7 ms·

I think it boils down to two questions: - What is the average level of risk to someone taking reasonable personal precautions? - What level of state-sponsored

I think it boils down to two questions: - What is the average level of risk to someone taking reasonable personal precautions? - What level of state-sponsored violence is justifiable to further reduce that risk? Governments and societies have been acting out-of-control and it needs to stop. If people don't want to take personal precautions, they should be at liberty to assume the additional risk.

dragontamer 5y ago
> - What is the average level of risk to someone taking reasonable personal precautions? Depends on how full hospitals get. We all get into accidents. We fall and hit our heads, we might get a heart attack, a pregnancy might suddenly go bad and a C-section (or worse surgery) is needed. As COVID19 fills up hospitals around the country, the risk isn't from Omicron itself anymore, as much as it is from an overburdened health care system. -------- The big example was the Montana train derailment last summer. It was difficult (but possible) to get all of the injured to an appropriate hospital, many being forced to go to hospitals hours away because the nearby hospitals were full of COVID19 patients. But this new wave of Omicron is even worse than the summer of 2021 by any measurement. > - What level of state-sponsored violence is justifiable to further reduce that risk? While the health care system of the USA is technically a free market, with a mix of for-profit hospitals (and charity / religious hospitals, and a few state-sponsored ones for groups like veterans)... people expect hospitals / health care systems to be functional. Since the state is ultimately responsible for the health care of its local population (whether they want to be responsible or not), its important to take actions needed to keep our hospital open. The state will pull in the national guard, they will call in Navy hospital ships, they will declare emergencies to help. From that perspective, asking everyone else to get vaccinated or booster-vaccinated is just more of the same, its another action to minimize hospitalizations. Forced vaccinations are far more effective than national guard in this situation. > Governments and societies have been acting out-of-control and it needs to stop. I know someone who went to work while testing positive for COVID19. The amount of apathy and callousness the "individual" has in this situation knows no bounds. "Individualism" is now selfishness. Its more important to save a few hours of PTO / leave rather than protect your fellow customers or coworkers from the disease. People have lost their goddamn minds over this. They ignore the hospitalization stats, they ignore the overflowing morgues. They focus on selfish self-centered action rather than community.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  How many of the COVID-19 patients currently in hospitals really need to be there, and how many would be triaged out if more urgent cases presented? If a hospital has bed space, why would they not admit a COVID patient? It's money, and they are a business for the most part that wants to maximize revenue.
  - postsantum 5y ago
    I fell like this rhetoric is fixed and is not changing with arrival of new data
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    The historical concern is that icus have been overfull. Those people need to be there. This is conspiracy fud.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    > How many of the COVID-19 patients currently in hospitals really need to be there, and how many would be triaged out if more urgent cases presented? https://www.wbaltv.com/article/covid-19-emergency-actions-maryland-january-4-2022/38663529 https://www.wbaltv.com/article/covid-19-emergency-actions-ma... Hospitals in my area have cut 20% of surgeries (ie: triaged out care to make room for COVID19). The governor has deployed National Guard to the hospitals to help out with tasks. Are you just blind to the issues happening right now? This is happening, this is happening now. Take off your blindfolds and talk to a damn nurse or doctor. This is happening all over the place as far as the eye can see. --------- Just call up your local-clinic and ask them for a flu-shot. Stand in line for 4-hours for things _COMPLETELY_ unrelated to COVID19, and come back and tell me that its fake. Go ask the receptionist "why is the line so long", and they'll tell you: COVID19. I know because I done it. (Well, not for a flu-shot but for a TDAP. Nearly the same thing)
    - mgkimsal 5y ago
      yeah, but... you know... of course they're prioritizing all the COVID patients first, before anyone else, because they get more money from the government for 'COVID' patients! /s That was an actual exchange I had with someone a few weeks ago with this same scenario. They'd gone from 'it's all faked' to "well, yeah, there may be people there now, and they're taking resources from non-covid patients, but the govt wants it that way, that's why they pay hospital more for covid patients! they're incentivizing people getting covid!" I don't think it makes any sense at all, but interactions like these are more signs to me that it's harder to have meaningful interactions 'across the divide' these days.
sonicanatidae 5y ago
>If people don't want to take personal precautions, they should be at liberty to assume the additional risk. I agree to a point. If their personal choices endanger others, then it's less about their liberties and more about how their choices impact others negatively. Another part of the problem is more human in nature. People are tired of others crying about their own freedoms in regards to vax, but declaring other's freedoms are their choice as well. You know the political party I'm speaking of.
oauea 5y ago
What violence?
- rbanffy 5y ago
  Preventing them from going to the bar without a mask?
- kerneloftruth 5y ago
  Getting people fired from their jobs because they didn't want the vax is a form of state power. State power is ultimately backed up with police and prisons, where violence by them on you is legal.
- _zamorano_ 5y ago
  How about Emmanuel Macron, french prime minister, wanting to "...piss them off. And we will continue to do this, to the end. This is the strategy.”"
  - oauea 5y ago
    This is violence?
- evv555 5y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cuB6XRjaH4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cuB6XRjaH4
  - oauea 5y ago
    Throw shit at the police and they're going to react. Pretty normal and expected and has nothing to do with covid.
- blendergeek 5y ago
  @torstenvl: > What level of state-sponsored violence is justifiable to further reduce that risk? @oauea: > What violence? torstenvl was specifically referring to state vaccine "mandates". Any state mandate must be enforced through violence or it has no effect. Lest you believe that state mandates do not require violence, consider what happens if people refuse the vaccine. You can order them to get daily tests, but what if they refuse that? Eventually physical force (violence) will be required.
rbanffy 5y ago
> - What is the average level of risk to someone taking reasonable personal precautions? How much risk to others is acceptable? Even though someone who follows reasonable personal precautions, but decided not to vaccinate and, therefore, has a higher risk of being a carrier and infect someone else who also followed reasonable precautions but cannot vaccinate for medical reasons. That second person now faces a 3% risk of dying a horrible death. Even if the second person is fully vaccinated, the chances of dying are non-zero, and increased because another person decided not to be vaccinated. If we could contact-trace perfectly, would it be fair to charge person A with reckless endangerment, because person A didn't take all available measures to prevent further deaths? If person B dies because of person A, should we call it manslaughter?
OminousWeapons 5y ago
> If people don't want to take personal precautions, they should be at liberty to assume the additional risk. I agree, the problem is no one is making them assume the risk. If they truly assumed the risk of not getting vaccinated, one of a few things would happen: 1. The risk of not getting vaccinated would be priced into their health insurance premiums and their costs would skyrocket. 2. If they require hospitalization, they should be turned away at the door if there is insufficient capacity. Alternatively, they can be hospitalized but discharged the minute their presence begins to strain resources. They could even be refused assistance generally. 3. If I can suggest that my infection came from person X (e.g. I was around them when they had the virus), then they should be liable for damages. None of those things will happen, because people don't want to assume the risk that comes with their choices, they want to offload it onto other people. They want to be able to not be vaccinated then scream for help when they get in trouble and have the healthcare system ride to the rescue.
bogomipz 5y ago
>"What level of state-sponsored violence is justifiable to further reduce that risk?" What is this referring to? Can you say what instances of "state-sponsored-violence" have occurred in the pursuit of risk reduction?

