EnglishEdward
Deity
So countries with vaccine production facilities and or money, understandably vaccinated their own people first.
There is nothing obscene about that.
There is nothing obscene about that.
Coronavirus. The n(in)th sequel.
- Thread starter Takhisis
- Start date
- Status
sendos
Immortal
Victoria shut down the construction industry because of failing to abide by COVID-19 safe rules since last Sunday. It's led to several protests so far. One protestor in one of the protests had COVID-19, so there's another super spreader event.
Moronic protestors are also attacking vaccination hubs, the very thing that's accelerating our return to normal. If you participate in, aid or support these protests, you're on the wrong side of history and you are part of the foolish minority holding us all back.
If you're hesitant about the vaccine, it's because you watched or listened to some idiot anti-vaxxer cast doubt on the vaccine. Just stop listening to them! How can one be so confident as to accept random unproven cures on the internet (e.g. ivermectin) but be hesitant when vaccines are introduced?
COVID-19 has been a massive IQ test and boy, has humanity failed it. Humanity has dealt with pandemics before, yet we're acting like this is the very first time we've never experienced one before.
Moronic protestors are also attacking vaccination hubs, the very thing that's accelerating our return to normal. If you participate in, aid or support these protests, you're on the wrong side of history and you are part of the foolish minority holding us all back.
If you're hesitant about the vaccine, it's because you watched or listened to some idiot anti-vaxxer cast doubt on the vaccine. Just stop listening to them! How can one be so confident as to accept random unproven cures on the internet (e.g. ivermectin) but be hesitant when vaccines are introduced?
COVID-19 has been a massive IQ test and boy, has humanity failed it. Humanity has dealt with pandemics before, yet we're acting like this is the very first time we've never experienced one before.
As far as I know this isn't easily doable :/.
Production of monoclonal antibodies normally requires that you have human cell lines to produce exactly these antibodies. Maintaining human cell lines is, as far as I know (never worked with them myself) rather complicated, since they're prone of dying, contamination, and complicated to maintain.
Other animals don't cut it either (e.g. there is progress with Llama or shark antibodies), since all animal cell lines have the same problem. And you can't produce them in bacterial or yeast cells, since they're unable to make all the necessary structures.
So, in short, not anytime soon :/.
I see where you're coming from there then more, but the problem I have is that isn't an "x and y" situation. Allowing people to take a vaccine is separate from allowing people to refuse a vaccine, because one carries the danger of harm to others, and one doesn't.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,378
The obscene thing is the other countries not being permitted to produce medicines (including these vaccines) because of "intellectual property". It has been nearly a year that they've been asking for patents to even be suspended for the duration of the pandemic and the answer keeps being no.
With Frau Merkel the humanitarian and mousieur Macron the liberal the fiercest defenders of government-enforced monopolies no matter the cost in lives. And able to channel it through the EU and act within the WTO framework to block this. Boris and Biden are silent accomplices of course, so are the other "advanced country" governments. Pharma is big business.
The infusions also take quite awhile, AND are necessary during the actual ONSET of the wave, which means that resources get flooded if we rely on them as much as that cohort would like
.
They also require successful early testing and don't slow transmissions. They're so intensely resource intensive, and all of that intensity is focused during the wave, meaning that everything is being flooded.
My comment was "so, statistically it's almost as useful as getting vaccinated, but much harder to do properly?" Then lead the conversation to them being less useful than vaccination.
There will be the problem, denying the harms to others (the person forced to take a vaccine is 'the other' from your and my perspective). That's basically entirely it. As soon as the mandate cohort gets it into their zeitgeist that their way lacks harms, it becomes about populist legal force where the only defense is having courts that protect rights that the majority don't want you to have. Those discussions can end badly.
Once the harms get denied, then people won't help fix the harms. Hell, they'll lose empathy for the harms as they sequentially move people from the in-group into the out-group. More and more claims become 'antivax' rather than actual concerns or an actual attempt to debate or prevent further complications in arenas that the loudest mandaters are actually incapable of understanding.
x and y are interesting, too, because they float. If you're good at picking who must get the vaccine, then you need to force fewer people. And if you're better at making a vaccine attractive, you need to force fewer people too.
.
They also require successful early testing and don't slow transmissions. They're so intensely resource intensive, and all of that intensity is focused during the wave, meaning that everything is being flooded.
My comment was "so, statistically it's almost as useful as getting vaccinated, but much harder to do properly?" Then lead the conversation to them being less useful than vaccination.
There will be the problem, denying the harms to others (the person forced to take a vaccine is 'the other' from your and my perspective). That's basically entirely it. As soon as the mandate cohort gets it into their zeitgeist that their way lacks harms, it becomes about populist legal force where the only defense is having courts that protect rights that the majority don't want you to have. Those discussions can end badly.
Once the harms get denied, then people won't help fix the harms. Hell, they'll lose empathy for the harms as they sequentially move people from the in-group into the out-group. More and more claims become 'antivax' rather than actual concerns or an actual attempt to debate or prevent further complications in arenas that the loudest mandaters are actually incapable of understanding.
x and y are interesting, too, because they float. If you're good at picking who must get the vaccine, then you need to force fewer people. And if you're better at making a vaccine attractive, you need to force fewer people too.
When is it appropriate for me to start demanding that people (and their office staff if it's an office I visit) that I pay personally for professional services (doctors, physical therapists, accountants, lawyers, building contractors, etc.) are vaccinated for covid?
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
That's my line. Not only have I actually linked evidence that hospitals got federal funding based on COVID patients in previous iterations of this thread, the quotes you posted are not inconsistent with that.
Hospitals that are struggling have even more incentive to do things that give them money.
What is your sexual history?
How long have you been with your significant other, if you have one?
Do you have a family history of cancer, and if so what kind?
(For a desk job) do you have any pre-existing medical conditions that might require time off of work, such as a bad knee?
Are you taking medication for depression or mental illness?
What is your history in civil/family court?
If you're not comfortable with routinely asking these questions, it might be useful to give pause on the vaccination question. For both professional/business liability reasons, and personal ones.
Though I did answer this question earlier in the thread, our vaccination status isn't relevant to the arguments presented any more than your skin color is.
Excepting any contracts you've already made, you have the option to take your business elsewhere, of course. For any reason. You could only visit physicians who are attractive...your call.
Trying to compel them to take it beyond not doing business with them? Nope. Violating previously made contracts over it? Nope. Compelling them to disclose medical information? Nope.
Though anybody who is vaccinated is at very low risk from the disease, so excluding otherwise good personnel on this basis is poor reasoning there's no rule saying you can't do it.
The irony here is pretty amazing.
Last edited:
For Canada, Months ago. For Australia, right about now. Basically past the point when anybody that makes the slightest effort could have already gotten vaccinated.
It's not discrimination to not want plague carriers around. Get vaccinated you loon.
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
I don’t think I can get syphilis from standing next to my co-worker for ten minutes.
Zelig's question also requires knowing if it's a 'free-market' service or a service protected under regulatory capture.
Vaccination will be similar to insurance. My dentist MUST have insurance. But I'm free to accept uninsured plumbing services if I don't want to have insurance costs passed onto me.
Plus there's the actual threat matrix, but I think we're ignoring that.
Vaccination will be similar to insurance. My dentist MUST have insurance. But I'm free to accept uninsured plumbing services if I don't want to have insurance costs passed onto me.
Plus there's the actual threat matrix, but I think we're ignoring that.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
You can get lots of minor diseases, however. It's also not clear how much more risk you have from unvaccinated person vs vaccinated. Latter has less chance to spread in a vacuum, but is also more likely to be there while sick.
Getting attacked by someone off their meds is pretty darned unlikely...but so is your risk of anything beyond inconvenience if you get COVID while vaccinated. If that risk is sufficient to compel actions, then there are some things I'd like to tell you that you can't eat anymore.
The level of threat is crucial, and will be a major component in whether mandates can survive scrutiny in court. Considering CDC's own assertions about the effectiveness for those that opt for vaccines, it's going to be tough to get mandate past strict scrutiny.
Updating Covid-19 Vaccines for the Delta Variant
Scientists areworking to adapt the mRNA platform underlying some vaccines to target specific versions of the virus
Nice graphic;
Scientists areworking to adapt the mRNA platform underlying some vaccines to target specific versions of the virus
WSJ said:
Nice graphic;
With respect to demands that my professional service providers are vaccinated, I'm almost entirely unconcerned about risk to myself, or legal risk from my demands.
My primary questions are around whether I have a moral imperative to avoid supporting the unvaccinated, and the magnitude of personal inconvenience of me following through on that.
My primary questions are around whether I have a moral imperative to avoid supporting the unvaccinated, and the magnitude of personal inconvenience of me following through on that.
1. I have one that goes back many years and doesn't involve any disease.
2. 53 years
3. Yes, my dad died of great cell lymphosarcoma at 54
4. No
5. No
6. I sued a major HDD manufacturer in small claims court for a defective drive and won the case. The company paid me $3000. Otherwise none.
7. I have had two Moderna shots
There will be steps. I'd not voluntarily support someone who bragged about being unvaccinated. I know a hesitant person who's ashamed, because they really don't know what to do.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
I didn't mean for you to answer, but to seriously consider the implications of this question when considered appropriate for broad use.
(I have same vaccine history as you, FWIW
).I don't think this is something other people can tell you. It's up to you based on what you know and what you are/aren't willing to draw the line on as a consumer.
Nobody is ignoring the harm possible in taking a vaccine. Literally nobody. It is a recognised part of taking a vaccine, for which the alternative is "getting Covid". It is a recognised issue for people with pre-existing conditions, or who are on specific medicine already. I'm puzzled at why you keep raising this theoretical demographic. If it exists, it isn't a majority on this forum, nevermind anywhere else. Even people who support a mandate recognise that a vaccine
There is no "harm" denied in criticising people who choose not to take it. That is a choice, and choices can be criticised. If a person in full possession of the facts including the current knowledge of side-effects vs. the current knowledge of what Covid does to you, chooses not to take it, that's entirely on them. I appreciate that this might not be the kind of person you're talking about, but this is the problem in your original reduction of the demographics into the "vaccine mandate crowd" and another, presumably anti-mandate, crwod.
If a person is suffering from misinformation, then sure, the fault is not entirely theirs. But deprogramming that is a whole other problem, and it predates Covid. And people going neck-deep on ideological pitfalls (such as "the government can't tell me what to do, except in all the times it demonstrably does and has done for years", which then inevitably segues into some variant of the slippery slope fallacy) will resort to more and more misinformation to back up their position. Because their position (I've mentioned this before, and yes, this applies to posters like TMIT) isn't specifically anti-vaccine. It's purely ideological. But the problem is it aligns with and often ends up amplifying anti-vaxxer rhetoric. Which is a problem that requires pushback. Because more misinformation, even for a completely different root cause to the commonly-accepted anti-xavver crowd, is still misinformation.
People playing down the efficacy of the vaccines, people playing down the impact of actually having Covid. People playing up natural immunity without considering the reality that such an immunity is not permanent. You get the drift. At the stage we're at, these are more than problematic opinions to hold. And in some cases, these opinions have been held since the start, regardless of scientific opinion on the subject.
I was hesitant when the news first came out about blood clotting risks, specifically to do with the AstraZeneca vaccine. I later changed my mind based on the updated information. There are people that aren't doing that, or worse, are adapting their arguments to reflect updated medical data, but in a way that works against people getting vaccinated.
I don't think what you're seeing is the denial of harm to others. I think you're seeing the natural progression of a multi-year phenomenon (the pandemic) that has had all sorts of impacts on peoples' lives (even if Covid wasn't a factor in them). And you're seeing an increased backlash against the individuals that oppose measures that would speed up the end of the pandemic. Some of this, by volume, will end up being irrational. That's to be expected. But we need to not weight them as though they're equivalent, and based on the same strength and validity of data. Because they're not.
Last edited:
Vaccination status is not at all the same as the answers to your 6 questions. One's vaccination status can impact hundreds of others. The other questions have little or no impact on anyone but the answerer. (STDs can)I didn't mean for you to answer, but to seriously consider the implications of this question when considered appropriate for broad use.
(I have same vaccine history as you, FWIW
Change covid pandemic to Ebola outbreak and would your interest in knowing my situation change if we were going to meet?
You (paraphrased) said that 'one does not cause harm', while I was talking about forcing people to take the vaccine. So, saying 'no one denies it and critising them is okay' is not really the same thing we were talking about. But also, the harms that have been acknowledged here are not the scope of the harms that are being expressed.
We're all suffering from misinformation. After that, it's just successful curation, bias, and luck in whether that information is processed usefully. Some will be right for the wrong reasons and we'll also be wrong for wrong reasons.
The hesitant crowd will be alert to when the mandate-arguer is wrong, and the more wrong they are, the more damage is done. We all accuse each other of being 'anti-science', while not acknowledging the good science. That, along with perceptive bias, actually cements the opinion that "they" are anti-science. Nevermind the failure of factoring in human behaviour.
Bad arguments forcing people to receive the vaccine will cause their own hesitancy. We don't have anti-vaxxers here, so the best I can do on CFC is push back on what I see to be the problem.
That's not the problem, it's a problem. If we're going to ever increasingly silo debate as 'anti-vaxxer rhetoric', then what happens is that the people who know that it's not 'anti-vax' learn that we actually don't know what we are talking about. The debate has to happen. Like I said, a lot of damage is done when positions are mischaracterized. This means that we know that there are parts of the pro-mandate crowd that will actually biasedly ignore concerns, and they'll socially pressure us into relabeling concerns as 'antivax'. "Antivax" is very far away on whatever spectrum we're putting "vaccine mandaters" onto, and so people literally on this thread (without significant pushback) continually relabelling things as 'antivax' is going to be emblematic of the problem.
I don't weight them equally, it's definitely going to be on a matrix. And yeah, I'm also complaining about opposing measures that would speed up the end of the pandemic. Er, maybe not 'opposing', I'm more 'demanding more', but ehn.
- Status
