3 ms·

So in your opinion, merely opposing vaccine passports is “conspiracy theory stuff that contradicts factual science and reality”?

walrus01 5y ago
yes, because the spread of coronavirus by unvaccinated persons in groups in indoor spaces is a scientific fact. additionally, the hospitalization rate and death rate for unvaccinated persons vs vaccinated persons. and further, the severity of case and death outcome rate per capita of infections for breakthrough-of-vaccinated persons with covid19 in hospital, vs same per capita of unvaccinated persons in hospital.
- sgjohnson 5y ago
  None of which has got anything at all to do with vaccine passports.
  - walrus01 5y ago
    the logical conclusion would be that effective existence, enforcement and peoples' cooperation with vaccine passports will prevent unvaccinated persons from gathering in groups indoors and further spreading covid19, so the relevance is quite clear.
    - veeti 5y ago
      The actual conclusion from European countries such as the Netherlands, Finland, etc. is that vaccine passports are not sufficient to cull the spread or reduce load on the healthcare system. Back to lockdowns it is.
    - smsm42 5y ago
      Putting everybody in solitary confinement would also prevent persons from gathering in groups and further spreading covid19. Obviously, nobody (so far) is advocating this. So you can appreciate the difference between measuring a policy only on single metric of efficiency, and comprehensively weighting overall costs and benefits. Not every efficient policy is legal, moral or acceptable.
- qaq 5y ago
  Why ? Something can be good for certain outcome e.g. reduce infection rate, hospitalization rate and yet infringe on civil rights. Those are orthogonal concerns.
  - userbinator 5y ago
    This, absolutely. There are many who are fully vaxxed and happy to promote the vaccines, but oppose the passports and mandates. It's not about the short-term gains but the long-term effects of authoritarianism.
- smsm42 5y ago
  The spread of coronavirus by vaccinated persons in groups in indoor spaces is a scientific fact too. So what? The debate is not about that, it's about whether prescribing certain medical procedure by state coercion, and limiting the civil rights of persons who choose not to undergo this procedure is a proper policy and whether the laws of the land allow the government to do that. It's a legitimate debate which has nothing to do with "conspiracies" - you don't need any conspiracies to find reasonable argument on both sides of the debate. If you don't like the side that that particular site is on and disagree with their arguments - fine, but that doesn't mean they are lying about other factual things (they are not). There's a huge distance between disagreeing and refusing to even listen to other side's arguments, and even worse - refusing to listen to anything from somebody that once had an opinion you disagree with - this is no way for a society to function.

walrus01 5y ago

yes, because the spread of coronavirus by unvaccinated persons in groups in indoor spaces is a scientific fact. additionally, the hospitalization rate and death rate for unvaccinated persons vs vaccinated persons. and further, the severity of case and death outcome rate per capita of infections for breakthrough-of-vaccinated persons with covid19 in hospital, vs same per capita of unvaccinated persons in hospital.

sgjohnson 5y ago
None of which has got anything at all to do with vaccine passports.
- walrus01 5y ago
  the logical conclusion would be that effective existence, enforcement and peoples' cooperation with vaccine passports will prevent unvaccinated persons from gathering in groups indoors and further spreading covid19, so the relevance is quite clear.
  - veeti 5y ago
    The actual conclusion from European countries such as the Netherlands, Finland, etc. is that vaccine passports are not sufficient to cull the spread or reduce load on the healthcare system. Back to lockdowns it is.
  - smsm42 5y ago
    Putting everybody in solitary confinement would also prevent persons from gathering in groups and further spreading covid19. Obviously, nobody (so far) is advocating this. So you can appreciate the difference between measuring a policy only on single metric of efficiency, and comprehensively weighting overall costs and benefits. Not every efficient policy is legal, moral or acceptable.
qaq 5y ago
Why ? Something can be good for certain outcome e.g. reduce infection rate, hospitalization rate and yet infringe on civil rights. Those are orthogonal concerns.
- userbinator 5y ago
  This, absolutely. There are many who are fully vaxxed and happy to promote the vaccines, but oppose the passports and mandates. It's not about the short-term gains but the long-term effects of authoritarianism.
smsm42 5y ago
The spread of coronavirus by vaccinated persons in groups in indoor spaces is a scientific fact too. So what? The debate is not about that, it's about whether prescribing certain medical procedure by state coercion, and limiting the civil rights of persons who choose not to undergo this procedure is a proper policy and whether the laws of the land allow the government to do that. It's a legitimate debate which has nothing to do with "conspiracies" - you don't need any conspiracies to find reasonable argument on both sides of the debate. If you don't like the side that that particular site is on and disagree with their arguments - fine, but that doesn't mean they are lying about other factual things (they are not). There's a huge distance between disagreeing and refusing to even listen to other side's arguments, and even worse - refusing to listen to anything from somebody that once had an opinion you disagree with - this is no way for a society to function.