dragontamer 5y ago

> - What is the average level of risk to someone taking reasonable personal precautions? Depends on how full hospitals get. We all get into accidents. We fall and hit our heads, we might get a heart attack, a pregnancy might suddenly go bad and a C-section (or worse surgery) is needed. As COVID19 fills up hospitals around the country, the risk isn't from Omicron itself anymore, as much as it is from an overburdened health care system. -------- The big example was the Montana train derailment last summer. It was difficult (but possible) to get all of the injured to an appropriate hospital, many being forced to go to hospitals hours away because the nearby hospitals were full of COVID19 patients. But this new wave of Omicron is even worse than the summer of 2021 by any measurement. > - What level of state-sponsored violence is justifiable to further reduce that risk? While the health care system of the USA is technically a free market, with a mix of for-profit hospitals (and charity / religious hospitals, and a few state-sponsored ones for groups like veterans)... people expect hospitals / health care systems to be functional. Since the state is ultimately responsible for the health care of its local population (whether they want to be responsible or not), its important to take actions needed to keep our hospital open. The state will pull in the national guard, they will call in Navy hospital ships, they will declare emergencies to help. From that perspective, asking everyone else to get vaccinated or booster-vaccinated is just more of the same, its another action to minimize hospitalizations. Forced vaccinations are far more effective than national guard in this situation. > Governments and societies have been acting out-of-control and it needs to stop. I know someone who went to work while testing positive for COVID19. The amount of apathy and callousness the "individual" has in this situation knows no bounds. "Individualism" is now selfishness. Its more important to save a few hours of PTO / leave rather than protect your fellow customers or coworkers from the disease. People have lost their goddamn minds over this. They ignore the hospitalization stats, they ignore the overflowing morgues. They focus on selfish self-centered action rather than community.

