Vaccine awareness 😉

[freshstart]

6 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Fair enough. Some, but not total protection: 

 

On respiratory droplets and face masks: Physics of Fluids: Vol 32, No 6 (scitation.org)

 

 

The concluding statement in the abstract for the resource you provided reads as follows: 

The results of this study provide evidence of droplet transmission prevention by face masks, which can guide their use and further improvement.

I think we have to be careful about making sweeping statements (masks are "ineffective, pointless," etc.) when it flies in the face of conventional scientific wisdom.  And of course masks do not offer "total protection."  Nothing does.  I've been wearing masks long before covid (and certainly during covid) to help protect me (not my patients) against flu and other diseases spread by droplets.  And I'm pretty sure if it were possible to give you a tour of a covid unit, you'd want to wear a mask - even if it wasn't required. 

 

Here is another resource (among many others) supporting the use of masks as an effective strategy (not total prevention) against covid. 

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

 

[LogicalFallacy]

There does seem to be a common argument along the lines of if it's not 100% protective or effective then its useless.

 

I don't understand that reasoning. How? Why? If say a mask is only 30% effective at stopping droplets for example, that is still 30% MORE effective than not wearing a mask. If a vaccine is only 90% effective its still better than no vaccine. Maths, people. Such an important subject.

 

One of the problem with mask wearing is that we haven't actually been able to do proper lab tests due to.... ethical considerations. Put all these people in a lab and infect them, have half wears masks and half not. Introduce to each uninfected people and see which group spreads the virus faster. So we rely on wider non controlled research. However, it still seems to me that if I have a mask on, and I sneeze into that mask it is going to block some of the force and the droplets thus reducing the viral load that makes it into the wild. Seems common sense to me.

[LogicalFallacy]

From the article freshstart posted:

 

"Direct Epidemiological Evidence.

Cochrane (7) and the World Health Organization (8) both point out that, for population health measures, we should not generally expect to be able to find controlled trials, due to logistical and ethical reasons, and should therefore instead seek a wider evidence base. (This is what I was pointing out above.) This issue has been identified for studying community use of masks for COVID-19 in particular (9). Therefore, we should not be surprised to find that there is no RCT for the impact of masks on community transmission of any respiratory infection in a pandemic.

Only one observational study has directly analyzed the impact of mask use in the community on COVID-19 transmission. The study looked at the reduction of secondary transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Beijing households by face mask use (10). It found that face masks were 79% effective in preventing transmission, if they were used by all household members prior to symptoms occurring. The study did not look at the relative risk of different types of mask."

 

So it seems we do in fact have evidence that mask wearing helps. I would also postulate that the higher the quality of mask the more effective it is.

[freshstart]

 

25 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

So it seems we do in fact have evidence that mask wearing helps. I would also postulate that the higher the quality of mask the more effective it is.

You don't even have to postulate.  Its well known that cloth masks do not offer the same filtering effectiveness as what is popularly known as "surgical masks," hence cloth masks are not allowed to be worn by health care workers in health care settings (unless worn over a surgical mask - for some facilities).  Also N95s have higher filtering capability and a tighter fit (if the user is properly fit-tested for the right size and style). 

As for "properly controlled studies," the ethical and logistical barriers are similar when studying other public health initiatives, for example, condom use.  Yet we don't seem to hear people proclaiming that condoms are useless and ineffective.  

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7#Sec12

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

As bad as I hate it. I think we need to go back to wearing masks. I didn't even get a cold last year and I attribute that to better hygiene, (washing hands, hand sanitizer) and wearing masks. We were on a decline until they told everybody that if your vaccinated you don't need to wear masks and everybody tried to go back to normal. That was a bad call. Not the first in this pandemic. 

 

I dont think the vaccine is even 90 percent effective right now. Probably bc of delta variant. I keep looking at these numbers and I'm thinking. Yeah.... this is gonna get worse. Even in the vaccinated population, as more people are exposed and infected. Well see, that's just my guess with current observations in local infections that I mentioned before. If this numbers hold across the board we'll see big jumps in infections with vaccinated people once the delta variant hits the higher vaccinated areas like new york and California. 

 

I just hope the shit works good on me n my family. Got the ex talked into taking it. Trying to get my mom n dad too. Both my sons have already got it and plan to get my daughter vaccinated when she's old enough. 

[Joshpantera]

15 hours ago, freshstart said:

 

The concluding statement in the abstract for the resource you provided reads as follows: 

The results of this study provide evidence of droplet transmission prevention by face masks, which can guide their use and further improvement.

I think we have to be careful about making sweeping statements (masks are "ineffective, pointless," etc.) when it flies in the face of conventional scientific wisdom.  And of course masks do not offer "total protection."  Nothing does.  I've been wearing masks long before covid (and certainly during covid) to help protect me (not my patients) against flu and other diseases spread by droplets.  And I'm pretty sure if it were possible to give you a tour of a covid unit, you'd want to wear a mask - even if it wasn't required. 

 

Here is another resource (among many others) supporting the use of masks as an effective strategy (not total prevention) against covid. 

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

 

 

I'm sticking to the mostly keep a distance from people as much as possible strategy. I like that one. It's easy to follow because I don't like people crowding places or getting up in my personal space. Never have. So social distancing has been a god send. I hope that remains the rule of thumb forever going forward. 

 

I'm Moderna Vaccinated. Last I heard the estimates are down to around 80% effective. But more effective against the Delta variant then some of the competing vaccines. I'm not very impressed with the mask wearing at all.

 

If I go into a construction zone wearing any number of the masks people are wearing around town, I'll have to clean out the raw dust from my nostrils regardless of the mask. That's why we don't often wear masks unless it's a full scale respirator. Because even if cutting down the total amount of debris happens, you still don't cut out all of the debris and you're still breathing in that crap anyways. You're not avoiding breathing that crap in. It gets around the masks and finds it's way in. And that's dust and hard particles. How much smaller is coronavirus compared to dust in a construction site?

 

4 hours ago, freshstart said:

You don't even have to postulate.  Its well known that cloth masks do not offer the same filtering effectiveness as what is popularly known as "surgical masks," hence cloth masks are not allowed to be worn by health care workers in health care settings (unless worn over a surgical mask - for some facilities).  Also N95s have higher filtering capability and a tighter fit (if the user is properly fit-tested for the right size and style). 

As for "properly controlled studies," the ethical and logistical barriers are similar when studying other public health initiatives, for example, condom use.  Yet we don't seem to hear people proclaiming that condoms are useless and ineffective.  

 

You don't? I've broken condoms. I know many more people who have broken condoms. Blown the end right off! Only realize after the fact! It's safe as long as it doesn't break along the way, which, they are well known to do at times. 

 

Same difference with masks, basically. As I've outlined above. There's the idealistic views and then there's personal experience and practical views. The idealistic views tend towards making one think they are safer or more protected than they actually are in reality. Going back to the placebo references earlier. You're safer with a mask, unless shit gets in around it, or through it, as you're sweating the thing up. Same difference with condoms. You're safer unless you break right through the dam thing! Then you aren't very safe at all. And the ideal of safety had been illusory more than anything else. 

 

 

 

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

4 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

It found that face masks were 79% effective in preventing transmission, if they were used by all household members prior to symptoms occurring.

 

This goes back to what I was saying in an earlier post. If its 79% effective with everyone wearing a mask. How effective is it for 1 person in the family if they are the only one wearing the mask. Probably not very effective at all. 

 

Right now in my area there aren't very many ppl wearing masks anymore. It's picking up again since the resent surge. But there us A LOT of resistance to anything vaccine or mask related right now. If 50 years or so of mistrust hadn't been sewn in people's minds. I dont think we would be having this issue right now. Or atleast not as bad. 

