COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)

[HossHarris]

Remember 14 days to flatten the curve?

 

(Pepperidge farm remembers)

 

is the current goal zero infections or don’t overwhelm the medical system?

[lloyd christmas]

1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:

I like the red herring spear at bible thumpers.  As if they had anything to do with this conversation.

This brings up something I’ve noticed for years.  In today’s day and age, nearly all demographics or groups of people are protected.  You know the whole social justice warrior culture.  We’ve got racism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc.   There are words used to describe malice towards religious people as well like islamophobia and anti-Semitic.  

Christians are fair game though.  Nobody blinks an eye when someone like @TheNewGazmo overtly denigrates Christians.  It certainly shows what kind of person you are dealing with. 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Who is 100% good forcing a vaccine on anyone? Honest question. There are a lot of us that believe the only way out of this pandemic on anything resembling an acceptable timeline is through mass vaccination. Doesn’t mean I’m for government mandated vaccines. Military is a different story. As mentioned by an earlier poster, regardless of any efficacy argument, if I’m senior leadership I want my military population as close to 100% vaccinated if only for the simple fact that it will make global deployment and travel that much easier. What I absolutely do support is any employer’s right to require their workers to be vaccinated. That is backed up by the law and a completely different animal than government mandated jabs. 

The military is the government; and the bureaucracy should stop pretending those within the military don’t have rights. You’d want your troops forcibly injected against their consent, without knowledge of long-term effects, because it’s easier to deploy or travel? What other rights of other humans are you willing to trash for convenience’s sake? (And for WHOSE convenience?)
What nation’s interests are you really wanting to serve? Because it doesn’t sound like those of the U.S.A. Your troops are getting out someday, and I imagine some would want to know they won’t have complications that arise from this experimental drug. Giving up rights to the government doesn’t usually play out well for the people.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, lloyd christmas said:

This brings up something I’ve noticed for years.  In today’s day and age, nearly all demographics or groups of people are protected.  You know the whole social justice warrior culture.  We’ve got racism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc.   There are words used to describe malice towards religious people as well like islamophobia and anti-Semitic.  

Christians are fair game though.  Nobody blinks an eye when someone like @TheNewGazmo overtly denigrates Christians.  It certainly shows what kind of person you are dealing with. 

It’s almost like there’s a coordinated agenda or something to hate Christians, White people, or European culture.

[Prozac]

6 minutes ago, dogfish78 said:

The military is the government; and the bureaucracy should stop pretending those within the military don’t have rights. You’d want your troops forcibly injected against their consent, without knowledge of long-term effects, because it’s easier to deploy or travel? What other rights of other humans are you willing to trash for convenience’s sake? (And for WHOSE convenience?)
What nation’s interests are you really wanting to serve? Because it doesn’t sound like those of the U.S.A. Your troops are getting out someday, and I imagine some would want to know they won’t have complications that arise from this experimental drug. Giving up rights to the government doesn’t usually play out well for the people.

I think most of us fully realized when we signed up to serve that many of the rights we enjoyed as civilians were either shelved or significantly limited. Sorry you didn’t get the memo. 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I think most of us fully realized when we signed up to serve that many of the rights we enjoyed as civilians were either shelved or significantly limited. Sorry you didn’t get the memo. 

Wrong. https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1131/rights-of-military-personnel
“Chief Justice Earl Warren once suggested that military personnel do not give up their constitutional rights—“our citizens in uniform may not be stripped of basic rights simply because they have doffed their civilian clothes” (Warren 1962:187)—but he did note that under the doctrine of military necessity, also known as the “Orloff Rule” from Orloff v. Willoughby (1953), the military can implement its regulations largely outside the purview of judicial review, because the Court’s attitude had historically been “hands off.” 

Stick up for your Joes and be an actual leader.

[Prozac]

1 minute ago, dogfish78 said:

Wrong. https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1131/rights-of-military-personnel
“Chief Justice Earl Warren once suggested that military personnel do not give up their constitutional rights—“our citizens in uniform may not be stripped of basic rights simply because they have doffed their civilian clothes” (Warren 1962:187)—but he did note that under the doctrine of military necessity, also known as the “Orloff Rule” from Orloff v. Willoughby (1953), the military can implement its regulations largely outside the purview of judicial review, because the Court’s attitude had historically been “hands off.” 

Stick up for your Joes and be an actual leader.

I think you’ll find the UCMJ supports your commanders’ decisions to ensure your vaccination record is current and complete. Can you imagine the pandemonium that would result if individual service members were allowed to pick and choose what mobility requirements applied to them? 

