5 5
gowlerk

covid-19

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, metalslug said:

With that being said; some parts of the toxic vitriol being directed to the unvaccinated includes denial of rights

Where are actual rights being denied? In BC we have now instituted a proof of vaccine program for discretionary activities. Some people are arguing it trample son their rights, but I have yet to find a document stating people have a right to eat at a restaurant, go to a concert, or visit a gym.

And employment generally has all kinds of stipulations. You try and become a UPS driver without a driver's license.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
57 minutes ago, metalslug said:

denial of rights (venue admission, employment, public care & services, etc.)

None of these things are rights.

Quote

Critics who are advocating, in effect, a two-tiered society; those with rights and those without, depending on the documents that you carry, and thereby establishing a new kind of Untermensch .

Bullshit. Nobody is born an antivaxxer and being one isn't unchangeable. This is in no way comparable to Untermensch. It is a completely and utterly absurd thing to say and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Edited by nwt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Where are actual rights being denied? In BC we have now instituted a proof of vaccine program for discretionary activities. Some people are arguing it trample son their rights, but I have yet to find a document stating people have a right to eat at a restaurant, go to a concert, or visit a gym.

And employment generally has all kinds of stipulations. You try and become a UPS driver without a driver's license.

All true, and to ride a motorcycle in most US states you need a licence, but not necessarily wear a helmet. Would there be a fuss if that changed tomorrow to mandate helmets for all ? Would we hear arguments about 'my body, my choice' ?  This is largely why I'm keen to know the outcome of studies into the relative infectiousness of the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated and the relative danger to others. 

In fairness to your comment; perhaps there are no actual documented rights to eat at a restaurant, go to a concert, or visit a gym. I lived in South Africa for many years before 1990 so I know all about "right of admission", but I wasn't entirely comfortable with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Do you have a citation for that ? I've been struggling to find published consensus on how much more infectious such people are. To be clear; I agree that vaccination is wise and necessary, I was amongst the first 14% in my country to be twice-vacc'ed. I also agree that the unvaccinated place an unnecessary burden on healthcare resources. All good points.

With that being said; some parts of the toxic vitriol being directed to the unvaccinated includes denial of rights (venue admission, employment, public care & services, etc.). Critics who are advocating, in effect, a two-tiered society; those with rights and those without, depending on the documents that you carry, and thereby establishing a new kind of Untermensch . That fundamentally gives me a sense of unease in democratic countries.  Ultimately I believe the greater good of society does trump individual freedoms, as I expect most forum members here do, but it's a bitter choice to have to make.

Some data:

From the CDC MMWR report we learn that "The vaccine effectiveness point estimates declined from 91% before predominance of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant to 66% since the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant became predominant at the HEROES-RECOVER cohort study sites."  In other words, previously, people who were vaccinated were ten times less likely to become infected; with Delta, they are now three times less likely to become infected.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e4.htm

Meanwhile, for symptomatic disease, moderna is 95% effective, pfizer is 80% effective and J+J is 60% effective at preventing hospitalization against Delta; the numbers are 92%, 77% and 65% respectively at preventing urgent care visits.

Quote

With that being said; some parts of the toxic vitriol being directed to the unvaccinated includes denial of rights (venue admission, employment, public care & services, etc.). Critics who are advocating, in effect, a two-tiered society; those with rights and those without, depending on the documents that you carry, and thereby establishing a new kind of Untermensch . 

I agree there should not be "toxic vitriol."  If anyone is wishing death on anyone else, shame on them.

But two-tiered society?  We have it, and no one seems upset about it now.  People without shoes and shirts are not allowed in most restaurants.   Kids who poop their pants are not allowed in most pools.  People who refuse to wear a mask are not allowed in most NICU's.  People without government ID are not allowed to fly.  People who drive drunk lose their licenses and aren't allowed to drive any more, thus becoming Untermensch.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, metalslug said:

All true, and to ride a motorcycle in most US states you need a licence, but not necessarily wear a helmet. Would there be a fuss if that changed tomorrow to mandate helmets for all ? Would we hear arguments about 'my body, my choice' ?

Probably.  Because if you don't wear a helmet you put yourself at risk.  If you don't get vaccinated you put other people at risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, metalslug said:

In fairness to your comment; perhaps there are no actual documented rights to eat at a restaurant, go to a concert, or visit a gym. I lived in South Africa for many years before 1990 so I know all about "right of admission", but I wasn't entirely comfortable with it.

What you mentioned are privileges, and it's illegal to deny those privileges based on race, sexuality, and religion. Being antivax is none of those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, billvon said:

But two-tiered society?  We have it, and no one seems upset about it now.  People without shoes and shirts are not allowed in most restaurants....   

I take your points, but it has been argued by some that receiving a vaccination is a medical procedure that some regard as invasive. Personally I was fine with getting jabbed, and I won't presume to know how anti-vaxxer logic works in a context of medical phobias vs not wearing shoes.

14 minutes ago, billvon said:

Some data:

I totally get that the vaccines reduce the susceptibility of the recipient, but that's not what I was asking. How much are the unvaccinated more likely to transmit to others ?  If you already included that somewhere above then forgive me, but I didn't see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, olofscience said:

What you mentioned are privileges, and it's illegal to deny those privileges based on race, sexuality, and religion. Being antivax is none of those.

That's fair comment, although it may be argued that religion and antivaxxers have some parallels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, metalslug said:

depending on the documents that you carry, and thereby establishing a new kind of Untermensch .

Definition from Google, perhaps anti-vaxxers could indeed be considered "socially inferior". They are after all voluntarily choosing to be disease vectors endangering others around them for no rational reason. I consider them to be at least somewhat inferior.

Un·ter·mensch
/ˈo͝on(t)ərˌmen(t)SH/
 
noun
 
  1. a person considered racially or socially inferior
     
     
     
     
     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, metalslug said:

I take your points, but it has been argued by some that receiving a vaccination is a medical procedure that some regard as invasive.

Some may regard it as invasive, but those people are wrong. The actual Nazis did actually invasive things to those they called untermensch, and they bear no relation to this vaccine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, nwt said:

Some may regard it as invasive, but those people are wrong. The actual Nazis did actually invasive things to those they called untermensch, and they bear no relation to this vaccine.

Please refer to the post directly above yours with regard understanding the term. By not receiving the vaccine, antivaxxers are deemed socially inferior by some people and, quite probably, by some laws coming into effect, which is something I'm not yet comfortable with. I'm keen to know how much more infectious (as a danger to others) the vaccinated are vs the unvaccinated. There are no implied parallels here to medical experiments on holocaust victims. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Please refer to the post directly above yours with regard understanding the term. By not receiving the vaccine, antivaxxers are deemed socially inferior by some people and, quite probably, by some laws coming into effect, which is something I'm not yet comfortable with. I'm keen to know how much more infectious (as a danger to others) the vaccinated are vs the unvaccinated. There are no implied parallels here to medical experiments on holocaust victims. 

Negative. Antivaxers are not considered socially inferior. They are considered to be an impediment to a more free existence for the rest of us. To wit: fuck 'em.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, base698 said:

The vaccines have been proven safe and effective in adults. If your position is teenage boys should have different vaccination requirements from adults, I'm not sure I'd argue against that.

1 hour ago, metalslug said:

By not receiving the vaccine, antivaxxers are deemed socially inferior by some people and, quite probably, by some laws coming into effect, which is something I'm not yet comfortable with

It has always been true that sometimes people are considered socially inferior for their decisions. This is clearly distinct from people being considered socially inferior for their race.

1 hour ago, metalslug said:

There are no implied parallels here to medical experiments on holocaust victims. 

The word you chose to use to describe the unvaccinated is literally a Nazi term for their holocaust victims. The parallel is more than implied, it is quite direct.

Quote

With that being said; some parts of the toxic vitriol being directed to the unvaccinated includes denial of rights (venue admission, employment, public care & services, etc.). Critics who are advocating, in effect, a two-tiered society; those with rights and those without, depending on the documents that you carry, and thereby establishing a new kind of Untermensch

Quote

Untermensch (German pronunciation: [ˈʔʊntɐˌmɛnʃ] (About this soundlisten), underman, sub-man, subhuman; plural: Untermenschen) is a Nazi term for non-Aryan "inferior people" often referred to as "the masses from the East", that is Jews, Roma, and Slavs (Russians, Ukrainians, Poles and Serbs etc).[1][2] The term was also applied to Mulatto and Black people.[3] Jews were to be exterminated[4] in the Holocaust, along with the Polish and Romani people, and the physically and mentally disabled.[5][6] According to the Generalplan Ost, the Slavic population of East-Central Europe was to be reduced in part through mass murder in the Holocaust, with a majority expelled to Asia and used as slave labor in the Reich. These concepts were an important part of the Nazi racial policy.[7]

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, metalslug said:

Critics who are advocating, in effect, a two-tiered society; those with rights and those without, depending on the documents that you carry, and thereby establishing a new kind of Untermensch .

We are discussing people voluntarily putting themselves into such a class.  Their solution is simple,  free, and eliminates their risk of getting a Herman Cain award.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, metalslug said:

I totally get that the vaccines reduce the susceptibility of the recipient, but that's not what I was asking. How much are the unvaccinated more likely to transmit to others ?  If you already included that somewhere above then forgive me, but I didn't see it.

Per the CDC, the unvaccinated have at least a 3x greater chance of becoming infected with Delta.  Since you can't spread the disease unless you are infected, that means the unvaccinated are ~3x more likely to be able to transmit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
3 hours ago, metalslug said:

There are no implied parallels here to medical experiments on holocaust victims. 

Except that you deliberately chose to use a word that carries strong holocaust connotations and you used it for that reason.

If you don't want people to think you're drawing parallels with Nazi treatment of Jews, don't go out of your way to bring Nazi treatment of Jews into the conversation.

Edited by jakee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jakee said:

If you don't want people to think you're drawing parallels with Nazi treatment of Jews, don't go out of your way to bring Nazi treatment of Jews into the conversation.

Absolutely. Have your cake or eat your cake. Don't eat it and then complain that it is gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billvon said:

Per the CDC, the unvaccinated have at least a 3x greater chance of becoming infected with Delta.  Since you can't spread the disease unless you are infected, that means the unvaccinated are ~3x more likely to be able to transmit it.

That wording is curious. As the vaccine is not a physical barrier, the vaccinated can surely acquire the virus for a transient period before fighting it off ?  Is there no evidence of transmissibility during that period ?   

I'm sure many of us have heard of incidents in which fully vaccinated people were denied travel & access to family members (allegedly in dire need) due to various lockdown rules. Would incidents such as those contradict the science ? ..if the future goal now is to allow the vaccinated to get on with normal life someday soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kallend said:

We are discussing people voluntarily putting themselves into such a class.   

Not accurate IMO; the Covid vaccinated are effectively a new class for compliance within proposed new laws. The unvaccinated have abstained from a transition to that new order, they didn't put themselves into anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kallend said:

We are discussing people voluntarily putting themselves into such a class.  Their solution is simple,  free, and eliminates their risk of getting a Herman Cain award.  

Trumpanzees are now gargling Betadine Antiseptic to prevent Covid, and I assume, to wash the taste of Ivermectin away. Is there anything those simpletons won't believe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Trumpanzees are now gargling Betadine Antiseptic to prevent Covid, and I assume, to wash the taste of Ivermectin away. Is there anything those simpletons won't believe?

I just saw the story a few minutes ago:

Anti-Vaxxers Are Now Gargling Iodine to Prevent Covid-19

Next up: Going to the barber and asking for a haircut and some bloodletting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

5 5