[Joshpantera]

24 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

I dont think the vaccine is even 90 percent effective right now. Probably bc of delta variant. I keep looking at these numbers and I'm thinking. Yeah.... this is gonna get worse. Even in the vaccinated population, as more people are exposed and infected.

 

The effective percentages have already been lowering as they learn more about it. I think Moderna is around 80% but my Dad has Pfizer and he was telling me that over 90% effective has now aimed down to around 40 - 50 % effective. I haven't researched this, it's just what I've heard going around. Not surprising if true. Because they don't know. These things are uncertain. They don't have any idea on a long term scale. Due to the fact that not enough time has passed to know anything on a long term scale. 

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

32 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

You don't? I've broken condoms. I know many more people who have broken condoms. Blown the end right off! Only realize after the fact! It's safe as long as it doesn't break along the way, which, they are well known to do at times. 

 

Same difference with masks, basically. As I've outlined above. There's the idealistic views and then there's personal experience and practical views. The idealistic views tend towards making one think they are safer or more protected than they actually are in reality. Going back to the placebo references earlier. You're safer with a mask, unless shit gets in around it, or through it, as you're sweating the thing up. Same difference with condoms. You're safer unless you break right through the dam thing! Then you aren't very safe at all. And the ideal of safety had been illusory more than anything else. 

 

Josh, I'm not sure if your reply here is a bad strawman or just missing the point freshstart made re condoms.

 

Freshtart did not make the claim that nothing can go wrong with condoms, she said that condoms are not useless and ineffective. Obviously if you break them then you'll be in the same position as not having used one. However, by and large they are effective for preventing pregnancy and preventing STD's.

 

Your entire point seems a bit of a non sequitur. "You are safer with a mask unless something gets in around it"? You are safeer with a seatbelt on unless it breaks. You are safer wearing gloves, unless they have holes in them. Well, yeah, buts its still safer doing gardening with gloves on that without them. Maybe I'm thick as shit and just don't get what you are driving at.

[freshstart]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

Same difference with masks, basically. As I've outlined above. There's the idealistic views and then there's personal experience and practical views.

And then there are scientific views. The science clearly supports mask-wearing (and condom- wearing) as effective (not perfect) in helping to prevent the spread of communicable disease.

 

The personal anecdotal evidence you present is equivalent to the argument that I should not bother to wear a seat belt because there are many people who have died in car accidents wearing seat belts, and furthermore, as long as I stay off the expressways away from others,  that should keep me safe enough. There may be even be  personal experience to support some truth in this argument (perhaps I know someone who died in a car accident wearing a seatbelt or I know someone who got pregnant despite condom use). Yet it doesn't mean that I should use this personal evidence as being applicable to the general population or to me, for that matter, in my future behaviors. Because science points to other conclusions ( in general, seat belts help save lives,  condoms help prevent pregnancy, and masks help prevent spread of respiratory infections).

[Joshpantera]

6 hours ago, freshstart said:

And then there are scientific views. The science clearly supports mask-wearing (and condom- wearing) as effective (not perfect) in helping to prevent the spread of communicable disease.

 

The personal anecdotal evidence you present is equivalent to the argument that I should not bother to wear a seat belt because there are many people who have died in car accidents wearing seat belts, and furthermore, as long as I stay off the expressways away from others,  that should keep me safe enough. There may be even be  personal experience to support some truth in this argument (perhaps I know someone who died in a car accident wearing a seatbelt or I know someone who got pregnant despite condom use). Yet it doesn't mean that I should use this personal evidence as being applicable to the general population or to me, for that matter, in my future behaviors. Because science points to other conclusions ( in general, seat belts help save lives,  condoms help prevent pregnancy, and masks help prevent spread of respiratory infections).

 

What you're claim here is, then, is that science shows that it's possible to prevent X with the application or usage of Y, but there's no certainties given and prevention is still not guaranteed in any example or scenario. Correct? 

[Joshpantera]

7 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Freshtart did not make the claim that nothing can go wrong with condoms, she said that condoms are not useless and ineffective. Obviously if you break them then you'll be in the same position as not having used one. However, by and large they are effective for preventing pregnancy and preventing STD's.

 

These can be useless and ineffective if they turn out to be useless and ineffective, which, they all can be. That's why people can CHOOSE their own course. Even with seat belts, I have been opposed to seat belt laws and citations from the beginning. I would oppose sodomy laws as well. I would oppose condom mandates if they tried making them. And I oppose anything to do with a mask or vaccine mandate all for the same reason. 

 

Mandates that represent government over reach in my opinion are worthless trash to be disregarded and ignored. If I wanted that sort of thing I'd move out of the US to some other place where I could sit back and let a government determine my choices for me. To each his or her own. 

 

Smoke if you got'em......

 

 

[TABA]

23 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

I have been opposed to seat belt laws and citations from the beginning. I would oppose sodomy laws as well. I would oppose condom mandates if they tried making them. And I oppose anything to do with a mask or vaccine mandate all for the same reason. 

You and I have the same libertarian instincts.  Sometimes when a good practice gets mandated, human nature rebels against the practice itself.  I always wear a seat-belt and I’d always wear a motorcycle helmet if I rode.  I fear some people don’t do those things simply because they’re mandated.  There’s always going to be a tension between safety and personal liberty because some people will choose to do stupid things.  Bottom line: it’s complicated.  

[Joshpantera]

9 minutes ago, TABA said:

You and I have the same libertarian instincts.  Sometimes when a good practice gets mandated, human nature rebels against the practice itself.  I always wear a seat-belt and I’d always wear a motorcycle helmet if I rode.  I fear some people don’t do those things simply because they’re mandated.  There’s always going to be a tension between safety and personal liberty because some people will choose to do stupid things.  Bottom line: it’s complicated.  

 

I started a new thread about collectivism versus individualism where this can be explored.

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

These can be useless and ineffective if they turn out to be useless and ineffective, which, they all can be. That's why people can CHOOSE their own course. Even with seat belts, I have been opposed to seat belt laws and citations from the beginning. I would oppose sodomy laws as well. I would oppose condom mandates if they tried making them. And I oppose anything to do with a mask or vaccine mandate all for the same reason. 

 

Mandates that represent government over reach in my opinion are worthless trash to be disregarded and ignored. If I wanted that sort of thing I'd move out of the US to some other place where I could sit back and let a government determine my choices for me. To each his or her own. 

 

Smoke if you got'em......

 

 

Yes!! Yes!! Yes!! This! This is what I've been supporting. Having the right to chose after you've made your own assessment. The virus is here. As far as we can really tell it isn't leaving, even with our "best weapon" or "fire extinguisher ". The vaccine has its own set of issues to worry about. It is only AMERICAN to let people decide for themselves what they feel they need to do. 

 

If it would actually end the virus I might feel different. But it won't. They are saying they need 95% vaccine participation to get heard immunity. But your still not going to get heard immunity with a 50%-80% effective vaccine. 

 

So why try to force people? Sure now I support the vaccine. So far the stats look better than doing nothing. But individual rights should always be paramount. And given the situation and the decline in the positive statistics about the vaccine. Whose to say efficacy won't keep trending down. If it was only say 20% effective? With a risk of possible rare blood clots. Is it worth taking it then? 

 

I dont blame people for wanting make their own decisions. Everything was rushed last year and we will only get better information and more accurate information as time progresses. 

[freshstart]

13 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

What you're claim here is, then, is that science shows that it's possible to prevent X with the application or usage of Y, but there's no certainties given and prevention is still not guaranteed in any example or scenario. Correct? 

What I claim is that science can offer stastistical probabilities about what may or may not happen to Y when X is implemented. There is a statistical probablity out there that says if I wash my hands thoroughly before I perform a medically invasive procedure,  it decreases the chances of creating a vector for pathogens to enter you during that procedure. But it does not guarantee that you will not develop an infection related to that procedure, (nor is there a guarantee that I will scrub properly).  In fact, many people do develop post-procedural infections. It seems by your logic I should give up handwashing because there is no guarantee that it can prevent the spread of microbes? I'm sincerely baffled.

[freshstart]

12 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

I started a new thread about collectivism versus individualism where this can be explored.

Totally agree. Better to pontificate than to try to interpret all this boring sciency stuff. It does get old.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

5 minutes ago, freshstart said:

Totally agree. Better to pontificate than to try to interpret all this boring sciency stuff. It does get old.

Here's a question for ya. Do you think that the individual should choose to take the vaccine or should it be mandatory? 

[LogicalFallacy]

3 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Here's a question for ya. Do you think that the individual should choose to take the vaccine or should it be mandatory? 

And another question:

 

Should an individual who has chosen not to take the vaccine, who then gets infected and spreads the disease to others resulting in deaths, should that individual be liable for man slaughter?

 

Both very interesting questions we ask DB, but best possibly for Josh's thread?

[TABA]

14 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Should an individual who has chosen not to take the vaccine, who then gets infected and spreads the disease to others resulting in deaths, should that individual be liable for man slaughter?

I think it’s extremely unlikely that any court in a liberal democracy (W. Eur, N.Am, Aus/NZ, Japan) could draw a line - beyond reasonable doubt - from person A, who declined to get a vaccine, being culpable for the death of person B who died from the virus.  It would be like accusing a prime minister of mass manslaughter for failing to procure enough vaccines for her citizens in a timely manner.  Maybe a moral case could be made, but a legal one, I very much doubt it.  
 

On the other hand if a state passed a law requiring all citizens to get the vaccine, period, that’s a different matter…

17 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Do you think that the individual should choose to take the vaccine or should it be mandatory? 

in that case you either get the vaccine or you don’t, and if you don’t there are consequences.  Not that I am advocating such a blanket mandate.  To me, one of the most basic human rights is the right to be left alone.  It’s one thing for a restaurant owner to insist that all customers be vaccinated.  It’s his business, his premises.  He can insist all customers wear pink tutus if it’s important to him.   Likewise any homeowner can require that only  vaccinated friends and family cross his threshold.  She may or may not be lonely as a result, but that’s her choice.  A government may insist that nobody may set foot in any government building without evidence of vaccination.  But for a government to insist that citizens get vaccinated, period, for me that crosses an important line into refusing to leave people alone.  

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

14 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Should an individual who has chosen not to take the vaccine, who then gets infected and spreads the disease to others resulting in deaths, should that individual be liable for man slaughter?

 

The answer is no. 

 

Vaccinated people are catching it and spreading it. How could you hold an unvaccinated person liable when that person could have just as easily gotten the virus from a vaccinated person. And was the person that died unvaccinated? If not then is that considered suicide now. Since they caught a virus when they could have been vaccinated and maybe, possibly, but no guarantee have not died. Or they could of since vaccinated people are still catching it, spreading it, and dying. Just on a smaller scale. How do you hold anybody accountable for spreading something that at this point can't be contained, only slowed. 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

3 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

The answer is no. 

 

Vaccinated people are catching it and spreading it. How could you hold an unvaccinated person liable when that person could have just as easily gotten the virus from a vaccinated person. And was the person that died unvaccinated? If not then is that considered suicide now. Since they caught a virus when they could have been vaccinated and maybe, possibly, but no guarantee have not died. Or they could of since vaccinated people are still catching it, spreading it, and dying. Just on a smaller scale. How do you hold anybody accountable for spreading something that at this point can't be contained, only slowed. 

 

 

 
This is a glaring issue and the point I’ve been driving at.
 

Since the science shows that masks can be helpful, but not absolute, and we all agree that that’s the truth, paired with the fact that vaccinated people are currently catching and spreading the virus anyways, in addition to the issue of cross species spreading now discovered, leaving a scientific conclusion that that makes stopping the spread even more difficult now, who exactly is guilty of spreading the virus and for what reasons? 
 

Are the vaccinated people guilty of spreading the virus just the same as the unvaccinated people, and wild animals who are apparently spreading the virus? 
 

Trying to take science and politicize it is where this goes wrong. The science is always dealing in terms of uncertainties. The politics are trying to make things appear more certain and controllable then reality will allow. Yet they continue trying anyways this game of show and essentially, make believe. 

This isn’t very different than the gun control issue or the war on drugs issue. Lost causes more for show than practicality……
 

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

On 8/22/2021 at 7:43 AM, DarkBishop said:

Vaccinated people are catching it and spreading it. 

 

On 8/22/2021 at 11:05 AM, Joshpantera said:

 paired with the fact that vaccinated people are currently catching and spreading the virus anyways,

 

These two quotes are basically the same and I think a case to counter them can be built. First we need some facts which I hope we all agree on. 

 

The facts are (and anyone can dig this up very easily) that:

1)vaccinated people do not spread the disease to the extent unvaccinated people do. In fact the reduction is significant., though variable depending on the vaccine and the strain. This is done because the viral load is reduced.

2) Vaccinated people do not get as bad symptoms or require hospitalisation as much as unvaccinated people. This is because the vaccine has taught the immune system how to better deal with the virus.

3) Vaccinated people do not die at the same rates as unvaccinated people or have as high rates of 'long covid' for the same reason as 2.

 

Thus your points in the quote above misses the point when it comes to liability. We know that vaccines unequivocally reduce spread and help people if they do catch it. To suggest other wise is paramount to saying you shouldn't wear a life jacket because some people who wear life jackets drown anyway. Thus we can build a case around personal responsibility and liability for not taken an action that a reasonable person should have been able to foresee would produce harm.

 

To both of yours and @TABA point about holding people liable for spreading the disease: I think one could mount a strong case for this. A captain of a boat is held liable if he doesn't have life jackets on board and someone drowns. A driver is held liable if the seatbelts in the car weren't working and they knew about it. Likewise because the evidence in support of vaccines is so high, and we know that it works per the 3 facts above, then you could possibly make that case that a reasonable person should be aware of this and are thus accountable if they get infected and spread it to others. This wouldn't apply to vaccinated people because they have undertaken responsible steps in order to reduce their risk of infecting someone. Similar to how a captain of a boat is not held liable for someone on his boat drowning IF he did not irresponsible action and ensured he was carrying all necessary safety equipment. Note for my boating example I'm using NZ law. From clips I've seen of Florida (Shout out to wavy boats - go check him out on youtube) I don't think safety is even a known word there!  

 

Now, I don't think that is actually the way to go (Mandatory vaccination and holding unvaccinated people liable). However I do support other measures which I think meets the sweet spot of personal choice and responsibility. That is you are not forced to get a vaccine (All the pro individual rights people happy) however you won't be allowed in public mass gathering places, on planes, visit other countries etc without a vaccine passport. That helps keeps society safe. Everyone is actually unhappy because the pro individual rights are unhappy because they can't go to football, and the pro vaccine peeps are unhappy because there is still the risk of unvaccinated people floating about. Apparently when everyone is unhappy you've reached the best possible compromise.

 

Again, there will be some disagreement among us as to whether such a vaccine passport, or banning from attending public places should be Government mandated or left to people/ business to decide, but this is where I see the future going and quite possibly its actually going to be a mix of both. Maybe Governments stop unvaccinated people coming into their country, but leave their own citizens to decide who is allowed into what premises.

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

3 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

We know that vaccines unequivocally reduce spread and help people if they do catch it. To suggest other wise is paramount to saying you shouldn't wear a life jacket because some people who wear life jackets drown anyway.

 

3 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

1)vaccinated people do not spread the disease to the extent unvaccinated people do. In fact the reduction is significant., though variable depending on the vaccine and the strain. This is done because the viral load is reduced.

 

Both these statements are false. The article I posted from the Washington post sites recent studies and has already been discussed in this thread, that vaccinated people that catch it have an equivalent viral output as unvaccinated people. 

 

Josh has already pointed out that there is a building animal reservoir of the virus. We all saw on the news last year that dogs were already carrying the virus. So it has gone from bats, to people, to dogs, and deer. 

 

For these two reasons and more there is no way to know for sure that an unvaccinated person infected another person. We canr see the transfer of the germs when it happens. It could be from any number of sources. You can't convict someone of "probably" infecting someone. 

 

Your life vest analogy is lost on me. From my perspective this vaccine is like a captain getting faulty life vests unknowingly from a reputable company. If a life vest is worn but is faulty and that person drowns. The obvious person to take to court is the companies that made the faulty life vests and assured the people buying them that they were up to standard. Yet they weren't because they aren't fully FDA approved. I ride a motorcycle. I dont buy helmets that aren't DOT approved. You wouldn't buy life vests that weren't up to standard either right? There are regulations on those aswell. They have to undergo certain tests to prove they are as good as they say. These vaccines haven't been through the normal procedure. 

 

The vaccine stats continue to decline. Keep watching the numbers and let us know when they are shitty enough for you say... well yeah.... maybe they got a point. 

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

The facts are (and anyone can dig this up very easily) that:

1)vaccinated people do not spread the disease to the extent unvaccinated people do. In fact the reduction is significant., though variable depending on the vaccine and the strain. This is done because the viral load is reduced.

2) Vaccinated people do not get as bad symptoms or require hospitalisation as much as unvaccinated people. This is because the vaccine has taught the immune system how to better deal with the virus.

3) Vaccinated people do not die at the same rates as unvaccinated people or have as high rates of 'long covid' for the same reason as 2.

 

 

1) You'll have to establish this as fact before trying to fashion a successful counter argument. One up front issue is that regardless of extent vaccinated are spreading the virus. Therefore the virus IS currently spreading around through both vaccinated and unvaccinated people. Hence, trying to hold people liable for spreading the virus suffers these foundational issues. 

 

2) Maybe not as much, but of course some people do have hospitalization. But all of that is besides the point anyways against the fact that the virus IS spreading through both vaccinated and unvaccinated people regardless of what anyone is doing to try and stop it. And it's besides the point against your initial suggestion that unvaccinated people be held liable while vaccinated people (and we can't forget the wild animals) are not. 

 

3) This is another "and so what" issue again. What's the point? What does it matter whether or not vaccinated people die at the same rate as unvaccinated people when the point is that both vaccinated, unvaccinated, and wild animals are currently known to be spreading the virus regardless of anything? 

 

3 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Thus your points in the quote above misses the point when it comes to liability. We know that vaccines unequivocally reduce spread and help people if they do catch it. To suggest other wise is paramount to saying you shouldn't wear a life jacket because some people who wear life jackets drown anyway. Thus we can build a case around personal responsibility and liability for not taken an action that a reasonable person should have been able to foresee would produce harm.

 

This is incorrect against the response I've just given. The spread ISN'T reduced, it's spiked up and gained speed as it's been spreading around through both vaccinated, unvaccinated people, and wild animals. The numbers went up as it spread through vaccinated people, not down. 

 

This isn't anything like wearing a life jacket, in edition. There's no parallel here between the spread of disease and a floatation device. So that's not helpful to the argument either. Especially considering your attempt to make a case for liability. We're talking about holding people liable for the spread of a virus that is essentially unstoppable, regardless of precautions. Reducing the numbers hasn't made it go it away. We reduced the numbers way down and then suddenly had the numbers flare back up again. Because the vaccines haven't done their job to stop the spread for myriad reasons mentions throughout several cited articles.