SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

The smoker is still welcome anywhere, he just can’t smoke everywhere, a reasonable balance, at least.

It's a reasonable balance because:

A. It is reasonable to expect a smoker to temporarily refrain from smoking (although it was a massive fight against the narrative of "restricting personal freedoms" to get that requirement signed into law). It is not reasonable to expect an unvaccinated person to temporarily refrain from breathing, so it's a zero sum decision about allowing their presence at all.

B. It is immediately evident to everyone when a smoker violates the law by exhaling toxins, but it is not possible to see whether a person is or is not exhaling a virus. All you can do is increase the odds that they are not infected and restrict the opportunity for the virus to enter the air.

I can see the argument that vaccination mandates are less effective given the contagiousness of Omicron in vaccinated populations. However, I acknowledge the critique from a practicality standpoint, not a personal freedoms standpoint. If vaccination were as effective now as it was with OG COVID, or if/when a more effective vaccine becomes available, I would 100% support vaccine mandates for every public space in existence, just as I support smoking restrictions. I have zero problem with inconvenience and even hardship for people who refuse to participate in that protection. It's also why I have no patience for complaints about masking. It's safe, it's effective, and if someone doesn't want to do it, they're free to stay home or wait outside in the open air. They are not free to increase the risk of toxins in the air that everyone else needs to breathe.

It is not reasonable to expect an unvaccinated person to temporarily refrain from breathing, so it's a zero sum decision about allowing their presence at all.

Zero sum? How have we come to this place and then to let such an ideal, enforce your opinion stated loud and clear.

For the rest of our lives, a human being will be more uninfected by COVID than infected. By quite a bit. Hardly zero sum.

For one, I don't understand the chart you posted at 11:56 on 1/29. I don't understand the reasoning behind rejecting all the data that says it's the unvaxed who are stressing our hospitals and medical personnel. Nor do I understand why anyone looks to Texas, which provides little data, and Florida, which is known to report bad data, for guidance.

No other vaccine requires a passport to eat a burger in a restaurant,....

No other vaccine is rejected by so many people.

...or discriminates against an individual for not having one.

Except that in the US (and in Canada, too, I bet) kids are kept out of public and private schools if they're not vaccinated without medical or religious excuses. Or doesn't that fit into your idea of discrimination'?

Why not change your statement? If you write something like what follows, I doubt that anyone would object - something like this, for example: 'The Covid vaccines are much less effective against Omicron than against the virus they were developed on and Delta and Lambda.'

And then explain why your community doesn't have a right to exclude the unvaxed from restaurants and indoor hockey rinks, given that allowing entry increases their risk of catching Covid-19 and spreading it to their families and friends and nurturing a potentially very dangerous variant. My son got Covid because a kid came to school with a 'cold'.

We all have rights that are in competition. There are innumerable conflicts that can be resolved in ways that improve all competitors' lives. This one, though, is zero-sum. In this, I'll go with what benefits the many over what benefits the few. That's the best choice, given what we know now.

[This message edited by SI Staff at 6:42 PM, Sunday, January 30th]

Very few of us in the US oppose vaccine mandates - even Mississippi, Alaska, Florida, and Texas (which I cite only because they seem to be our most rebellious states) require DPT, Hep B, Meningitis, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, chicken pox, etc. But they all seem not to like Covid-19 vax.

And those vaccinations have years of safety data that support their safety. Regardless of RFK jr's beliefs. It's also important to note those mandates are state ones not federal. I've had moderna x2 and pfizer (booster) vaccinations. If the corevax had been available, I would have avoided mRNA all together. Some of the antiviral treatments being rushed to market have even bigger concerns. Some of them in particular work by causing errors as the virus replicates. Basically, they work by trying to cause "fataL" to the virus mutations.

Some quotes that highlight some nuances that illustrate the difference in my beliefs compared to the general populace. It's from a frequent poster to one of my science blogs. He's a PHD in molecular biology who has done research in microbiology, genetics, immunology, cancer, and neurobiology.

