4 ms·

So would you be happy if in addition to vaccination and regular testing, regular antibody tests were also an alternative? And do you agree that this would also

So would you be happy if in addition to vaccination and regular testing, regular antibody tests were also an alternative? And do you agree that this would also increase complexity (in my mind to questionable benefit)?

syshum 5y ago
No, my vaccination protect me. They are not threat to me once I have been vaccinated, the data and science show this fact. There is no reason for a vaccinated person to view an unvaccinated person as a threat.
- Cederfjard 5y ago
  * Vaccination is not 100% effective * Vaccinated people do still spread the infection, albeit to a smaller degree * Some people cannot be vaccinated, and for others it's less effective For the above reasons, it's beneficial to me and society at large if as many people as possible are vaccinated.
  - syshum 5y ago
    >>Vaccination is not 100% effective Nothing is, but my risk from COVID post vaccination is less than other society risks we accept as normal risks of living in a free society, for example my risk of dying in an auto accident is many times greater than my risk from COVID post vaccination >> Vaccinated people do still spread the infection, albeit to a smaller degree I am not sure how this statement is relative to question on if an unvaccinated person poses a risk to me to the point where we must violate their body autonomy for forcibly inject them with a medication against their will >>Some people cannot be vaccinated, and for others it's less effective While true, this means those people should take additional risk mitigation, this however is NOT a justification for vaccine mandates, not in my view. These people should wear N95 Masks, take extra pro cations and be extra vigilant about social distancing and/or going to large public events. >>For the above reasons, it's beneficial to me and society at large if as many people as possible are vaccinated. Sure, but that is not what is being debated. The question is do those reasons justify the use of force,threats, and ultimately government violence to forcibly inject people. I say no.
    - Cederfjard 5y ago
      No one has suggested forcibly injecting anyone. But sure, not allowing people who aren’t vaccinated to participate in all facets of society can be construed as a type of force. Unlike you I see that as reasonable.
      - EricE 5y ago
        >not allowing people who aren’t vaccinated to participate in all facets of society can be construed as a type of force. "Not allowing" - how are you going to "not allow" without using force of some sort?
        Cederfjard 5y ago
        Yes, there’s force backing those prohibitions (I literally mention that in the sentence you quoted), but what I wrote was that no one is talking about forcefully injecting anyone. You can decline the vaccine, parts of the rest of society just won’t allow you to interact with them. But if you’re the type to value your negative liberty that much, I’m sure you can manage without?
      - syshum 5y ago
        All government action and regulations are back by the threat of violence. This is an irrefutable fact, since the is the way government enforces their actions. Sure the first stage maybe masked in the guise of non-violence in the form of fine or other punishments but underlying all of that is the fact that if you resist a person with a gun will show up to force your compliance Your are correct that I do not find the small risk vaccinated person's have from an unvaccinated person to be at a level to justify mandates as reasonable
roenxi 5y ago
No, I wouldn't accept that approach either. But at least it would be focusing on the risk instead of being a status play. At the moment you're accepting a risk without knowing anyone's antibody titer at all. It says a lot about the situation that nobody is measuring it and nobody minds that it isn't being measured. People's susceptibility to COVID is barely in the conversation. A risk-based strategy is not being employed. Despite all these measures you are still going to be exposed to the coronavirus. Just like the every flu that we've dealt with for the last however many thousand years. This rigmarole is just upsetting people for no real gain to you.
- MattRix 5y ago
  Of course everyone around you being vaccinated is safer and less risky for you (and for them as well). And sure there are other approaches that might be even more effective at reducing risk (like measuring antibodies), but that would also be much more complicated.
  - EricE 5y ago
    What is "less risk"? If you mean being exposed to someone who can shed the virus, vaccinated people can shed the virus asymptomatically. You are far more likely to unknowingly be exposed to the virus from a vaccinated person than from an unvaccinated person. Our media and so-called health leaders have dramatically oversold the value of these vaccines. Yes, they can help with the severity of reaction when you are exposed but they aren't some defensive bubble. And I think that's the real issue here - being exposed to the virus and each persons reaction and risks carried in that reaction to the exposure are two different things, but they are lumped together - which shouldn't be.
- Cederfjard 5y ago
  I'd consider lives saved as a gain.

syshum 5y ago

No, my vaccination protect me. They are not threat to me once I have been vaccinated, the data and science show this fact. There is no reason for a vaccinated person to view an unvaccinated person as a threat.

