Anti-Vax Movement

[red_elk]

You'll get a shot or you'll get shot. It's a voluntary choice!

 

[innonimatu]

Many of the trial vaccines suppress symptoms and impact. That's what they are meant to do. Getting the virus is significantly less dangerous, even if you're a superspreader, if those you infect have the vaccine and are protected from the symptoms that kill them. It will take time before vaccinating allows people to live normally again. One of the prerequisites is the "young and healthy" getting vaccinated. Suppression also reduces viral load, and viral load is directly linked to severity and risk.

Stop to think about it.

If it works as is being advertised now (a big if) and the young and healthy get it first, they will go back to their normal lives immediately after. Carrying and - this is the big issue that requires a clear answer before vaccination is done! - possibly spreading the virus without noticing it. Then the pandemic will become truly pandemic and outside any public health policy efforts at controlling its spread, which will simply be rejected "now that the vaccine is here".

What are the not-young and not-healthy who have not yet been vaccinated with an effective vaccine to do? Die, that's what they'll be doing.

 

[Kyriakos]

You'll get a shot or you'll get shot. It's a voluntary choice!

"Either way, you'll get a shot, [evil laugh]" ^_^

 

[Synobun]

Stop to think about it.

If it works as is being advertised now (a big if) and the young and healthy get it first, they will go back to their normal lives immediately after. Carrying and - this is the big issue that requires a clear answer before vaccination is done! - possibly spreading the virus without noticing it. Then the pandemic will become truly pandemic and outside any public health policy efforts at controlling its spread, which will simply be rejected "now that the vaccine is here".

What are the not-young and not-healthy who have not yet been vaccinated with an effective vaccine to do? Die, that's what they'll be doing.

They have already done that. I would rather them flout rules and public health while they are vaccinated than to simply have them do it while plugging their ears about the merits of vaccination. This counterargument doesn't parse. People globally have already given up on management.

 

[red_elk]

"Either way, you'll get a shot, [evil laugh]" ^_^

You can take vaccine shot and then shot of vodka. The latter one is obligatory.

 

[AdamCrock]

You'll get a shot or you'll get shot. It's a voluntary choice!

It's a win ! win ! situation : Cause of death : Covid-19 , other considerations: lead poisoning

 

[Kyriakos]

You can take vaccine shot and then shot of vodka. The latter one is obligatory.

It was actually the only thing I ever drunk at the university bar. But I never was a real drinker - and haven't drunk alcohol since graduation.

 

[AdamCrock]

You can take vaccine shot and then shot of vodka. The latter one is obligatory.

Of course ! You need to disinfect internal surfaces

It was actually the only thing I ever drunk at the university bar. But I never was a real drinker - and haven't drunk alcohol since graduation.

Well now it's obligatory Comrade

 

[Kyriakos]

Well now it's obligatory Comrade

I wouldn't say no to a shot of vodka.

 

[AdamCrock]

That's the spirit ! ^^

 

[red_elk]

I wouldn't say no to a shot of vodka.

Default vaccination protocol with Russian vaccine requires two injections, BTW.
May be the last (or the first?) one is vodka?!

 

[AdamCrock]

Default vaccination protocol with Russian vaccine requires two injections, BTW.
May be the last (or the first?) one is vodka?!

Just to be sure You are correct with the protocol You should have 1 before and 1 after. Safety first !

 

[GenMarshall]

I wouldn't say no to a shot of vodka.

I prefer night elven Darnassian Wine.

 

[Gorbles]

Why are so many posters being so (apparently) intentionally obtuse in this thread? Admittedly, I'm not surprised by some.

1. If you choose to delay your getting the vaccine for any reason, this will put you at odds with other posters who would prefer you to get it sooner. Nomatter the valid argument in such a delay, nomatter the understanding, that mindset causes threat to people in at-risk groups. It also lets more out-and-out vaccine conspiracists to latch onto your posts to spread their more silly arguments. Your choice to argue over how much of a delay you're willing to delay the vaccine for comes at the cost of that perception of threat. Pure and simple.
   
2. Humans are generally-sociable (and social) beings. Various exceptions notwithstanding, of course. Arguments aimed as a response to specific posters are applicable because of the mindset it pertains to. It doesn't matter if someone is in one country and not able to infect any CFC-goer. The point is you could infect people where you live, and That Is Bad.
3. If you make a claim that a provided and paid-for vaccine won't work, the onus is on you to prove the claim. Otherwise you're literally just scaremongering. The OP's poll doesn't contain any references to the efficacy of a vaccine, simply peoples' willingness to take it and their vague geographical location. To make the debate about a theoretical future where people take it and end up spreading the virus anyway is missing the point at best.

