4 ms·

As they should be, considering that the vaccines do not stop people from getting infected and infecting others. Making sure there are only vaccinated people in

As they should be, considering that the vaccines do not stop people from getting infected and infecting others. Making sure there are only vaccinated people in a bar does not mean the people inside can’t get infected so this measure does not help achieve that goal.

elcomet 5y ago
It makes sense if vaccine reduces infection rate.
Ekaros 5y ago
Clearly only true solution to stop spread is permanent lockdown. And ban bars, restaurants, events and any sort of gatherings forever. I believe all pro-vaccine people already agree that no sacrifice of freedoms is too big for greater good. After all, why wouldn't they support keeping the vulnerable safe? Cost is only small sacrifice in bodily autonomy and clearly most effective thing to do.
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  Well, of course it’s mostly about sacrifices other people have to make. You know, ‘I don’t go to festivals so I don’t mind if they’re banned’. But ‘it’s inconvenient if my children are quarantined from school so that should be lenient’.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    The benefits of society from in person education are so much higher than the benefit of music festivals that your comparison is absolutely ridiculous. A better comparison would be churches and bars.
- WorkLobster 5y ago
  This is a ridiculous straw-man take and you know it. Please aim for helpful discussion instead of empty sarcasm.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    I take that support of vaccination passports and mandatory vaccinations or limiting people without vaccinations is also not helpful discussion. But still that sort of support goes on...
  - motohagiography 5y ago
    I'd argue this is not a straw man, but a clear summary policy and a lot of public belief. The prevailing attitude is so poor that it can be humiliated this easily by even the slightest sarcasm. When passports do finally fail, it's going to shame a lot of people in managerialist roles who disinhibited their cruelty when they thought they were going to be able to shut the objects of their contempt out of society.
- White_Wolf 5y ago
  I didn't have the vaccine for the greater good. I had it because, for me, the risk vs reward balance was tilted that way. I have high blood pressure and I'm borderline diabetic. Not much of a choice for me. Why would someone that is healthy risk ending up like that dead BBC presenter and leave their family behind for complete strangers? Who gives you(or anyone) the right to decide what risks they should take and that their lives are worth less than anyone elses? My mother is healthy even though she's almost 70 and she didn't have it. It's her choice. My wife didn't have it.It's her choice. Then again, she's in perfect health and 30 so for her the risks are next to none. Small sacrifice? How about lock down the "vulnerable" like me(or worse) then and not screw up everyone else?
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    The chances of ending up dead from COVID is higher than the chance of dying from the vaccine for basically everyone right? Even if you’re in your 30’s and in perfect health. I absolutely agree that I’d much rather die from COVID than from the vaccine that is supposed to save me. But logically speaking, choosing to not take the vaccine doesn’t make any kind of sense. It’s like choosing to drive a car because you might get hit by lightning if you take a walk.
    - jowsie 5y ago
      >The chances of ending up dead from COVID is higher than the chance of dying from the vaccine for basically everyone right? Your chances of catching COVID aren't 100%, your chances of getting vaccinated are if you choose to do so. >It’s like choosing to drive a car because you might get hit by lightning if you take a walk. This argument also works in reverse. note: I'm double vaccinated and urge others to vaccinate if they are medically able to do so.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - Aeolun 5y ago
        > Your chances of catching COVID aren't 100%, your chances of getting vaccinated are if you choose to do so. Well, yes. Obviously we’re taking that into account when determining absolute chance to die from a certain thing. > This argument also works in reverse. It’s like choosing to take a walk (and risk getting hit by lightning, very very low chance) because you might get in a car accident if you drive a car (relatively high chance)? Not sure I follow. Inverting it makes it reasonable.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  > I believe all pro-vaccine people already agree that no sacrifice of freedoms is too big for greater good. Just like the anti-vaccine/science people think any sacrifice they have to make is too much? God forbid you’d do something that helps your fellow man instead of yourself.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
_Microft 5y ago
Vaccinated are actually at a lot lower risk to catch the disease and even less likely to actually develop symptoms and severe cases. Keeping unvaccinated out protects them from those who can spread it unknowingly.
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  Or you can not accept the nanny state and let people decide for themselves over things that affect themselves. Who knows, if you afford people that kind of respect they might even believe that states ideas on whether getting vaccinated is good for them.
  - _Microft 5y ago
    You mean I could think for myself? OK, here is my reasoning: I am in no position to make an informed decision on these vaccines and measures by myself, so I trust those who actually know what they are talking about.
    - tinus_hn 5y ago
      Wow, you thought for yourself and your conclusion was you’re not going to think for yourself. Well that’s fine. Now try affording others that same privilege and allow them to draw their own conclusions.
    - kuraudo 5y ago
      I'm in your camp: the problem is the people we rely on as experts are said to be lying/wrong/stupid/evil/devils/.etc by the people against the positions they hold. How do you fight that kind of thing?
  - vladvasiliu 5y ago
    Well, the issue with this approach is that one's actions don't only affect oneself. It's not like wearing a seatbelt, where in case of a crash, you're only killing yourself. Of course, it's more complicated than that, because if you only get badly wounded, then society's gonna have to foot your bill. Here, however, we're talking about a highly contagious virus that's transmitted through air, which can be spread even if you don't have symptoms and even if you don't actively interact with someone (as opposed to, say, HIV). Vaccines seemed to lower the spread risk, although with the new variant that effect looks weaker. So deciding for yourself to not vaccinate has a high likelihood of effecting others. To go back to the road analogy, this doesn't look so much like a nanny state as setting some ground rules. Like driving on the same side of the road, mandating lights, blinkers, etc.
jmull 5y ago
Thanks for the Covid misinformation, buddy! Thanks in part to your diligent work, many people will get sick and die! Give yourself a pay on the back! And whatever you do, suppress this: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/why-measure-effectiveness/breakthrough-cases.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effective...
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  > For people who are vaccinated and still get infected (i.e., “breakthrough infections”), there is a risk of transmission to others. Not sure why you’d want to suppress that truth. It’s just a little vague on how big the chances are.
  - jmull 5y ago
    Of course the vaccination isn't a perfect shield -- not against covid infections nor transmission... who said it was? But wouldn't that be a pretty stupid bar to set? You said the vaccine does not prevent people from getting infected. That is not true. The popular vaccines are about 95% effective. Also, people who are not infected do not transmit the virus -- that is a rather effective limit on transmission. Apart from infections, the vaccine also reduces the severity of covid. The severity of covid-19 is the whole damn problem, BTW. If it wasn't making lots of people seriously sick we wouldn't be worrying about infections in the first place.
    - tinus_hn 5y ago
      Of course! Now how is it logical to not allow person A, who has X*1.6 chance of infecting someone else, into a bar without a test, but do allow person B, who has X chance of infecting someone else? Is X chance not a problem, but X*1.6 is? And why is that? Just because the blessed action results in a chance of X? edit by the way the magical number for how effective the popular vaccines are against getting infected and being able to infect others, is not 95%. It’s 42% and dropping for the Pfizer vaccine.
      - 5y ago
SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
> vaccines do not stop people from getting infected and infecting others. ... does not mean the people inside can’t get infected so this measure does not help achieve that goal. This is absolutist thinking - "people can still get infected, so this does not help at all" - this not true in the slightest: "it can still happen" is not the same "as it happens at the same rate as before". And "It's not perfect" isn't the same as "does not help". vaccination reduces the rate of infection, a lot, so it does help, a lot. None of this is binary, thinking in absolutes will lead you to false conclusions.

elcomet 5y ago

It makes sense if vaccine reduces infection rate.

Ekaros 5y ago

Clearly only true solution to stop spread is permanent lockdown. And ban bars, restaurants, events and any sort of gatherings forever. I believe all pro-vaccine people already agree that no sacrifice of freedoms is too big for greater good. After all, why wouldn't they support keeping the vulnerable safe? Cost is only small sacrifice in bodily autonomy and clearly most effective thing to do.

tinus_hn 5y ago
Well, of course it’s mostly about sacrifices other people have to make. You know, ‘I don’t go to festivals so I don’t mind if they’re banned’. But ‘it’s inconvenient if my children are quarantined from school so that should be lenient’.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  The benefits of society from in person education are so much higher than the benefit of music festivals that your comparison is absolutely ridiculous. A better comparison would be churches and bars.
WorkLobster 5y ago
This is a ridiculous straw-man take and you know it. Please aim for helpful discussion instead of empty sarcasm.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  I take that support of vaccination passports and mandatory vaccinations or limiting people without vaccinations is also not helpful discussion. But still that sort of support goes on...
- motohagiography 5y ago
  I'd argue this is not a straw man, but a clear summary policy and a lot of public belief. The prevailing attitude is so poor that it can be humiliated this easily by even the slightest sarcasm. When passports do finally fail, it's going to shame a lot of people in managerialist roles who disinhibited their cruelty when they thought they were going to be able to shut the objects of their contempt out of society.
White_Wolf 5y ago
I didn't have the vaccine for the greater good. I had it because, for me, the risk vs reward balance was tilted that way. I have high blood pressure and I'm borderline diabetic. Not much of a choice for me. Why would someone that is healthy risk ending up like that dead BBC presenter and leave their family behind for complete strangers? Who gives you(or anyone) the right to decide what risks they should take and that their lives are worth less than anyone elses? My mother is healthy even though she's almost 70 and she didn't have it. It's her choice. My wife didn't have it.It's her choice. Then again, she's in perfect health and 30 so for her the risks are next to none. Small sacrifice? How about lock down the "vulnerable" like me(or worse) then and not screw up everyone else?
- Aeolun 5y ago
  The chances of ending up dead from COVID is higher than the chance of dying from the vaccine for basically everyone right? Even if you’re in your 30’s and in perfect health. I absolutely agree that I’d much rather die from COVID than from the vaccine that is supposed to save me. But logically speaking, choosing to not take the vaccine doesn’t make any kind of sense. It’s like choosing to drive a car because you might get hit by lightning if you take a walk.
  - jowsie 5y ago
    >The chances of ending up dead from COVID is higher than the chance of dying from the vaccine for basically everyone right? Your chances of catching COVID aren't 100%, your chances of getting vaccinated are if you choose to do so. >It’s like choosing to drive a car because you might get hit by lightning if you take a walk. This argument also works in reverse. note: I'm double vaccinated and urge others to vaccinate if they are medically able to do so.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - Aeolun 5y ago
      > Your chances of catching COVID aren't 100%, your chances of getting vaccinated are if you choose to do so. Well, yes. Obviously we’re taking that into account when determining absolute chance to die from a certain thing. > This argument also works in reverse. It’s like choosing to take a walk (and risk getting hit by lightning, very very low chance) because you might get in a car accident if you drive a car (relatively high chance)? Not sure I follow. Inverting it makes it reasonable.
Aeolun 5y ago
> I believe all pro-vaccine people already agree that no sacrifice of freedoms is too big for greater good. Just like the anti-vaccine/science people think any sacrifice they have to make is too much? God forbid you’d do something that helps your fellow man instead of yourself.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