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I think you’ll find the UCMJ supports your commanders’ decisions to ensure your vaccination record is current and complete. Can you imagine the pandemonium that would result if individual service members were allowed to pick and choose what mobility requirements applied to them? 

The U.S. Supreme Court supersedes any UCMJ action in regards to a service-member’s rights. Of which, a service-member loses none upon joining. I agree mobility requirements are important, but not a forced medical procedure such as this. With that, the line is crossed dangerously far.

[ViperMan]

2 minutes ago, dogfish78 said:

The U.S. Supreme Court supersedes any UCMJ action in regards to a service-member’s rights. Of which, a service-member loses none upon joining. I agree mobility requirements are important, but not a forced medical procedure such as this. With that, the line is crossed dangerously far.

I'm with you in theory, but there is established precedent for vaccination being required for people in the military. Anyone in the military today knows this.

That said, "experimental" vaccines are probably an open question - in my legal opinion (which isn't worth shit, btw). J&J ok. Phizer/Moderna, you may have a case.

[ViperMan]

30 minutes ago, dogfish78 said:

Wrong. https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1131/rights-of-military-personnel
“Chief Justice Earl Warren once suggested that military personnel do not give up their constitutional rights—“our citizens in uniform may not be stripped of basic rights simply because they have doffed their civilian clothes” (Warren 1962:187)—but he did note that under the doctrine of military necessity, also known as the “Orloff Rule” from Orloff v. Willoughby (1953), the military can implement its regulations largely outside the purview of judicial review, because the Court’s attitude had historically been “hands off.” 

Stick up for your Joes and be an actual leader.

What he means is that you don't automatically give up every right you have. He leaves room, though, for some rights to have been "given up."

[Prozac]

5 minutes ago, dogfish78 said:

The U.S. Supreme Court supersedes any UCMJ action in regards to a service-member’s rights. Of which, a service-member loses none upon joining. I agree mobility requirements are important, but not a forced medical procedure such as this. With that, the line is crossed dangerously far.

I disagree (surprise). I wish you the best but I don’t think you’re going to win this one. 

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, dogfish78 said:

The U.S. Supreme Court supersedes any UCMJ action in regards to a service-member’s rights. Of which, a service-member loses none upon joining. I agree mobility requirements are important, but not a forced medical procedure such as this. With that, the line is crossed dangerously far.

Anthrax showed different. 

Also, Indiana University won a lawsuit over the requirement for every faculty member, employee, and student on campus to be vaccinated. 

[TheNewGazmo]

57 minutes ago, dogfish78 said:

It’s almost like there’s a coordinated agenda or something to hate Christians, White people, or European culture.

Coordinated agenda to hate Christians, White people, or European culture? Please! How about religion has no place in politics or how our government runs our country?  I've got no issues with whatever religion one practices.  Just don't try to make policy with it.  There's a lot of people out there that think believing in God or whatever higher power you may believe in is about as crazy as believing in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy, but yet there are people trying to make policy with religious beliefs.

[Sua Sponte]

1 hour ago, dogfish78 said:

Wrong. https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1131/rights-of-military-personnel
“Chief Justice Earl Warren once suggested that military personnel do not give up their constitutional rights—“our citizens in uniform may not be stripped of basic rights simply because they have doffed their civilian clothes” (Warren 1962:187)—but he did note that under the doctrine of military necessity, also known as the “Orloff Rule” from Orloff v. Willoughby (1953), the military can implement its regulations largely outside the purview of judicial review, because the Court’s attitude had historically been “hands off.” 

Stick up for your Joes and be an actual leader.

https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/vaccines/U_S_ v_ Washington.htm

"As the Supreme Court has emphasized, "[t]he essence of military service 'is the subordination of the desires and interests of the individual to the needs of the service.'" Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503, 507 (1986)(quoting Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 92 (1953))."

"The requirement to place the needs of the nation above a servicemember's personal welfare applies in peacetime as well as in war. "[I]t is the primary business of armies and navies to fight or be ready to fight should the occasion arise." United States v. ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 17 (1955)."

[Pooter]

As much fun as this highly productive conversation is.. I'm still waiting for a single shred of reputable scientific evidence that points to the vaccine being unsafe in any way. 
 

We've heard an awful lot of anecdotal and hypothetical concerns with precisely zero evidence to back any of it up. You guys keep saying you've poured over the data and made highly personal risk/reward calculations which led you not to get the vaccine. Except not a single one of you can cite data on these risks you keep talking about. 
 

