The stupidity of the anti-vaxx nutcases

[StakerOne]

You still not said why are you regret having them. But this question above is easy.

No one should be physically forced to take a vaccine.
Some areas of employment, for example, caring for vulnerable groups in residential settings, Should require having had the vaccine.
A bit like you know, you need a clean driving license for many driving jobs. Hardly a massive impediment to freedom.

No one should be physically forced to take a vaccine. - Good.
Some areas of employment, for example, caring for vulnerable groups in residential settings, Should require having had the vaccine. - But if the residents have had the vaccine, what's the problem? The carers are being unfairly coerced to take the vaccine. If the vaccines are as effective as you say they are, then an unvaccinated carer won't be a threat to a vaccinated resident.

 

[StakerOne]

Usually what I do in such circumstances is that I seek advice from a medical professional. Since the evidence offered by medical professionals with regards to covid vaccination is that it reduces the incidence of hospitalisation, I decided to get vaccinated.

Great so YOU are the best person to decide whether you should get vaccinated.

I have NEVER told someone they should or shouldn't get a vaccinated, I'm just saying it's not right for everyone, edit to add and good for others.

 

[xenon]

And the idea we’re craving government to intervene and manage every area of our lives. Because we recognise some things are best done at scale and ideally with a non-commercial interest. Your reading comprehension is fucked mate.

 

[BigMoaner]

Cult?

Cults are something that are difficult to get out of because of peer pressure, with a whole load of peer pressure using emotional pressure to get me to believe certain things.

My beliefs are formed through research on the internet, not from joining any online communities ... ironically, over the past 3 months or so, this is forum is the closet thing to an online community I have been using and many of it's particpants are using emotion rather than facts in attempts to change my thinking.

If I sold all of my crypto holdings tomorrow, there wouldn't be one single email or phone call from anyone questioning my decision, hardly a cult.

I don't know how the tokenecomics of crypto would take corruption out of big pharma, but if anything will, a crypto blockchain based economy will.

 

[klang]

But if the residents have had the vaccine, what's the problem?

so you are happy for someone with less agency to be administered with something you are not comfortable with for yourself?

 

[xenon]

No one should be physically forced to take a vaccine. - Good.
Some areas of employment, for example, caring for vulnerable groups in residential settings, Should require having had the vaccine. - But if the residents have had the vaccine, what's the problem? The carers are being unfairly coerced to take the vaccine. If the vaccines are as effective as you say they are, then an unvaccinated carer won't be a threat to a vaccinated resident.

Some of those residents may medically not be able to take the vaccine. And no one is claiming they are 100% effective. The point is to reduce severe illness. If you want to work with vulnerable people, effectively in their homes, it’s quite right that you are asked to take these precautions to prevent spreading disease. don’t like that, well fuck off and find a job somewhere else. that’s freedom.

 

[cupid_stunt]

No one should be physically forced to take a vaccine. - Good.
Some areas of employment, for example, caring for vulnerable groups in residential settings, Should require having had the vaccine. - But if the residents have had the vaccine, what's the problem? The carers are being unfairly coerced to take the vaccine. If the vaccines are as effective as you say they are, then an unvaccinated carer won't be a threat to a vaccinated resident.

The vaccines do a great job in preventing serious illness and/or deaths, they reduce the risk, they do not eliminate it, that has been made clear right from the start.

 

[NoXion]

Great so YOU are the best person to decide whether you should get vaccinated.

I have NEVER told someone they should or shouldn't get a vaccinated, I'm just saying it's not right for everyone, edit to add and good for others.

But on what basis are you saying that it's not right for everyone? An individual can of course make the decision not to get vaccinated, but that doesn't mean that they are making the right decision, one based on sound advice and/or reasoning.

 

[xenon]

I mean, I actually agree with decentralisation, secure content, addressable web authenticity. But that’s not controversial.

 

[StakerOne]

The vaccines do a great job in preventing serious illness and/or deaths, they reduce the risk, they do not eliminate it, that has been made clear right from the start.

You have not demonstrated how my view is incompatible with that.

 

[LDC]

No one should be physically forced to take a vaccine. - Good.
Some areas of employment, for example, caring for vulnerable groups in residential settings, Should require having had the vaccine. - But if the residents have had the vaccine, what's the problem? The carers are being unfairly coerced to take the vaccine. If the vaccines are as effective as you say they are, then an unvaccinated carer won't be a threat to a vaccinated resident.

Did you miss the massive discussions on here (and in the medical/caring professions) where this was discussed? You're like 2 years too late to this, and obviously paid zero attention to it at the time.

 

[cupid_stunt]

You have not demonstrated how my view is incompatible with that.

If you can't work that out, there's no hope for you.

 

[NoXion]

You have not demonstrated how my view is incompatible with that.

If my mum was in a residential home, then the last I'd want to happen is for her to die because some dipshit thought that not getting jabbed was more important than her life.

 

[StakerOne]

And the idea we’re craving government to intervene and manage every area of our lives. Because we recognise some things are best done at scale and ideally with a non-commercial interest. Your reading comprehension is fucked mate.

Yeah sure, I can't see health care being decentralised any time soon, but never say never.

Also, I'm not sure that crypto has to always equal commercialised. Our word for it is "tokenomics" and it depends what you mean by "commercialised", because sometimes people can rightly or wrongly interpret "incentivised" as "commercialised"

The incentivisation bit isn't normally the problem, but when you have a large centralised entity like a corporate, it's the centralised power and the resources that the corporate has to corrupt a centralised entity such as a government by targeting people who wield concentrated power.

Decentralisation is about power being spread further and wider, so that a centralised entity has no one to target to corrupt or otherwise neutralise.

 

[StakerOne]

If my mum was in a residential home, then the last I'd want to happen is for her to die because some dipshit thought that not getting jabbed was more important than her life.

Should the carers be forced to get the influenza jab then? What about measles?

 

[elbows]

They would like to introduce vaccines that go further in reducing infection risk and transmission risk in future.

The current vaccines are far from perfect in that regard, but that doesnt mean they do nothing at all. A single studies numbers wont tell the whole story but still provide some clues, eg:

The overall risk of transmission to close contacts was 29%. However, people who had not been vaccinated had a higher risk (36%) of transmitting the virus compared to vaccinated people, whose risk was 27%.

The researchers estimate that index cases who had received more than one COVID-19 vaccine dose had a 24% lower risk of transmitting infection than unvaccinated index cases. Each additional dose was associated with an average 12% reduction in risk of transmission to the close contact. Those who had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection had a 22% reduction in risk of transmission. Finally, having both the vaccine and a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a 41% reduction risk of transmission.

Thats from New research suggests COVID-19 vaccines can slow the spread of disease, even with Omicron

So just because things arent perfect on that front doesnt make efforts to vaccinate people who arent at direct risk of death themselves completely pointless. The mixture of vaccinations and previous infections in our population makes a difference to the burden experienced in each wave. And we have ongoing waves, so its important to reduce those burdens as much as possible in order to reduce the impact and reduce the threat of being forced into having to impose stronger restrictions in order to cope with a wave.

 

[StakerOne]

If you can't work that out, there's no hope for you.

I'm not here to make your arguments for you.

 

[RD2003]

My beliefs are formed through research on the internet

Enough said.

 

[NoXion]

Should the carers be forced to get the influenza jab then? What about measles?

They should get whatever jabs are determined by medics to be appropriate for their working environment. If they don't like that, then they can go and find themselves a different job which doesn't involve working closely with clinically vulnerable people.

 

[BigMoaner]

Enough said.

It parody or satire now init

 

[two sheds]

I'm glad you've admitted you know fuck all about anything.

No, I'm suggesting you know fuck all about vaccines. If you knew anything more than fuck all you'd be able to back up your ludicrous assertions with figures. But that's clearly too much to ask.

 

[StakerOne]

They would like to introduce vaccines that go further in reducing infection risk and transmission risk in future.

The current vaccines are far from perfect in that regard, but that doesnt mean they do nothing at all. A single studies numbers wont tell the whole story but still provide some clues, eg:



Thats from New research suggests COVID-19 vaccines can slow the spread of disease, even with Omicron

So just because things arent perfect on that front doesnt make efforts to vaccinate people who arent at direct risk of death themselves completely pointless. The mixture of vaccinations and previous infections in our population makes a difference to the burden experienced in each wave. And we have ongoing waves, so its important to reduce those burdens as much as possible in order to reduce the impact and reduce the threat of being forced into having to impose stronger restrictions in order to cope with a wave.

I've had 4 vaccines. Omnicron isn't as deadly as the first virus. I'm not taking vaccines for the rest of my life and I don't believe in a society that penalises those who choose not to.

 

[klang]

who is being penalised?

 

[StakerOne]

Did you miss the massive discussions on here (and in the medical/caring professions) where this was discussed? You're like 2 years too late to this, and obviously paid zero attention to it at the time.

Looks like I did. And?

 

[NoXion]

I've had 4 vaccines. Omnicron isn't as deadly as the first virus. I'm not taking vaccines for the rest of my life and I don't believe in a society that penalises those who choose not to.

Lucky bastard, I've only had three.

 

[existentialist]

No one should be physically forced to take a vaccine. - Good.
Some areas of employment, for example, caring for vulnerable groups in residential settings, Should require having had the vaccine. - But if the residents have had the vaccine, what's the problem? The carers are being unfairly coerced to take the vaccine. If the vaccines are as effective as you say they are, then an unvaccinated carer won't be a threat to a vaccinated resident.

Earlier on, you made a claim that the vaccine does not prevent the spread of disease. That claim underlines your apparent ignorance of how mass vaccination works: it's not a magic bullet that instantly eliminates all possibility of transmission. Now you're demonstrating your apparent ignorance of how mass vaccination works by claiming (or pretending to) that if one party is vaccinated, it is some kind of magic bullet that instantly eliminates all possibility of transmission.

Vaccination doesn't work like that. It reduces the possibility of transmission, and reduces the severity of disease in most who have been vaccinated. So, by vaccinating as many as people as possible, we improve outcomes overall, and reduce the spread of the disease across a population.

So many of those who criticise this vaccination programme appear to be doing it from a premise of individual freedom. Which is all very well, but vaccination is about trading individual choices for a societal benefit, and as long as people go on thinking that it should be more about their choices than the overall benefit to the community of their getting vaccinated, we're pissing in the wind.

 

[elbows]

I've had 4 vaccines. Omnicron isn't as deadly as the first virus. I'm not taking vaccines for the rest of my life and I don't believe in a society that penalises those who choose not to.

The virus has evolved a bit but its the population immunity picture changing thats made the big difference in terms of observed mortality rates. If Omicron had been the first version of the virus that humanity had experienced then I doubt as many people would incorrectly think of it as mild. We judge viruses in context, and the context of Omicron was that it was attacking populations that had experienced other versions of the virus before, via prior infection and vaccination. And factors like that, like immune naivety on the whole population level, are what make pandemics pandemics in the first place.

The initial course of vaccines, back when such a huge number of people had never met the virus before, were the most important so in that sense you have already done your bit. As for the future, there are many different ways the situation might evolve, eg ones that cause the mortality burden to grow too large again, and your own personal health and risk may evolve, so its probably more sensible for you to maintain a flexible approach and never say never.

 

[existentialist]

I'm not here to make your arguments for you.

From the look of it, you're not here to make your own arguments for yourself, either

 

[StakerOne]

No, I'm suggesting you know fuck all about vaccines. If you knew anything more than fuck all you'd be able to back up your ludicrous assertions with figures. But that's clearly too much to ask.

My views on the actual vaccines would matter so far as a debate if I was arguing that you should or shouldn't take them. I'm not. So I don't understand why I would need to back up my views on the vaccines, if I'm not pro or anti-vaccine.

Please get this into your head. I couldn't care less, who takes the vaccine or who doesn't - all I really care about, is that everyone has the right to take it or not, including doing their own research, without having to combat censorship.

 

[existentialist]

Looks like I did. And?

Perhaps you have some reading to catch up on, then. And learn something about credibility of sources along the way.