around me and the state of the country and not question what is going on?
I extrapolated the percentage of the WaPo dead to confirmed cases and came up with a percentage death rate and applied it to the US population of 320M. Not an exact methodology but it seems to hold and helps an idiot in math like me understand shit. If all 558,000 dead 'Muricans have at least 10 friends, family or acquaintances, would that be 5 million lives thus "destroyed?" Have we not taken care of the living via the PPP, stimulus, rent freeze, etc.? Or are those inconvenient truths? And how about all of those covid survivors? You know the ones, one third who will have, perhaps, a lifetime of adverse effects? Or do they not count in your calculus of harm/benefit analysis? How many deaths are you comfortable with? Seems your "do nothing herd mentality" approach would have clearly resulted in more deaths than we have now, inclusive of cascading impacts on our healthcare delivery systems. Give me a number, how many is enough, or worth it, or indicates a failure, or a success?
Perhaps you might explain why NYC, MA, RI and NJ, all blue states with dem governors, except MA, with a dem legislature lead the pack? What commonality do they share? What were the approaches? How did they differ? And maybe most importantly, what level of compliance did they have? Did they storm the capitol to oppose mask mandates? Have you seen Michigan's numbers lately? Thoughts?
That you voted for POOTWH after 4 years of his incompetence and still don't see the light? More than I need to know. Sure, question what's going on but don't pretend you know the answers. Or provide them with links to bullshit artists out to make a buck. I'll continue to listen to the science, review history and live my life in such a way so as to keep me as safe as possible, during a global pandemic, no less. Do you look both ways before you cross the street? Why do you do that? Are you controlled?
I still do not understand the math analogy you are trying to make. Not saying you are dumb, moreso the opposite.
Do you want me to explain why the blue states lead in deaths per or what? I am not pointing at them saying Dems are dumb, my point looking at blue and red states is that they handled covid differently and ultimately ended in the same spot. Blue states seem to be harsher with lockdowns and masks, whereas red states seemed to care more about freedumb (did I do it right?!)! But again, we all ended in the same place.
I am assuming POOTWH means Trump? Imagine being so bothered by someone that you go out of your way to type that as much as you do. Trump is much easier and much shorter thus saving more time. Tell me, how did his 4 years in office directly affect you? What soured you on him? Maybe send a personal message or put it in the Trump thread, as I truly do not want to derail some good discussions in here.0 -
There's a difference between the science of virology and social health policy. Social health policy dictates to continue to distance and mask because a minority of Americans (or maybe just 50%) have been immunized. If you tell people, once you are vaccinated, no need to do anything different, you'll have people who are NOT vaccinated start doing the same. So it's a safety first approach.gvn2fly1421 said:
And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.mrussel1 said:
You're focused on the throw away line. The point still stands which you didn't address. It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities. But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead. The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy. So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors.gvn2fly1421 said:
I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff. The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary. When did I ever say that?mrussel1 said:
For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead. Stop minimizing that very important fact. All lives matter... remember?gvn2fly1421 said:
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.mrussel1 said:
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.gvn2fly1421 said:
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.oftenreading said:
Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented and where people obey them.gvn2fly1421 said:
At one point do you end the lockdown? If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that. I know I would. The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule. So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
*For most healthy people.
As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020. I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that. I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion. I believe in stricter gun laws. ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!
One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.
OK, please do not derail off of that post... Back to covid...
Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine. What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?
But you continue to avoid other points that I have raised and go onto something else. Everyone see the goal posts moving consistently here. Going back to what I believe your core point was, that we should have gone to herd immunity as a strategy. The one country that had that as a strategy was Sweden, and they had higher infection and mortality rates than neighboring Scandinavian countries. It has been a failure. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-prageru-sweden-herd-immunit/fact-check-sweden-has-not-achieved-herd-immunity-is-not-proof-that-lockdowns-are-useless-idUSKBN28C2R70 -
The point you raised in the post I replied to mentioned vaccine effectiveness. I drew the conclusion that you think the vaccine is the way out. I replied to that.mrussel1 said:
There's a difference between the science of virology and social health policy. Social health policy dictates to continue to distance and mask because a minority of Americans (or maybe just 50%) have been immunized. If you tell people, once you are vaccinated, no need to do anything different, you'll have people who are NOT vaccinated start doing the same. So it's a safety first approach.gvn2fly1421 said:
And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.mrussel1 said:
You're focused on the throw away line. The point still stands which you didn't address. It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities. But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead. The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy. So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors.gvn2fly1421 said:
I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff. The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary. When did I ever say that?mrussel1 said:
For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead. Stop minimizing that very important fact. All lives matter... remember?gvn2fly1421 said:
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.mrussel1 said:
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.gvn2fly1421 said:
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.oftenreading said:
Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented and where people obey them.gvn2fly1421 said:
At one point do you end the lockdown? If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that. I know I would. The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule. So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
*For most healthy people.