SARS-CoV-2 is not the cause of COVID. The cause of COVID is an improper reaction of the immune system to SARS-CoV-2 infection. This is demonstrated by the huge amount of asymptomatic infected people, and by the chronic infection without deleterious effect of immunosuppressed people. See for example: "Long-Term Evolution of SARS-CoV-2 in an Immunocompromised Patient with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma," for a patient infected for over 6 months
It is not the virus what will put you in hospital, but the inability of your immune system to properly handle the infection. The improper reaction to the infection is due to it being a new disease, so it must be dealt with by innate immunity. The body can support a huge viral load without developing symptoms. This is known from the existence of asymptomatic super-spreaders. However, lack of proper innate immunity reaction might result in strong inflammatory and cytokine responses that can kill the patient. That’s why COVID patients in hospital are treated with corticosteroids that are immunosuppressants, besides being anti-inflammatory.

Another myth was herd immunity. I never bought into the idea that this applied to a rapidly mutating RNA virus. Additionally, the experience with the other four human coronaviruses is that people can get infected every year. The viruses don’t induce long-lasting immunity. I couldn’t understand how entire countries developed their strategy around that faulty concept. In my country it was clearly another government lie to convince people to get the vaccine, because this is well known by experts. My government said the problem would be over if we reached 60% vaccination. No "expert" dared to contradict them in public. We passed 80% vaccination rate and then had the biggest wave in the pandemic.

The third myth is that viruses evolve to cause less damage to the host. Anybody that has read the excellent and prophetic 2014 book "Spillover" by David Quammen (highly recommended) knows that viruses don’t care about their food’s well-being:

"The first rule of a successful parasite … [is not] ‘Don’t kill your host.’ It’s: ‘Don’t burn your bridges until after you’ve crossed them.’"

HIV has been with us for over 60 years, and it is still almost 100% lethal, because the untreated average survival time is 11 years, providing the virus ample opportunities to cross its bridges. Nothing guarantees that future SARS-CoV-2 variants will be less harmful. That said, the likely evolution of SARS-CoV-2 is towards causing less damage because to outcompete other variants the logical path is to migrate to the upper respiratory tract, as Omicron has done, to become more contagious. Upper respiratory tract infections are generally less dangerous than lower respiratory tract infections.

The RNA vaccines have a level of risk that would be unacceptable under different circumstances. They have a significant toxicity level. The lipid nanoparticle platform they use is highly inflammatory, which could be related to the vaccine side-effects, but necessary for its immune action. People that die from the vaccine can go very fast. A close friend of mine is a pharmacist, and he had a 35-year-old person come to his pharmacy the same day of his vaccination feeling very bad, he was dead the next day. Some of the deaths have been linked to thrombocytopenia, low blood platelet count. In most cases post-vaccine deaths affect elderly frail people often with co-morbidities. The chief pathologist at Heidelberg University, Peter Schirmacher, urged more autopsies of recently vaccinated people that died and was severely criticized for such a reasonable suggestion. Clearly the authorities want to underplay vaccination risks.

The reported number of deaths from the vaccine is very low, about 8 per million, much lower than the number of deaths from COVID, and even much lower than background deaths. Nevertheless, the small risk of dying is not the only risk from the new vaccines.

I don’t like the RNA nature of these vaccines. The number of modified-RNA containing lipid nanoparticles in a single shot is huge, in the same order of magnitude as the number of cells in our body. Instead of being delivered to the mucosa, like the virus, they are unevenly distributed throughout the body by the lymphatic and circulatory systems (the liver appears to be a preferred target), where they get into the wrong cells and mark them for destruction by cytotoxic T-lymphocytes. The issue of improper COVID vaccine tissue tropism and its safety concerns is rarely raised. I feared from the beginning that over time quite a lot of people might develop autoimmune diseases from it, and it is already happening: "New-onset autoimmune phenomena post-COVID-19 vaccination."

Getting an autoimmune disease from the vaccine is for life and much worse than COVID for most people. One might develop an autoimmune disease from the vaccine years after getting the shot. Every additional shot increases the risk. There is a false sense of security in people going for additional vaccine immunizations.

