Are you willing to get the Covid vaccine when offered? (10 Viewers)

[Saint_Ward]

Mask mandates starting to get lifted. There must be some hospital beds available to make money off of again .
....and the cycle continues
Mask
Numbers drop
No mask
Numbers rise

Shampoo, lather, rinse, repeat.
Stupid humans

They make a lot more money doing elective surgeries. They don't want covid cases. They don't make as much.

 

[Saint_Ward]

I'm glad that you brought up the whole washing the hand thing because now you are speaking to what my point was actually about, as read in previous post. We know the actual benefit of washing your hands but what reason was there for any unvaccinated person to be treated any differently than the vaccinated? What reason would there be separate protocols for the vaccinated and the unvaccinated? In reality, all things were equal, with the exception of a shot that you wouldn't know I had unless I was forced to tell you. So if I was sick or not, you would refuse me service based on what and why? There was no just cause...

So, you only prescribe to community health measures, if you agree with them?

The point is simple. It's not discrimination, not even close. Just like multiple DUI's can get your license revoked. Just like some jobs require a hairnet.

Now, is it (vaccine passport) an effective measure? That's arguable. It might be a little. But, it may not be. Just because something may or may not be effective, doesn't mean it's discriminatory. And it's only a couple places, right?

Also, I'm pretty sure those same places ask people who feel sick, or aren't sure, or were potentially exposed to someone they know who had covid to also not go out.

 

[Optimus Prime]

As demand for COVID-19 vaccines collapses in many areas of the U.S., states are scrambling to use stockpiles of doses before they expire and have to be added to the millions that have already gone to waste.

From some of the least vaccinated states, like Indiana and North Dakota, to some of the most vaccinated states, like New Jersey and Vermont, public health departments are shuffling doses around in the hopes of finding providers that can use them.

State health departments told The Associated Press they have tracked millions of doses that went to waste, including ones that expired, were in a multi-dose vial that couldn’t be used completely or had to be tossed for some other reason like temperature issues or broken vials.

Nearly 1.5 million doses in Michigan, 1.45 million in North Carolina, 1 million in Illinois and almost 725,000 doses in Washington couldn’t be used.


The percentage of wasted doses in California is only about 1.8%, but in a state that has received 84 million doses and administered more than 71 million of them, that equates to roughly 1.4 million doses. Providers there are asked to keep doses until they expire, then properly dispose of them, the California Department of Public Health said……

As vaccine demand falls, states are left with huge stockpile

As demand to get COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S. collapses in many areas, states are scrambling to use stockpiles of doses before they expire and have to be added to the millions that have already gone to waste.

apnews.com

 

[jahsoul357]

We are almost there. What is the actual benefit of food handlers in a restaurant washing their hands?

Weird hill to die on.

Yup....moronic hill to die on.....what a load of total BS....

why did you choose to die on this hill

Since the point is being missed, all things were equal. The vaccine worked great at keeping folks out of the hospital and from dying but what did it do as it relates to spreading and catching COVID? What information has the CDC been hiding for 2 years to avoid "misinformation?" Why the US data never matched no one else around the world? You can say that this is a moronic hill to die on but how many of you planted your flag on the hill on this being the pandemic of the unvaccinated, when vaccinated individuals allowed into these institutions, diners, cruises, etc were just as susceptible to spreading and catching COVID just like the unvaccinated and most of the things that you called misinformation was indeed true. This takes me back to the original point; with all things being equal, why allow one person into your establishment and not allow the other, all on the basis of a shot that was created not to stop the spread of COVID, but to lower the risk of severe symptoms (personal benefit)?

 

[saintmdterps]

Unless academia has attached a new or deeper meaning to the word, discrimination is and has always been the unjust, biased, prejudicial, and any other synonym you can think of treatment based off a person or persons being part of a group. I'm not talking about any law but what it actually is. I gave high level examples of the premise of that happening:

-Spring 2021 - Society "opened" back up for those who could provide proof of vaccination while those who were unvaccinated faced additional scrutiny to enter or outright banned (what is this called...it escapes me)
-NFL 2021 season - The COVID policy, as written, was set out to punish the unvaccinated for outbreaks, which didn't happen because the vaccinated were the ones bring COVID into the building. (wait, so the same result with a different outcome is OK to you, for reasons?)
-Many livelihoods were threatened and where I work at, career paths derailed because of vaccination status

But let's take step back; when has differential treatment of a person or persons who is part of a group or demographic not been discrimination?

