4 ms·

No, they can believe what they want as far as I’m concerned. Completely physically excluding them from society is enough. If they want to ‘protect’ themselves f

by simonh 5y ago

No, they can believe what they want as far as I’m concerned. Completely physically excluding them from society is enough. If they want to ‘protect’ themselves from the vaccine they have that right, absolutely, but the rest of us also have the right to protect ourselves from them.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
leereeves 5y ago
Isn't the vaccine supposed to provide that protection from (catching Covid from) them?
- ekianjo 5y ago
  It is, but some vaccinated people apparently have a hard time understanding how things work and who is actually at risk.
- random314 5y ago
  Vaccines have an efficacy of 90% -not 100% and don't work for the immunocompromised and those who have sulphate allergies.
- simonh 5y ago
  Unvaccinated people are a threat to the public on many grounds. Many of these points are already all over this discussion here, but you’re asking so here they are. Unvaccinated people with covid on average have the infection for longer and have higher viral loads, so they are more likely to spread the virus to others than vaccinated people are. They are much more likely to need hospitalisation, putting a burden on the health system which hurts health care workers, and uses up health care resources needed by others. People with non-covid illnesses, or people with covid because they can’t be vaccinated for various legitimate reasons, are dying in some cases because health care systems are so busy caring for sick or dying vax deniers with covid. So these people are a clear danger to the public, and our health care systems in particular. Their choices are putting unreasonable and unfair demands on health care workers, and even killing people.
  - leereeves 5y ago
    I haven't seen data for Canada, but in the US, at no time in the past two years have more than 80% of ICU beds been occupied. At no time have more than 25% of ICU beds been occupied by Covid patients. And the impact of Covid on overall inpatient hospitalization has been negligible. [1] Are you sure Trudeau isn't gaslighting you into believing the problems with Canadian healthcare are due to the unvaccinated, and not due to a failing health care system whose problems pre-date Covid? In Why Ontario hospitals are full to bursting, despite few COVID-19 patients the CBC reported: > The data suggests many hospitals have returned to the overcrowding levels seen before the pandemic, when CBC News revealed hospitals filled beyond capacity nearly every single day, with patients housed in hallways, conference rooms and cafeterias not as exceptional cases, but as a matter of routine.[2] 1: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/hospitalization-7-day-trend https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/hospitalization-7-day-trend 2: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-hospital-occupancy-covid-19-hallway-healthcare-1.5784075 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-hospital-occu...
    - dahdum 5y ago
      If you select each state you can see near 100% levels for Alabama, Florida, California, Idaho, Texas, etc.. You can't ship desperately ill patients around the state very easily to fill ICU beds, so smaller cities/regions absolutely hit 100%. Furthermore, as they approach 100% they start enacting "crisis standards of care" such that people who would have been admitted are not. They're put in hospital conference rooms, hallways, or regular rooms without the normal life saving equipment present.
  - ifyoubuildit 5y ago
    We have a terminology problem, and nobody seems to notice or care. Everyone is using sloppy language and has been for most of this thing. In reality, there are more bits here than just vaccine status, and even that isn't binary, unless you start talking about the moving target of "fully vaccinated". An unvaccinated person who has been infected and recovered is not at all the same as a person who has not. Yet here you are righteously and confidently proclaiming that "these people are a clear danger to the public". Your statement is a serious accusation, and it is sloppy and imprecise, and plain wrong for some significant chunk of the people it is being lobbed at. Yet not many people will bat an eye, because its the same sloppy language everyone else is using.
ls15 5y ago
> the rest of us also have the right to protect ourselves from them How does your right to protect yourself lead to a right to exclude someone else from society?
- bradlys 5y ago
  We have prisons - don’t we?
  - jrs235 5y ago
    So you're willing to pay to keep anti-vaxxer's alive right? You're willing to pay for their housing, food, healthcare, etc. so long as you can keep them away from everyone else? Honest question.
  - ls15 5y ago
    Yes, for people who provably committed crimes.
- simonh 5y ago
  They’re a danger to themselves and others. I have family members that work in health care that are affected by this. I don’t see why any further justification is necessary. I don’t agree with those equating this with crimes and prison. Those are not equivalent, these people aren’t criminals and rounding up or imprisoning them is abhorrent. But to participate in society is about obligations as well as rights, and I think withdrawing certain privileges in the face of wilful disregard of one’s obligations is reasonable if it is necessary to protect others.
  - ls15 5y ago
    > They’re a danger to themselves and others. I have family members that work in health care that are affected by this. I don’t see why any further justification is necessary. There is a lot more justification needed, because "They’re a danger to themselves and others." is a generalization that is potentially not true. Vaccinated people can still infect others, while an unvaccinated person can be more strict about testing and masking, which could in practice lead to better protection than just being vaccinated. Especially if the vaccination has been developed for the alpha strain and omicron seems not impressed by it, while for males under 40 the chance to contract myocarditis from vaccination is higher than for contracting it from covid. I don't think that society has any right to bully individuals into taking a vaccine that has not been shown to really stop the spread and is not really efficient against the dominating strains of the virus. For making this an obligation, the results of the vaccine are not good enough, while this and the other counterarguments are not being discussed enough.

