4 ms·

It doesn't have to be rational. Vaccines mandates are already common for school children, nurses, (and maybe teachers, but I'm not sure about that one) The rag

It doesn't have to be rational. Vaccines mandates are already common for school children, nurses, (and maybe teachers, but I'm not sure about that one) The rage over masks (and things like "CRT") is being intentionally stoked to win elections. The plan is to make it an us vs them issue. Again, it's intentional and cynical. If you stoke rage about mask wearing (and vaccines) you can position yourself as also being a valiant anti-mask/anti-vax candidate and win elections on this issue.

dominotw 5y ago
> The plan is to make it an us vs them issue. Again, it's intentional and cynical. Why doesn't everyone see things clearly for what they are. If its obviously 'the plan' .
- Jensson 5y ago
  Because they started labelling such arguments as right/left wing propaganda. Labelling any criticism against you as enemy propaganda is a common strategy in authoritarian regimes, and it works really well as long as you have sowed enough hate against the enemy in people. So even though the plan might not be obvious to those who live in the authoritarian regime, it is often very obvious for outsiders that for example the democratic peoples republic of Korea isn't really a democratic republic.
- nielsbot 5y ago
  I'd argue it's because propaganda works.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
danhak 5y ago
Government-imposed vaccine mandates were never common for access to private establishments, as is now the case in NYC and LA Philosophically speaking, It's one thing for the government to say you must be vaccinated to attend public school. It's quite another thing for them to say you must be vaccinated to enter a privately-owned gym.
- lborsato 5y ago
  Or to work remotely.
- johnisgood 5y ago
  Or: you must be vaccinated to go to school, AND you must go to school (until you turn into an adult). This means that you have no choice. Not getting vaccinated means you cannot go to school, and not going to school means you may be taken away from your family, or your parents getting into legal trouble. That, and of course not being able to go to school has its own repercussions.
- nielsbot 5y ago
  I have a child attending private school and vaccinations are required by the state. (CA) So that’s at least one exception to that.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > I have a child attending private school and vaccinations are required by the state. (CA) No, they aren't. CA has announced that it will have a school student vaccine mandate, once vaccines for children are fully approved, and not earlier than next school year in any case.
croutonwagon 5y ago
>It doesn't have to be rational. Vaccines mandates are already common for school children, nurses, (and maybe teachers, but I'm not sure about that one) Even this argument ignores nuance. The vaccines in these schedules are mandated for 2 reasons 1. The diseases they treat directly impact their population in a major way in large numbers 2. Immunization not only prevents the negatives impacts of 1, but also prevent the spread. As an exmaple for #2. Take Pertussis and TDAP. Even adults that have children will often get a booster. The reasoning is sound there, you reduce the chance of transmitting pertussis to an infant. This is especially true for premature babies that may not have had the chance to get the anitbodies from the mother, assuming she got a booster during pregnancy. As of right now. COVID-19 has a pretty small impact on children directly ( hospitalization rates at their peak were like 1.9 per 100k for under 18 [2]) . And even nationally its much smaller than any of the diseases used to compare it to (like Measles which has pretty severe complications in like 30% of those that contracted it, regardless of age [1]) AND the vaccine isnt particularly proven to reduce spread [3]. To add insult to injury, CDC specifically stopped even recording breakthrough infection rates unless they were severe as of May 1, 2021. So it would make sense to question a vaccination mandate for those under 18... [1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/meas.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/meas.html [2] https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_3.html https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_3.html [3] 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....
- mcguire 5y ago
  There's something horribly wrong with your link [3]. "The first study saw a drop of 78%, and the second 41%, in infectiousness — with the large difference in numbers perhaps explained by the fact that the estimates are based on a very small number of vaccinated people who were infected and then infected others. ... The results correspond well with studies conducted elsewhere. One analysis3 of some 365,000 households in the United Kingdom, published on 23 June, estimated that individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 were 40–50% less likely to spread the infection if they had received at least one dose of the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine or that developed by the University of Oxford, UK, and pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca, based in Cambridge, UK, at least three weeks previously. A study4 from Finland, posted as a preprint on 10 July, found that spouses of infected health-care workers who had received a single dose of the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine or that produced by Moderna in Cambridge, Massachusetts, were 43% less likely to get infected than were spouses of unvaccinated health workers." (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02054-z https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02054-z) "The study shows that people who become infected with the Delta variant are less likely to pass the virus to their close contacts if they have already had a COVID-19 vaccine than if they haven’t1. But that protective effect is relatively small, and dwindles alarmingly at three months after the receipt of the second shot. ... Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus." (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y)
taxicabjesus 5y ago
> If you stoke rage about mask wearing (and vaccines) you can position yourself as also being a valiant anti-mask/anti-vax candidate and win elections on this issue. I'm trying to stoke awareness of how oxygen is known to be toxic, how ventilation is known to be harmful, and how patients' oxygen levels can be improved by using the antidote to oxygen toxicity that has been mostly forgotten by Science™ [0]. Sometimes patients benefit from a little extra oxygen, but it's a very fine line between helpful and too much. Would I win an election? Maybe an anti-mask/anti-vax candidate will just adopt my term, and point out the harm being done: Medical Hyperventilation causes the deterioration supposedly being treated. [0] https://www.taxiwars.org/2021/06/folly-medical-hyperventilation.html https://www.taxiwars.org/2021/06/folly-medical-hyperventilat...

dominotw 5y ago

> The plan is to make it an us vs them issue. Again, it's intentional and cynical. Why doesn't everyone see things clearly for what they are. If its obviously 'the plan' .