 

[innonimatu]

While talking about the vaccines, don't forget there's a traditional approach one also being tested.

By January there should be enough results to do start some serious planning on how to pick and use the vaccines. With so many in testing it may well be that using different vaccines for different populations will be the best approach.

 

[Colonel]

I suppose if this poll's result thus far is indicative that the general CFC population seems more willing than the general US populace to get a vaccine. 20% here as opposed to 40% according to the most recent US poll. This also shows a striking contrast to the rest of the world, simply put Americans are far more fearful of "big government" forcing things compared to the world populace in general.

 

[Kyriakos]

Why are so many posters being so (apparently) intentionally obtuse in this thread? Admittedly, I'm not surprised by some.

1. If you choose to delay your getting the vaccine for any reason, this will put you at odds with other posters who would prefer you to get it sooner. Nomatter the valid argument in such a delay, nomatter the understanding, that mindset causes threat to people in at-risk groups. It also lets more out-and-out vaccine conspiracists to latch onto your posts to spread their more silly arguments. Your choice to argue over how much of a delay you're willing to delay the vaccine for comes at the cost of that perception of threat. Pure and simple.
   
2. Humans are generally-sociable (and social) beings. Various exceptions notwithstanding, of course. Arguments aimed as a response to specific posters are applicable because of the mindset it pertains to. It doesn't matter if someone is in one country and not able to infect any CFC-goer. The point is you could infect people where you live, and That Is Bad.
3. If you make a claim that a provided and paid-for vaccine won't work, the onus is on you to prove the claim. Otherwise you're literally just scaremongering. The OP's poll doesn't contain any references to the efficacy of a vaccine, simply peoples' willingness to take it and their vague geographical location. To make the debate about a theoretical future where people take it and end up spreading the virus anyway is missing the point at best.

I don't see the above as valid. We aren't discussing stuff on CNN, to influence others. And "put you at odds with other cfc posters" is really ridiculous, tbh - no one here can realistically attack anyone else, for starters they are too far away, and secondly none here have to be listened to by default, it's a fun forum not one aimed to change anyone or anything.
Moreover, very fat chance someone like Syn just now felt like trying to attack me - it has happened before and will happen again, until I just decide it's not worth even reading his letters
While I can get feeling triggered by stuff, it doesn't change the fact that no one has to care about any other poster by default, and if they stop being polite it also has an effect. Basically you get nothing for being hostile, regardless of your own viewpoint.

 

[Gorbles]

I don't see the above as valid. We aren't discussing stuff on CNN, to influence others. And "put you at odds with other cfc posters" is really ridiculous, tbh - no one here can realistically attack anyone else, for starters they are too far away, and secondly none here have to be listened to by default, it's a fun forum not one aimed to change anyone or anything.
Moreover, very fat chance someone like Syn just now felt like trying to attack me - it has happened before and will happen again, until I just decide it's not worth even reading his letters
While I can get feeling triggered by stuff, it doesn't change the fact that no one has to care about any other poster by default, and if they stop being polite it also has an effect. Basically you get nothing for being hostile, regardless of your own viewpoint.

No-one has to care about anything "by default", but people in general care about things. It's ludicrous to assume otherwise. "attack" doesn't mean physically attack, so c'mon, don't intentionally be obtuse here. Or maybe you genuinely think people can't be "attacked" online, in which case I'll just say I disagree.

"hostility" is also a moving target. What you consider hostile others won't. Sure, you might catch more with honey (as the phrase goes), but if you're unwilling to look past any anger at a global pandemic that is very literally killing people, that's on you. We're not debating our favourite bread here. We're debating a very real thing wherein peoples' differing attitudes to it directly affect its impact and spread across the world.

 

[Kyriakos]

This is getting pretty boring. At no point did I volunteer myself to be some outlet for people's frustrations.
Also, if you actually think that it is ok to attack a poster just cause you don't like their views on stuff, this should mean it is also ok for anyone to be attacked in retaliation. If you actually think people who don't post dumb attacks here do that due to inability to be hostile, you run a serious risk.

 

[Gorbles]

This is getting pretty boring. At no point did I volunteer myself to be some outlet for people's frustrations.
Also, if you actually think that it is ok to attack a poster just cause you don't like their views on stuff, this should mean it is also ok for anyone to be attacked in retaliation. If you actually think people who don't post dumb attacks here do that due to inability to be hostile, you run a serious risk.

There's a difference between being hostile, and frankly exchanging opinions, and "attacking". I don't want to comment on the latter, if you think the forum rules are a thing, do the thing the forum rules recommend you do.

I don't know what you want me to say. If you say something disagreeable, people are going to disagree with it. If your response to that is to police the tone of the replies instead of engaging with the points made, that's your choice.