by simonh 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

leereeves 5y ago

Isn't the vaccine supposed to provide that protection from (catching Covid from) them?

ekianjo 5y ago
It is, but some vaccinated people apparently have a hard time understanding how things work and who is actually at risk.
random314 5y ago
Vaccines have an efficacy of 90% -not 100% and don't work for the immunocompromised and those who have sulphate allergies.
simonh 5y ago
Unvaccinated people are a threat to the public on many grounds. Many of these points are already all over this discussion here, but you’re asking so here they are. Unvaccinated people with covid on average have the infection for longer and have higher viral loads, so they are more likely to spread the virus to others than vaccinated people are. They are much more likely to need hospitalisation, putting a burden on the health system which hurts health care workers, and uses up health care resources needed by others. People with non-covid illnesses, or people with covid because they can’t be vaccinated for various legitimate reasons, are dying in some cases because health care systems are so busy caring for sick or dying vax deniers with covid. So these people are a clear danger to the public, and our health care systems in particular. Their choices are putting unreasonable and unfair demands on health care workers, and even killing people.
- leereeves 5y ago
  I haven't seen data for Canada, but in the US, at no time in the past two years have more than 80% of ICU beds been occupied. At no time have more than 25% of ICU beds been occupied by Covid patients. And the impact of Covid on overall inpatient hospitalization has been negligible. [1] Are you sure Trudeau isn't gaslighting you into believing the problems with Canadian healthcare are due to the unvaccinated, and not due to a failing health care system whose problems pre-date Covid? In Why Ontario hospitals are full to bursting, despite few COVID-19 patients the CBC reported: > The data suggests many hospitals have returned to the overcrowding levels seen before the pandemic, when CBC News revealed hospitals filled beyond capacity nearly every single day, with patients housed in hallways, conference rooms and cafeterias not as exceptional cases, but as a matter of routine.[2] 1: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/hospitalization-7-day-trend https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/hospitalization-7-day-trend 2: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-hospital-occupancy-covid-19-hallway-healthcare-1.5784075 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-hospital-occu...
  - dahdum 5y ago
    If you select each state you can see near 100% levels for Alabama, Florida, California, Idaho, Texas, etc.. You can't ship desperately ill patients around the state very easily to fill ICU beds, so smaller cities/regions absolutely hit 100%. Furthermore, as they approach 100% they start enacting "crisis standards of care" such that people who would have been admitted are not. They're put in hospital conference rooms, hallways, or regular rooms without the normal life saving equipment present.
- ifyoubuildit 5y ago
  We have a terminology problem, and nobody seems to notice or care. Everyone is using sloppy language and has been for most of this thing. In reality, there are more bits here than just vaccine status, and even that isn't binary, unless you start talking about the moving target of "fully vaccinated". An unvaccinated person who has been infected and recovered is not at all the same as a person who has not. Yet here you are righteously and confidently proclaiming that "these people are a clear danger to the public". Your statement is a serious accusation, and it is sloppy and imprecise, and plain wrong for some significant chunk of the people it is being lobbed at. Yet not many people will bat an eye, because its the same sloppy language everyone else is using.

ls15 5y ago

> the rest of us also have the right to protect ourselves from them How does your right to protect yourself lead to a right to exclude someone else from society?

bradlys 5y ago
We have prisons - don’t we?
- jrs235 5y ago
  So you're willing to pay to keep anti-vaxxer's alive right? You're willing to pay for their housing, food, healthcare, etc. so long as you can keep them away from everyone else? Honest question.
- ls15 5y ago
  Yes, for people who provably committed crimes.
simonh 5y ago
They’re a danger to themselves and others. I have family members that work in health care that are affected by this. I don’t see why any further justification is necessary. I don’t agree with those equating this with crimes and prison. Those are not equivalent, these people aren’t criminals and rounding up or imprisoning them is abhorrent. But to participate in society is about obligations as well as rights, and I think withdrawing certain privileges in the face of wilful disregard of one’s obligations is reasonable if it is necessary to protect others.
- ls15 5y ago
  > They’re a danger to themselves and others. I have family members that work in health care that are affected by this. I don’t see why any further justification is necessary. There is a lot more justification needed, because "They’re a danger to themselves and others." is a generalization that is potentially not true. Vaccinated people can still infect others, while an unvaccinated person can be more strict about testing and masking, which could in practice lead to better protection than just being vaccinated. Especially if the vaccination has been developed for the alpha strain and omicron seems not impressed by it, while for males under 40 the chance to contract myocarditis from vaccination is higher than for contracting it from covid. I don't think that society has any right to bully individuals into taking a vaccine that has not been shown to really stop the spread and is not really efficient against the dominating strains of the virus. For making this an obligation, the results of the vaccine are not good enough, while this and the other counterarguments are not being discussed enough.