Cederfjard 5y ago
* Vaccination is not 100% effective * Vaccinated people do still spread the infection, albeit to a smaller degree * Some people cannot be vaccinated, and for others it's less effective For the above reasons, it's beneficial to me and society at large if as many people as possible are vaccinated.
- syshum 5y ago
  >>Vaccination is not 100% effective Nothing is, but my risk from COVID post vaccination is less than other society risks we accept as normal risks of living in a free society, for example my risk of dying in an auto accident is many times greater than my risk from COVID post vaccination >> Vaccinated people do still spread the infection, albeit to a smaller degree I am not sure how this statement is relative to question on if an unvaccinated person poses a risk to me to the point where we must violate their body autonomy for forcibly inject them with a medication against their will >>Some people cannot be vaccinated, and for others it's less effective While true, this means those people should take additional risk mitigation, this however is NOT a justification for vaccine mandates, not in my view. These people should wear N95 Masks, take extra pro cations and be extra vigilant about social distancing and/or going to large public events. >>For the above reasons, it's beneficial to me and society at large if as many people as possible are vaccinated. Sure, but that is not what is being debated. The question is do those reasons justify the use of force,threats, and ultimately government violence to forcibly inject people. I say no.
  - Cederfjard 5y ago
    No one has suggested forcibly injecting anyone. But sure, not allowing people who aren’t vaccinated to participate in all facets of society can be construed as a type of force. Unlike you I see that as reasonable.
    - EricE 5y ago
      >not allowing people who aren’t vaccinated to participate in all facets of society can be construed as a type of force. "Not allowing" - how are you going to "not allow" without using force of some sort?
      - Cederfjard 5y ago
        Yes, there’s force backing those prohibitions (I literally mention that in the sentence you quoted), but what I wrote was that no one is talking about forcefully injecting anyone. You can decline the vaccine, parts of the rest of society just won’t allow you to interact with them. But if you’re the type to value your negative liberty that much, I’m sure you can manage without?
    - syshum 5y ago
      All government action and regulations are back by the threat of violence. This is an irrefutable fact, since the is the way government enforces their actions. Sure the first stage maybe masked in the guise of non-violence in the form of fine or other punishments but underlying all of that is the fact that if you resist a person with a gun will show up to force your compliance Your are correct that I do not find the small risk vaccinated person's have from an unvaccinated person to be at a level to justify mandates as reasonable

roenxi 5y ago

No, I wouldn't accept that approach either. But at least it would be focusing on the risk instead of being a status play. At the moment you're accepting a risk without knowing anyone's antibody titer at all. It says a lot about the situation that nobody is measuring it and nobody minds that it isn't being measured. People's susceptibility to COVID is barely in the conversation. A risk-based strategy is not being employed. Despite all these measures you are still going to be exposed to the coronavirus. Just like the every flu that we've dealt with for the last however many thousand years. This rigmarole is just upsetting people for no real gain to you.

MattRix 5y ago
Of course everyone around you being vaccinated is safer and less risky for you (and for them as well). And sure there are other approaches that might be even more effective at reducing risk (like measuring antibodies), but that would also be much more complicated.
- EricE 5y ago
  What is "less risk"? If you mean being exposed to someone who can shed the virus, vaccinated people can shed the virus asymptomatically. You are far more likely to unknowingly be exposed to the virus from a vaccinated person than from an unvaccinated person. Our media and so-called health leaders have dramatically oversold the value of these vaccines. Yes, they can help with the severity of reaction when you are exposed but they aren't some defensive bubble. And I think that's the real issue here - being exposed to the virus and each persons reaction and risks carried in that reaction to the exposure are two different things, but they are lumped together - which shouldn't be.
Cederfjard 5y ago
I'd consider lives saved as a gain.