The only hard stats anyone seems to have is the endlessly repeating "I'm not in the vulnerable demographic" argument. But that isn't how you do a risk analysis. You're forgetting about the whole other side of the equation where there's an extremely low risk mitigation measure (the vaccine) which can reduce whatever covid risk you do have by 90+ percent.

[Sua Sponte]

I don’t think ClearedHot was in the “vulnerable demographic” either when he almost died from it.

[Waingro]

6 hours ago, dogfish78 said:

The military is the government; and the bureaucracy should stop pretending those within the military don’t have rights. You’d want your troops forcibly injected against their consent, without knowledge of long-term effects, because it’s easier to deploy or travel?

"Forcibly injected against their consent?"

You know it's an all-volunteer force, right?

[busdriver]

49 minutes ago, Pooter said:

I'm still waiting for a single shred of reputable scientific evidence that points to the vaccine being unsafe in any way. 

There are snippets.  example: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41375-021-01332-z

I'm not convinced they amount to much.  I'm not aware of any follow up studies to prove/disprove (common problem in the current media climate) but just listening to politifact declare everything false isn't true either.

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

As much fun as this highly productive conversation is.. I'm still waiting for a single shred of reputable scientific evidence that points to the vaccine being unsafe in any way. 

We've heard an awful lot of anecdotal and hypothetical concerns with precisely zero evidence to back any of it up. You guys keep saying you've poured over the data and made highly personal risk/reward calculations which led you not to get the vaccine. Except not a single one of you can cite data on these risks you keep talking about. 

The only hard stats anyone seems to have is the endlessly repeating "I'm not in the vulnerable demographic" argument. But that isn't how you do a risk analysis. You're forgetting about the whole other side of the equation where there's an extremely low risk mitigation measure (the vaccine) which can reduce whatever covid risk you do have by 90+ percent.

Military: Established that you need to take vaccines. Experimental vaccines, open question.

Civilian: Doesn't matter if it's a sugar pill. Can't make anyone take it for any reason whatsoever.

[brabus]

4 hours ago, Pooter said:

We've heard an awful lot of anecdotal and hypothetical concerns with precisely zero evidence to back any of it up. You guys keep saying you've poured over the data and made highly personal risk/reward calculations which led you not to get the vaccine. Except not a single one of you can cite data on these risks you keep talking about. 

You're forgetting about the whole other side of the equation where there's an extremely low risk mitigation measure (the vaccine) which can reduce whatever covid risk you do have by 90+ percent.

If I get COVID, I have a 99.9% chance of living (source: CDC, my age group). It’s actually higher than that since that includes all the comorbidity deaths, but close enough for discussions sake. VAERS is reporting 0.27% rate of adverse events amongst my age group. So from a statistical standpoint, I incur more risk of an adverse event from the vaccine than I gain in decreased risk of death. Now, we’re splitting RCHs like you read about (well, before the 2013 purge anyways), so maybe that’s the point…there’s so little to be gained (statistically) for a healthy individual when it comes down to an unemotional risk vs. reward standpoint. Now before you stop reading, know this is a baseline assessment - throw in factors like high risk family members at home, you’re not a healthy individual (whether your fault or not), etc. can logically out prioritize the above. 

Now throw in more subjective factors:

- knowing people who have died, or are currently suffering long term negative effects, from the vaccine (anecdotal, but you can’t discount that factor in someone’s thought process)

- suppression of information/voices that cast negative light on, or question the vaccine

- The very authoritarian way the govt has pursued vaccination with a shocking rate of goal post moving, “experts” being completely wrong an inconceivable amount of times (but you should still completely follow what we say without question), etc.

- No longterm data on this vaccine…that’s a fact, but subjective on the definition of “long term”

So, it’s not hard to see how people make a very rational decision to not get the vaccine in the near term. Just the same as people make a rational decision to get the vaccine for various reasons. But, to make a statistical-based argument for healthy people to get the vaccine (without knowing their personal situation) is just pissing into the wind. Even worse is refusing to acknowledge this and attacking those who chose opposite of you. I believe people can choose either way while doing so logically and rationally, depending on their specific life circumstances. 

[Negatory]

 

4 hours ago, brabus said:

VAERS is reporting 0.27% rate of adverse events amongst my age group. So from a statistical standpoint, I incur more risk of an adverse event from the vaccine than I gain in decreased risk of death. Now, we’re splitting RCHs like you read about (well, before the 2013 purge anyways), so maybe that’s the point…there’s so little to be gained (statistically) for a healthy individual when it comes down to an unemotional risk vs. reward standpoint.

There’s little point in having a rational discussion here fellas. As the anti-vax crowd on this forum has pointed out (weird to be called that, huh), they need literally no justification other than spite. Which is about all the justification they have. Any sort of appeal to emotion or point about helping mankind will be lost. This issue has been politicized to where they think of themselves as William Wallace fighting the British Vaccination squad, when in reality it’s nothing more than folks that are, ironically, doing what they’re told by misinformation and false news.

To the “objective” “statistical” data that was presented above, it’s all hogwash. VAERS actually presents a significantly higher chance of adverse reactions if you want to actually look at data (contained below for all COVID shots). It’s actually closer to 100% than 0% that you’ll have an adverse reaction if you want to read these statistics. For the record, VAERS records things like “headaches,” “myalgia,” “pyrexia,” or “chills” as an adverse reaction. Mind you, this is with literally everyone knowing that if you get the shot, you get sick for 1-2 days - I.e. have an adverse reaction. The 0.27% number, I wouldn’t be surprised at this point, if it was entirely made up. Or they are misrepresenting a category of reactions titled “vaccination complication,” the 215th most prevalent adverse reaction.

https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D8;jsessionid=D93E73A304E0219C83B64E8FE404?stage=results&action=sort&direction=MEASURE_DESCEND&measure=D8.M2

The actual truth, when you stop distorting the facts, is that the vast majority of people with COVID suffer complications as well. And there are mounds of data that show that getting COVID when vaccinated is significantly less severe than the alternative. But that’s not part of the calculus because of “spite” disguised as “liberty.” I’m glad we got to that in the last couple of days, because that’s the root cause. It’s not any sort of scientific or measurable reason. It’s to “own the metaphorical libs,” and that’s it.

Edited August 4, 2021 by Negatory

[Bozo]

31 minutes ago, Negatory said:

There’s little point in having a rational discussion here fellas.

Shack.  At the end of the day this thread is nothing but a bunch of strangers throwing web links at each other and calling each other idiots.  I don't take medical advice from strangers I meet on the sidewalk.  Nothing here is going to change my mind.

On the other hand I have been entertained by all the deranged socialists foaming at the mouth at every post that doesn't fall in line with the Ministry of Truth.

[ecugringo]

47 minutes ago, Negatory said:

 

There’s little point in having a rational discussion here fellas. As the anti-vax crowd on this forum has pointed out (weird to be called that, huh), they need literally no justification other than spite. Which is about all the justification they have. Any sort of appeal to emotion or point about helping mankind will be lost. This issue has been politicized to where they think of themselves as William Wallace fighting the British Vaccination squad, when in reality it’s nothing more than folks that are, ironically, doing what they’re told by misinformation and false news.

To the “objective” “statistical” data that was presented above, it’s all hogwash. VAERS actually presents a significantly higher chance of adverse reactions if you want to actually look at data (contained below for all COVID shots). It’s actually closer to 100% than 0% that you’ll have an adverse reaction if you want to read these statistics. For the record, VAERS records things like “headaches,” “myalgia,” “pyrexia,” or “chills” as an adverse reaction. Mind you, this is with literally everyone knowing that if you get the shot, you get sick for 1-2 days - I.e. have an adverse reaction. The 0.27% number, I wouldn’t be surprised at this point, if it was entirely made up. Or they are misrepresenting a category of reactions titled “vaccination complication,” the 215th most prevalent adverse reaction.

https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D8;jsessionid=D93E73A304E0219C83B64E8FE404?stage=results&action=sort&direction=MEASURE_DESCEND&measure=D8.M2

The actual truth, when you stop distorting the facts, is that the vast majority of people with COVID suffer complications as well. And there are mounds of data that show that getting COVID when vaccinated is significantly less severe than the alternative. But that’s not part of the calculus because of “spite” disguised as “liberty.” I’m glad we got to that in the last couple of days, because that’s the root cause. It’s not any sort of scientific or measurable reason. It’s to “own the metaphorical libs,” and that’s it.

Thats not true.  The vast majority of people with covid either dont know they ever had it or have mild symptoms.  Some people get flu like symptoms that kick their ass for a few days, but the # of people hospitalized vs + cases does not support your statement.

[VR4life69]

43 minutes ago, Negatory said:

 

There’s little point in having a rational discussion here fellas. As the anti-vax crowd on this forum has pointed out (weird to be called that, huh), they need literally no justification other than spite. Which is about all the justification they have. Any sort of appeal to emotion or point about helping mankind will be lost. This issue has been politicized to where they think of themselves as William Wallace fighting the British Vaccination squad, when in reality it’s nothing more than folks that are, ironically, doing what they’re told by misinformation and false news.

