Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, brabus said:

Not saying the short term data is worse for the vaccine, nor do the above numbers break down vaccine status (there are vaccinated people amongst that data). But when you look at the data above, the vaccine becomes statistically unnecessary for a large portion of the population. Additionally, studies show natural immunity is far more effective than the vaccine (e.g. keep your natural immune system strong vs. interfering with synthetic drugs). Those, combined with no long term data on the vaccine (the currently unmeasured, potential danger of the vaccine), is what makes it a rational decision for many to pause on the vaccine…for now anyways.  

How long would you consider a "long-term" study?  A year?  Two?  Ten?

[brabus]

23 minutes ago, pawnman said:

How long would you consider a "long-term" study?  A year?  Two?  Ten?

5-10 years, based on the historical timeline for vaccine discovery/testing/authorization. I’m down for cutting red tape (of which we know there’s a lot of), so that’s taken into account for the lower end of the range. Now, if we come across a virus that has a 69% death rate, then you bet your ass it’s worth the risk to EUA something as fast as possible. But that’s not what COVID is, despite so many people acting like it is. 

Edited August 29, 2021 by brabus

[Guardian]

Answer me this? Why aren’t vaccinated people wearing masks? Seems like if they work, they are the people we would want wearing them since they are likely unaware carriers of the covid.

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Answer me this? Why aren’t vaccinated people wearing masks? Seems like if they work, they are the people we would want wearing them since they are likely unaware carriers of the covid.

Maybe it's the sunk cost fallacy? The test subjects for the experimental covid-19 drugs are still in denial that the "vaccines" don't work as claimed. They wish to continue believing everything is going to be okay for them; so they go along with not making so they can keep the rights, liberties, and privileges they were told they would get back once they took the inoculation. Thoughts? @Guardian

[Prozac]

6 hours ago, brabus said:

Related to the discussion (source: CDC)

Current hospitalization rate:

0-4: 0.0018%
5-17: 0.0011%
18-49: 0.0062%

Of those hospitalized, 91.8% of adults, and 53.5% of children, have at least one underlying medical condition. 

Of those hospitalized, here’s how many die:

0-4: 0.8%
5-17: 0.6%
18-49: 2.5%

So to wrap it up by the data, if I get COVID, I have a 98.994% of not needing to be hospitalized. If I am unlucky enough to be that bad off, I then have a 97.5% of being discharged from the hospital alive. My children are even better off statistically. No anecdotal stories here, just what the data shows.

So again, totally support everyone to make their own decision based on their situation, but those of you with this self-perception of intellectual and moral superiority simply are ignoring the data when you attack another person’s rational decision to not get the vaccine. This is in no way defending those who are foregoing the vaccine even when very unhealthy, old, etc. or because they believe in microchips or whatever else conspiracy theorist are selling. And it also in no way minimizes the reality that their are healthy/young people who get very sick or die, but unemotionally, the data shows they are still outliers.

 

How many dead Americans does that equal if we allow everyone to be exposed to the virus organically? I don't know the answer, but in many communities even limited outbreaks have lead to morgues and hospitals being overwhelmed.  So while the statistical odds of death and hospitalization may seem slim, letting the virus "run its course" will lead to many, many, otherwise preventable deaths.  How many dead Americans are we willing to accept? A million? Two million? More? Are we willing to sacrifice the old and the overweight who would continue to live if not for COVID in the name of Darwinism? If so, why bother treating any disease? Nature selected you for cancer/heart disease/stroke....sorry, not sorry, only the strong survive! Some of you seem ok with that position, but that is not the society I want to live in.

[brabus]

Nice appeal to emotion, extremes, etc. To play the opposite side of your coin, is death no longer an acceptable part of life’s journey? Is an 87 yr old dying unacceptable now? How about the guy who’s made a million and one poor life decisions and dies at 40 with diabetes, hypertension and a half-ass functioning liver...sad that someone’s son, dad, etc. died, but you cannot logically disregard the root cause of his death was poor decisions he had control over.

[hockeydork]

It isn’t only fat f*cks  and 87 year olds with diabetes cramming Twinkies down the hatch who are getting snuffed out tho.  Known of a few who have gotten taken out/ended up hospitalized and they weren’t the “roll through Walmart in a scooter with 4 boxes of snickers” types. The ones who died were older, but not anything where you’d be like “he was going any second anyways”, tho I am sure those people are much more likely.