When has deferential treatment resulted in putting at risk the rest of the population? Amazing that we're still here today.

I saw a tweet by Dee Snider of Twisted Sister who refused the use of the song "We're not Gonna Take it" by anti-vaxxers/anti-maskers, but allowed the Ukrainian people to use the song. Snider's reasoning "one is a righteous battle against oppression and the other is infantile foot-stomping against an inconvenience"

 

[saintmdterps]

Since the point is being missed, all things were equal. The vaccine worked great at keeping folks out of the hospital and from dying but what did it do as it relates to spreading and catching COVID? What information has the CDC been hiding for 2 years to avoid "misinformation?" Why the US data never matched no one else around the world? You can say that this is a moronic hill to die on but how many of you planted your flag on the hill on this being the pandemic of the unvaccinated, when vaccinated individuals allowed into these institutions, diners, cruises, etc were just as susceptible to spreading and catching COVID just like the unvaccinated and most of the things that you called misinformation was indeed true. This takes me back to the original point; with all things being equal, why allow one person into your establishment and not allow the other, all on the basis of a shot that was created not to stop the spread of COVID, but to lower the risk of severe symptoms (personal benefit)?

Good lord, the rest of your post is irrelevant

 

[jahsoul357]

When has deferential treatment resulted in putting at risk the rest of the population? Amazing that we're still here today.

I saw a tweet by Dee Snider of Twisted Sister who refused the use of the song "We're not Gonna Take it" by anti-vaxxers/anti-maskers, but allowed the Ukrainian people to use the song. Snider's reasoning "one is a righteous battle against oppression and the other is infantile foot-stomping against an inconvenience"

I'm completely neutral in all of this but I guess a "righteous battle against oppression" is one of those things that is in the eye of the beholder considering racism in Ukraine has been on the "world stage" and the whole treatment of African immigrants/students trying to escape reminded a lot of people of some of those incidents. But I digress...

Good lord, the rest of your post is irrelevant

You keep missing the point. The policies were centered around stopping the spread of COVID, which as I stated, made all things equal. If I have a shot that lowers my chance of going to the hospital and you don't, why should I be able to freely move about and you face scrutiny, when we both can catch and spread the virus?

 

[FullMonte]

I'm completely neutral in all of this but I guess a "righteous battle against oppression" is one of those things that is in the eye of the beholder considering racism in Ukraine has been on the "world stage" and the whole treatment of African immigrants/students trying to escape reminded a lot of people of some of those incidents. But I digress...


You keep missing the point. The policies were centered around stopping the spread of COVID, which as I stated, made all things equal. If I have a shot that lowers my chance of going to the hospital and you don't, why should I be able to freely move about and you face scrutiny, when we both can catch and spread the virus?

Well, you ignore the fact that getting the shot lowers your chance of being infected, and appears to lower your viral load if you are infected. The REACT study in the UK tested over 100,000 random people, and found that vaccinated individuals tested positive half as often (49%) as unvaccinated, and they carried a lower viral load (on average) than unvaccinated.

 

[SystemShock]

Since the point is being missed, all things were equal. The vaccine worked great at keeping folks out of the hospital and from dying but what did it do as it relates to spreading and catching COVID?

You are so close.

I asked you clarify what is the actual benefit of food handlers washing their hands, as you stated, but you didn't answer.

What happens when someone washes their hands? You know how soap labels say they kill 99.9% of bacteria/viruses/germs (or some combination thereof)? Soaps don't completely sterilize your hands; but what they do, is reduce the bacteria/virus/germ load in your hands; so, if someone touches your food with washed hands, most often than not, no enough bacteria/virus/germs will be passed to you, and more often than not, you will not get sick.

Same concept with the vaccine: a vaccinated person will require a bigger virus load to get sick; they will also carry a lower load of the virus which may not be enough to get someone else sick. So your statement that the vaccinated are as susceptible to catch and transmit the virus is incorrect.

 

[Saint_Ward]

Since the point is being missed, all things were equal. The vaccine worked great at keeping folks out of the hospital and from dying but what did it do as it relates to spreading and catching COVID? What information has the CDC been hiding for 2 years to avoid "misinformation?" Why the US data never matched no one else around the world? You can say that this is a moronic hill to die on but how many of you planted your flag on the hill on this being the pandemic of the unvaccinated, when vaccinated individuals allowed into these institutions, diners, cruises, etc were just as susceptible to spreading and catching COVID just like the unvaccinated and most of the things that you called misinformation was indeed true. This takes me back to the original point; with all things being equal, why allow one person into your establishment and not allow the other, all on the basis of a shot that was created not to stop the spread of COVID, but to lower the risk of severe symptoms (personal benefit)?

"were just as susceptible to spreading and catching COVID just like the unvaccinated and most of the things that you called misinformation was indeed true."

That part is not true. Vaccinated aren't "just as susceptible" They both can, but not at the same rate.

What data mismatch are you speaking of?

This is from the CDC.. The 2.3x and 3.2x is for Omicron, mostly. If you look at the Delta wave, it was actually way more than that.





https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status You can even break it down by age.

 

[sfidc3]

You keep missing the point. The policies were centered around stopping the spread of COVID, which as I stated, made all things equal. If I have a shot that lowers my chance of going to the hospital and you don't, why should I be able to freely move about and you face scrutiny, when we both can catch and spread the virus?

You keep not understanding.....The purpose of the vaccine as many have already stated was to help prevent serious illness, hospitalizations, and deaths....and to help slow the spread of the virus (no one uses the word stop unless they are clueless).....in that respect it has been an incredible success.....anyone denying that is out of touch with reality.....

 

[jahsoul357]

You are so close.

I asked you clarify what is the actual benefit of food handlers washing their hands, as you stated, but you didn't answer.

What happens when someone washes their hands? You know how soap labels say they kill 99.9% of bacteria/viruses/germs (or some combination thereof)? Soaps don't completely sterilize your hands; but what they do, is reduce the bacteria/virus/germ load in your hands; so, if someone touches your food with washed hands, most often than not, no enough bacteria/virus/germs will be passed to you, and more often than not, you will not get sick.

Same concept with the vaccine: a vaccinated person will require a bigger virus load to get sick; they will also carry a lower load of the virus which may not be enough to get someone else sick. So your statement that the vaccinated are as susceptible to catch and transmit the virus is incorrect.

But the response you gave regarding washing your hands and the way that soap works doesn't jive with the realities of how the COVID vaccine is said to work. Where is your last paragraph documented, because all things point to the vaccine working to shed the viral load faster, which in turn lowers the total viral load (based on time) of the vaccinated BUT peak viral load is the same between vaccinated and unvaccinated. The vaccinated can spread it as easily as the unvaccinated but over a shorter period of time.

"were just as susceptible to spreading and catching COVID just like the unvaccinated and most of the things that you called misinformation was indeed true."

That part is not true. Vaccinated aren't "just as susceptible" They both can, but not at the same rate.

What data mismatch are you speaking of?

This is from the CDC.. The 2.3x and 3.2x is for Omicron, mostly. If you look at the Delta wave, it was actually way more than that.





https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status You can even break it down by age.

The CDC was just criticized for publishing incomplete data. I can't speak for others but the lack of transparency from the CDC is what pushed me to reading data from other countries. But the question is how are cases being calculated? We've had many here who has posted that they did an at home test, tested positive, and because the symptoms weren't serious, just decided to quarantine. Is there a requirement to have this documented or is this a case that goes unreported? I honestly want to know this because I don't know and this would help to clear any misconceptions that I have about the data.

You keep not understanding.....The purpose of the vaccine as many have already stated was to help prevent serious illness, hospitalizations, and deaths....and to help slow the spread of the virus (no one uses the word stop unless they are clueless).....in that respect it has been an incredible success.....anyone denying that is out of touch with reality.....

But did it help slow the spread of COVID? What is the delta that was tested against?
I will always push back when someone say that it didn't reduce the rate of hospitalization or death, because the data universally supports this but it is also easier to track this as opposed to cases, especially when the key benefit of the vaccine is to reduce serious illness.

