Page 161 of 203 FirstFirst ... 61111151156157158159160161162163164165166171 ... LastLast
Results 3,201 to 3,220 of 4053

Thread: Covid-19 - Treatments & Vaccines

  1. #3201
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    133,165
    Quote Originally Posted by WakeandBake View Post
    But pregnancy isnít contagious.

    The second hand smoke argument was so easy for everyone. Why isnít contagious viruses?
    Donít trigger them. Weíll be back to eating and drinking in bars so thick with smoke weíll have to shower and shampoo as soon as we get home.

  2. #3202
    Quote Originally Posted by WakeandBake View Post
    But pregnancy isnít contagious.

    The second hand smoke argument was so easy for everyone. Why isnít contagious viruses?
    The Republican machine sought political profit over safety.

  3. #3203
    Dickie Hemric
    ConnorEl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    In My Mind
    Posts
    13,853
    Quote Originally Posted by WFFaithful View Post
    The Republican machine sought political profit over public good.

    Pretty much always.
    I love mankind...itís people I canít stand!!

  4. #3204
    Quote Originally Posted by birdman View Post
    Here is the nuanceÖ.abortion is a personal decision and the effects are only personal whereas taking a vaccine affects you and others around you. Wait thatís not actually that nuanced, is it?
    Quote Originally Posted by ConnorEl View Post
    Pretty sure if pregnancy was the result of a contagious virus weíd have rules about exposure control.
    Quote Originally Posted by WakeandBake View Post
    But pregnancy isnít contagious.

    The second hand smoke argument was so easy for everyone. Why isnít contagious viruses?
    Do you guys not read the thread before you post? I've already answered this--innocent third parties can protect themselves if they chose by getting vaccinated, wearing masks, social distancing, etc. It is true that those things are likely not 100% effective, but focusing on the inefficacy of the vaccine undermines the justification for mandating it in the first place. In other words, if the vaccine isn't 100% effective--and we know that it isn't, that vaccinated people who get the virus can transmit it, and, most importantly, that after about 5-6 months the efficacy is reduced to 50%--mandating vaccination of Person A doesn't actually prevent them from infecting innocent third parties. At most, because the efficacy wanes, it just delays the inevitable. The only way around that is to mandate boosters every 6 months in perpetuity, which no one is advocating, and for good reason.

    Prohibiting someone from smoking indoors in public places simply isn't remotely analogous to mandating a vaccine. The latter involves a physical invasion of someone's body--sticking a needle into their arm--for medical treatment. Our history and traditions view that with suspicion, as they should. I assume everyone on here thinks that people should have the right to refuse medical treatment that they don't want. This is no different. Smoking regulations just tell people they have to go smoke outside. Apples to oysters.

  5. #3205
    Mask wearing does prevent spread by 50%.

  6. #3206
    Isn't it true that although the vax doesn't prevent infection and spread, it reduces the severity of the illness and therefore reduces treatment in hospitals, therefore preventing overruns in IC units etc?

  7. #3207
    Quote Originally Posted by WakeBored View Post
    Do you guys not read the thread before you post? I've already answered this--innocent third parties can protect themselves if they chose by getting vaccinated, wearing masks, social distancing, etc. It is true that those things are likely not 100% effective, but focusing on the inefficacy of the vaccine undermines the justification for mandating it in the first place. In other words, if the vaccine isn't 100% effective--and we know that it isn't, that vaccinated people who get the virus can transmit it, and, most importantly, that after about 5-6 months the efficacy is reduced to 50%--mandating vaccination of Person A doesn't actually prevent them from infecting innocent third parties. At most, because the efficacy wanes, it just delays the inevitable. The only way around that is to mandate boosters every 6 months in perpetuity, which no one is advocating, and for good reason.

    Prohibiting someone from smoking indoors in public places simply isn't remotely analogous to mandating a vaccine. The latter involves a physical invasion of someone's body--sticking a needle into their arm--for medical treatment. Our history and traditions view that with suspicion, as they should. I assume everyone on here thinks that people should have the right to refuse medical treatment that they don't want. This is no different. Smoking regulations just tell people they have to go smoke outside. Apples to oysters.
    The Biden non-federal employee mandate says you either have to get vaxed or get tested weekly. No one is forcing anyone one to have their body physically invaded (interesting choice of words btw given your attempts draw comparison to abortion rights), but if you choose not to get jabbed, you have to get tested regularly. That is completely reasonable. People that don't get vaxed but subsequently get sick are a major drain on public resources, medicaid and medicare are paying for a lot of those cases, they are jamming up hospitals and preventing other people from getting needed medical care, and they are stalling economic recovery because businesses, stores, restaurants, etc., can't get fully operational with this ongoing mess. The vaccines aren't 100% perfect for preventing the spread, but they are extremely good at reducing hospitalization and the public resource drains. That drain on resources alone gives the government standing to intervene and act. Unwanted pregnancy is like the exact opposite.
    Birds are real.