Jensson 5y ago
Because they started labelling such arguments as right/left wing propaganda. Labelling any criticism against you as enemy propaganda is a common strategy in authoritarian regimes, and it works really well as long as you have sowed enough hate against the enemy in people. So even though the plan might not be obvious to those who live in the authoritarian regime, it is often very obvious for outsiders that for example the democratic peoples republic of Korea isn't really a democratic republic.
nielsbot 5y ago
I'd argue it's because propaganda works.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

danhak 5y ago

Government-imposed vaccine mandates were never common for access to private establishments, as is now the case in NYC and LA Philosophically speaking, It's one thing for the government to say you must be vaccinated to attend public school. It's quite another thing for them to say you must be vaccinated to enter a privately-owned gym.

lborsato 5y ago
Or to work remotely.
johnisgood 5y ago
Or: you must be vaccinated to go to school, AND you must go to school (until you turn into an adult). This means that you have no choice. Not getting vaccinated means you cannot go to school, and not going to school means you may be taken away from your family, or your parents getting into legal trouble. That, and of course not being able to go to school has its own repercussions.
nielsbot 5y ago
I have a child attending private school and vaccinations are required by the state. (CA) So that’s at least one exception to that.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > I have a child attending private school and vaccinations are required by the state. (CA) No, they aren't. CA has announced that it will have a school student vaccine mandate, once vaccines for children are fully approved, and not earlier than next school year in any case.

croutonwagon 5y ago

>It doesn't have to be rational. Vaccines mandates are already common for school children, nurses, (and maybe teachers, but I'm not sure about that one) Even this argument ignores nuance. The vaccines in these schedules are mandated for 2 reasons 1. The diseases they treat directly impact their population in a major way in large numbers 2. Immunization not only prevents the negatives impacts of 1, but also prevent the spread. As an exmaple for #2. Take Pertussis and TDAP. Even adults that have children will often get a booster. The reasoning is sound there, you reduce the chance of transmitting pertussis to an infant. This is especially true for premature babies that may not have had the chance to get the anitbodies from the mother, assuming she got a booster during pregnancy. As of right now. COVID-19 has a pretty small impact on children directly ( hospitalization rates at their peak were like 1.9 per 100k for under 18 [2]) . And even nationally its much smaller than any of the diseases used to compare it to (like Measles which has pretty severe complications in like 30% of those that contracted it, regardless of age [1]) AND the vaccine isnt particularly proven to reduce spread [3]. To add insult to injury, CDC specifically stopped even recording breakthrough infection rates unless they were severe as of May 1, 2021. So it would make sense to question a vaccination mandate for those under 18... [1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/meas.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/meas.html [2] https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_3.html https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_3.html [3] 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....

mcguire 5y ago
There's something horribly wrong with your link [3]. "The first study saw a drop of 78%, and the second 41%, in infectiousness — with the large difference in numbers perhaps explained by the fact that the estimates are based on a very small number of vaccinated people who were infected and then infected others. ... The results correspond well with studies conducted elsewhere. One analysis3 of some 365,000 households in the United Kingdom, published on 23 June, estimated that individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 were 40–50% less likely to spread the infection if they had received at least one dose of the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine or that developed by the University of Oxford, UK, and pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca, based in Cambridge, UK, at least three weeks previously. A study4 from Finland, posted as a preprint on 10 July, found that spouses of infected health-care workers who had received a single dose of the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine or that produced by Moderna in Cambridge, Massachusetts, were 43% less likely to get infected than were spouses of unvaccinated health workers." (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02054-z https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02054-z) "The study shows that people who become infected with the Delta variant are less likely to pass the virus to their close contacts if they have already had a COVID-19 vaccine than if they haven’t1. But that protective effect is relatively small, and dwindles alarmingly at three months after the receipt of the second shot. ... Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus." (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y)

taxicabjesus 5y ago

> If you stoke rage about mask wearing (and vaccines) you can position yourself as also being a valiant anti-mask/anti-vax candidate and win elections on this issue. I'm trying to stoke awareness of how oxygen is known to be toxic, how ventilation is known to be harmful, and how patients' oxygen levels can be improved by using the antidote to oxygen toxicity that has been mostly forgotten by Science™ [0]. Sometimes patients benefit from a little extra oxygen, but it's a very fine line between helpful and too much. Would I win an election? Maybe an anti-mask/anti-vax candidate will just adopt my term, and point out the harm being done: Medical Hyperventilation causes the deterioration supposedly being treated. [0] https://www.taxiwars.org/2021/06/folly-medical-hyperventilation.html https://www.taxiwars.org/2021/06/folly-medical-hyperventilat...