As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020. I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that. I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion. I believe in stricter gun laws. ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!
One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.
OK, please do not derail off of that post... Back to covid...
Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine. What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?
But you continue to avoid other points that I have raised and go onto something else. Everyone see the goal posts moving consistently here. Going back to what I believe your core point was, that we should have gone to herd immunity as a strategy. The one country that had that as a strategy was Sweden, and they had higher infection and mortality rates than neighboring Scandinavian countries. It has been a failure. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-prageru-sweden-herd-immunit/fact-check-sweden-has-not-achieved-herd-immunity-is-not-proof-that-lockdowns-are-useless-idUSKBN28C2R7
I went and looked at Sweden's numbers on google and they don't look awful. More people have gotten the virus and more people have died, but the percentage of people who get the virus and survive are close when compared to Norway and Finland. I have no idea how each country handled the virus, let me just get that out there before I am asked. Would anyone care to enlighten me?
What other points can I offer an opinion to that I have missed? I try to respond to any posts directed me as honest as I can.0 -
I thought that was science?mrussel1 said:
There's a difference between the science of virology and social health policy. Social health policy dictates to continue to distance and mask because a minority of Americans (or maybe just 50%) have been immunized.gvn2fly1421 said:
And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.mrussel1 said:
You're focused on the throw away line. The point still stands which you didn't address. It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities. But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead. The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy. So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors.gvn2fly1421 said:
I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff. The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary. When did I ever say that?mrussel1 said:
For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead. Stop minimizing that very important fact. All lives matter... remember?gvn2fly1421 said:
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.mrussel1 said:
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.gvn2fly1421 said:
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.oftenreading said:
Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented and where people obey them.gvn2fly1421 said:
At one point do you end the lockdown? If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that. I know I would. The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule. So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
*For most healthy people.
As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020. I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that. I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion. I believe in stricter gun laws. ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!
One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.
OK, please do not derail off of that post... Back to covid...
Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine. What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?0 -
Weird that in reviewing coronavirus data from around the globe, the data from New Zealand and Sweden, two of the more noteworthy nations in regards to the pandemic, seems to be conveniently ignored by this individual.mrussel1 said:
There's a difference between the science of virology and social health policy. Social health policy dictates to continue to distance and mask because a minority of Americans (or maybe just 50%) have been immunized. If you tell people, once you are vaccinated, no need to do anything different, you'll have people who are NOT vaccinated start doing the same. So it's a safety first approach.gvn2fly1421 said:
And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.mrussel1 said:
You're focused on the throw away line. The point still stands which you didn't address. It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities. But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead. The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy. So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors.gvn2fly1421 said:
I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff. The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary. When did I ever say that?mrussel1 said:
For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead. Stop minimizing that very important fact. All lives matter... remember?gvn2fly1421 said:
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.mrussel1 said:
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.gvn2fly1421 said:
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.oftenreading said:
Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented and where people obey them.gvn2fly1421 said:
At one point do you end the lockdown? If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that. I know I would. The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule. So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
*For most healthy people.
As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020. I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that. I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion. I believe in stricter gun laws. ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!
One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.
OK, please do not derail off of that post... Back to covid...
Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine. What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?
But you continue to avoid other points that I have raised and go onto something else. Everyone see the goal posts moving consistently here. Going back to what I believe your core point was, that we should have gone to herd immunity as a strategy. The one country that had that as a strategy was Sweden, and they had higher infection and mortality rates than neighboring Scandinavian countries. It has been a failure. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-prageru-sweden-herd-immunit/fact-check-sweden-has-not-achieved-herd-immunity-is-not-proof-that-lockdowns-are-useless-idUSKBN28C2R7
0 -
Not trying to beat a horse, but I responded to each. Look harder.Merkin Baller said:
Weird that in reviewing coronavirus data from around the globe, the data from New Zealand and Sweden, two of the more noteworthy nations in regards to the pandemic, seems to be conveniently ignored by this individual.mrussel1 said:
There's a difference between the science of virology and social health policy. Social health policy dictates to continue to distance and mask because a minority of Americans (or maybe just 50%) have been immunized. If you tell people, once you are vaccinated, no need to do anything different, you'll have people who are NOT vaccinated start doing the same. So it's a safety first approach.gvn2fly1421 said:
And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.mrussel1 said:
You're focused on the throw away line. The point still stands which you didn't address. It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities. But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead. The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy. So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors.gvn2fly1421 said:
I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff. The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary. When did I ever say that?mrussel1 said:
For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead. Stop minimizing that very important fact. All lives matter... remember?gvn2fly1421 said:
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.mrussel1 said:
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.gvn2fly1421 said:
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.oftenreading said:
Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented and where people obey them.gvn2fly1421 said:
At one point do you end the lockdown? If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that. I know I would. The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule. So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
*For most healthy people.
As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020. I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that. I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion. I believe in stricter gun laws. ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!
One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.
OK, please do not derail off of that post... Back to covid...
Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine. What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?
But you continue to avoid other points that I have raised and go onto something else. Everyone see the goal posts moving consistently here. Going back to what I believe your core point was, that we should have gone to herd immunity as a strategy. The one country that had that as a strategy was Sweden, and they had higher infection and mortality rates than neighboring Scandinavian countries. It has been a failure. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-prageru-sweden-herd-immunit/fact-check-sweden-has-not-achieved-herd-immunity-is-not-proof-that-lockdowns-are-useless-idUSKBN28C2R7
Did you see that New Zealand posted their highest number of cases in the past 4 months yesterday? Tell me about that data! And tell me please how New Zealand has successfully handled this? All I have read in here is they locked down and had good leadership. What did that lockdown look like? I am sincerely asking.0 -
You just rotate through shitty excuses for your side's pathetic failures.gvn2fly1421 said:
And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.mrussel1 said:
You're focused on the throw away line. The point still stands which you didn't address. It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities. But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead. The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy. So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors.gvn2fly1421 said:
I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff. The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary. When did I ever say that?mrussel1 said:
For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead. Stop minimizing that very important fact. All lives matter... remember?gvn2fly1421 said:
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.mrussel1 said:
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.gvn2fly1421 said:
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.oftenreading said:
Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented and where people obey them.gvn2fly1421 said:
At one point do you end the lockdown? If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that. I know I would. The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule. So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
*For most healthy people.
As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020. I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that. I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion. I believe in stricter gun laws. ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!
One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.
OK, please do not derail off of that post... Back to covid...
Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine. What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?
Argument 1: "If they had just done nothing, things would've been better!" - aka "virus gonna virus"
Scientific debunk of moronic statement: high transmissibility + high fatality rate + basic common sense that concentration helps viruses spread = SERIOUS FUCKING PROBLEM WITH DOING NOTHING
Argument 2: "These politicians just want to divide us, there's no problem here" - aka "politicians gonna politic"
Scientific debunk of moronic statement: high transmissibility + high fatality rate + basic common sense that concentration helps viruses spread + evidence of death with strong mitigations in place = SERIOUS FUCKING PROBLEM WITH DOING NOTHING
Argument 3: "These vaccines are stupid because I still can't live my life completely the way I used to yet" - aka "my happiness is more important than your life"
No scientific debunk needed - this is just selfish.'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10 -
Are you trying to be intentionally obtuse? I would be surprised/shocked that once the country reaches a heavy vax level (upwards of 70%) and low active infections, that we will still have mask mandates. We aren't there today. So the goal of social health policy is to keep up the vigilance while the vax is rolled out. Science and health policy are connected, but not the same.gvn2fly1421 said:
I thought that was science?mrussel1 said:
There's a difference between the science of virology and social health policy. Social health policy dictates to continue to distance and mask because a minority of Americans (or maybe just 50%) have been immunized.gvn2fly1421 said:
And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.mrussel1 said:
You're focused on the throw away line. The point still stands which you didn't address. It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities. But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead. The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy. So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors.gvn2fly1421 said:
I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff. The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary. When did I ever say that?mrussel1 said:
For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead. Stop minimizing that very important fact. All lives matter... remember?gvn2fly1421 said:
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.mrussel1 said:
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.gvn2fly1421 said:
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.oftenreading said:
Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented and where people obey them.gvn2fly1421 said:
At one point do you end the lockdown? If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that. I know I would. The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule. So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
*For most healthy people.
As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020. I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that. I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion. I believe in stricter gun laws. ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!
One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.
OK, please do not derail off of that post... Back to covid...
Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine. What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?0 -
Sweden's infection rates are far worse than their Scandinavian counterparts. Death rates, as I said earlier, are not about masks or social distancing. Why do you think those things are connected? Death is an outcome based on co-morbidities, availability of healthcare, and age of the infected. Why would you expect a dramatically different death rate amongst three Scando countries that have similar demographics and healthcare systems?gvn2fly1421 said:
The point you raised in the post I replied to mentioned vaccine effectiveness. I drew the conclusion that you think the vaccine is the way out. I replied to that.mrussel1 said:
There's a difference between the science of virology and social health policy. Social health policy dictates to continue to distance and mask because a minority of Americans (or maybe just 50%) have been immunized. If you tell people, once you are vaccinated, no need to do anything different, you'll have people who are NOT vaccinated start doing the same. So it's a safety first approach.gvn2fly1421 said:
And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.mrussel1 said:
You're focused on the throw away line. The point still stands which you didn't address. It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities. But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead. The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy. So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors.gvn2fly1421 said:
I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff. The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary. When did I ever say that?mrussel1 said:
For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead. Stop minimizing that very important fact. All lives matter... remember?gvn2fly1421 said:
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.mrussel1 said:
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.gvn2fly1421 said:
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.oftenreading said:
Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented and where people obey them.gvn2fly1421 said:
At one point do you end the lockdown? If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that. I know I would. The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule. So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
*For most healthy people.
As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020. I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that. I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion. I believe in stricter gun laws. ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!
One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.
OK, please do not derail off of that post... Back to covid...
Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine. What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?
But you continue to avoid other points that I have raised and go onto something else. Everyone see the goal posts moving consistently here. Going back to what I believe your core point was, that we should have gone to herd immunity as a strategy. The one country that had that as a strategy was Sweden, and they had higher infection and mortality rates than neighboring Scandinavian countries. It has been a failure. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-prageru-sweden-herd-immunit/fact-check-sweden-has-not-achieved-herd-immunity-is-not-proof-that-lockdowns-are-useless-idUSKBN28C2R7
I went and looked at Sweden's numbers on google and they don't look awful. More people have gotten the virus and more people have died, but the percentage of people who get the virus and survive are close when compared to Norway and Finland. I have no idea how each country handled the virus, let me just get that out there before I am asked. Would anyone care to enlighten me?
What other points can I offer an opinion to that I have missed? I try to respond to any posts directed me as honest as I can.0 -
So I am selfish because I do not take the vaccine? What if parents are not taking the vaccine either, are they selfish? They are the only ones I am around that would be endangered by the virus.benjs said:
You just rotate through shitty excuses for your side's pathetic failures.gvn2fly1421 said:
And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.mrussel1 said:
You're focused on the throw away line. The point still stands which you didn't address. It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities. But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead. The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy. So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors.gvn2fly1421 said:
I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff. The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary. When did I ever say that?mrussel1 said:
For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead. Stop minimizing that very important fact. All lives matter... remember?gvn2fly1421 said:
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.mrussel1 said:
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.gvn2fly1421 said:
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.oftenreading said:
Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented and where people obey them.gvn2fly1421 said:
At one point do you end the lockdown? If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that. I know I would. The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule. So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
*For most healthy people.
As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020. I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that. I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion. I believe in stricter gun laws. ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!
One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.
OK, please do not derail off of that post... Back to covid...
Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine. What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?