  8. #3208
    Dickie Hemric
    ConnorEl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    In My Mind
    Posts
    13,853
    The vaccinations arenít perfect and no one claims they are. But theyíre a reasonably safe and effective tool to significantly reduce serious illness and death. And to help control the pandemic and its various adverse effects.

    I see no reason for not complying with the mandate apart from misguided or ignorantly misplaced passion. Or a play for political power based on these.
    Last edited by ConnorEl; 12-02-2021 at 10:25 AM.
    I love mankind...itís people I canít stand!!

  9. #3209
    Quote Originally Posted by WakeandBake View Post
    Isn't it true that although the vax doesn't prevent infection and spread, it reduces the severity of the illness and therefore reduces treatment in hospitals, therefore preventing overruns in IC units etc?
    Why would I need to understand something that helps others but gets in the way of my freedumbs?

  10. #3210
    Quote Originally Posted by WakeandBake View Post
    Isn't it true that although the vax doesn't prevent infection and spread, it reduces the severity of the illness and therefore reduces treatment in hospitals, therefore preventing overruns in IC units etc?
    It doesn't fully prevent infection/spread, but with respect to spread it significantly reduces it because the viral load is less, vaccinated people are less likely to contract COVID in the first place, and the contagious period for vaccinated people who get COVID is shorter than for non-vaxxed. By getting vaccinated, you are clearly protecting others, including moronic anti-vaxxers.

    There's also no vaccine mandate, period, 1) because people have the freedumb to quit their fucking jobs (unless conservatives are now arguing that employment is a human right -- which, fine, but they would never say that out loud), and 2) OSHA's private sector regulations do not mandate getting a vaccine as birdman points out.

    Junebug is dumb/obtuse so he can't grasp these fundamental things that my 8 year old can grasp, or he just has to parrot his dumbass masters.

  11. #3211
    Quote Originally Posted by WakeandBake View Post
    Isn't it true that although the vax doesn't prevent infection and spread, it reduces the severity of the illness and therefore reduces treatment in hospitals, therefore preventing overruns in IC units etc?
    It is true that vaccination significantly reduces the likelihood that someone infected with the Delta variant will end up in the hospital. (It is not yet known whether that will be true for Omicron.) I don't think this proves anything though. The people who are going to end up in the hospital are largely going to be those who are unvaccinated. That's their choice, and those are the consequences of it.

    In any event, for Delta, monoclonal antibody treatment provides close to the same level of protection against hospitalization as vaccination, and Pfizer is on the verge of getting an EUA for an antiviral pill that purports to cut hospitalization by 90%. Going forward, for Delta anyway, there really isn't going to be a risk that the lack of vaccination will result in hospitals being overrun.

  12. #3212
    The no free ride boot straps party is also the party of no personal consequences so... there's that.

  13. #3213
    At this point, unvaccinated who need hospitalization should be removed if anyone else with another condition needs hospitalization.

  14. #3214
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    133,165
    Quote Originally Posted by WakeBored View Post
    That's their choice, and those are the consequences of it.
    So we have to put up with the consequences of their choices not to get a simple vaccine.

    Are we going to have to go through this with measles and polio, too?

  15. #3215
    Quote Originally Posted by birdman View Post
    The Biden non-federal employee mandate says you either have to get vaxed or get tested weekly. No one is forcing anyone one to have their body physically invaded (interesting choice of words btw given your attempts draw comparison to abortion rights), but if you choose not to get jabbed, you have to get tested regularly. That is completely reasonable. People that don't get vaxed but subsequently get sick are a major drain on public resources, medicaid and medicare are paying for a lot of those cases, they are jamming up hospitals and preventing other people from getting needed medical care, and they are stalling economic recovery because businesses, stores, restaurants, etc., can't get fully operational with this ongoing mess. The vaccines aren't 100% perfect for preventing the spread, but they are extremely good at reducing hospitalization and the public resource drains. That drain on resources alone gives the government standing to intervene and act. Unwanted pregnancy is like the exact opposite.
    So far, I have stayed away from discussing the OSHA ETS. My argument has been simply that the principle underlying the idea of "keep your laws off my body" should cause people who hold that idea to be opposed to vaccine mandates.