_Microft 5y ago

Vaccinated are actually at a lot lower risk to catch the disease and even less likely to actually develop symptoms and severe cases. Keeping unvaccinated out protects them from those who can spread it unknowingly.

tinus_hn 5y ago
Or you can not accept the nanny state and let people decide for themselves over things that affect themselves. Who knows, if you afford people that kind of respect they might even believe that states ideas on whether getting vaccinated is good for them.
- _Microft 5y ago
  You mean I could think for myself? OK, here is my reasoning: I am in no position to make an informed decision on these vaccines and measures by myself, so I trust those who actually know what they are talking about.
  - tinus_hn 5y ago
    Wow, you thought for yourself and your conclusion was you’re not going to think for yourself. Well that’s fine. Now try affording others that same privilege and allow them to draw their own conclusions.
  - kuraudo 5y ago
    I'm in your camp: the problem is the people we rely on as experts are said to be lying/wrong/stupid/evil/devils/.etc by the people against the positions they hold. How do you fight that kind of thing?
- vladvasiliu 5y ago
  Well, the issue with this approach is that one's actions don't only affect oneself. It's not like wearing a seatbelt, where in case of a crash, you're only killing yourself. Of course, it's more complicated than that, because if you only get badly wounded, then society's gonna have to foot your bill. Here, however, we're talking about a highly contagious virus that's transmitted through air, which can be spread even if you don't have symptoms and even if you don't actively interact with someone (as opposed to, say, HIV). Vaccines seemed to lower the spread risk, although with the new variant that effect looks weaker. So deciding for yourself to not vaccinate has a high likelihood of effecting others. To go back to the road analogy, this doesn't look so much like a nanny state as setting some ground rules. Like driving on the same side of the road, mandating lights, blinkers, etc.

jmull 5y ago

Thanks for the Covid misinformation, buddy! Thanks in part to your diligent work, many people will get sick and die! Give yourself a pay on the back! And whatever you do, suppress this: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/why-measure-effectiveness/breakthrough-cases.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effective...

tinus_hn 5y ago
> For people who are vaccinated and still get infected (i.e., “breakthrough infections”), there is a risk of transmission to others. Not sure why you’d want to suppress that truth. It’s just a little vague on how big the chances are.
- jmull 5y ago
  Of course the vaccination isn't a perfect shield -- not against covid infections nor transmission... who said it was? But wouldn't that be a pretty stupid bar to set? You said the vaccine does not prevent people from getting infected. That is not true. The popular vaccines are about 95% effective. Also, people who are not infected do not transmit the virus -- that is a rather effective limit on transmission. Apart from infections, the vaccine also reduces the severity of covid. The severity of covid-19 is the whole damn problem, BTW. If it wasn't making lots of people seriously sick we wouldn't be worrying about infections in the first place.
  - tinus_hn 5y ago
    Of course! Now how is it logical to not allow person A, who has X*1.6 chance of infecting someone else, into a bar without a test, but do allow person B, who has X chance of infecting someone else? Is X chance not a problem, but X*1.6 is? And why is that? Just because the blessed action results in a chance of X? edit by the way the magical number for how effective the popular vaccines are against getting infected and being able to infect others, is not 95%. It’s 42% and dropping for the Pfizer vaccine.
    - 5y ago

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago

> vaccines do not stop people from getting infected and infecting others. ... does not mean the people inside can’t get infected so this measure does not help achieve that goal. This is absolutist thinking - "people can still get infected, so this does not help at all" - this not true in the slightest: "it can still happen" is not the same "as it happens at the same rate as before". And "It's not perfect" isn't the same as "does not help". vaccination reduces the rate of infection, a lot, so it does help, a lot. None of this is binary, thinking in absolutes will lead you to false conclusions.