SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

But what can we do right? How can we come together to reach some type of compromise that helps people care for their fellow community members and refrain from spreading this virus while at the same time getting our lives back to a new normal?

At a bare minimum, we can do less harm than the actual virus. That study I shared, claims we didn’t. Compromise comes when we care for all people involved. I included the title of the study, for any to read it and/or argue it, 62 pages worth of explanation. Hardly inconclusive.

You are right though, the most painful part is what is happening here. A very obvious and determined majority rule. Just look at this thread. There have only been 2 members who posted saying they were unvaxxed. Neither said the vaccines didn’t work. One member mentioned a health reason for not getting the vaccine, the other mentioned fear. Not a single member has been a staunch anti vaxxer or even hinted at being anti vax, but that hasn’t been enough. That should have been a healthy compromise, seems fair. It wasn’t. Claims of science riddle this thread. But the only acceptable science is a mainstream view, which doesn’t make it right just because it is mainstream. If anything, the fact that it’s mainstream might in itself be the reason to question it. Especially when anything that was shared outside of the mainstream narrative was provably true. With the exception of MAB’s but that should be in the doctors hands to decide.

Group think is a phenomenon, and emotional group think just may be the most powerful and destructive opponent any of us should have learnt about from the 20th century.

The right fight has belonged to the majority from the beginning of the thread. Just look through page two and the claims of "I want you to be right, I really do, but you aren’t" and their support. Sharing experiences with treatments, was met with staunch opposition. Despite evidence being shared that the most stringent public health orders were not working, the only solution offered was more of the same. For the right fight.

Arguing percentages are very important. There is a fear based mentality that is holding a minority hostage. This majority sees themselves as the followers of science. But as you say science isn’t perfect, it would be best to keep that in mind, when imposing on other peoples lives. What you ask of me, in the name of your personal health, is far more destructive than anything I can do to your health. Especially with N95 masks and vaccines. It’s about time we see personal responsibility for one’s own health, than demands of others. What an absolutely intolerant and impossible notion to begin with. Like somehow this entire world would agree in perfect harmony and think as one. We have nations that came close to that, it still didn’t work.

So, we’re left at a cross road. Do we look at evidence we have and try something different, or do we continue banging our heads against the wall hoping for perfect unity to only be let down again? It would appear the majority of this thread, are fine with banging their heads. Some willing to go so far to deny humanity to their fellow man in the name of zero-sum.

The truth is, ISurvived, if you want see unity, start a COVID thread about anti maskers, anti vaxxed. But if you want an actual conversation, about what compromise would look like, these last 23 pages is about as good as you are going to find, for simple layman.

[This message edited by Loukas at 11:49 AM, Wednesday, February 2nd]

So, we’re left at a cross road. Do we look at evidence we have and try something different, or do we continue banging our heads against the wall hoping for perfect unity to only be let down again? It would appear the majority of this thread, are fine with banging their heads.

I am curious what other options would even look like. I live in a state with very little, if any restrictions regarding Covid. Masks are not a requirement, not even really encouraged unless you are in a hospital. There are no vaccination mandates here. It is also a complete shit show. We have Covid testing stations that take hours to get through. Appointments for testing can take up to 2 weeks to get (what’s the point). Skilled Nursing Facilities and hospitals are running on skeleton crews because too many employees are out sick, yet the hospitals are full. Grocery stores are empty and the employees are overworked due to illness, as well. People here are stressed and overworked covering for their fellow employees. Schools are empty. Not enough healthy teachers and student attendance is sporadic at best. I’ve mentioned before on this thread that I received an email asking for parent volunteers to help keep the school open.

Doesn’t seem like a great solution. So what is?

ETA: I ask this question very sincerely because as a healthcare worker I have seen the impact on the quality of life for the elderly and I have a high schooler that has had trouble with mental health in regards to lockdowns. There are negative impacts for both extremes.

[This message edited by WalkinOnEggshelz at 12:20 PM, Wednesday, February 2nd]

Sorry Lucas – I thought this was a dialogue rather than a controlled monologue. If I’m wrong then please tell me what I can post.

Is it much different? I’m not advocating for a travel-pass. I’m just pointing out historic precedent showing that not only are health-based travel restrictions something that has been done previously but also something that is still being implemented globally. Clearly legal per se. I guess when it comes to keeping deadly diseases from ones own country we are more open to it.

If you read the history of vaccination passports you will find out that originally they were required to travel within certain European countries, then between countries. It was only when many of the diseases listed were extinct/minimized that they became less prevalent. The one I mention was established 1951, but there were others before that. There is little denying that a major factor in eradicating the diseases was vaccination.
During the Spanish Flu of 1918 there were multiple examples of travel-bans, closed borders and pass requirements all over the world. There was never a vaccine for Spanish Flu, but it mutated to a milder version.

The African countries demanding a health-pass? It’s not for them – it’s not really to prevent a healthy American or European traveler from bringing Yellow Fever to Niger. It’s because the travelers home-country or country-of-return might refuse him entry or place him in quarantine once he comes home.

