ADVERTISEMENT

Just need a simple answer - vaccine

Vaccine mandates for schools are all state level (maybe some are even district level but far as I know it’s all state). There are no national mandates for school vaccination.

Of course at the time there was lots of fire and fury about them. There was about smallpox mandates too, with angry parents burning their arms with nitric acid to mimic the scar from the vaccine. In the 1890s and 1900s teams would go door to door at night, breaking them in if necessary to administer smallpox vaccines by force.

And, rather famously, Washington mandates his soldiers get smallpox vaccines, while writing that he wished all heads of households would face “severe penalties” for not vaccinating their children.

edit: Source https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...us/politics/vaccine-mandates-history.amp.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raoul Duke MU
The other issue is what is the end point?

Yale has a 99% vax rate. But it’s my understanding they still have mask mandate.

We need an exit strategy/metric for an off ramp to build trust.
Yeah I agree with this. In situations where we know everyone is vaccinated what are we doing.

The issue is where we don’t like, like for example grocery stores, where there’s a negative correlation between those who are not vaxxed and those who would actually follow an “unvaxxed only” mask mandate. But we also don’t want passports so what do you do?
 
  • Like
Reactions: -CarlHungus-
Yeah I agree with this. In situations where we know everyone is vaccinated what are we doing.

The issue is where we don’t like, like for example grocery stores, where there’s a negative correlation between those who are not vaxxed and those who would actually follow an “unvaxxed only” mask mandate. But we also don’t want passports so what do you do?

I don’t know.

I think community/county test positivity rate may be a good metric.
 
We need an exit strategy/metric for an off ramp to build trust.

So true. Early efforts to politicize Covid, which were successful, as well as misinformation and constantly changing narratives have only undermined the public trust of many.

That and any attempts to have a meaningful dialog with reasonable and relevant questions were shouted down with "Trust the Science", when in many instances science was in fact contradicting itself.
 
Will vaccines even end it? Shit is in the animals. Deer, otters, you name it.
 
They won’t end it, no. Nothing will. It’ll be like the flu.
That doesn’t make mitigation strategies when we are in a crises (which we absolutely are) not necessary. But full eradication is never happening.
 
Will vaccines even end it? Shit is in the animals. Deer, otters, you name it.

I doubt it.

Gotta get it to a point where it’s not shutting down ERs though. Then pull back on restrictions.

And get yourself in shape. This covid is brutal on the obese.
 
You’ll quickly change your tune when you or w loved one can’t get a hospital bed due to the selfish pieces of shit who haven’t been vaccinated and are crushing the hospitals.

Banker, have you not been vaccinated?
No, and I won’t be. I have never taken a flu shot and don’t plan to start now, especially a mRNA one. I’m not concerned in the gain in survivability from 99.96% to 99.997%.
 
@-CarlHungus- , here is a good article on Jacobson v MA and its parallels with today's situation. I think it is worth a read. And it has me thinking should this come before SCOTUS it will only be framed as a question of the legality of the Executive Order and not have a thing to do with vaccine mandates....there is just too much wrapped up in that case's precedent.

https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...mandate-strong-supreme-court-precedent-510280
Smallpox was more contagious than COVID and had a 30% mortality rate. Polio also killed 15-30% of adolescents and adults that contracted the severe strains.

We are talking about a illness that will end up with about a 0.04% death rate for people under 65 years of age. Comparing vaccines for things smallpox with a vaccine for COVID is a flawed premise.
 
Polio was much less deadly than Covid when you factor in how contagious both are/were. In the worst years polio killed about 3000 Americans. That's a good week for Covid.

Smallpox is a tough one to pin down because it's been around a long time and inocculation of different sorts has been going on for about 500 years, but yes it is much worse than Covid or pretty much anything else I can think of. Very, very luckily for us, it only infects humans, which is a large part of why we were able to eradicate it. Same with polio.
 
No, and I won’t be. I have never taken a flu shot and don’t plan to start now, especially a mRNA one. I’m not concerned in the gain in survivability from 99.96% to 99.997%.

For the sake of logic and common sense, try using the survivability rate for your age.
 
Smallpox was more contagious than COVID and had a 30% mortality rate. Polio also killed 15-30% of adolescents and adults that contracted the severe strains.

We are talking about a illness that will end up with about a 0.04% death rate for people under 65 years of age. Comparing vaccines for things smallpox with a vaccine for COVID is a flawed premise.
That would be even more of a reason to not destroy an important and long held precedent....you never know what virus will emerge in the future. So yes, judge the EO solely on its Constitutional merits, the nuances of it.
 
I wish this thing wasn’t so polarizing. Each person should have the ability to make their own choice about whether or not to get this vaccine. That said, I don’t know why conservatives are so against a vaccine that was introduced under and pushed by President Trump. Would things be different if he had gotten re-elected? Even if this thing is just a therapeutic, which it seems to be, are you not still better protected by getting the shot?

I’m not into conspiracies. Trump lost, Q Anon people are stupid, and the vaccine isn’t a government attempt to control your body and mind. Just as much as I believe masks don’t help, I equally believe the vaccine does help. This shouldn’t be a debate.
 
I’m not into conspiracies. Trump lost, Q Anon people are stupid, and the vaccine isn’t a government attempt to control your body and mind. Just as much as I believe masks don’t help, I equally believe the vaccine does help. This shouldn’t be a debate.
Do you believe Bill Gates is using the vaccine to get people to switch to Windows from Apple and Android?
 
242018246_10160985518311336_4625568979108903656_n.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: raleighherdfan
I wish this thing wasn’t so polarizing. Each person should have the ability to make their own choice about whether or not to get this vaccine. That said, I don’t know why conservatives are so against a vaccine that was introduced under and pushed by President Trump. Would things be different if he had gotten re-elected? Even if this thing is just a therapeutic, which it seems to be, are you not still better protected by getting the shot?

I’m not into conspiracies. Trump lost, Q Anon people are stupid, and the vaccine isn’t a government attempt to control your body and mind. Just as much as I believe masks don’t help, I equally believe the vaccine does help. This shouldn’t be a debate.
The Soviets beat the USA in basketball and won gold in 1972 also.
 
For the sake of logic and common sense, try using the survivability rate for your age.
I am, based on the fact I have no comorbidity and the fact that I actually have to catch it. The overall death rate for individuals (including all age groups) is 0.9% in they do not have comorbidities. Keep in mind, that’s a percentage based on confirmed cases, with the likely case count being much higher (the CDC says it could be twice as high) the real rate is probably around 0.45%.

For my age group, the no comorbidity death rate is 0.3% (again, real number is probably more like 0.15% of real total cases). So if you take the 0.3% death rate and take that by the 15-20% chance I have of catching it, I have a 0.045 to 0.060% chance of dying from COVID.
 
I wish this thing wasn’t so polarizing. Each person should have the ability to make their own choice about whether or not to get this vaccine. That said, I don’t know why conservatives are so against a vaccine that was introduced under and pushed by President Trump. Would things be different if he had gotten re-elected? Even if this thing is just a therapeutic, which it seems to be, are you not still better protected by getting the shot?

I’m not into conspiracies. Trump lost, Q Anon people are stupid, and the vaccine isn’t a government attempt to control your body and mind. Just as much as I believe masks don’t help, I equally believe the vaccine does help. This shouldn’t be a debate.
I have problems with it for a few reasons:

1. you simply don’t develop a vaccine for a new virus in 6 months, at least not one that’s properly researched. That leads to

2. drug company immunity. They should have conditioned the immunity as being terminated once FDA approval was achieved.

3. I have zero trust in mRNA vaccine technology. They have been working on it for decades and have not been able to create one successful product that received FDA approval, until this one.

4. I believe the CDC has suppressed adverse reaction data around the vaccine, especially when you consider its data compared to data being put out by foreign governments, specifically Israel and the EU.

5. we have been lied to and misinformed too many times during this whole process. The narrative and instructions have bounced around way too much and has created a mistrust of anything the CDC says.
 
1 - I mean, they did. Unless your point is that 6 months isn’t long enough to watch for long term side effects, but you’re just pushing the goal posts back then. How long is long enough?

2 - Drug companies have immunity on all vaccines. We set up a system in 1988 (when Reagan, who I guess must also be wrapped up in this big conspiracy) was President, where vaccination side effect suits went through a different channel. Juries were giving big awards to plaintiffs with extremely questionable cases and manufactures were ready to stop making vaccines. The vaccine court was the lesser evil.

3 - Groundwork on mRNA tech started in the late 80s, but as with anything it takes a long time to go from “hey mouse cells in a Petri dish do something when we put this in there” to “developing products from human use.” Development for human use started in 2008, and got rolling in 2010. So decade, not decades. Which isn’t out of the ordinary for a new medical technology.

4 - What is the data that you’re comparing that shows more adverse effects in Europe? Is the definition of “adverse effect” the same for both data sets.

5 - I believe we were lied to twice. First, they knew the shutdowns would last longer than 2 weeks. Second, they knew masks were effective from the start, but didn’t want supply to drop to 0 before they could secure them for healthcare workers, where they were needed most. Cutting off our nose to spite our faces and deciding that that not only means the CDC isn’t trustworthy (especially when the first was a political decision and not the CDC’s to make), but also means that we should do the opposite of what they say, is not beneficial.
 
1 - I mean, they did. Unless your point is that 6 months isn’t long enough to watch for long term side effects, but you’re just pushing the goal posts back then. How long is long enough?

2 - Drug companies have immunity on all vaccines. We set up a system in 1988 (when Reagan, who I guess must also be wrapped up in this big conspiracy) was President, where vaccination side effect suits went through a different channel. Juries were giving big awards to plaintiffs with extremely questionable cases and manufactures were ready to stop making vaccines. The vaccine court was the lesser evil.

3 - Groundwork on mRNA tech started in the late 80s, but as with anything it takes a long time to go from “hey mouse cells in a Petri dish do something when we put this in there” to “developing products from human use.” Development for human use started in 2008, and got rolling in 2010. So decade, not decades. Which isn’t out of the ordinary for a new medical technology.

4 - What is the data that you’re comparing that shows more adverse effects in Europe? Is the definition of “adverse effect” the same for both data sets.

5 - I believe we were lied to twice. First, they knew the shutdowns would last longer than 2 weeks. Second, they knew masks were effective from the start, but didn’t want supply to drop to 0 before they could secure them for healthcare workers, where they were needed most. Cutting off our nose to spite our faces and deciding that that not only means the CDC isn’t trustworthy (especially when the first was a political decision and not the CDC’s to make), but also means that we should do the opposite of what they say, is not beneficial.
They are lying about the origins of the virus. Old Fauci had his hand in the cookie jar, among others .
They know the vaccine is not long term.

Mask is pretty useless as tits on a boar hog. They know it.
 
1 - I mean, they did. Unless your point is that 6 months isn’t long enough to watch for long term side effects, but you’re just pushing the goal posts back then. How long is long enough?

2 - Drug companies have immunity on all vaccines. We set up a system in 1988 (when Reagan, who I guess must also be wrapped up in this big conspiracy) was President, where vaccination side effect suits went through a different channel. Juries were giving big awards to plaintiffs with extremely questionable cases and manufactures were ready to stop making vaccines. The vaccine court was the lesser evil.

3 - Groundwork on mRNA tech started in the late 80s, but as with anything it takes a long time to go from “hey mouse cells in a Petri dish do something when we put this in there” to “developing products from human use.” Development for human use started in 2008, and got rolling in 2010. So decade, not decades. Which isn’t out of the ordinary for a new medical technology.

4 - What is the data that you’re comparing that shows more adverse effects in Europe? Is the definition of “adverse effect” the same for both data sets.

5 - I believe we were lied to twice. First, they knew the shutdowns would last longer than 2 weeks. Second, they knew masks were effective from the start, but didn’t want supply to drop to 0 before they could secure them for healthcare workers, where they were needed most. Cutting off our nose to spite our faces and deciding that that not only means the CDC isn’t trustworthy (especially when the first was a political decision and not the CDC’s to make), but also means that we should do the opposite of what they say, is not beneficial.
If you believe we have only been lied to twice, there’s really not much use having a conversation.

here’s an article from Slate, not a right wing site, that is as gentle on the topic as it can be.
 
There are also different opinions about booster shots at this time, People resigning FDA positions over it.
 
Yeah I agree with this. In situations where we know everyone is vaccinated what are we doing.

The issue is where we don’t like, like for example grocery stores, where there’s a negative correlation between those who are not vaxxed and those who would actually follow an “unvaxxed only” mask mandate. But we also don’t want passports so what do you do?
I believe that’s called personal responsibility
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT