3 ms·

>Yes, they do. But getting COVID with a vaccination means infections are not emergency-room-critical events. Getting COVID without a vaccination can be an emerg

>Yes, they do. But getting COVID with a vaccination means infections are not emergency-room-critical events. Getting COVID without a vaccination can be an emergency-room-critical event. Thats not entirely true. In my town close to 20% of the hospitalizations are vaccinated. And there have been deaths amongst those as well. Of course the news, even local, is rounding down +/- 5% when its convenient and up the same margin when also convenient. But the local county and hospitals publicly post the raw data. In fact i find calling people that are skeptical of the vaccine "anti-vaxxers" to be particularly unbecoming of an individual. Thats a specific attempt to conflate them with the Jenny McCarthy brand of anti-vaccination folks. These are brand new delivery methods and science that have either never been tried before, or in VERY limited use cases (such as Ebola for viral vector) and have few if any long term studies. People shouldnt be shamed for being skeptical or questioning of the narrative. If the facts fully support the narrative or reasoning you shouldnt NEED to shame or silence dissenters to make your arguments more effective. Especially when things like breakthrough rates are specifically being ignored as of May 1, 2021 [0], when theres data that specifically points to that fact such as slide 17. [1] And the fact that people are being banned and silenced for pointing out that the vaccine does not prevent infection, or serious outcomes of infection, or even transmission and these are generally baseline requirements of othervaccines [2] For example if TDAP or the pertussis vaccine allowed vaccinated patients an 80% chance of transmitting the virus, instead of the current 10%, there would absolutely be different reccomendations out there, especially for parents of newborns. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/bre... [1] https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/54f57708-a529-4a33-9a44-b66d719070d9/note/753667d6-8c61-495f-b669-5308f2827155 https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/do.... [2] https://thehill.com/homenews/media/569908-twitter-bans-conservative-author-Alex-Berenson https://thehill.com/homenews/media/569908-twitter-bans-conse...

falcolas 5y ago
> In my town close to 20% of the hospitalizations are vaccinated. That implies that 80% of the hospitalizations are unvaccinated. Which I then correlate to: 80% of the hospital bed use is directly preventable? 80% of the hospitalized cases are draining our resources better applied to other emergencies? Inexcusable. > Thats a specific attempt to conflate them with the Jenny McCarthy brand of anti-vaccination folks. Respectfully, I find the defense of anti-vaxxers and/or "vaccine skeptics" points of view is irrelevant to this particular thread of discussion. This thread is specifically about their outsized - and more importantly preventable - negative impact on the available medical resources. Address that, and I'm perfectly fine with the lifting of restrictions, because they won't be needed anymore. But right now? Those restrictions absolutely are needed.
- croutonwagon 5y ago
  >That implies that 80% of the hospitalizations are unvaccinated. Which I then correlate to: 80% of the hospital bed use is directly preventable? 80% of the hospitalized cases are draining our resources better applied to other emergencies? How can you get from A to B there.....For all you know, those people would be hospitalized even if they were vaccinated. Theres really no science there, because the groups charged with tracking that very datapoint have chosen to specifically avoid it. One thing is for certain, we don't know why some people present with only mild symptoms and others need critical care, regardless of vaccination status. And there could be plenty of reasons vaccinated numbers are down. Have you considered that maybe many of those vaccinated are also more cautious in their daily routines, are more likely to sanitize their hands or avoid interactions with others that would put them at increased risk regardless of status, such as eating out or attending parties vs curbside or takeout? Heck i would not be shocked if there are more people around you that are more skeptical than they let on because people like you will try and paint them with a broad brush. Its exactly why, despite being vaccinated myself, i avoid such topics in public around friends and family and just say its its not their business. >Respectfully, I find the defense of anti-vaxxers and/or "vaccine skeptics" points of view is irrelevant to this particular thread of discussion. This thread is specifically about their outsized - and more importantly preventable - negative impact on the available medical resources. Its important to note that I am not defending their viewpoints, but moreover I am admonishing rhetoric that is divisive and serves no other purpose than to increase division and make another feel righteous. As well, this thread is about an EU recommendations affecting an entire country, of which only portions of are seeing spikes... You chose to paint with broad strokes and use rhetoric that serves no other purpose than to alienate rather than use rhetoric that works to bring those skeptical of existing treatments to a more logical conclusion. I find it very odd that someone is specifically choosing rhetoric steeped in emotional appeals to admonish those they attack for working off what they see as emotional responses that isnt based on fact or science...

falcolas 5y ago

> In my town close to 20% of the hospitalizations are vaccinated. That implies that 80% of the hospitalizations are unvaccinated. Which I then correlate to: 80% of the hospital bed use is directly preventable? 80% of the hospitalized cases are draining our resources better applied to other emergencies? Inexcusable. > Thats a specific attempt to conflate them with the Jenny McCarthy brand of anti-vaccination folks. Respectfully, I find the defense of anti-vaxxers and/or "vaccine skeptics" points of view is irrelevant to this particular thread of discussion. This thread is specifically about their outsized - and more importantly preventable - negative impact on the available medical resources. Address that, and I'm perfectly fine with the lifting of restrictions, because they won't be needed anymore. But right now? Those restrictions absolutely are needed.

croutonwagon 5y ago
>That implies that 80% of the hospitalizations are unvaccinated. Which I then correlate to: 80% of the hospital bed use is directly preventable? 80% of the hospitalized cases are draining our resources better applied to other emergencies? How can you get from A to B there.....For all you know, those people would be hospitalized even if they were vaccinated. Theres really no science there, because the groups charged with tracking that very datapoint have chosen to specifically avoid it. One thing is for certain, we don't know why some people present with only mild symptoms and others need critical care, regardless of vaccination status. And there could be plenty of reasons vaccinated numbers are down. Have you considered that maybe many of those vaccinated are also more cautious in their daily routines, are more likely to sanitize their hands or avoid interactions with others that would put them at increased risk regardless of status, such as eating out or attending parties vs curbside or takeout? Heck i would not be shocked if there are more people around you that are more skeptical than they let on because people like you will try and paint them with a broad brush. Its exactly why, despite being vaccinated myself, i avoid such topics in public around friends and family and just say its its not their business. >Respectfully, I find the defense of anti-vaxxers and/or "vaccine skeptics" points of view is irrelevant to this particular thread of discussion. This thread is specifically about their outsized - and more importantly preventable - negative impact on the available medical resources. Its important to note that I am not defending their viewpoints, but moreover I am admonishing rhetoric that is divisive and serves no other purpose than to increase division and make another feel righteous. As well, this thread is about an EU recommendations affecting an entire country, of which only portions of are seeing spikes... You chose to paint with broad strokes and use rhetoric that serves no other purpose than to alienate rather than use rhetoric that works to bring those skeptical of existing treatments to a more logical conclusion. I find it very odd that someone is specifically choosing rhetoric steeped in emotional appeals to admonish those they attack for working off what they see as emotional responses that isnt based on fact or science...