It makes no sense to vaccinate children (with some exceptions) because it doesn’t help them and it doesn’t help society. The risk of developing future effects is unacceptable at that age. Repeated vaccinations with RNA vaccines are likely to have more negative than positive effects. Old people might need annual shots to manage their much higher risk. Hopefully better, safer vaccines will be developed in the future.

I'm vaccinated to give base immunity to sar-cov2 to hopefully avoid severe covid. I'm pretty sure there will be currently unknown issues with the mRNA that will surface down the road. Right now it appears that the vaccines are safer than not being vaccinated in the short term. There isn't clear and convincing data that supports vaccinating and boosting children. My kid is an older teen and is vaccinated and boosted. There is no data that clearly supports vaccinating those who have acquired innate immunity for covid.

BTW his recommendations for those who catch covid

If you develop symptoms and suspect you’ve got COVID, or test positive, there are many things you can do to reduce your risk.

– Take plenty of vitamin D, C, and A, and drink plenty of liquids. Zinc and selenium supplements are also helpful.

– Wash your throat (gargles) with an antiseptic every few hours to reduce viral load. A 1-1.5% hydrogen peroxide solution also works well since it attacks proteins in the viral membrane.

– Take Polaramine (2 mg twice a day) or some other antihistamine to reduce the risk of an improper immune response. Read the prospect to see if you can take it safely or follow your doctor’s advice.

There are several other recommendations that you might follow, but these are no-regrets measures that should not cause you any harm.

For one, I don't understand the chart you posted at 11:56 on 1/29. I don't understand the reasoning behind rejecting all the data that says it's the unvaxed who are stressing our hospitals and medical personnel.

The chart(a mess, no doubt, myself and pictures on this site never go well), is just an example of an entire nation with extremely high vaccine participation across all age groups who couldn’t even mildly slowdown, omicron. But I’m not rejecting data, I’m following it as it constantly evolves.

Just an observation, in a province with 85% vaccination rate minimum across just about all age groups and over 95% in the 65+ group, who do you think has was more likely to fill our cases, hospitals and icus. Do you believe omicron is magically travelling around only picking those tiny pockets of unvaxxed left? Who in this province, can’t do anything but shop and some outdoor activities. Or is it more likely that our hospitals likely filled with the most vulnerable vaxxed and unvaxxed?

Once again, the current variant of COVID, in my province with a mask mandates everywhere, unvaxxed human beings movement restricted just about anywhere and a vaccination rate of over 85% has seen or case count spike to 4 times higher than ever before in the last two years. And that was only what was recorded, estimates thought it to be 8-10 higher than that. Either way, our hospitals have been overwhelmed, with more hospitalizations than any other time during this pandemic so far. And just as this wave began, the only numbers they quit reporting, was who was in hospital based on vax status. But the replacement metric of "times more likely" of being hospitalized based on the last six weeks started out 19x more likely to be hospitalized 4 weeks ago, now is only 3x more likely.

That’s about all I can offer for understanding.

Why not change your statement? If you write something like what follows, I doubt that anyone would object - something like this, for example: 'The Covid vaccines are much less effective against Omicron than against the virus they were developed on and Delta and Lambda.'

Why? To make you more comfortable? It’s not your opinion I need to agree with me. It’s you who needs the unvaxxed to agree with you, for the " greater good." But how about this-"The COVID vaccines were reported to be over 90% effective against Alpha variant, but upon release, we’re quickly met with a new variant Delta, to which it was less effective, but still helpful by industry standards, followed by reports of quick waning and after just 9 months since public release, faced a variant that rendered it, well we’re still learning that part"

I have no desire to try and convince someone who believes a zero sum mentality why they should treat human beings like human beings. Your opinion is noted, Sisoon.

ETA: I never shared any stats from Texas or Floria.

[This message edited by Loukas at 8:00 PM, Sunday, January 30th]

Except that in the US (and in Canada, too, I bet) kids are kept out of public and private schools if they're not vaccinated without medical or religious excuses. Or doesn't that fit into your idea of discrimination'?

Only 2 provinces, neither of which are mine. It’s also well known the governments of those provinces circumvented the Charter to accomplish their goal and that those who want to circumvent the schools demands, do. In the end, child vaccinations and COVID vaccines are not the same world. Actually, I’ve been reading and hearing how there is growing concern is over all childhood vaccinations because of how COVID has been dealt with and pushed, especially on children. By no means proven fact, but an interesting if not sad hypothesis.

[This message edited by Loukas at 9:01 PM, Sunday, January 30th]

And then explain why your community doesn't have a right to exclude the unvaxed from restaurants and indoor hockey rinks, given that allowing entry increases their risk of catching Covid-19 and spreading it to their families and friends and nurturing a potentially very dangerous variant.

Just a thought, I’d have no problem with businesses or community centres deciding for themselves who they want to allow in. It would be an interesting social experiment. Are people actually discriminatory or have they only been because of government mandates through fines? Hmm?

My son got Covid because a kid came to school with a 'cold'.

Ok? So? I got COVID from one or more double vaccinated people who had no symptoms at time of exposure and they got it from someone who was triple vaxxed, once again no symptoms at time of exposure.

Are people actually discriminatory or have they only been because of government mandates through fines? Hmm?

I reject the premise of the word "discriminatory." Are safety regulations discrimination? I don't believe they are.

I suspect that money would trump safety without those regulations and fines in place. That's been my experience with clean water, clean air, lead paint, toxic emissions, and any other environmental risk where business is given the latitude to police itself.

I reject the premise of the word "discriminatory." Are safety regulations discrimination?

We can explore it. Are safety regulations discrimination? In this case (vax pass) quite obviously yes. It is blatantly obvious that it creates a two tier society, sows division and individually discriminates.

Are vax passports about safety? It would be impossible to call them a safety measure now. Delta doesn’t look that great either. Especially considering the only time a person is of any threat to the public is when they are sick and this has been true since the very start, breakthrough cases were possible. Nothing unique to the unvaxxed human beings.

So why have them? They’ve always been about vaccine uptake, which had at least a loose if not sordid affiliation with public health, but not safety.

In the end they are a coercive and a manipulative tool. Something that flies directly in the face of our right to informed refusal. Was the destruction worth the greater good? Time will tell, but I don’t see how the future will look back favourably. How they’d be anything but a terrible blemish on society once the survivors of their cruelty begin to share their stories.

History has looked back favorably on every vaccine mandate since smallpox in the 1700s. Washington himself advocated severe penalties for every head of household that failed to vaccinate every member. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of vaccine mandates in 1905. Polio was less deadly than COVID, but there was nevertheless an emergency use authorization of the Salk vaccine, which began mass manufacture while still in clinical trials. Everyone was expected to cooperate, and what history noted was that polio went away.

Feel free to believe that the future will treat vaccine resistors as heroes or martyrs, but the evidence of centuries predicts otherwise.

History has looked back favorably on every vaccine mandate since smallpox in the 1700s. Washington himself advocated severe penalties for every head of household that failed to vaccinate every member. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of vaccine mandates in 1905. Polio was less deadly than COVID, but there was nevertheless an emergency use authorization of the Salk vaccine, which began mass manufacture while still in clinical trials. Everyone was expected to cooperate, and what history noted was that polio went away.

Nice strawman. Nothing more to say about the actual topic, of vaccine passports and safety measure?

Continue dehumanizing the unvaxxed though. That’ll surely get you to the finish line.

In the end they are a coercive and a manipulative tool. Something that flies directly in the face of our right to informed refusal. Was the destruction worth the greater good? Time will tell, but I don’t see how the future will look back favourably. How they’d be anything but a terrible blemish on society once the survivors of their cruelty begin to share their stories.

"Survivors of their cruelty?" Is that the cruelty of being excluded from venues and travel because of declining the vaccine? Destruction? If you're talking about the breakdown of society over the clash of personal choices versus concern for the health and safety of the communities around us, I agree with you there, but disagree as to which "side" I am on.

If we're talking about the survivors of the cruelty as far as treatment by people on the "other side", I submit that I've received as much nastiness, disregard and disrespect from people who do not agree with my choices as anyone else out there. Does it hurt my feelings sometimes? Yeah, yeah it does. But it is nothing in comparison to the cruelty that I have seen visited on people with COVID and their families. Yeah, yeah. I know that's not the topic at hand. But it's all wrapped up together for me.

Nice strawman. Nothing more to say about the actual topic, of vaccine passports and safety measure?

She responded directly to this statement:

Time will tell, but I don’t see how the future will look back favourably.

How is that a strawman? I get you don't agree with her analysis. But it directly applied to your statement.

Continue dehumanizing the unvaxxed though. That’ll surely get you to the finish line

I guess this whole thing only works as long as we all dehumanize the other side? It's hard to insist on personal choice as be-all-end-all when you acknowledge that very real human beings may be harmed by the consequences of your personal choice. It's also somewhat difficult to be on the side of mandates and vaccine passports (which, again, are irrelevant in my life but I understand your position) while recognizing that there are people who have truly agonized and made decisions for themselves which make sense to them.

I am thankful for this thread. I really am. Without it, I would not have changed my opinion of you, Loukas. I will admit, I saw you as a rather pedantic a-hole. Now I see a very frustrated and isolated man, who shares the same faith as I hold, who has been hurt deeply by the measures meant (at least originally) to protect us from the pandemic.

I continue to pray for people to step forward from fear and make decisions to get vaccinated. I don't care why they decide, to be honest. I hope it's because they believe it will help protect them and others. But I don't care if it's just to get everyone to shut up. I don't care if it's for a lottery ticket and a chance at 100K.

I just really want to have peace in my life again.

Vaccine passports weren't an issue because you didn't get a choice. Everyone was vaccinated. Your kid went to school and ate the sugar cube, period. Freedoms are not being taken away; rather, the tolerance of anti-vaccination resistance during a pandemic has been extended to levels that never existed before. The eradication of freedom is the straw man argument.

[This message edited by BraveSirRobin at 3:03 PM, Monday, January 31st]

But I don't care if it's just to get everyone to shut up.

Freedoms are not being taken away; rather, the indulgence of anti-vaccination resistance has been extended to where it never existed before. The eradication of freedom is the straw man argument.

This discussion has devolved to such a level that I wonder if you otherwise kind and empathetic people even understand or recognize what you are really saying. It seems to be the attitude is "just get the damn shot" (and that has literally been said in those words by people in leadership positions) and the concerns of the vaccine hesitant get reduced to some vague and yet unproven notion of "the greater good". Can it at least be agreed that we aren't just a group of petulant "toddlers or sociopaths"? Do we even genuinely have that as a starting point? I'm not being facetious or sarcastic; I'm seriously asking because I'm genuinely not sure we have that as a foundation.

The analogies for smoking and drunk driving aren't applicable. In those cases you are asking me NOT to engage in a behavior for a given period of time that is generally considered by ALL to be harmful as a whole. I know of no smokers that claim smoking improves their health...or drivers that claim they must drink in order to be better able to drive. The key points: 1) You are asking me NOT to put something in my body vs. injecting something. 2) Its effect is for a limited period time. 3) It's generally recognized as an overall harmful behavior.

The "you took past vaccines" argument is also not applicable. This is a vaccine that is unlike any past vaccine we have ever had. It also has not undergone the normally required extensive testing. Nor do we have the years of safety data that's come from its years of administration. It's simply not an equal comparison. I'm not uniquely hesitant for the covid shot; I also don't take flu shots - despite the fact that flu causes approx 75k deaths and half-a-million to a million hospitalizations every year (in U.S. on average). One of the components that would be helpful is if the FDA would release the safety data they have on the Pfizer shot. Wouldn't that be beneficial? But they claim it will take 75 years to do so. Make of that what you will...but it sure seems that if the main goal is compliance and people must give informed consent since the vaccine is EUA, this would be a good place for the powers that be to focus.

