Negatory

Old Covid in 2020 studies was typically 2-4, I believe. Delta estimates are higher, usually 5-9. Although I have seem some studies that estimate 6-7. And a Yale one that estimates 3.5-4. The numbers come from an internal CDC document, page 15: https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/54f57708-a529-4a33-9a44-b66d719070d9/note/7335c3ab-06ee-4121-aaff-a11904e68462.#page=1 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-variant.html EDIT: and the source article for that document is here https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/cdc-breakthrough-infections/94390e3a-5e45-44a5-ac40-2744e4e25f2e/?_=1

Copy shot. My anger is misplaced. I am tired of misinformation permeating all aspects of everything. This was not a foul on @torquedwho literally asked 3 times if it was real. My bad.

https://realrawnews.com/2021/09/27-u-s-air-force-pilots-resign-over-covid-19-vaccination-mandate/ 100% false. You guys are falling for the realrawnews story again. If you haven’t seen that website, its the one that will tell you all about how Hillary Clinton has been executed and Trump is running the secret real US government from Gitmo. Look, Bill Gates is on trial, day 4, by the military tribunal. YGBSM. Every time a smart, educated pilot/military officer gets tricked into even halfway believing that type of news it reminds me that no one actually has the time to sort through not just bullshit, but intentional misinformation. Why should that platform be allowed to spread blatant lies to people like this forum? It makes everyone, and especially the conversation, significantly more stupid. EDIT: This is the same site that lied and said that a Marine General told SECDEF and POTUS to fuck off when vaccine mandates for military came out. Turns out that Marine General got the vaccine in the first months it was available, of course, but people were still creaming themselves that it might have actually happened.

1) Biggest clinical study ever on a vaccine shows that the risks are minimal. Not enough though. What will be enough? Making it 50 times bigger? Also, virtually all vaccine side effects for all previous vaccines show up in some form within the first few months. Prove that vaccine side effects can show up at 5-10 years. Prove it, don't just use anecdotal evidence. 2) They aren't. Get over it. Your choice - an extremely effective vaccine that appears to have no significant side effects or years of lockdowns and death rates greater than 2%. 3) They aren't shredded. There is precedent for vaccination for private business, schools, and federal jobs, sorry that hurts your feelings. They haven't mandated anyone outside of those groups. 4) 99.9% of people do not recover from with no complications. 10% of people with MILD infections have long term moderate to severe symptoms that impact their daily lives. Moderate to Severe infections are significantly worse. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210407174321.htm The onus is on you to stop arguing like a child and use data.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonherald.com/2021/09/07/majority-of-americans-support-vaccination-requirements-in-gallup-poll/amp/ The great thing about a democracy or a republic is that you don’t have to wait to get everyone on board to have consensus.

Prove it.

If you guys haven’t seen Contagion (2011), it was very predictive of a lot of how this went down. Even down to the guy pushing alternative treatments against big government. The one thing they got wrong, though, is that everyone would be lining up at the door or fighting each other to get vaccinated.

Ivermectin is the only one of those things that has shown antiviral effects, and never in vivo. HCQ and vitamins are not antivirals, you nit. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539925/

Do you guys have any argument as to why this is actually something that is bad? We have agreed as a nation we need to be vaccinated to take control of this disease. Turns out humans are emotional creatures. They make emotional, uninformed decisions. Case in point: @dogfish78 was clearly emotionally preyed on by people closer to Q than any other group. They used the “distrust in government,” “make fun of redditors,” “don’t be a sheep,” and “own the libs” messaging they knew would touch him right where he likes. Trying to get maximum opinion shifted for a public health decision in no way proves that the public health decision is not the correct decision. I promise that disinformation groups are going through the exact same studies to figure out how to hit your emotions. If the public health decision is a good decision, there’s nothing to this story. Prove that the public health decision to push vaccines is harmful - that’s the actual undistracted argument you have to make.

If your point is that there would be benefit in being more nuanced in saying who should be vaccinated, you are right. In an idealistic world, you’d be able to do that. Just like how in an ideal world, I shouldn’t have to run my PFA if I ran a half marathon the week prior. But realistic employment of idealistic policy runs into several issues, and that’s why there is no way I can tell the PT monitor to accept my 1:27 half as a passing score. I still have to run the 6 laps. 1) How does the government assess if you’re not at risk to say that you probably don’t need the vaccine? You don’t even tell the flight doc the actual amount of whiskey you drink each week; how will big government know if a random 40 year old is actually an unhealthy risk factor that’s going to clog up a hospital? First, the government would have to get everyone’s health records, which would be seen as a gigantic breach of privacy, I am sure. There is no government mandated health screening. There is no government oversight of your medical records. Lets go down this path further. The gov mandates that all people over the age of 50 get the vaccine, because they can tell age with the SSA. I’m sure there’s still be bitching and moaning, but let’s pretend that this was popularly accepted. Okay, that solves this pandemic for a giant group that is at risk. Now they have to cover everyone under 50 that is high risk. They try to figure out how to mandate high risk under 50s to get the vaccine. They realize that 42% of Americans are Obese. 75% of Americans are overweight. And they can’t tell anything else about these humans individually based on privacy. Almost impossible to assess cardiovascular health by looking at someone. You can’t ask everyone to send in their BMI. People won’t tel you if they are smokers or drinkers. They also realize humans are notoriously bad at self reporting their health, especially if it’s about something they don’t want. The only way to capture a sufficient amount of the at risk population is to have everyone be vaccinated. Which it turns out makes sense anyways because the vast majority of Americans actually have risk factors because we are an extremely unhealthy nation. 2) This virus spreads quickly and in a shitty way that is not easy to control. It has an R0 value of 5-9. Yes, I wanted to say 6-9, but I feel that would have been nit picked. That means that if you send your healthy, not at risk, kids to school sick, they’re gonna end up getting a looooot of other people sick through secondary infections. You ever played the six degrees of Kevin Bacon? Where it almost always proves that we are way more interconnected as a society than you would ever assume? Well apply that to this scenario. Your kids - who won’t interact with any old people or at risk folks directly (other than tons of teachers, but we’ll ignore that) - will get kids of at risk people infected. They will get kids of caregivers infected. They will get people who work in critical industry infected. And it only takes 2-4 jumps to hit a huge percentage of a specific subset of society. It doesn’t have to just be kids. It can be young fighter pilots. They spreads it to an enlisted maintainer, who spreads it to the entire MXG. One of you is going to hit the commissary or the gym, which will open up the whole base. And everyone’s spouse and their place of work is now at risk. It quickly becomes unmanageable, exposing tons of high risk folks to the illness even though the first person was not “at risk.” Additionally, it spreads both asymptomatically and before symptoms emerge. So there is no real way you can stop this effect, no matter how well intentioned you are to keep your sick kids - or your sick self - at home. You cannot insulate the effects of spread via good intentions. 3) Human beings, whether you like it or not, are not as well intentioned as we wish. There is a natural range of support for individualism vs the collective across Americans, leaning more heavily on individualism than almost any other country. Here’s an anecdote. My parents, who are old, are at high risk for COVID. They aren’t healthy, they don’t take precautions, and they meet many other risk factors. Due to the politicization of this virus, instead of getting vaccinated, they have paid for fake vaccine cards. They may die for their insistence on listening to idiots on talk radio, and I think about that a lot, but the point is that folks don’t want to tell the government anything. They will go as far as intentionally obscuring truthful data if they think that it will give them a shred of liberty. Some people will do it just to give the democrats/republicans a middle finger. Doesn’t help public policy. How many people would lie about if they were actually at risk if we tried to implement a nuanced policy? The gods honest truth is that this disease is not easy to detect. It’s not easy to find symptoms. It has lasting health effects that are significantly worse than the vaccine. It randomly hits some demographics that we could not predict. And we don’t know everything about it. The worst part about this whole thing is that the vaccine didn’t end up providing nearly the protection from spread we were hoping it would. The only reasonable public policy decision is to include everyone, or the vast majority of society, because we have no realistic way for the government to comb through your records to say that you aren’t at risk based on limitations of privacy and manpower. Not to mention the exponential increase in work for almost no population benefit. Idealism is no reason to nitpick public policy that, by and large, does good for the public. Just like how I shouldn’t waste everyone’s time signing a waiver for my PFA to get my half marathon to count - I should just run it.

More feelings and anecdotal evidence. Or maybe you should consider that having to care for folks that won't care for themselves - by and large the unvaccinated - drive unsustainable work schedules and made 30% of the healthcare force - and by the way, up to 48% of ICU workers - consider quitting in the last year! There is absolutely no evidence that doctors not being hired or being fired because they can't comply with hospital mandates is even close to that effect. In fact, firings are literally just starting now, which would drive almost no effect on these ICU shortages. Prove me wrong. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/31/covid-is-driving-an-exodus-among-health-care-workers.html Here's some more data for you to address some of your other points. In the South 25-40% of state ICUs are COVID-19 patients. Here's two articles, the second of which says that nationwide it's 28% of ICU beds. Which is a huge portion of ICU surge capability - i.e. it is basically taking all of it. https://www.benefitspro.com/2021/08/12/10-states-where-covid-19-has-filled-the-hospital-icu-beds-412-119893/?slreturn=20210809204237 https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/569368-three-quarters-of-icu-beds-across-country-are-full Onto your next fallacy. This one made me laugh. @brabusI will try to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't just trying to straight up lie here, and instead you're forgetting your sources. But I can tell you misinterpreted the study when you read it. The actual study you quoted wasn't talking about ICU patients at all and only ever talked about positive infections. Which by the way, in a highly vaccinated society, even with breakthroughs, you can easily get to a point where the majority of infections are in the vaccinated population. You're falling for a standard base rate fallacy, which is pretty standard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy Here's your quoted study that you are saying we don't read. Well, ironically, you are the one that needs to read it. To be 100% clear, that study never, ever, talks about ICU rates. I've included it for your reading. And the CDC maintains that vaccination provides overwhelming protection against hospitalization and ICU admittance - just not simple infection. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e1.htm For the record, there is no state, city, county, or other area in America right now where a majority of COVID ICU patients are vaccinated. That is a bold, ridiculous, honestly stupid claim. In reality, in places where ICU beds fill up with COVID folks, they are almost entirely with unvaccinated folks. https://www.wabi.tv/2021/08/26/maines-icu-beds-fill-up-covid-surge-continues/ Here's the most recent study that shows that in a relatively vaccinated area, LA, 90% of ICU beds for folks with COVID were entirely unvaccinated individuals. 84% of hospitalizations were entirely unvaccinated. And 85% of deaths were unvaccinated. LA, for the record, has 59% of it's population fully vaccinated, with 66% having at least one dose. That means that 34% of the population - those who are unvaccinated - make up 84-90% of medical interventions that go to the level of admittance up to an ICU bed. https://data.news-leader.com/covid-19-vaccine-tracker/california/los-angeles-county/06037/ Tell me. Does any of this matter?

I would unironically support a tax deduction if you could prove a certain level of cardiovascular health and weight/BMI. Or hell, just increase taxes on unhealthy folks. Why not? Being healthy means you won't cost the government as much from an actuarial perspective, and it incentivizes good behavior for society. You can still do what you want, it's just a luxury tax to be an unhealthy uninformed person. Just like vaccinated folks will, per capita, not cost the government as much. You've convinced me the solution is to just give tax breaks to folks for being vaccinated.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/healthcare/2021/09/06/covid-central-texas-hospital-capacity-no-icu-beds/5746524001/ So it begins.

Good thing we had someone bring up that totally clear entirely transferable argument about bodily autonomy. By the way the ACLU defines viability as 6-7 months, and therefore fights for that definition, if you’re gonna try to say the ACLU is on your side in this case while talking out of the other side of your mouth when it doesn’t suit you.

Yeah, great question, what are the long term effects of COVID? Because mid term and permanent damage is way worse than vaccination: Oh, the one thing that is higher risk in COVID vaccinated folks is Lymphadenopathy. Which is swollen lymph nodes. But enjoy the orders of magnitude more likely Kidney injuries, arrhythmia, and intracranial hemorrhaging because it “wasn’t worth the risk.”

Because, as I’ve said, there is no scientific evidence to suggest we need to discriminate between the two from an efficacy perspective. Everything suggests that Moderna/JJ provide about the same protection at very minimal risk. FDA approval is not some magic thing that liberal policy makers cling onto, and you shouldn’t either - although you will to be obtuse. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that FDA approval correlates to efficacy. It’s why all of these people on this forum - a lot of your peers - have been successfully vaccinated for months before FDA approval. This is condescending, but this is my 4th message and I addressed it previously. Learn to read and comprehend people’s responses: I understand the next message from you will be, “I still see you simply cannot address my point. Pfizer is good, so if libtards were being good science followers, they would mandate it over everything else because we live in a black and white world. Checkmate.”