Personally – I don’t think travel passes should apply within your home legislative area. I do think however that legal entities (be it countries or states) have a right to demand that those that visit meet requirements, and if done legally they could include either a covid-vaccination or proof of a recent covid infection. I do think that any entity that places such restrictions should be taken to court to the highest level simply to confirm if the restrictions comply with the framework of that society.
In other words – I’m fine if Denmark or Mexico or even New Hampshire were to require proof of vaccination or proof of recent infection for me to enter, but I wouldn’t want my local area to restrict my movements within that area (be it city, county, state, country…)

I wonder how far those that chose not to be vaccinated are willing to go. Note I make a clear distinction between those that can’t be vaccinated and those that choose not to be vaccinated.

Would they be willing to increase their premiums for health insurance? Sort of like being a smoker or obese might increase your premium? After all, if there is a disease that we are more-or-less all going to get and seemingly has something like a 1.5% hospitalization rate for those that aren’t vaccinated then that’s a high risk.
What about countries with public health systems? I follow soccer (the type they kick the ball) and remember the story of one of the great players who was alcoholic. He was refused a second liver transplant (public health system in England) because the budget provided a limited number and his past behavior didn’t indicate he would change his drinking with a new liver. Would those that chose not to get vaccinated be OK with being refused the last space in ICU because someone that did get the vaccination needs it?

Regarding masks: I doubt their efficiency. I guess an argument can be made that properly used they are effective, but I guess most do like I do and grab any used mask in-between the seats of my car when entering a store. But… they do act as a reminder, a distinction that keeps us aware of the risk and the danger, and in some ways then using them informs others that we are complying with the guidelines. Having said that I would be OK with them not being mandated and I would be OK with store- and service providers deciding if they are necessary at their location. One’s freedom to not mask is equaled by the business owners freedom to refuse service.

One common misunderstanding on this thread is the efficiency of vaccinations in curbing the spread.
A person with Covid – irrespective of type – spreads Covid while sick. The vaccinations don’t seem to prevent you from catching Covid so a convincing argument can be made that since being vaccinated doesn’t minimize your chance of being sick and contagious it doesn’t curb the spread.
That’s only partially true.
It does look like those vaccinated are less sick, and sick for a shorter period than those not vaccinated. So a vaccinated person is more able to self-isolate without requiring medical or personal assistance and is contagious for a shorter period.
Enough to mandate vaccinations? No. Not in my books, but definitely enough to convince me to be vaccinated.

Would those that chose not to get vaccinated be OK with being refused the last space in ICU because someone that did get the vaccination needs it?

Can you just think about this question alone? Not even the implications of what you are asking.

On the flip side of the overall perspective of conferring consequences for not taking the shots - something many of us are already experiencing - if these shots proved to have long-term health impacts, would you be ok if that resulted in higher insurance premiums and denial of services?

Either way, we are both trying to make the best health care choices we can in light of the current situation. So questions like these need to be asked within a level playing field.

I am not stating that this is my POV or opinion. It’s a theoretical question.
In Italy, Spain and even NY during the early days of Covid this decision was in the hands of medical personnel. They had to chose who got the next available incubator. With improved treatment, more knowledge, and more equipment then thankfully this isn’t really a big issue anymore.
We already have approved lifestyle-choice factors that impact insurance premiums. Smoking can increase your cost by +20%.

And yes – I would be perfectly fine with premiums dropping for non-vaccinated if it turns out they are statistically proven healthier.

Thank you for your response and clarification, Bigger.

I understand and respect your perspective. I also now appreciate that you were asking a theoretical question.

Doesn’t seem like a great solution. So what is?

We are experiencing the very same problems, WOES. Pretty much identical. To me, if you are having very little interference with public life, and we are having a large impact on public life and we are experiencing the same outcome, the solution becomes more obvious. It should be expected that during a spike, times are going to be hard, but they won’t be forever. When our spike ends, we will still be restricted.

Bigger, I do apologize, I’m not trying to control the dialogue, there’s definitely a level of frustration with seeing what appears to be deliberate attempts to compare vaccine passports to small inconsequential examples. Not saying that’s what you are anyone else did, it’s just a perception, and it exist outside of this forum.

We have two major events in world history, that bare more in common with these passports than anything else. Because of the extreme atrocities of the one event and the disgraceful actions of a not too distant past for the other, it’s considered taboo and in bad taste to even link the coincidences. But that goes directly in the face of "Never Again". While we aren’t anywhere the extreme outcome of that event (Thank God), we should at the very least remember the mentalities that lead to it. It’s a very important history lesson. It should also be noted that a extreme atrocity doesn’t have to be the outcome, as we’ve seen with racial segregation. And the soviets can teach us a thing or two about silencing political dissidents.

Folks recoil at even a hint of linking these events, but I can assure you, those at the protests around the world aren’t doing so because of consequences, selfishness or lack of compassion, etc. We are stepping on the toes of some very foundational tenets to free society. Here in Canada, most of these actions are taken under a state of emergency, which is a polite way to say, bureaucratic dictatorship. Once again, I realize the term sounds harsh, but state of emergency overrides our entire governing process. That why these mandates aren’t laws, they’d likely never be if they had to travel through proper channels. So in our current state of affairs, our only recourse is through the courts, but that is a very difficult road to travel. Especially for a single, broke individual.