To say well “death is part of life, oh well” and “appeal to emotions” is kinda weak. Why not jump off a bridge tomorrow than? All of us are checking out in the end no matter what, that is indisputable.  Wanting to live for yourself and help others/your emotions are what makes you “alive” in the first place. It is the reason I’d bet you’d fight with everything you have if you thought you were about to eat it (pretty sure you fly fighters if I recall). Nihilism is dangerous way to live, even if it does appear to be scary true. Seen Collateral?…great movie. Cruise’s best performance IMO, makes Top Gun look like amateur hour.

I will back your actual argument tho. Everyone makes choices based on what they are comfortable with. Some are comfortable popping a wheelie doing 100 on a bike with no helmet on in Connecticut. Is that person an idiot? Depends. Maybe to him it’s worth the risk. Just like it’s worth it for some to fly a blob of metal with missiles hanging off the wings. I know people who think stepping into a single engine plane is “bat shit crazy”, but smoke a pack a day.  We all have different risk tolerances/opinions on “when it’s worth it”, and "when it's not". Hey, alcohol is legal. Don't like 15K die a year from DUI accidents? Why not ban alcohol again? Because society has decided the risk "is worth it". Some people would rather risk it with the shot, some with all natural COVID. To each their own, but I am sick of the conspiracy theory BS. 

People should not be forced to get the shot IMO, even if all the smartest people in the world tell them “hey, you should get the shot”. But be consistent. The idea that a cruise line is "oppressing" you for wanting you to have a vaccine before you jump onto a crowded boat and head out to the ocean is just baffling. If you get sick are you going to cover the tab for an airlift off the boat?

For those who feel so strongly about the “oppressive” shot issue, they should also agree that every hard drug in the United States needs to be legalized tomorrow. You have no right to tell someone what they cannot put into their body, any more than you don't have the right to tell them what they have to put in their body. Why should some 13 year old girl in Mexico be raped and have her head chainsawed off from cartel violence so that a bunch of NYU prep school kids can do lines of blow in the club? Where's the outrage? Legalize it all and end the violence chain.

[busdriver]

3 hours ago, Prozac said:

How many dead Americans are we willing to accept? A million? Two million? More? 

How much financial pain are we willing to accept?  If you could save every single person from covid, but the cost was complete economic collapse, even then?  How many dead Americans is a small enough number to not rise above your need to act threshold?

It's obviously a cost/benefit analysis.  But if you're going to point to the raw number of deaths, you need to be able to defend the number itself.

[Guardian]

I’ve heard people are happy because the DOD hasn’t provided a must be vaccinated by date.

[JBueno]

7 minutes ago, Guardian said:

I’ve heard people are happy because the DOD hasn’t provided a must be vaccinated by date.

There’s a red line that’s quickly approaching and it’s not going to be pretty. There’s a big can of kerosene labeled “careers & livelihoods” that the DoD is about to dump into this raging debate. 

Judging by the small sample size I’m exposed to…it’s gonna be a total sh*t show to actually implement.

 

[Guardian]

Please explain. Not sure what your hinting at.

[Prozac]

10 hours ago, brabus said:

Nice appeal to emotion, extremes, etc. To play the opposite side of your coin, is death no longer an acceptable part of life’s journey? Is an 87 yr old dying unacceptable now? How about the guy who’s made a million and one poor life decisions and dies at 40 with diabetes, hypertension and a half-ass functioning liver...sad that someone’s son, dad, etc. died, but you cannot logically disregard the root cause of his death was poor decisions he had control over.

Last time I checked, one of the tenets of Western medicine is that we don't make morality judgements when deciding who to treat.  I kind of prefer it that way. Here's my answer to your old age example: It depends on what he died of. Old age? Well, kinda hard to argue with that one, but if he was murdered we wouldn't just say "well he was about to die anyway" and then decline to investigate and prosecute the murder.   

[Prozac]

8 hours ago, busdriver said:

How much financial pain are we willing to accept?  If you could save every single person from covid, but the cost was complete economic collapse, even then?  How many dead Americans is a small enough number to not rise above your need to act threshold?

It's obviously a cost/benefit analysis.  But if you're going to point to the raw number of deaths, you need to be able to defend the number itself.

I completely agree that we need to go to great efforts in order to keep our economy open and running.  If only there was an easy, relatively cheap, safe, and effective way to treat a disease that has killed hundreds of thousands and has the potential to sicken and kill many more, all while keeping main street open.  Hmmmmmm 🤨

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

Last time I checked, one of the tenets of Western medicine is that we don't make morality judgements when deciding who to treat.  I kind of prefer it that way. Here's my answer to your old age example: It depends on what he died of. Old age? Well, kinda hard to argue with that one, but if he was murdered we wouldn't just say "well he was about to die anyway" and then decline to investigate and prosecute the murder.   

Maybe, but we do make triage decisions. An otherwise healthy person will get bumped to the front of the line for a liver transplant over an alcoholic. 

So maybe we don't refuse all treatment to unvaccinated people... but if we run out of capacity, vaccinated people get priority when decisions need to be made. 

[gearhog]

10 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Maybe, but we do make triage decisions. An otherwise healthy person will get bumped to the front of the line for a liver transplant over an alcoholic. 

So maybe we don't refuse all treatment to unvaccinated people... but if we run out of capacity, vaccinated people get priority when decisions need to be made. 

What type of treatments would you refuse the unvaccinated? Just COVID-related illnesses or any medical treatment?

[pawnman]

45 minutes ago, torqued said:

What type of treatments would you refuse the unvaccinated? Just COVID-related illnesses or any medical treatment?

Like when you have 20 ventilators in a hospital and 30 patients... vaccinated patients get the ventilators before unvaccinated people. 

[gearhog]

Just now, pawnman said:

Like when you have 20 ventilators in a hospital and 30 patients... vaccinated patients get the ventilators before unvaccinated people. 

That's an interesting thought. So medical staff shows up to work to an ER full of patients. They would obviously select the vaccinated people first for ventilators. However, I just don't see it working out that way. 

Would you remove an unvaccinated person from a ventilator if a vaccinated person later showed up needing one?

 

 

[Scooter14]

I completely agree that we need to go to great efforts in order to keep our economy open and running.  If only there was an easy, relatively cheap, safe, and effective way to treat a disease that has killed hundreds of thousands and has the potential to sicken and kill many more, all while keeping main street open.  Hmmmmmm 🤨

I think you’re on to something here…

[pawnman]

4 minutes ago, torqued said:

That's an interesting thought. So medical staff shows up to work to an ER full of patients. They would obviously select the vaccinated people first for ventilators. However, I just don't see it working out that way. 

Would you remove an unvaccinated person from a ventilator if a vaccinated person later showed up needing one?

 

 

Would I, given equal medical situations? Yep.

[gearhog]

Just now, pawnman said:

Would I, given equal medical situations? Yep.

This is fascinating stuff. However, that's an unfair caveat, because there are no equal medical situations. A scenario where you would have to choose between two identical human beings and the only basis for your decision being, one is vaxxed, one is not, simply cannot exist.

The important information I gather here is that we have reached a point where I can give a person an unlikely hypothetical scenario, and their beliefs over such an unclear, widely debated issue allows them to so quickly attest that they would be willing to

remove someone's life over it. Dark times are ahead.

 

[pawnman]

1 minute ago, torqued said:

This is fascinating stuff. However, that's an unfair caveat, because there are no equal medical situations. A scenario where you would have to choose between two identical human beings and the only basis for your decision being, one is vaxxed, one is not, simply cannot exist.

The important information I gather here is that we have reached a point where I can give a person an unlikely hypothetical scenario, and their beliefs over such an unclear, widely debated issue allows them to so quickly attest that they would be willing to

remove someone's life over it. Dark times are ahead.

 

Someone's not getting a ventilator.  If there are 20 patients and 20 ventilators - great, everyone gets treatment.  But if there aren't enough resources to go around, then yeah, I'd prioritize the vaccinated people.  Not for any moral judgements, but because the data shows that vaccinated people are more likely to recover than unvaccinated people.

Just like if there's one heart for a transplant, boards are much more likely to give it to the marathon runner with a congenital problem than to the 400 pound couch potato, because the prognosis for long-term recovery is better.

What would you do...first come, first served, outcomes be damned?  "Sorry, you got sick at the wrong time after doing everything right, I have to go put this guy who was eating horse dewormer on a ventilator now"?

[gearhog]

16 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Someone's not getting a ventilator.  If there are 20 patients and 20 ventilators - great, everyone gets treatment.  But if there aren't enough resources to go around, then yeah, I'd prioritize the vaccinated people.  Not for any moral judgements, but because the data shows that vaccinated people are more likely to recover than unvaccinated people.

Just like if there's one heart for a transplant, boards are much more likely to give it to the marathon runner with a congenital problem than to the 400 pound couch potato, because the prognosis for long-term recovery is better.

What would you do...first come, first served, outcomes be damned?  "Sorry, you got sick at the wrong time after doing everything right, I have to go put this guy who was eating horse dewormer on a ventilator now"?

I think some of us may have a tendency to create a false hypothetical unrealistic dilemma to make our choices easier. I know I do it, too.

Let's make it more interesting. You're a good guy and you have friends. Think of two of them. One is probably runs a little more than the other, one may be slightly overweight, one holds different political views than you, and you may even have a friend who is unvaccinated. Again, this is based on your hypothetical.

With the names of these two real people in mind, say both need the heart transplant in your earlier example, do you automatically choose the one runs more miles?

Let's go on make a decision nearer the one I asked about the ventilator: Only somewhat overweight one needs a heart transplant and gets it. He's okay. The other friend now needs one. With the same logic applied in this situation, it'd be okay to remove the former's new heart and give it to the latter. Would you treat them both with the same cold, simple variable approach you use for deciding who gets a ventilator?

It's not the likelihood of the above dilemma, it's the moral and ethical decision process that matters, and that's what we're establishing.

[pawnman]

5 minutes ago, torqued said:

I think some of us may have a tendency to create a false hypothetical unrealistic dilemma to make our choices easier. I know I do it, too.

Let's make it more interesting. You're a good guy and you have friends. Think of two of them. One is probably runs a little more than the other, one may be slightly overweight, one holds different political views than you, and you may even have a friend who is unvaccinated. Again, this is based on your hypothetical.

With the names of these two real people in mind, say both need the heart transplant in your earlier example, do you automatically choose the one runs more miles?

Let's go on make a decision nearer the one I asked about the ventilator: Only somewhat overweight one needs a heart transplant and gets it. He's okay. The other friend now needs one. With the same logic applied in this situation, it'd be okay to remove the former's new heart and give it to the latter. Would you treat them both with the same cold, simple variable approach you use for deciding who gets a ventilator?

It's not the likelihood of the above dilemma, it's the moral and ethical decision process that matters, and that's what we're establishing.

Alright...so what's your answer, with your friends on the operating table?  What's your decision matrix?  

Go ahead...walk me through the one righteous moral path.

[gearhog]

Just now, pawnman said:

Alright...so what's your answer, with your friends on the operating table?  What's your decision matrix?  

Go ahead...walk me through the one righteous moral path.

First, let's remind ourselves that I have created none of these hypothetical situations we're discussing. All I have done is used your hypotheticals (ventilators and heart transplants), and added some complexity. Adding just a little bit seems to create frustration because they are difficult questions to answer. No offense, but I'm left to assume that's why you didn't.

Second, I haven't seen either your examples occurring on a scale or frequency that necessitates a blanket policy decision by you about who gets treatment. Or much, much worse yet, taking life away to give life.

To give you an imperfect answer: I would help where help is needed, as it is needed, knowing full well I do not have the moral authority to take life away with regard to changing circumstances, or my personal beliefs. To me, it would seem the most obvious answer that is if you are limited in our capacity help, you increase capacity.

 

[pawnman]

22 minutes ago, torqued said:

First, let's remind ourselves that I have created none of these hypothetical situations we're discussing. All I have done is used your hypotheticals (ventilators and heart transplants), and added some complexity. Adding just a little bit seems to create frustration because they are difficult questions to answer. No offense, but I'm left to assume that's why you didn't.

Second, I haven't seen either your examples occurring on a scale or frequency that necessitates a blanket policy decision by you about who gets treatment. Or much, much worse yet, taking life away to give life.

To give you an imperfect answer: I would help where help is needed, as it is needed, knowing full well I do not have the moral authority to take life away with regard to changing circumstances, or my personal beliefs. To me, it would seem the most obvious answer that is if you are limited in our capacity help, you increase capacity.

 

I didn't answer them because I'm tired of playing the game where you poke a hole in every answer.

There is a limit to hospital capacity.  I'm with you...help as much as we can, for as many people as we can.  But at some point, we're gonna have more sick people than we have capacity.  What's your answer to increasing hospital capacity in an area over-run with Covid?  Where do you get additional bed space, doctors, nurses, ventilators, medication...?

It sounds great to "just increase capacity".  Hell, why didn't the President think of that?  Just put more people in hospitals, problem solved!  While we're at it, why don't we just increase capacity in Afghanistan until we've airlifted everyone?  Why are we making decisions about who gets refugee status - just increase the capacity!  It's so simple!