They did. They just allowed very common sense, agreeable exceptions for Moderna/JJ. If you seriously want to argue that that is bad policy then you are intentionally being obtuse. I guarantee you would be more upset if they said that everyone including those that got Moderna/JJ had to get revaccinated. The science shows no reason for that. You’re making up an argument that no one is arguing.

I think we’re all talking past each other a little bit. If natural infection results in immunity comparable to or better than vaccination, why do those folks need to be vaccinated? So that they are extra super resistant to the virus?

As @pawnman said, they did exactly what you were complaining about here. Pfizer is the only one mandated - check the memo. This sort of arguing with half truths is why a lot of these discussions go nowhere. You asking the question the way you did is easily construed as misinformation. You didn’t ask “is Pfizer mandated?” You asked why “isn’t the military mandating members to take the Pfizer vaccine” as if you looked it up, found out they weren’t, and then brought new information to this forum. But 10 seconds of your own research would have shown that is exactly what happened. If you’re trying to say that we should be arguing that if you got Moderna it shouldn’t count and you should be forced to get Pfizer, you’re creating a nothing burger argument that no one is going to bite off on. I think we can all agree that the military allowing Moderna/JJ to count is in everyone’s best interest, as the research so far shows that there is no reason to believe they are significantly less effective - they just haven’t finished the FDA process yet. On a completely different note, this pandemic has highlighted that much of these efforts overwhelmingly support the obese and those who choose to be unhealthy. Just as I think that unvaccinated folks that get very ill with Covid chose their fate, to the extent that they could have been protected and weren’t, I believe the same for those that are extremely out of shape. I hope that at some point we have an honest look at improving that elephant in the room. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/78-of-covid-19-patients-hospitalized-in-the-us-overweight-or-obese-cdc-finds.html

I really only see it affecting my views on policy implementation. I think I am still in support of immunity for everyone. I’m fine with mandatory vaccines for folks that haven’t had COVID. But it doesn’t really pass the common sense test to force folks that have had COVID to get vaccinated if they already have pretty great immunity. Yes, I saw the study that shows that folks that previously had COVID that got vaccinated did better than folks that had COVID that weren’t vaccinated. But at what point is someone safe enough? If they already have better immunity than just the shot, do they need super double plus immunity just so everyone has had the vaccine? It’s seems to be more about compliance than efficacy.

I’ve definitely been a pro-vax advocate on this forum, but I’ve been digging into some of the natural immunity studies that have been linked. Another one was just released in preprint that shows that natural immunity is 7-13 times more effective than 2 dose Pfizer: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

Words matter, you’re gonna need to see this one again. Actually, you’re probably just gonna need to take some time out of the upgrade to reassess performance. You said, very specifically, medical professionals would change their medical opinions. They never changed their medical opinion that large groups were bad for COVID transmission.

My wife had one about 12 years ago as a paramedic in an ER after a hurricane. Copy you’re not interested in answering the question.

Here’s one for you. You have a heart attack. You’re vaccinated and did not have any risk factors for a heart attack. You eat well, don’t smoke, exercise, etc. Should unvaccinated people - who were offered a vaccine for free and actively decided not to protect either themselves or society - be prioritized over you for treatment in the ICU? There’s only one bed left and it’s you and a new unvaccinated COVID patient that showed up right before you. Only one of you gets it. There are no helicopters or magic buttons. You or the COVID patient need to be in the ICU in the next 15 minutes. Choose. Oh, it’s not so black and white.

This took 5 seconds on google btw (this is the last week): https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arkansas/articles/2021-08-23/arkansas-covid-patients-on-ventilators-reaches-new-record Your appeals to emotion aren’t relevant. If an unvaccinated OR vaccinated person comes in with a better chance of survival than someone not doing so hot, they get prioritized. Turns out vaccinated people have significantly better outcomes, in most cases, so it’s easy to see the logical steps for prioritization. Sorry, Aunt Martha who caught COVID at an anti government lockdown protest isn’t going to be prioritized over Uncle Brandon who got a breakthrough case but is vaccinated. Yes. She may die. Welcome to the hell that is triage. This decision is being made daily in portions of the US.