Are you willing to get the Covid vaccine when offered? (12 Viewers)

[Sailorsaint]

This thread has time travelled back to 2020. Think I’ll ignore it for a while until it gets back to making sense again.

 

[LonghornSaint]

What makes you think there isn't?

Ok, 1 Ozzy who went home sick vs 1 asymptomatic that you were around the entire week. Which person gave you covid?

My "made up" scenario is a very realistic possibility that displays the law of probabilities. If you spend much more time around an asymptomatic person, which is much more likely to happen because neither of you realize that person has it. It stands to reason you have as good a chance at contracting covid from that person as you would if you spent a brief amount of time with someone who was symptomatic. That is extremely simple deductive reasoning.

So ridiculous. How many combinations and permutations of vaxx vs unvaxx did you consider (1 ... 1000??), and ALSO what data set did you pull this "theoretical" concept from???

You're just making stuff up.

 

[superchuck500]

The intensely ludicrous part of the whole political issue is that both parties switched their opinions once the Presidential election results were complete.

Go back and look at the debates and comments from both sides of the aisle before the election, then look at them after the election. Republicans were touting the amazing job being done and how soon the vaccines would be ready "thanks to the great efforts of the Trump administration" (for which he was taking full credit) while the Democrats were saying things like, "I'd never take that unproven vaccine." Both Biden and Harris said that in Democratic Party debates.
Then the vaccines were reported ready for deployment only weeks after the election. Suddenly, the Democrats were championing them as a miracle while Republicans were saying they were dangerous.

Absolutely. Ridiculous. If you want proof of the nonsensical games the two parties play, look no further than that.

I don't think that's an entirely accurate presentation. I think the Democrats supported a vaccine roll-out but stated that they did not trust the Trump White House to lead it, because the White House had proven in the past to put politics ahead of science. Trump had been pushing for the vaccine to be made available by October, which he called "a very special date" and it was obvious that Trump was attempting to have the vaccine available before the election so that he could claim it as a success. The Biden campaign countered this obvious attempt at election politics by saying that Americans shouldn't trust Trump about vaccines, they should trust scientists. Biden specifically said "I trust science, I trust vaccines -but I don't trust Donald Trump."

But these dynamics were political rhetoric and I don't think it controlled how anyone actually thought and behaved about the vaccine.

I think if you step back and look at the constituencies, there was always going to be a solid block of Americans who mistrusted the vaccine and loathed vaccine mandates that fit within their worldview - and those were largely going to be on the right/Republican spectrum of American politics, because there is a fairly strong libertarian, anti-science, anti-institutionalism, anti-academia trend in that constituency. The anti-vax movement was already a part of that constituency and Covid only accelerated that marriage. I don't think Trump's late-hour support of the vaccine had much impact on that behavior.

And at the same time, you have a constituency on the left that have absolute, perhaps even unfounded faith in institutions and academia that were always going to be supportive of a vaccine, when it was ready - and they would be willing to take their word for it when that was, as long as the word was from a trusted source . . . not Donald Trump or Donald Trump's health messengers that were highly suspect. But when the vaccine was actually available from reputable sources, I think that was all they needed.

Certainly I don't mean to say that everyone behaves in one bloc or another. Plenty of MAGA populist Republicans got the vaccine because they trusted the medical science and plenty of Democrats felt uneasy about a fairly new technology and decided to trust their immune system without enhancement. But i think the broader trends were very real: vaccination rates were much lower in red districts and much higher in blue districts. And rates of severe disease and death after the vaccine roll-out were much higher in red districts and much lower in blue districts.

 

[Hoodoo]

So ridiculous. How many combinations and permutations of vaxx vs unvaxx did you consider (1 ... 1000??), and ALSO what data set did you pull this "theoretical" concept from???

You're just making stuff up.

I've linked multiple articles now that support what I'm "making up." What data have you provided?

I honestly cannot believe that I have to defend a 1 v 1 scenario and I'm the one being called ridiculous. I cannot believe that you cannot fathom the possibility that I proposed. I guess I'll just assume that you've never worked in an office environment, or at a school, or at any other business that employs a large number of people.

 

[Optimistic Ozzy]

What does that even mean!?!?! For they will spread Covid...

What?1?1?!

Reading is fundamental

 

[Optimistic Ozzy]

I don't think that's an entirely accurate presentation. I think the Democrats supported a vaccine roll-out but stated that they did not trust the Trump White House to lead it, because the White House had proven in the past to put politics ahead of science. Trump had been pushing for the vaccine to be made available by October, which he called "a very special date" and it was obvious that Trump was attempting to have the vaccine available before the election so that he could claim it as a success. The Biden campaign countered this obvious attempt at election politics by saying that Americans shouldn't trust Trump about vaccines, they should trust scientists. Biden specifically said "I trust science, I trust vaccines -but I don't trust Donald Trump."

But these dynamics were political rhetoric and I don't think it controlled how anyone actually thought and behaved about the vaccine.

I think if you step back and look at the constituencies, there was always going to be a solid block of Americans who mistrusted the vaccine and loathed vaccine mandates that fit within their worldview - and those were largely going to be on the right/Republican spectrum of American politics, because there is a fairly strong libertarian, anti-science, anti-institutionalism, anti-academia trend in that constituency. The anti-vax movement was already a part of that constituency and Covid only accelerated that marriage. I don't think Trump's late-hour support of the vaccine had much impact on that behavior.

And at the same time, you have a constituency on the left that have absolute, perhaps even unfounded faith in institutions and academia that were always going to be supportive of a vaccine, when it was ready - and they would be willing to take their word for it when that was, as long as the word was from a trusted source . . . not Donald Trump or Donald Trump's health messengers that were highly suspect. But when the vaccine was actually available from reputable sources, I think that was all they needed.

Certainly I don't mean to say that everyone behaves in one bloc or another. Plenty of MAGA populist Republicans got the vaccine because they trusted the medical science and plenty of Democrats felt uneasy about a fairly new technology and decided to trust their immune system without enhancement. But i think the broader trends were very real: vaccination rates were much lower in red districts and much higher in blue districts. And rates of severe disease and death after the vaccine roll-out were much higher in red districts and much lower in blue districts.

Nah, it’s 100% accurate

 

[not2rich]

Nah, it’s 100% accurate

No, it's not.

 

[superchuck500]

Nah, it’s 100% accurate

Except no, it isn't. I went back and read the quotes before I posted because I don't like to post things that I haven't vetted to be reasonably accurate. Now you

 

[Optimistic Ozzy]

Except no, it isn't. I went back and read the quotes before I posted because I don't like to post things that I haven't vetted to be reasonably accurate. Now you

Now me, what?

 

[LonghornSaint]

I've linked multiple articles now that support what I'm "making up." What data have you provided?

I honestly cannot believe that I have to defend a 1 v 1 scenario and I'm the one being called ridiculous. I cannot believe that you cannot fathom the possibility that I proposed. I guess I'll just assume that you've never worked in an office environment, or at a school, or at any other business that employs a large number of people.

I can't believe that you're making some "data" claims and then complaining about having to back them up...

Don't assume anything about me

 

[superchuck500]

Now me, what?

Provide some damn support for your comment - I wasn't even responding to you. If you want to interject yourself into an exchange, at least have some substance.

I don't have time for this nonsense, good night.

 

[LonghornSaint]

Reading is fundamental

So is writing. Don't hold back, write what you want to say!!

 

[Optimistic Ozzy]

Provide some damn support for your comment - I wasn't even responding to you. If you want to interject yourself into an exchange, at least have some substance.

I don't have time for this nonsense, good night.

Are you drunk? You responded to my quote. Go to bed homie.

 

[DaveXA]

I thought maybe my opinion was well-known as well, but I guess not. I thought you and I agreed that it was best for your own health to get the shot, but that it is still a persons choice whether to get it or not. And that people shouldn't be beaten with the shame stick for their decision.

We agree here, I just think people still denying the efficacy of the vaccine 3 years after Covid started is really ridiculous. But clearly some haven't changed their opinions on it. But I guess the science and data doesn't matter to them on that point.

And I mean no offense to you because I completely respect your opinion, but I wasn't seeking your affirmation of my feelings.

And that's fine. We won't see eye to eye on some things. That's life.

That's not what I said. I said that most people who contract it are asymptomatic.

Ok, i read most people who get vavcinated are asymptomatic. But yeah, a lot, but not quite most people who contract it are asymptomatic.

Especially given that you're more likely to be asymptomatic if you're vaccinated and 70% . According to Medical News Today, 40.5% of people who contract the virus have no symptoms. That study was done in Dec 2021 and now we've gone well beyond the numbers of vaccinations at that time since the first roll out was only a year prior. So, again, my reasoning says that most carriers would be asymptomatic and the data in that article seems to support that.

40% isnt most people, but it is a large number who are asymptomatic.

See above

So, if the number of asymptomatic is 1-3% of the population, then what percent would you say the symptomatic makes up? I'm not sure if your figures add up. I'd like to see some current data on that, but since they're not testing anywhere close to levels they were during the height, I doubt anybody could give you that data now.

I'm ballparking the percentage asymptomatic at a given time. Asymptomatic people iirc are contagious like 4-7 days. So ultimately a small percentage of the population is going to be asymptomatic at a given time. But you're right in that current data will be more difficult to track because like 18 or 19 states are no longer reporting Covid stats.

The only think you're assuming is that the sick person will stay away. I can only speak anecdotally in that regard. Since we're allowed to work from home as needed, employees are MUCH more likely to stay home when they are sick.

I'm assuming most symptomatic people will stay home if sick, but some don't. It's stupid to do so, and i would hope none of my co-workers come to the office with symptoms.

I agree with some of the other posters that you can blame politics for that, but on both sides of the aisle. People treat me like I'm stupid for having concerns then I'm going to be MUCH less likely agree with their demands and/or believe what they are telling me. It doesn't help either when much of what they claim while they are beating me over the head turns out not to be true.

I think Chuck really explains the whole politics progression much better than I could and I pretty much agree with his take.

 

[not2rich]

Are you drunk? You responded to my quote. Go to bed homie.

He responded to someone else's post with a detailed, well-supported rebuttal. Your response was, "Nah, the other poster is correct." So he asked YOU to provide YOUR argument for why you think the other poster was "100% accurate."