Leaderboard

Lighten up Francis. And stop engaging dogfish like he's a rational person. He eats paste.

Did someone call for a clown?

Well, the good news is that pharmaceutical companies are already working on a Delta booster and mRNA vaccines don't take very long to make and trial. Also remember that we're still talking about a virus that 98+% of people live through. Vaccinated people may still get it, but they're spreading it less (even though they may feel asymptomatic), which means less people around them get it, which means it's R-value drops dramatically. Between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated with natural anti-bodies from actually getting it, the hope is that it dies. More data: https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/covid-19-vaccine-breakthrough-cases-data-from-the-states/

@pawnman, I could just as easily flip this around on you. If you're a rational human being, then you surely believe there are regulations/standards/laws/edicts on the books are either worthless or not 100% applicable. If so, then you too must be an anarchist like @dogfish78, right? The appeal to extremes fallacy doesn't work well for anyone, if you're actually insinuating the opponent believes all extremes. Now, if you're using that appeal to test where @dogfish78's limits on government sovereignty lie, fair play. Regardless, there are people against the COVID shot who are otherwise pro-government involvement, and there are people for the vaccine who are otherwise anarcho-libertarian. This isn't a left-right or right-wrong thing. Each individual is doing a cost-benefit analysis for themselves, because that's the rational thing to do. Is each side taking in wrong info to bolster their sides? You bet they are, because where one stands on COVID-19, like everything else anymore... it’s a demonstration of fealty to one's tribe/religion/party. Group-think is a real thing, believe it or not. @dogfish78, don't take this post as a blanket defense of you either. Lay off the "you're not a patriot, and may God have mercy on your soul" stuff. It's no way to engage in a conversation.

I actually do (including a 4 time gold medalist who is no longer with us —Al Oerter). Each time he won a gold medal, there was some crazy circumstances making it more difficult, but he stepped up and did it. He won his 3rd gold with torn cartilage in his ribs and a neck brace from a car wreck. The pain was too bad to make his final throw and the doctors said he shouldn’t compete but he said “These are the olympics. You die for them.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Oerter I know that’s all just toxic masculinity and white male privilege, but it’s an incredible story. He also kept the 4 gold medals in an unlocked desk drawer and the Olympic torch from 1996 leaning on the corner of his office (which was mainly family pictures and his own art). I actually dropped one of them as a kid and he just laughed and told me it was okay. He was a great man. We will never agree and I don’t have a leg to stand on because my athletic achievements were nowhere near that level. My issue is with this cultural movement of glorifying quitting and the individual over the team. I’m absolutely not faulting her for her choice and applaud her sincerely for earning the bronze on the beam later. That’s incredibly impressive and a credit to her to do that. I also don’t want to minimize the impact of a family member’s death or physical impairment (whether injury or equilibrium problems or whatever). I’m supremely happy about the focus on mental health and hope this, Naomi Osaka, etc help to remove the stigma about discussing and helping those who need it. I don’t view her as “weak” or “can’t hack it”. I understand it’s a story but Suni Lee, Jade Carey and others on the same team went on to win gold medals in women’s gymnastics but all the discussion was on Simone. It is what it is. The last thing that really irks me about this situation is any kind of racism and/or sexism implication to those that didn’t think her decision was heroic. That’s another cultural thing but who knows if we’re ever going to back off from that.

It's not just about ending the pandemic or not ending it. It's about protecting civil liberties as well, which a large amount of people are endanger of losing once we start establishing a precedent. Our constitutional checks and balances weren't written for the convenience of a peace time government, rather, they were delibertly put in there to protect individual freedoms in times of crises, as crises is most often the excuse politicians will use to erode them. I personally got the vaccine. But when people who are apprehensive to vaccines come to me about my experience, the only thing I can tell them is I didn't have side effects, and my wife possibly did. I can't tell them there are no long term side effects because we simply don't know that. Noone does. I can't tell them they will be 100% safe because I don't have the ability to guarantee that. I certainly can't tell then that getting vaccinated will means they won't have to wear a mask or get COVID tested anymore because frankly that's not true. So if those are their apprehensions to the vaccine, they are certainly entitled them as well as entitled to their freedom of bodily autonomy. But when people start pushing a narrative that we need to do this to end the pandemic and that means we need mandates, I will push back because 1.) I don't care, the pandemic can go for 100 years and I'll still stand on the side of individual liberty and 2.) Vaccination of individuals on its own will not end a pandemic. It may ease it in some cases but the only thing that ends a pandemic is viral eradication (extraordinarily hard) or waiting for the virus to mutate into an evolutionary strategy that is less fatal to humans. It will probably be a decade before either of those happen. Spanish flu took 10 years to mutate into what we know today as H1N1.

I appreciate the conversation this stirred up. To add some clarity I do have a HP endorsement and this is primarily a question to satisfy my (R)ATP down the road. @FDNYOldGuy Thanks for the response, hope you are doing well. I remember you giving me a hand years ago when this whole process was just starting.

Just imagine how many books they would write if they had a damn president. And the first half of every state of the union will be about how hard BUDS was.

How did we eradicate polio? Was it by letting people wring their hands about potential side effects, or by mandating vaccines for every man, woman, and child? You want to be on the side of liberty, then great. Just realize choices have consequences. I'm 100% for keeping people out of certain jobs, restricting ability to travel to hot spots, mandating quarantine periods for travelers, etc based on vaccine status. Just like we currently do for a whole host of other vaccines. We've got a whole lot of case law on the side of restrictions for unvaccinated people.