    As far as the OSHA ETS goes, you are correct that it is a jab or test paradigm and, for that reason, I don't think it presents the same constitutional problems as the EOs that mandate vaccination for federal employees and contractors, which truly do mandate vaccination, subject only to approved medical and religious exemptions. It does, however, have its own legal problems, constitutional and statutory, as identified in the 5th Circuit opinion staying it. Most notably, to my mind, is the major questions doctrine, which the SCOTUS recently invoked to strike down the eviction moratorium, concluding that Congress didn't delegate authority to the CDC to freeze evictions. There are also significant statutory questions, including whether the OSH Act, which is supposed to apply to workplace hazards like benzene fumes from sealant removers, etc., etc., etc., applies to (a) viruses at all and (b) hazards that exist everywhere, not just the workplace. Also, it's pretty clear that the Biden Administration is simply using the ETS to get more jabs in arms, regardless of actual workplace conditions, and regardless of whether the ETS is a square peg for the OSH Act's round hole.

    Even if you don't have a problem with the ETS from a policy perspective, I think it is unlikely to survive judicial review.

  16. #3216
    Quote Originally Posted by bym051d View Post
    At this point, unvaccinated who need hospitalization should be removed if anyone else with another condition needs hospitalization.
    Free market! Those doctors get to pick who they treat. Their practice their CHOICE!!

  17. #3217
    I didnít realize that was Junebug, who is an attorney. He is arguing a position, not being reasonable.

    To him it makes more sense for the patient to go through the health care system and be treated for COVID than to take a vaccination (free to the patient) to minimize the severity of the illness and transmission.

    There you have it

  18. #3218
    Quote Originally Posted by WakeBored View Post
    It is true that vaccination significantly reduces the likelihood that someone infected with the Delta variant will end up in the hospital. (It is not yet known whether that will be true for Omicron.) I don't think this proves anything though. The people who are going to end up in the hospital are largely going to be those who are unvaccinated. That's their choice, and those are the consequences of it.

    In any event, for Delta, monoclonal antibody treatment provides close to the same level of protection against hospitalization as vaccination, and Pfizer is on the verge of getting an EUA for an antiviral pill that purports to cut hospitalization by 90%. Going forward, for Delta anyway, there really isn't going to be a risk that the lack of vaccination will result in hospitals being overrun.
    Personally, I am ok with dropping the mandates for vaccines if the anti-viral drug gets full approval, as long as it's covered by insurance or reasonably inexpensive.
    Birds are real.

  19. #3219
    Quote Originally Posted by WakeBored View Post
    So far, I have stayed away from discussing the OSHA ETS. My argument has been simply that the principle underlying the idea of "keep your laws off my body" should cause people who hold that idea to be opposed to vaccine mandates.

    As far as the OSHA ETS goes, you are correct that it is a jab or test paradigm and, for that reason, I don't think it presents the same constitutional problems as the EOs that mandate vaccination for federal employees and contractors, which truly do mandate vaccination, subject only to approved medical and religious exemptions. It does, however, have its own legal problems, constitutional and statutory, as identified in the 5th Circuit opinion staying it. Most notably, to my mind, is the major questions doctrine, which the SCOTUS recently invoked to strike down the eviction moratorium, concluding that Congress didn't delegate authority to the CDC to freeze evictions. There are also significant statutory questions, including whether the OSH Act, which is supposed to apply to workplace hazards like benzene fumes from sealant removers, etc., etc., etc., applies to (a) viruses at all and (b) hazards that exist everywhere, not just the workplace. Also, it's pretty clear that the Biden Administration is simply using the ETS to get more jabs in arms, regardless of actual workplace conditions, and regardless of whether the ETS is a square peg for the OSH Act's round hole.

    Even if you don't have a problem with the ETS from a policy perspective, I think it is unlikely to survive judicial review.
    The vaccination is a requirement for federal employment, not a requirement for all citizens. There are many requirements for federal jobs, and the COVID vaccine is the newest requirement.

  20. #3220
    So a drug pill is not an invasion of the body but a vax shot is? Scared of needles?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •