-->
@3RU7AL
503,157 is what percentage of 526,028?
95%
half of GOP men won't get vaccinated- why the stupidity?
Posts
Total:
212
-->
@Athias
That's one of the arguments I've persisted to make. If we are to take the epidemicity of this virus seriously, then that would suggest that most who live in the "hotbeds" have been exposed. If one has been exposed, then what is the point of risking taking these vaccines if one's immune system has already developed a response? And, if the vaccine prevents neither its contraction nor its spread, why is it being recommended even to those who are at low risk of dying from it?
Why would you assume that people living in hotbeds have been exposed, if there have been lockdowns, social distancing, and masks? Is there data that says most people have already contracted covid 19? That would be great. I was arguing with coal in another thread about the efficacy of lockdowns, and while I do not support them, I understand that if people are home and not going out, they are less likely to contract the virus.
A handful of recent studies suggest that the vaccines not only prevent people who are exposed to the virus from contracting it, but also prevent them from spreading it. I am not one to blindly trust authority or research I do not understand, but I also do not make it a habit to say that "experts" or researchers are wrong when I have not done any research of my own. What research have you done, or facts do you have, that prove the vaccine does not actually stop people from getting the virus?
It seems that vaccines shield people who get the virus from becoming seriously ill, which could be a benefit if you do not know your level of risk. I go back and forth guessing as to how covid might impact me given my attributes. I took an antibody test and have not had covid despite living in one of the hotbeds.
Some say a good way to think of the vaccine's value is to consider what would happen without the vaccine. Two to four more years of this where people are dying at similar or even lower rates, we could have a million die from covid, especially as people get more lax about social distancing because we're all just so sick of it. I understand many people think that would be acceptable, and many do not, but if we place a value on life then surely saving lives is valuable. I am curious, are you against getting the vaccine all together or just young and healthy people?
-->
@Unpopular
Why would you assume that people living in hotbeds have been exposed, if there have been lockdowns, social distancing, and masks?
The question is whether lockdowns worked to control the virus in a way that is scientifically verifiable. Based on the following studies, the answer is no and for a variety of reasons: bad data, no correlations, no causal demonstration, anomalous exceptions, and so on. There is no relationship between lockdowns (or whatever else people want to call them to mask their true nature) and virus control. [**]
It's like saying that your lucky charm brings you good luck because even when things go wrong, without your lucky charm, just think of how much worse they would have been.
-->
@3RU7AL
Opinion?
"Just to be clear, the chart shows that covid has increased the death rates in the various age brackets in about the same proportions. Old people die at a high rate, so doubling that rate would kill a lot of old people. Young people hardly die at all, so doubling that rate would kill few. An old person's risk of being killed by covid is much higher than a young person's, just as an old person's risk of being killed by pneumonia or stroke or heart attack or cancer is much higher than a young person's. The fact that other things kill mostly old people does not negate the fact that covid kills mostly old people.
Here's another way to look at it. A well-informed old person worries, reasonably, about being killed by pneumonia or stroke or heart attack or cancer, and when another risk in that ballpark comes along, that's a big additional worry. A well-informed young person doesn't spend much time worrying about death, but if he does, he worries about auto accidents, suicide, and jealous husbands, and if another risk in that ballpark comes along, it's appropriate to worry about it at that level, which is to say, not much.
Here's yet another way to look at it. What sort of bar chart, analogous to the above, would we expect from a threat that was clearly, unarguably not age-biased? I propose a meteorite swarm that randomly kills 0.1% of the population. Will the chart look like the above? Not at all: the chart will have bars all the same height. The fact that the covid bars are much taller on the left shows that covid is age-biased.
So, Yes, there's a sense in which covid doesn't kill old people disproportionately: it kills old people in about the same proportions as the other things that kill people, which are mostly things that kill old people." - pkpearson
-->
@Lemming
about 15 new babies were born in America for every Covid death. There is no "Crisis"
-->
@zedvictor4
I made a generalization regarding increased life expectancy in recent times, relative to medical intervention, including vaccines.
Yes, you did.
You seemed to avoid this with the obscure reply: "How have you determined death".....Perhaps you could clarify.
I didn't avoid. I made a mistake. I intended to ask:
How have you determined this? That is, how have you determined that it is riskier to fight off the virus naturally as opposed to being vaccinated? Do vaccines not come with risks--some of which I've already listed?
-->
@Athias
Unless you are a conspiracy theorist, then the statistics are clear.
The risk to health from Covid-19 infection is high.....2.8 million deaths globally.
Vaccination and ongoing vaccination, is simply an acquired human ability/strategy, to counter such a threat to health and society, in both the short and longer terms.
We tend not to run with the ethos of survival of the fittest these days. ( Which may or may not actually be an incorrect or unrealistic ethos, in respect of global overpopulation).
And hoping that the virus will just eventually give up and go away, is also currently, not a realistic aspiration.
Nonetheless.....However one chooses to proceed doesn't alter the fact that to achieve immunity one accepts a risk.....So you must decide for yourself which route currently poses the greater risk to your wellbeing.
I would suggest that if you are fit and 16, then go for the natural option, but if you are 60 and not so fit then consider vaccination.
I wish you all the best either way.
-->
@Lemming
Old people die at a high rate, so doubling that rate would kill a lot of old people.
Are you suggesting that covid has DOUBLED everyone's chance of death?
-->
@zedvictor4
2.8 million deaths globally.
What percentage of 7.9 billion is 2.8 million?
0.035443037974683546%
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you suggesting that covid has DOUBLED everyone's chance of death?
Oh I didn't quite understand what the people on that Reddit were getting at, so I wouldn't say I'm suggesting anything.
-->
@Lemming
Sure, sure the corona is "not good", of course.
Is it something we should completely change everyone's lives over?
Probably not.
From the CDC, Risk for COVID-19 Infection, Hospitalization, and Death By Age Group
Sample interpretation: Compared with 5—17-year-olds, the rate of death is 45 times higher in 30—39-year-olds and 7,900 times higher in 85+-year-olds. Compared with 18—29-year-olds, the rate of hospitalization is 8 times higher in 75—84-year-olds (55 divided by 7 equals 7.9).
From this it seems that old people might want to get vaccinated.
-->
@FLRW
From this it seems that old people might want to get vaccinated.
Good idea.
-->
@3RU7AL
Good idea.
Until we reach herd immunity globally ---for all cov2 variants--- we run greater risk of unnecessary time delay, and this time delay increases risk of more variants and people from age groups to become infected, spread what they have too unsuspecting others, which may or may not have short or long term detriment to their health and varying degrees of negative effects.
Lets compare how many cov2 deaths to those of private-owener, gun related deaths.
Then there is many other sscnarios were could also compare deaths.
And the list go on and on as to number of deaths.
And some may be more complicated to assess as to correct strategys for each one to curtail related deaths
Do I suppose the half of the GOP who allegedly do not want to be vaccinated are the same half that are deplorable? Or is it the other half? And according to whom?
Somebody's half-arsed sock puppet?
-->
@fauxlaw
it's pretty much a given that the half of republicans who dont want the vaccine are also the deplorable half. all you have to do is look around to see who fits which description, and it's always the deplorables who dont want vaccinated. it's about cultural politics. it's about brainwashing. these people don't think for themselves.
-->
@n8nrgmi
Technically everyone is a deplorable to someone else. You can't stop yourself from offending people.
-->
@3RU7AL
Nice Maths.
But death is death.
And though medical intervention undoubtedly exacerbates the problems facing the planet.
When the ball does land in your court, you're f****d if you haven't got a racquet.
Nice metaphor hey?
-->
@zedvictor4
Now that the science has 3 important findings for government policy.
1) Lockdowns had little to no effect on the outcomes of the Covid spread.
2) Schools should have never been shut down, and we should have followed Sweden's approach with fully open schools and relaxed, voluntary masking with no mandates.
3) Old and fat people are the main ones that actually need the vaccine.
Do you feel gullible for believing corporate media? Why don't you think billionaires in charge of your news information care about you anymore?
-->
@Greyparrot
wearing masks makes a difference
-->
@3RU7AL
You, like many others, fail to consider the actual population of people dying annually: globally speaking thats around 56 million - so do some math for me - what's 56 million divided by 2.8 million?
Oh - that was a rhetorical question - its 20 - that would mean that Covid causes 1 in 20 deaths GLOBALLY - that means you have a 5% rate to die to Covid- PERIOD. Please account for population, always, always, always account for populations you are comparing.