Argument 1: "If they had just done nothing, things would've been better!" - aka "virus gonna virus"
Scientific debunk of moronic statement: high transmissibility + high fatality rate + basic common sense that concentration helps viruses spread = SERIOUS FUCKING PROBLEM WITH DOING NOTHING
Argument 2: "These politicians just want to divide us, there's no problem here" - aka "politicians gonna politic"
Scientific debunk of moronic statement: high transmissibility + high fatality rate + basic common sense that concentration helps viruses spread + evidence of death with strong mitigations in place = SERIOUS FUCKING PROBLEM WITH DOING NOTHING
Argument 3: "These vaccines are stupid because I still can't live my life completely the way I used to yet" - aka "my happiness is more important than your life"
No scientific debunk needed - this is just selfish.
If you take the vaccine, you are safe, why are you worried about me?
0 -
I wonder what some of you think of this scenario. The CDC says if you're fully-vaccinated, you can gather with others that are fully vaccinated without a mask. At my place of work, there's eight of us. We've all been offered the vaccine, and seven of us got it and are fully vaccinated. The one who didn't, just simply doesn't want it. Am I under some sort of moral obligation to keep wearing my mask to keep her safe?
For now, we're still all under orders for higher-ups to wear our masks in hallways and common places. I don't have to wear it in my own office, but have to put it on to go the bathroom. But if that order gets lifted, in your guys' opinions, should the seven of us still wear our masks for the sake of the one person that refused the vaccine?2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0 -
You're off by a factor of 10, its 570K dead 'Muricans, not 5.7MilHalifax2TheMax said:That someone is okay with approximately 5,700,000 dead +/- 'Muricans so they can live normally?This weekend we rock Portland0 -
In my opinion, once the vaccine is generally available, you are not responsible for that person's decision.Ledbetterman10 said:I wonder what some of you think of this scenario. The CDC says if you're fully-vaccinated, you can gather with others that are fully vaccinated without a mask. At my place of work, there's eight of us. We've all been offered the vaccine, and seven of us got it and are fully vaccinated. The one who didn't, just simply doesn't want it. Am I under some sort of moral obligation to keep wearing my mask to keep her safe?
For now, we're still all under orders for higher-ups to wear our masks in hallways and common places. I don't have to wear it in my own office, but have to put it on to go the bathroom. But if that order gets lifted, in your guys' opinions, should the seven of us still wear our masks for the sake of the one person that refused the vaccine?0 -
I don't have an issue with you personally not taking it. I have a problem with people spreading lies or sewing distrust in vaccines.gvn2fly1421 said:
So I am selfish because I do not take the vaccine? What if parents are not taking the vaccine either, are they selfish? They are the only ones I am around that would be endangered by the virus.benjs said:
You just rotate through shitty excuses for your side's pathetic failures.gvn2fly1421 said:
And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.mrussel1 said:
You're focused on the throw away line. The point still stands which you didn't address. It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities. But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead. The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy. So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors.gvn2fly1421 said:
I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff. The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary. When did I ever say that?mrussel1 said:
For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead. Stop minimizing that very important fact. All lives matter... remember?gvn2fly1421 said:
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.mrussel1 said:
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.gvn2fly1421 said:
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.oftenreading said:
Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented and where people obey them.gvn2fly1421 said:
At one point do you end the lockdown? If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that. I know I would. The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule. So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
*For most healthy people.
As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020. I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that. I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion. I believe in stricter gun laws. ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!
One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.
OK, please do not derail off of that post... Back to covid...
Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine. What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?
Argument 1: "If they had just done nothing, things would've been better!" - aka "virus gonna virus"
Scientific debunk of moronic statement: high transmissibility + high fatality rate + basic common sense that concentration helps viruses spread = SERIOUS FUCKING PROBLEM WITH DOING NOTHING
Argument 2: "These politicians just want to divide us, there's no problem here" - aka "politicians gonna politic"
Scientific debunk of moronic statement: high transmissibility + high fatality rate + basic common sense that concentration helps viruses spread + evidence of death with strong mitigations in place = SERIOUS FUCKING PROBLEM WITH DOING NOTHING
Argument 3: "These vaccines are stupid because I still can't live my life completely the way I used to yet" - aka "my happiness is more important than your life"
No scientific debunk needed - this is just selfish.
If you take the vaccine, you are safe, why are you worried about me?
0 -
Rage Against the Machine just postponed their tour to 2022.....Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt20
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.2K The Porch
- 279 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.3K Flea Market
- 39.3K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help