6 ms·

> You can't drive drunk, you have to wear a seat belt, you can't build buildings out of straw or sticks (you silly pigs), you can't pour sewage into you can't h

> You can't drive drunk, you have to wear a seat belt, you can't build buildings out of straw or sticks (you silly pigs), you can't pour sewage into you can't have unprotected sex without disclosing it when you know you're HIV positive. You can't sell black tar heroin. None of these are an irreversible medical treatment, so they don't even fall into the same category. Thus, this argument is disingenuous. > You can't fly into various countries from a country with yellow fever without proof of vaccination against yellow fever. This is reasonable for a vaccine that has been well-tested using already proven technology, and by "well-tested", I don't just mean widely tested. I mean tested long-term with a control group. The COVID vaccines are not tested in that way. The supposed control group got the vaccines pretty quickly, eliminating them as a control group. Also, it's only reasonable because such countries require it of non-citizens, who don't get the same privileges as citizens of the country do. When a country starts requiring citizens to get vaccinated in order to keep their jobs, but don't require illegal immigrants to get vaccinated when they cross the border, it is clear that it's about power, and such an argument is disingenuous. > You can focus on that "99+%" survival rate if you like (which involves ignoring that the actual survival rate greatly differs between different cohorts), but if you don't take into consideration the considerable amount of resources and effort that healthcare systems put into achieving that, you're only deceiving yourself. That was always the survival rate. It hasn't changed since COVID appeared. Nothing the medical system did changed that. In fact, there's speculation that using ventilators caused protons and more deaths. Also, would we have so many deaths if so many politicians had not made so many stupid or malicious mistakes? The mayor of NYC ignored it for a while. The governor of New York sent COVID-positive patients into nursing homes. In actual fact, the virus might have had a better survival rate without those things. > Lastly, as members of society, we have obligations to other members of our society. Pay tax to contribute to shared infrastructure, follow the laws passed by representatives of your country's voters, etc. Sure thing. The problem? These mandates are not laws! They are executive edicts. Laws are passed by legislatures, and as far as I know, not a single one has passed an actual law. The mandates should not have the force of law. Oh, and when there was such a law? It was upheld by the Supreme Court, but the only penalty was a one-time fine of $150 in today's money. I'd gladly pay such a fine and move on with my life. However, that law and Supreme Court ruling were then used by the Supreme Court to justify the forced sterilization of women. It was playing with fire then, and it's playing with fire now. Do you want to live in a world where the government can make such medical decisions for you? > I'm quite happy for people to remain unvaccinated if they ensure that they can never pass it onto others, See the above point that there is no data that the naturally immune spread COVID. > and if they waive their rights to medical treatment if they become ill. Ill with COVID? Fine. I accept that. Ill with anything else? That would be disingenuous and pure power-seeking. But even if ill with COVID, the fact that naturally immune people don't spread it means that you want such people to recover to them be useful as a shield against COVID for everyone else with their contribution to herd immunity. Thus, in any case, denying medical treatment to the unvaccinated is not about health, it's about power.

EdwardDiego 5y ago
> None of these are an irreversible medical treatment, Fair, I'll concede that they differ in that regard. And that other vaccines mandated for various roles were tested far more slowly than these ones. However, given that mRNA based COVID vaccines requires six monthly boosters and that mRNA has a median half life of about 10 hours in the body[1], and that mRNA is disallowed entry into the nucleus unless specifically escorted in by specialist proteins, and that reports of myocarditis/pericarditis are very rare, and nearly always temporary, I'm unsure what is irreversible about them. > The supposed control group got the vaccines pretty quickly, eliminating them as a control group. Well, the control group has well and truly self-selected now, wouldn't you agree? > When a country starts requiring citizens to get vaccinated in order to keep their jobs, but don't require illegal immigrants to get vaccinated when they cross the border, it is clear that it's about power I can't comment on this, as it's an American political thing. However, I'd be surprised if illegal immigrants working as nurses or teachers weren't also required to be vaccinated. > That was always the survival rate. It hasn't changed since COVID appeared. Well, dedicated medical professionals and ICU units existed before COVID appeared. So yeah. And it's not like Covid-19 is the first respiratory virus they've encountered. > In fact, there's speculation that using ventilators caused protons and more deaths I'm sure there is such speculation, however, if you're being put on a ventilator, it's because you're close to death anyway. If you have any research on the increased death allegations, I'll read it with an open mind. > Also, would we have so many deaths if so many politicians had not made so many stupid or malicious mistakes? The mayor of NYC ignored it for a while. The governor of New York sent COVID-positive patients into nursing homes. In actual fact, the virus might have had a better survival rate without those things. I agree those were egregious actions. However, your last statement - can you expand on that? Is the survival rate higher in say, Texas, or Florida? > These mandates are not laws! They are executive edicts. Laws are passed by legislatures, and as far as I know, not a single one has passed an actual law. The mandates should not have the force of law. This really comes down to constitutional law, which differs from country to country, but I assume that the executive has the power to pass edicts such as this, because the people who wrote, and the people who amended, the American constitution, saw it fit to do so. That said, I'm sure if the mandates are unconstitutional in the USA, that the Supreme Court will declare them as such. > See the above point that there is no data that the naturally immune spread COVID. Once they're no longer infected, I agree. But when they become reinfected? > Ill with COVID? Yeah, I was implying it, but should've said it explicitly. And my apologies, I was being glib to sound cool in an Internet fight (And I realise in the cold light of the new day that I failed miserably in that regard). In reality, I don't want to deny anyone medical treatment, I was voicing my frustration at people who reject the evidence based medicine involved in developing the Covid vaccines, but then accept the evidence based medicine that may save their lives in an ICU - some of the more prominent leaders of the anti-vaccination movement in my country have been hospitalised with Delta, and continue minimising the seriousness of their illness on social media, from a hospital bed. Obviously, they and I share different opinions about the evidence that Covid vaccines are based on, but I wonder why their skepticism doesn't extend to intensive care. > the fact that naturally immune people don't spread it I'm still unsure what you mean by this. Are you referring to people who've had it once, and are then reinfected? Are they really non-infectious when reinfected? There's plenty of reports of reinfection. If you have anything I could read on their ability to transmit it (or lack thereof) on subsequent infection, I'd read it with an open mind also. [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC403777/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC403777/ [2]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34487669/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34487669/ [2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163445321000438 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016344532... [2]: https://ysph.yale.edu/news-article/repeat-covid-19-positive-tests-in-nursing-home-residents-identified-following-natural-infection/ https://ysph.yale.edu/news-article/repeat-covid-19-positive-... [2]: https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/372/bmj.n99.full.pdf https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/372/bmj.n99.full.pdf