To the “objective” “statistical” data that was presented above, it’s all hogwash. VAERS actually presents a significantly higher chance of adverse reactions if you want to actually look at data (contained below for all COVID shots). It’s actually closer to 100% than 0% that you’ll have an adverse reaction if you want to read these statistics. For the record, VAERS records things like “headaches,” “myalgia,” “pyrexia,” or “chills” as an adverse reaction. Mind you, this is with literally everyone knowing that if you get the shot, you get sick for 1-2 days - I.e. have an adverse reaction. The 0.27% number, I wouldn’t be surprised at this point, if it was entirely made up. Or they are misrepresenting a category of reactions titled “vaccination complication,” the 215th most prevalent adverse reaction.

https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D8;jsessionid=D93E73A304E0219C83B64E8FE404?stage=results&action=sort&direction=MEASURE_DESCEND&measure=D8.M2

The actual truth, when you stop distorting the facts, is that the vast majority of people with COVID suffer complications as well. And there are mounds of data that show that getting COVID when vaccinated is significantly less severe than the alternative. But that’s not part of the calculus because of “spite” disguised as “liberty.” I’m glad we got to that in the last couple of days, because that’s the root cause. It’s not any sort of scientific or measurable reason. It’s to “own the metaphorical libs,” and that’s it.

Clearly you did not actually read most of the posts from the "anti-vax crowd." Most of them had absolutely nothing to do with spite. And most of them had nothing to do with politics or "owning the libs." Such a position would be a bit strange, considering Trump was the main reason the vaccines were rolled out so quickly in the first place...

Agree, this thread has become a complete waste of time, particularly because of people like you who are gaslighting the hell out of everyone and saying things like people who have some rational hesitancies towards the vaccines think of themselves as "William Wallace fighting the British Vaccination squad."

[Pooter]

5 hours ago, brabus said:

If I get COVID, I have a 99.9% chance of living (source: CDC, my age group). It’s actually higher than that since that includes all the comorbidity deaths, but close enough for discussions sake. VAERS is reporting 0.27% rate of adverse events amongst my age group. So from a statistical standpoint, I incur more risk of an adverse event from the vaccine than I gain in decreased risk of death. Now, we’re splitting RCHs like you read about (well, before the 2013 purge anyways), so maybe that’s the point…there’s so little to be gained (statistically) for a healthy individual when it comes down to an unemotional risk vs. reward standpoint. Now before you stop reading, know this is a baseline assessment - throw in factors like high risk family members at home, you’re not a healthy individual (whether your fault or not), etc. can logically out prioritize the above. 

Now throw in more subjective factors:

- knowing people who have died, or are currently suffering long term negative effects, from the vaccine (anecdotal, but you can’t discount that factor in someone’s thought process)

- suppression of information/voices that cast negative light on, or question the vaccine

- The very authoritarian way the govt has pursued vaccination with a shocking rate of goal post moving, “experts” being completely wrong an inconceivable amount of times (but you should still completely follow what we say without question), etc.

- No longterm data on this vaccine…that’s a fact, but subjective on the definition of “long term”

So, it’s not hard to see how people make a very rational decision to not get the vaccine in the near term. Just the same as people make a rational decision to get the vaccine for various reasons. But, to make a statistical-based argument for healthy people to get the vaccine (without knowing their personal situation) is just pissing into the wind. Even worse is refusing to acknowledge this and attacking those who chose opposite of you. I believe people can choose either way while doing so logically and rationally, depending on their specific life circumstances. 

Okay! This is at least a data point.  I appreciate you.  
 

Here's my counter argument. VAERS adverse reaction rates vs covid death rates isn't an apples to apples comparison. Those stats are measuring two entirely different things. It would make more sense to compare adverse vaccine reactions to adverse covid reactions. And in that department I think you will find adverse covid reactions to be way way higher because an "adverse event" for covid would basically be any symptomatic case.

The other problem with this data point is that vaers reporting adverse vaccine reactions is simply a mechanism to report any significant health issues people get after they've had vaccine. Doctors, healthcare workers, and individuals can all submit reports so it is important to understand that vaers is a gigantic, low fidelity data dump that they use to guide further medical research. A condition being listed on vaers does not mean it was caused by the covid shot.  The CDC site explains this: 

• If a health problem is reported to VAERS, that doesn’t mean that the vaccine caused the problem. It warns vaccine safety experts of potential problems that may need investigation and alerts them to take further action, as needed.
• Millions of people in the United States have received COVID-19 vaccines. Other than rare reports of severe allergic reactions, analysis of VAERS reports has not detected any patterns that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines.