4 ms·

Sure, happy to elaborate. The best example of this is my niece who is a nurse in NYC. She cannot participate at all in city life after the mandate and will soon

Sure, happy to elaborate. The best example of this is my niece who is a nurse in NYC. She cannot participate at all in city life after the mandate and will soon lose her job over it this Fall. She's very seriously considering leaving the city and her profession entirely. Those who feel that when push comes to shove, people will just get vaxxed, are in for a rude awakening. I understand that you believe that unvaxxed are where the mutations happen. Do you have any peer reviewed studies showing this to be the case? We know from experience with antibiotics that the opposite is true. Humans devise a treatment, the pathogen encounters that treatment, then mutates to circumvent it. Of course I'm a layman so if anyone knows why the opposite would be the case for COVID-19 or viruses in general, I'm happy to be educated on the matter.

dfxm12 5y ago
She cannot participate at all in city life after the mandate and will soon lose her job over it this Fall. I do believe the carrot works better than the stick, but I don't think this goes as far as being "treated like a threat". I understand that you believe that unvaxxed are where the mutations happen. I didn't say this and this is not my full belief :( . Mutations can happen at any new infection (including breakthrough infections, yes). So, the premise is to reduce new infections as much and as fast as possible. I think we're on the same page that vaccination greatly reduces your chance of infection (even more than having previously been infected before). Getting the most people vaccinated, as fast as possible, is the most efficient way to achieve that. Overall, though, you've gotten pretty far away from the original question, "Well, what would it take for you to change your mind [to get the vaccine]?"
- chitowneats 5y ago
  Why would she be forced to take the injection if she's not a threat? They're destroying her professional and personal life over her refusal. She better be considered a threat for this to be at all rational or ethical. I will continue to disagree with your one size fits all prescription. It would be trivial to allow an antibody test in lieu of vaccination. Responding to your edit: I already answered the original question. Allow an antibody test to prove immunity. Stop demanding vax as if it's the only way to acquire immunity. It's quite funny to me how presumptuous covid vaxx advocates are. They seem to be saying, "you're going to have to relent eventually. What do I need to say to speed that up?". As if there aren't people who will listen to what they have to say yet continue to refuse and have perfectly valid reasons to do so.
  - dfxm12 5y ago
    I already answered the original question. Allow an antibody test to prove immunity. That's not an answer to the original question. That's an excuse to not take the vaccine, and I've already addressed how these two things aren't the same.
    - chitowneats 5y ago
      You're correct. They're not the same. Natural infection is far superior to mRNA protection, as we are now learning.
- peteradio 5y ago
  Burden of proof is on you! Why should recovered people be treated differently from vaccinated? Show that the elevated risk somehow associated with naturally derived antibodies is worth depriving livelihood. What marginal societal reward do you expect from this treatment?
  - dfxm12 5y ago
    This was already addressed.
    - peteradio 5y ago
      2.34 improvement is the mean value on a marginal improvement. If 999/1000 of vaccinated people were uninfected while only 998/1000 unvaccinated (but recovered) people were uninfected that would amount to that 2x improvement. When you look at the error bars on those numbers (due to the ridiculously low statistics of the study) the conclusion becomes even more suspect. Frankly a study involving less than a thousand participants is pretty poor justification to strip others of their rights.

dfxm12 5y ago

She cannot participate at all in city life after the mandate and will soon lose her job over it this Fall. I do believe the carrot works better than the stick, but I don't think this goes as far as being "treated like a threat". I understand that you believe that unvaxxed are where the mutations happen. I didn't say this and this is not my full belief :( . Mutations can happen at any new infection (including breakthrough infections, yes). So, the premise is to reduce new infections as much and as fast as possible. I think we're on the same page that vaccination greatly reduces your chance of infection (even more than having previously been infected before). Getting the most people vaccinated, as fast as possible, is the most efficient way to achieve that. Overall, though, you've gotten pretty far away from the original question, "Well, what would it take for you to change your mind [to get the vaccine]?"

chitowneats 5y ago
Why would she be forced to take the injection if she's not a threat? They're destroying her professional and personal life over her refusal. She better be considered a threat for this to be at all rational or ethical. I will continue to disagree with your one size fits all prescription. It would be trivial to allow an antibody test in lieu of vaccination. Responding to your edit: I already answered the original question. Allow an antibody test to prove immunity. Stop demanding vax as if it's the only way to acquire immunity. It's quite funny to me how presumptuous covid vaxx advocates are. They seem to be saying, "you're going to have to relent eventually. What do I need to say to speed that up?". As if there aren't people who will listen to what they have to say yet continue to refuse and have perfectly valid reasons to do so.
- dfxm12 5y ago
  I already answered the original question. Allow an antibody test to prove immunity. That's not an answer to the original question. That's an excuse to not take the vaccine, and I've already addressed how these two things aren't the same.
  - chitowneats 5y ago
    You're correct. They're not the same. Natural infection is far superior to mRNA protection, as we are now learning.
peteradio 5y ago
Burden of proof is on you! Why should recovered people be treated differently from vaccinated? Show that the elevated risk somehow associated with naturally derived antibodies is worth depriving livelihood. What marginal societal reward do you expect from this treatment?
- dfxm12 5y ago
  This was already addressed.
  - peteradio 5y ago
    2.34 improvement is the mean value on a marginal improvement. If 999/1000 of vaccinated people were uninfected while only 998/1000 unvaccinated (but recovered) people were uninfected that would amount to that 2x improvement. When you look at the error bars on those numbers (due to the ridiculously low statistics of the study) the conclusion becomes even more suspect. Frankly a study involving less than a thousand participants is pretty poor justification to strip others of their rights.