EdwardDiego 5y ago

> None of these are an irreversible medical treatment, Fair, I'll concede that they differ in that regard. And that other vaccines mandated for various roles were tested far more slowly than these ones. However, given that mRNA based COVID vaccines requires six monthly boosters and that mRNA has a median half life of about 10 hours in the body[1], and that mRNA is disallowed entry into the nucleus unless specifically escorted in by specialist proteins, and that reports of myocarditis/pericarditis are very rare, and nearly always temporary, I'm unsure what is irreversible about them. > The supposed control group got the vaccines pretty quickly, eliminating them as a control group. Well, the control group has well and truly self-selected now, wouldn't you agree? > When a country starts requiring citizens to get vaccinated in order to keep their jobs, but don't require illegal immigrants to get vaccinated when they cross the border, it is clear that it's about power I can't comment on this, as it's an American political thing. However, I'd be surprised if illegal immigrants working as nurses or teachers weren't also required to be vaccinated. > That was always the survival rate. It hasn't changed since COVID appeared. Well, dedicated medical professionals and ICU units existed before COVID appeared. So yeah. And it's not like Covid-19 is the first respiratory virus they've encountered. > In fact, there's speculation that using ventilators caused protons and more deaths I'm sure there is such speculation, however, if you're being put on a ventilator, it's because you're close to death anyway. If you have any research on the increased death allegations, I'll read it with an open mind. > Also, would we have so many deaths if so many politicians had not made so many stupid or malicious mistakes? The mayor of NYC ignored it for a while. The governor of New York sent COVID-positive patients into nursing homes. In actual fact, the virus might have had a better survival rate without those things. I agree those were egregious actions. However, your last statement - can you expand on that? Is the survival rate higher in say, Texas, or Florida? > These mandates are not laws! They are executive edicts. Laws are passed by legislatures, and as far as I know, not a single one has passed an actual law. The mandates should not have the force of law. This really comes down to constitutional law, which differs from country to country, but I assume that the executive has the power to pass edicts such as this, because the people who wrote, and the people who amended, the American constitution, saw it fit to do so. That said, I'm sure if the mandates are unconstitutional in the USA, that the Supreme Court will declare them as such. > See the above point that there is no data that the naturally immune spread COVID. Once they're no longer infected, I agree. But when they become reinfected? > Ill with COVID? Yeah, I was implying it, but should've said it explicitly. And my apologies, I was being glib to sound cool in an Internet fight (And I realise in the cold light of the new day that I failed miserably in that regard). In reality, I don't want to deny anyone medical treatment, I was voicing my frustration at people who reject the evidence based medicine involved in developing the Covid vaccines, but then accept the evidence based medicine that may save their lives in an ICU - some of the more prominent leaders of the anti-vaccination movement in my country have been hospitalised with Delta, and continue minimising the seriousness of their illness on social media, from a hospital bed. Obviously, they and I share different opinions about the evidence that Covid vaccines are based on, but I wonder why their skepticism doesn't extend to intensive care. > the fact that naturally immune people don't spread it I'm still unsure what you mean by this. Are you referring to people who've had it once, and are then reinfected? Are they really non-infectious when reinfected? There's plenty of reports of reinfection. If you have anything I could read on their ability to transmit it (or lack thereof) on subsequent infection, I'd read it with an open mind also. [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC403777/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC403777/ [2]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34487669/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34487669/ [2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163445321000438 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016344532... [2]: https://ysph.yale.edu/news-article/repeat-covid-19-positive-tests-in-nursing-home-residents-identified-following-natural-infection/ https://ysph.yale.edu/news-article/repeat-covid-19-positive-... [2]: https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/372/bmj.n99.full.pdf https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/372/bmj.n99.full.pdf