And finally, mandates in the US - I am not aware of any federal vaccine mandate that applies to the population as a whole. That remains at individual state levels - as it should constitutionally. This is what the 1905 Supreme Court decision upheld - the STATE's right. That decision basically said the federal government was not going to trump a state's right and that the state's mandate wasn't an infringement on a constitutional right (specifically, the First Amendment). That's not an upholding of the vaccine itself...the same as the recent SC ruling wasn't a rebuttal of the vaccine. It's simply a constitutional matter of where the powers lie. For those of you that may think states rights are subsequently the issue...well, I have no idea what to say. We'd need to throw out the entire US Constitution.

I tried to draw an outline earlier to explain a perspective for vaccine hesitancy. I knew it would likely get pulled out in pieces for rebuttal - which it did - rather than to be used to understand collectively how these pieces have come together for some of us. It's also a lose-lose for me because you then subsequently want me to explain what the bigger picture means (understandably as justification) - and I don't KNOW that. I can only make suppositions...and even at that I can't make or defend those in this forum. Regardless, those are irrelevant when it comes to the decision at hand (because they are also unknowns). I am simply not taking the vaccine because I don't have enough information to make an informed and confident decision. The shots don't offer resounding protection from catching covid...and I don't know what affects they may have long-term. The cost-to-benefit analysis has me betting my odds differently than some of you.

So maybe, rather than being upset at those of us that don't have enough info...and maybe rather than just being mad at us for just not taking the "damn shot "- we'd all be better served by expecting more information, better data, from our leaders and pharmaceutical companies. Honestly, it's quite disheartening and scary to see so many that expect less service from our leaders and decision-makers...and instead wish for simply greater force. The data has been junk from the beginning (when real science would have normally commanded fastidious collection methods). Yet despite all the subsequent measures taken, the case numbers continually increase. And no matter the vaccination levels (just look at Israel) this continues to be labeled a "pandemic of the unvaccinated". Many of you readily admit that this is an ever-changing virus...that's why vaccines don't keep you from catching or transmitting it, why you have to have booster shots, etc. So given that logic, how fair is it to place the onus of this simply on the unvaccinated?

At the end of the day, one side is scared to take the shots and the other side is scared that those that aren't taking the shots are putting them at risk. We're all operating out of fear. So for those of you that I scare, I'm sorry. I'm not indifferent. And I'm not just standing of some abstract principle. I'm scared, too. If I could just easily comply - even if simply to make you feel better - I would. I understand why you want me to do what you want me to do. But please also understand what you are asking me to do. I face the fear of covid just like you do. But you're asking me to add another fear - something I fear even more than covid. I know you may think I'm just ignorant...but I promise you I'm not. It's very likely that I've struggled with this decision more than you and subsequently I've also likely researched more than you. I never started out researching to solidify my position; I started researching to resolve my questions. I've simply come to a different conclusion...and it's resounding enough for me that I'm willing to endure being regarded/treated as a "leper". So while you fear us, I would also ask, for the sake of humanity at large, that you also try to treat us with understanding and kindness. Ultimately, shouldn't all our lives be evaluated for quality over quantity....shouldn't we all stop to ask ourselves if the measures we are taking (whatever those may be) are creating the kind of world that we actually want to live in?

More than anything - even covid -I just hate this division SO MUCH.

Please keep this dialog respective (i.e., title of this post). Name calling and being accusatory or flippant will not reinforce respectful dialog. It is okay to disagree folks - just not in a demeaning way.

The COVID vaccines were reported to be over 90% effective against Alpha variant, but upon release, we’re quickly met with a new variant Delta, to which it was less effective, but still helpful by industry standards, followed by reports of quick waning and after just 9 months since public release, faced a variant that rendered it, well we’re still learning that part"

If that had been posted, I'd have saved a lot of keystrokes.

[This message edited by SI Staff at 7:45 PM, Monday, January 31st]

If that had been posted, I'd have saved a lot of keystrokes.

Tell me about it. But it still doesn’t change the original "blanket" statement. If you have a larger point, Sisoon, you are going to have to say it. If you think I need to somehow objectively represent the life of the vaccines than I ask you to at least objectively represent their current performance.

Just some facts from the world we currently live in, for those unable to update their views.

-Vaccines don’t protect against infection or transmission. Israel being the best example right now.

Loukas,

Your statement is demonstrably flat out wrong, whether you're talking about vaccines in general or the Covid vaccines specifically.