-->
@3RU7AL
These studies all have similar flaws: They do not account for the fact that the VAST proportion of the population does not FOLLOW lockdown procedures, it also fails to account for the fact that LOCKDOWN does not correlate with PREVENTING CONTACT - the fact that several lockdowns aren't comparable, and are compared without praxis, the fact that every countries culture react to them differently - THE FACT THAT SINCE LARGE PROPORTIONS OF COUNTIES AND COUNTRIES HAVE REMAINED IN LOCK DOWN, therefore limiting the amount of control data that would testify to the actual efficacy of lockdowns.
The person who collected all of these sources are CHERRY PICKING, as well as presenting sample bias - SEVERAL (READ: MOST) don't even actually give evidence which supports your conclusion - some of them even say: REFRAIN FROM MAKING DECISION AS CONCLUSIONS WOULD REQUIRE SEVERAL ASSUMPTIONS - how thoroughly did you actually read the studies presented here? Did you comb through each one to ensure that it actually supported your conclusion? That it actually supported the conclusion of the institute you were citing?
The American Institute for Economic Research - Mediabiasfactcheck
"Overall, we rate The American Institute for Economic Research Right-Center biased based on Libertarian-leaning economic policy and Mixed for factual reporting due to the publication of misinformation as it relates to Coronavirus."
Oh - so they lean libertarian - of course they would be against lockdowns
-->
@n8nrgmi
All one has to do? Sorry, your paradigm does not fit, but then, we tend to congregate with those of similar feathers, don't we? And yet, politically, there are so many different feathers, one cannot see the forest for the trees.
Again, according to whom of any consequence who has a drone above the forest and can see for the rest of us without some bias [as in "all one has to do."] Where's your drone? We don't need to worry about mine; I'm not the one making a broad-stroke brush comparison.
-->
@Athias
I would answer that the data SO FAR - shows only causation, as far as we can tell - the vaccine is helpful - now - I am arrogant enough to say that this means it will certainly work? No - but the research spanning decades and the precedent of vaccines working in the past is enough evidence for me to at least be CONFIDENT that the Covid- vaccine is helpful and not hurtful.
-->
@fauxlaw
I would have to agree - the fact that the GOP won't get vaccines doesn't necessarily mean that they are deplorable. They could and probably do have legitimate concerns regarding vaccines, after all, not everybody is a scientist, not everybody realizes the efficacy that they have demonstrated time and time again. Spreading a broad brush in this instance is unfounded.
-->
@n8nrgmi
wearing masks makes a difference
You misspelled MANDATE you authoritarian cutie pie.
-->
@Greyparrot
A. Lockdowns and social distancing rules, tried to prevent stupid people form being stupid....Tall order I know.
B. Sweden is already regretting it's course of action, which actually achieved nothing positive in terms of public health (Quite the opposite it now appears). Sweden's governing concerns were aimed more at maintaining trade and finance, rather than focussing on a positive public health policy.
C. Just been talking to a guy who still after 8 months, has nowhere near fully recovered from the effects of Covid and he is neither old nor fat.....Though age and fitness are undoubtedly factors that can exacerbate the effects of the virus...... Nonetheless it's a tad selfish if cocky youngsters don't respect older less fit people. (See stupid people above).
And no. I'm far from gullible....I'm 60 and wise and thin and fit and I will do what I think is necessary to stay that way.
And corporate media will just as happily promote conspiracy theory if there is a buck to be made from it.
And you will believe what you choose to believe, and corporate media will supply you with the relevant data.
-->
@zedvictor4
tried to prevent stupid people from being stupid
Ok, Hitler.
did you get the chambers ready to forcibly "manage" stupid people?
which actually achieved nothing positive in terms of public health
That's the point. Nothing they did mattered, but not promoting policy based on junk science and corporate media hype kept Sweden from having an entire year of stupid kids by forcing them to stay home and ignorant.
Kids which I am sure you have a plan ready to "handle" with the authoritarian bullshit you peddle to "stupid people"
Just been talking to a guy who still after 8 months, has nowhere near fully recovered from the effects of Covid and he is neither old nor fat
You have weird outlier friends, mate.
-->
@Greyparrot
Weird is as weird does.