 

[SystemShock]

But the response you gave regarding washing your hands and the way that soap works doesn't jive with the realities of how the COVID vaccine is said to work. Where is your last paragraph documented, because all things point to the vaccine working to shed the viral load faster, which in turn lowers the total viral load (based on time) of the vaccinated BUT peak viral load is the same between vaccinated and unvaccinated. The vaccinated can spread it as easily as the unvaccinated but over a shorter period of time.

Even if I don't make any further arguments - which I could - and concede everything you said, you really can't see it? Don't think individual, think global.

 

[Saint_Ward]

But the response you gave regarding washing your hands and the way that soap works doesn't jive with the realities of how the COVID vaccine is said to work. Where is your last paragraph documented, because all things point to the vaccine working to shed the viral load faster, which in turn lowers the total viral load (based on time) of the vaccinated BUT peak viral load is the same between vaccinated and unvaccinated. The vaccinated can spread it as easily as the unvaccinated but over a shorter period of time.




The CDC was just criticized for publishing incomplete data. I can't speak for others but the lack of transparency from the CDC is what pushed me to reading data from other countries. But the question is how are cases being calculated? We've had many here who has posted that they did an at home test, tested positive, and because the symptoms weren't serious, just decided to quarantine. Is there a requirement to have this documented or is this a case that goes unreported? I honestly want to know this because I don't know and this would help to clear any misconceptions that I have about the data.


But did it help slow the spread of COVID? What is the delta that was tested against?
I will always push back when someone say that it didn't reduce the rate of hospitalization or death, because the data universally supports this but it is also easier to track this as opposed to cases, especially when the key benefit of the vaccine is to reduce serious illness.

Where were they criticized? By whom?

I showed you data from the CDC. Most of your questions, if not all, could be answered if you went to the page and read the foot notes.

 

[Arathrael]

But the response you gave regarding washing your hands and the way that soap works doesn't jive with the realities of how the COVID vaccine is said to work. Where is your last paragraph documented, because all things point to the vaccine working to shed the viral load faster, which in turn lowers the total viral load (based on time) of the vaccinated BUT peak viral load is the same between vaccinated and unvaccinated. The vaccinated can spread it as easily as the unvaccinated but over a shorter period of time.

The CDC was just criticized for publishing incomplete data. I can't speak for others but the lack of transparency from the CDC is what pushed me to reading data from other countries. But the question is how are cases being calculated? We've had many here who has posted that they did an at home test, tested positive, and because the symptoms weren't serious, just decided to quarantine. Is there a requirement to have this documented or is this a case that goes unreported? I honestly want to know this because I don't know and this would help to clear any misconceptions that I have about the data.


But did it help slow the spread of COVID? What is the delta that was tested against?
I will always push back when someone say that it didn't reduce the rate of hospitalization or death, because the data universally supports this but it is also easier to track this as opposed to cases, especially when the key benefit of the vaccine is to reduce serious illness.

I'm sure we've been over this many times before, but we do have studies tracking cases. We have massive household surveys, such as that carried out by the Office of National Statistics in the UK. We have studies looking at transmission within households, contrasting likelihood of secondary infection from vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. And from all that, we can see that vaccination does reduce risk of infection and does reduce risk of transmission:

As described above, several studies have provided evidence that vaccines are effective at preventing infection. Uninfected individuals cannot transmit; therefore, the vaccines also provide some protection against transmission. There may be additional benefit, beyond that due to prevention of infection, if some of those individuals who become infected despite vaccination are also at a reduced risk of transmitting (for example, because of reduced duration or level of viral shedding). Several studies have provided evidence of reduced risk of household transmission from vaccinated cases compared to unvaccinated cases.​

(source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-surveillance-reports)​

​

So we know vaccination does reduce risk of infection and risk of transmission. We also know there's a waning effect over time (hence boosters), and we know variants (like Omicron) impact that. But that doesn't change the fundamental fact that vaccination does have that effect.

Everything I've seen arguing against that evidence is either conflating reduction of risk and risk-balancing approaches with elimination of risk and acting as if something either works perfectly or not at all, or applying really bad reasoning (e.g. "this area has lots of cases right now and a higher level of vaccination that this other area which also has lots of cases right now, therefore vaccination isn't reducing the numbers of cases"), as if that's how that works (it isn't; you can't make a simple point-in-time comparison between two different areas with different demographics, potentially different other health measures and behaviour, that are likely to be at different points in a wave).