If you don't want the vaccine, that's your choice. I think you're taking from your community on this. I hope you're contributing, too, but that's up to you and your community.

*****

The CDC published new statistics recently, perhaps today. There are 2 tables in the report that are striking. Also one analysis (NY Times) states that in October-November, 2021, with Omicron active, 7.8 deaths (in 100,000) for the unvaxed, 0.6 deaths for the vaxed, 0.1 deaths for the boosted.

I read that to say: 7.2-7.7 additional deaths among the unvaxed. I don't have words for that.

*****

Dehumanizing?

I read of anti-maskers terrorizing people with masks and taking over school board meetings. I read of quotes from people who want to wear masks but are afraid to because no one else does. I do not read of vaxed people trying to force the unvaxed to accept jabs.

In my locale, masks are required to enter stores, but I see unmasked and improperly masked people wherever I go. No one throws them out, though I'm sure some people stay out to honor the restriction, and I'm sure some people put on masks only when confronted.

It's not pro-vax people who send death threats to Anthony Fauci....

Note also that many of the leaders in propagandizing against the vax are themselves vaccinated.

*****

I understand that some people fear the vaccine more than they fear Covid-19. I just question what that calculation is based on. What does the fear come from? From what I've read and heard, lots of the fear has been generated by people who are grinding axes.

Your statement is demonstrably flat out wrong, whether you're talking about vaccines in general or the Covid vaccines specifically.

No, it isn’t. Prove me otherwise. About the current state of affairs. Quit playing games with the COVID vaccines past performance. Quit playing games by talking about other vaccines, they are irrelevant in our discussion. Or leave my comments from your ire.

I personally don’t care how you feel about me andmy community, but you are going to have to understand, those who haven’t been vaccinated by now, have done so for very deep personal reasons, likely even morally. It won’t be a self-righteous attitude that will reach them, or nonsensical sloganeering. Segregation would seem ill advised as well, but apparently that’s not as obvious. It’ll be truth, that reaches this population. Actual truth. Of what was, what is, what may be or what could. Some won’t even accept that. But denying actual reality, current events, for some lousy sloganeered narrative, will not reach the hesitant currently questioning everything they are witnessing in the world today. Nor will simply labeling events as conspiracy to dismiss any concern. I imagine it is folks who deny these events, who are much more damaging to all communities.

[This message edited by Loukas at 8:37 PM, Monday, January 31st]

If you don't want the vaccine, that's your choice. I think you're taking from your community on this. I hope you're contributing, too, but that's up to you and your community.

He's had covid. Him getting vaccinated is not going to have a measurable impact to the greater good. Neither is banning him from being in enclosed public spaces unless you are doing the same for vaccinated people. He's actually safer being in public than someone who's fully vaccinated without having had Covid. The data backs this up. Israeli study shows that vax'd but not exposed had a 13 fold increase of catching covid as someone unvaccinated who has previously had covid. The primary focus being solely on Y/N status on vaccination appears to be a North American thing. In Europe the conditions are typically fully vaccinated or proof of having had covid. IN NA certain people are twisting things around to avoid admitting that previous exposure counts as well.

You can argue about the unvax'd as a group adds pressure to the medical system. But that group is a mix of those without any immunity and those who have acquired some immunity the hard way. The latter numbers are increasing daily and their outcomes will be significantly different from the unvax'd sar-cov2 naive or vaccination wouldn't be working. We aren't tracking that data large scale in NA as that's kind of an important thing to know.

The CDC published new statistics recently, perhaps today. There are 2 tables in the report that are striking. Also one analysis (NY Times) states that in October-November, 2021, with Omicron active, 7.8 deaths (in 100,000) for the unvaxed, 0.6 deaths for the vaxed, 0.1 deaths for the boosted.

See above. The CDC publishes the difference between vaxed and boasted. But not unvax w/ previous exposure and unvax without exposure. Why is that? You really need a vax/boasted/unvax with subcolumns for y/n on exposure to help tease out what's really going on.

[This message edited by grubs at 9:13 PM, Monday, January 31st]