I do hear what you are saying with regards to a pass for border restrictions. In our current state, it seems rather pointless. But at least nations do have a right to control what comes into their countries. A vax pass is not unprecedented in this case.

In Canada, one of our rights is the right to travel within our nation. In a truly unique, if nothing else, a lawsuit has been filed against the federal government for violating this right. The lead plaintiff is the only man left living who created and signed into law, our charter of rights and freedoms. Folks can disagree with his politics, but to pretend as though it’s insignificant is silly.

With regards to healthcare, from a universal healthcare nation anyway, if you drive drunk, get into a horrible accident, we’ll fix you. If you are terribly injured in a suicide attempt from say a shotgun to the stomach, we will spend years fixing you, doing all that we can. If you smoke your whole life, we’ll we work on that too. It’s not up to our healthcare to dictate peoples lives for a better outcome, they are just our best advisors. Recently a tax was discussed from a senior federal level member, every province shot it down immediately, with the exception of one. Who later did as well.

I don’t even know if we have enough data to specifically target the unvaxxed. First being the are sub groups within that group. Medical and religious exemption being one. Previously infected being another. The hesitant and the resistant. Taxing would imply punishment for wrong thought, so you’d have to at least specifically identify who’s thinking "wrongly", if such a thing even exists. Next our data would need to specifically identify which subgroup is most at risk. Personally, I’m not convinced blanketed vaccination below 40 has been wise, but that’s purely speculation, and something we may learn in the future. But as far as how far the unvaxxed are willing to go, so far, their livelihoods and their lives. That shouldn’t be understated.

Regarding masks, I’d say we share pretty much identical views with all of it.

I haven’t seen any data about severe illness with omicron between the different subgroups. Has anyone seen one, once again just curious for myself. My entire family got wiped out back during the holidays, illness varied between everyone and all we’re double vaxxed at a minimum. My province is showing hospitalizations again, and for the most part, the sub groups are represented proportionately. It’s only in ICU’s that there is a very distinct difference, with 42% of cases being unvaxxed, considering they are 15% of the population, it isn’t insignificant, but considering we are talking about 42% of 110 people total in a population of 1.5 million, it should also be noted.

[This message edited by Loukas at 7:19 PM, Wednesday, February 2nd]

If anything, the fact that it’s mainstream might in itself be the reason to question it.

NY Times today: Covid mortality in the US much higher then in the rest of the wealthiest nations; vax rate much lower. It's 31/100,000 in the US, 11/100,000 in Canada (and the Netherlands). There's at least another prima facie case that the vaccines are doing something to prevent infections and/or transmissions.

There are 2 posts in this thread that need rebuttal, but I can't see a way to respond without violating the no politics rule.

I'm sure you don't reject every mainstream idea. How do you decide which to accept and which to reject?

[This message edited by SI Staff at 7:57 PM, Wednesday, February 2nd]

Loukas, if you're trying to compare what I think you're trying to compare. WTF man.

There are 2 posts in this thread that need rebuttal, but I can't see a way to respond without violating the no politics rule.

Moderator friend, I'm behaving. I just have to register that I'm appalled.

It's 31/100,000 in the US, 11/100,000 in Canada

The US has had over 75 million cases of COVID. Here in Canada, we’ve had just over 3 million. Our population is 1 tenth of the US. Case fatality in the US is 1.2%, in Canada it’s 1.1%, per John Hopkins.

I am truly offended and cannot breath from such comments which are inappropriate for this thread and for SI.

[This message edited by ISurvivedSoFar at 9:13 PM, Wednesday, February 2nd]

I would like to add my name to the list of people that are disappointed, disgusted and quite frankly feeling diminished, demeaned and even abused by some of the content and context being used in this thread. I too won't violate the rules of the site, but it is taking every ounce of self-control I have. Just needs to be said.

NY Times today: Covid mortality in the US much higher then in the rest of the wealthiest nations; vax rate much lower. It's 31/100,000 in the US, 11/100,000 in Canada (and the Netherlands). There's at least another prima facie case that the vaccines are doing something to prevent infections and/or transmissions.

That's an issue that likely has factors unrelated to covid.

Life expectancy:

Spain 83.2

France 82.5

Canada 82.05

Netherlands 82.01

Germany 81.7

Japan 84.3

Greece 81.1

Austria 81.6

US 78.4

Mexico 76.0

We're not as nearly as healthy and our health care system doesn't serve the entirety of the populace well. We had worse outcomes before covid IOW. The US health care system is the best if you can afford the best healthcare. Not so much if you can't. It doesn't help that our majority of our insurance is tied to employment status so when everything shut down many lost coverage. I think that's avoiding politics as I'm just stating the dynamics but it is getting close.

[This message edited by grubs at 10:05 PM, Wednesday, February 2nd]

This thread has gone far enough off the rails. Thank you everyone for trying to keep it simple.