throwawayboise 5y ago
How many of the COVID-19 patients currently in hospitals really need to be there, and how many would be triaged out if more urgent cases presented? If a hospital has bed space, why would they not admit a COVID patient? It's money, and they are a business for the most part that wants to maximize revenue.
- postsantum 5y ago
  I fell like this rhetoric is fixed and is not changing with arrival of new data
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  The historical concern is that icus have been overfull. Those people need to be there. This is conspiracy fud.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  > How many of the COVID-19 patients currently in hospitals really need to be there, and how many would be triaged out if more urgent cases presented? https://www.wbaltv.com/article/covid-19-emergency-actions-maryland-january-4-2022/38663529 https://www.wbaltv.com/article/covid-19-emergency-actions-ma... Hospitals in my area have cut 20% of surgeries (ie: triaged out care to make room for COVID19). The governor has deployed National Guard to the hospitals to help out with tasks. Are you just blind to the issues happening right now? This is happening, this is happening now. Take off your blindfolds and talk to a damn nurse or doctor. This is happening all over the place as far as the eye can see. --------- Just call up your local-clinic and ask them for a flu-shot. Stand in line for 4-hours for things _COMPLETELY_ unrelated to COVID19, and come back and tell me that its fake. Go ask the receptionist "why is the line so long", and they'll tell you: COVID19. I know because I done it. (Well, not for a flu-shot but for a TDAP. Nearly the same thing)
  - mgkimsal 5y ago
    yeah, but... you know... of course they're prioritizing all the COVID patients first, before anyone else, because they get more money from the government for 'COVID' patients! /s That was an actual exchange I had with someone a few weeks ago with this same scenario. They'd gone from 'it's all faked' to "well, yeah, there may be people there now, and they're taking resources from non-covid patients, but the govt wants it that way, that's why they pay hospital more for covid patients! they're incentivizing people getting covid!" I don't think it makes any sense at all, but interactions like these are more signs to me that it's harder to have meaningful interactions 'across the divide' these days.

sonicanatidae 5y ago

>If people don't want to take personal precautions, they should be at liberty to assume the additional risk. I agree to a point. If their personal choices endanger others, then it's less about their liberties and more about how their choices impact others negatively. Another part of the problem is more human in nature. People are tired of others crying about their own freedoms in regards to vax, but declaring other's freedoms are their choice as well. You know the political party I'm speaking of.

oauea 5y ago

What violence?

rbanffy 5y ago
Preventing them from going to the bar without a mask?
kerneloftruth 5y ago
Getting people fired from their jobs because they didn't want the vax is a form of state power. State power is ultimately backed up with police and prisons, where violence by them on you is legal.
_zamorano_ 5y ago
How about Emmanuel Macron, french prime minister, wanting to "...piss them off. And we will continue to do this, to the end. This is the strategy.”"
- oauea 5y ago
  This is violence?
evv555 5y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cuB6XRjaH4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cuB6XRjaH4
- oauea 5y ago
  Throw shit at the police and they're going to react. Pretty normal and expected and has nothing to do with covid.
blendergeek 5y ago
@torstenvl: > What level of state-sponsored violence is justifiable to further reduce that risk? @oauea: > What violence? torstenvl was specifically referring to state vaccine "mandates". Any state mandate must be enforced through violence or it has no effect. Lest you believe that state mandates do not require violence, consider what happens if people refuse the vaccine. You can order them to get daily tests, but what if they refuse that? Eventually physical force (violence) will be required.

rbanffy 5y ago

> - What is the average level of risk to someone taking reasonable personal precautions? How much risk to others is acceptable? Even though someone who follows reasonable personal precautions, but decided not to vaccinate and, therefore, has a higher risk of being a carrier and infect someone else who also followed reasonable precautions but cannot vaccinate for medical reasons. That second person now faces a 3% risk of dying a horrible death. Even if the second person is fully vaccinated, the chances of dying are non-zero, and increased because another person decided not to be vaccinated. If we could contact-trace perfectly, would it be fair to charge person A with reckless endangerment, because person A didn't take all available measures to prevent further deaths? If person B dies because of person A, should we call it manslaughter?

OminousWeapons 5y ago

> If people don't want to take personal precautions, they should be at liberty to assume the additional risk. I agree, the problem is no one is making them assume the risk. If they truly assumed the risk of not getting vaccinated, one of a few things would happen: 1. The risk of not getting vaccinated would be priced into their health insurance premiums and their costs would skyrocket. 2. If they require hospitalization, they should be turned away at the door if there is insufficient capacity. Alternatively, they can be hospitalized but discharged the minute their presence begins to strain resources. They could even be refused assistance generally. 3. If I can suggest that my infection came from person X (e.g. I was around them when they had the virus), then they should be liable for damages. None of those things will happen, because people don't want to assume the risk that comes with their choices, they want to offload it onto other people. They want to be able to not be vaccinated then scream for help when they get in trouble and have the healthcare system ride to the rescue.

bogomipz 5y ago

>"What level of state-sponsored violence is justifiable to further reduce that risk?" What is this referring to? Can you say what instances of "state-sponsored-violence" have occurred in the pursuit of risk reduction?