Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Surprisingly Strong Supreme Court Precedent Supporting Vaccine Mandates


OverSword
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 9/9/2021 at 5:46 PM, joc said:

Most people infected with Covid do not die.  Whereas most people infected with small pox did indeed die.  True or False?

False.  The actual number for smallpox is 30%.  That's less than half, rendering the use of "most" incorrect.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, joc said:

Look around you Tatetopa....do you see it?  The virus...  Do you see it wafting around the room you are in? 

You are working here from a false premise that it is another persons fault if you get sick.  It's utterly ridiculous.  It is not my damn fault if  you get sick.  

Look around you joc.  Do you see all of the frivolous lawsuits?  Even the groundless ones can force a person to disrupt their lives and hire a lawyer.  My prediction is that things will continue as they are and Americans being a litigious society will have another basis for lawsuits.  Not saying it isn't ridiculous, but when has that ever stopped us? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Look around you joc.  Do you see all of the frivolous lawsuits?  Even the groundless ones can force a person to disrupt their lives and hire a lawyer.  My prediction is that things will continue as they are and Americans being a litigious society will have another basis for lawsuits.  Not saying it isn't ridiculous, but when has that ever stopped us? 

All I see when I look around me are Cowboys, Indians and Guitars!  :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

False.  The actual number for smallpox is 30%.  That's less than half, rendering the use of "most" incorrect.

Doug

 You are correct.  The mortality rate of smallpox was 30%   The mortality rate of Covid is less than 2%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

It is highly likely that my wife infected me.

Doug

who infected her? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, joc said:

who infected her? 

 

Most likely a woman she met at a conference who developed covid at the conference.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, el midgetron said:

With Covid I think there is an argument to be made that the most careless spreaders of the virus are the vaccinated. The vaccinated are the ones who believe they are no longer at a high risk of serious infections, hospitalizations and death, Because of the reduced risk to themselves vaccinated people are most likely the ones who will abandon masks, social distancing and personal preventative measures. The vaccinated by-and-large seem to believe their social responsibility ends with vaccination therefore they are more likely to be comfortable blowing their Covid germs all over the place because it has little consequence to themselves. 

Yes indeed that may be so, it seems to be your position for debate's sake. Most of the mask announcements I see emphasize that you are protecting other people as well as yourself.  It is a pretty small sample, but none of the vaccinated people I do know feel that their social responsibility ends with a vaccination. If one were to predict behavior based on the past adherence to mask wearing and early vaccination, yours  would seem to be a low probability argument, or at least one without supporting data,.

It would be interesting to know how many people that get into heated conversations and sometimes violence with some poor store employee over mask policy are vaccinated versus unvaccinated.  It would be interesting to know how many folks in aggressive confrontations in public places approaching and coughing on people who ask them to stay away are vaccinated or unvaccinated. 

It doesn't change  my assertion.  People are getting less tolerant and a little more prickly about their rights, and their personal space.  Vaccination status is not visible to the casual observer.   Behavior is the key.  Societal condemnation will accrue to those that behave aggressively out of the accepted rules of politeness whether they are vaccinated or not. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, joc said:

All I see when I look around me are Cowboys, Indians and Guitars! 

If there was a love choice instead of a like choice, I would have picked that.  

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

 

It doesn't change  my assertion.  People are getting less tolerant and a little more prickly about their rights, and their personal space.  Vaccination status is not visible to the casual observer.   Behavior is the key.  Societal condemnation will accrue to those that behave aggressively out of the accepted rules of politeness whether they are vaccinated or not. 
 

 

I think the societal condemnation is pretty divided depending on the polarized positions of society. I hope there is a majority who see the both guy who peed on the fast food counter and the crazy teacher who publicly berates her student as being solid ideological kin-folk despite their opposing covid positions,

Of course, my from my biased perspective the left always seems to be pushing the envelope, turning up the heat and out pacing the rhetoric of the right. 

Quote

Frank Schaeffer, a recent guest on MSNBC, deemed those who are opposed to coronavirus vaccines or vaccine mandates “bioterrorists,” and suggested they should be “treated as such.”

Anti-vaccine and anti-mask anti-science conspiracy theory-spreading leading activists are bio terrorists. Period. They should be treated as such. Drone strikes on selected worst offender pod-casters anyone?

— Frank – 'Love, Children, Planet' – Schaeffer (@Frank_Schaeffer) September 10, 2021

Notably, Schaffer called pro-lifers the “American Taliban” during an appearance on MSNBC’s The ReidOut last week to discuss the pro-life Texas abortion law.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/09/10/msnbc-guest-calls-drone-strikes-americans-opposed-vaccine-mandates/

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, el midgetron said:

I think the societal condemnation is pretty divided depending on the polarized positions of society.

Manners would be a good start.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
On 9/10/2021 at 10:36 PM, Liquid Gardens said:

Neither of these directly endanger other people, and I'm not aware of hospital resources being extensively depleted to the point where there's a danger of not being able to treat other patients because of smokers and people not wearing seat belts.

I think the distinction is unimportant. I could use other examples that also endanger other people (eg, driving while intoxicated has a massive effect on others, second hand smoking), but more important to me is freedom of choice. Once you mandate freedoms away it is no longer a "free" society. Moreover, even if you think the distinction is important, it is becoming less and less important with every person who gets a covid vaccine shot.

 

On 9/10/2021 at 10:36 PM, Liquid Gardens said:

Unfortunately in our country, black people at least have cause to be wary of the medical community:  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study

I'm not sure what to make of your point, LG. Part of me wants to delve into the rationality of ignoring medical care in 2021 because of such horrible history. But ultimately that's an irrelevant detour. If the fear is legitimate then it strengthens the point of those who say that denying medical care to unvaccinated covid patients is racist, but otherwise it's an interesting but irrelevant side note. 

Whatever the case, most physicians and pretty much all major oversight organisations - including the World Medical Association (WMA) and the American Medical Association (AMA) - adhere in some capacity to the Hippocratic Oath (many by literally taking an oath), which requires healers to treat the ill to the best of their ability without bias. That renders any moral debate about whether doctors should treat unvaccinated people a moot point.  

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5755201/

~ Regards, PA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I could use other examples that also endanger other people (eg, driving while intoxicated has a massive effect on others, second hand smoking), but more important to me is freedom of choice. Once you mandate freedoms away it is no longer a "free" society.

What freedom do you think could be mandated away?  We have no freedom to carelessly infect other people any more than we have the freedom to drive drunk and carelessly injure someone.  What about the freedom of choice of doctors and hospitals to prioritize treatment? To be clear, in a non-triage situation I don't see any reason not to treat drunk drivers or smokers, but if medical resources become scarce then I think it's a legitimate question to ask.

15 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

which requires healers to treat the ill to the best of their ability without bias. That renders any moral debate about whether doctors should treat unvaccinated people a moot point.  

The concept of 'triage' is well-established and can have Hippocratic oath implications as you note, and despite some hospitals being overwhelmed by covid patients to the point they can't treat others, I think for the most part other hospitals have been able to pick up the slack here to some extent so I don't think we're to this point thankfully.  There seems to be some debate about the extent to which the Hippocratic Oath puts doctors at an obligation to treat everyone/anyone that is sick.   No one has a 'freedom' to demand that any specific doctor treat them.  The oath lays out the ethical rules when doctors decide to treat someone, but I don't think says that you can't discriminate among patients you are willing to accept.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

The concept of 'triage' is well-established and can have Hippocratic oath implications as you note, and despite some hospitals being overwhelmed by covid patients to the point they can't treat others, I think for the most part other hospitals have been able to pick up the slack here to some extent so I don't think we're to this point thankfully. 

As I understand it, triage determines not who is sickest as a priority for treatment but who is likely to survive.  Another one of those things which has a financial analogy.  The medical team invests their time and resources in the patient most likely to provide a good return on investment; to survive.  I  think some hospitals are in that mode in Idaho and other states.  Covid patients are not excluded, but put in the pool with everybody else that needs triage.   If care is not available, some of them may die.  If adequate resources are not available other patients may die if they stand less chance of responding to treatment than a covid patient.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
On 9/13/2021 at 2:13 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

What freedom do you think could be mandated away? 

Depends on where you live. In Australia we've had our freedom to assemble mandated away. Our freedom to conduct business has been mandated away (my hairdresser has not been open for months because of government orders to stay closed, being just one example). Canada was under curfew for multiple months. And most governments around the world are talking of "covid passports" to even get into a movie theatre or football game.

And if people who want vaccinations to become mandatory get what they want, the freedom to choose what goes into our bodies becomes another freedom mandated away. 

 

On 9/13/2021 at 2:13 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

We have no freedom to carelessly infect other people any more than we have the freedom to drive drunk and carelessly injure someone.

But we do have freedom to choose what goes into our bodies. That's a universal right, in my opinion, and it trumps all other rights, even your right to not be carelessly infected. You have the right to get a vaccine put in your body and the vaccine will then protect you from such people regardless of how careless they are. Put another way, my worldview values freedom as more important than safety.

There is a difference between infecting a person because you are not vaccinated and driving while intoxicated. It's reductive rather than additive - "I DIDN'T get a vaccine" vs "I DID drink 2 litres of bourbon and then I CHOSE to take control of a vehicle". Hence why one of these acts can be prosecuted in court while the other is completely legal (for the time being) and an expression of ones freedom in a free and democratic society.  

 

On 9/13/2021 at 2:13 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

What about the freedom of choice of doctors and hospitals to prioritize treatment? To be clear, in a non-triage situation I don't see any reason not to treat drunk drivers or smokers, but if medical resources become scarce then I think it's a legitimate question to ask.

The concept of 'triage' is well-established and can have Hippocratic oath implications as you note, and despite some hospitals being overwhelmed by covid patients to the point they can't treat others, I think for the most part other hospitals have been able to pick up the slack here to some extent so I don't think we're to this point thankfully.  There seems to be some debate about the extent to which the Hippocratic Oath puts doctors at an obligation to treat everyone/anyone that is sick.   No one has a 'freedom' to demand that any specific doctor treat them.  The oath lays out the ethical rules when doctors decide to treat someone, but I don't think says that you can't discriminate among patients you are willing to accept.

I wasn't addressing the question as to who should get treated if our hospital system is so overwhelmed that doctors are going to have to choose who to treat. The comment I replied to was "I don't think the unvaccinated should be allowed a hospital bed..." 

On 9/10/2021 at 10:01 AM, Agent0range said:

I don't think the unvaccinated should be allowed a hospital bed...

There was no nuance behind this, no triage situation where needs must be prioritised. I don't know about your speculation about the Hippocratic Oath. Maybe if you have private health insurance a private hospital can make a decision privately not to treat someone. But in Australia we have universal healthcare and lots of Aussies (including myself) have no private health insurance. If any taxpaying Australian needs emergency services and a doctor being paid with taxpayer dollars chooses not to provide said urgent medical care, I suspect said doctor will not be paid by the government for much longer, and the family of said victim would shortly receive a huge compensation pay out by the government.

In any case, as more and more people get vaccinated, unless covid mutates into a crazy killer virus that circumvents vaccines, this is becoming a less and less relevant line of reasoning and only serves to demonise a minority of the population. One could even argue it is a type of a "dog whistle" in modern politics, especially as vaccinations become the norm rather than the exception.

~ Regards, PA

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/10/2021 at 7:03 PM, joc said:

First of all toasty...I don't have any problems.  All I have are solutions.  Secondly, I am one of the few people I actually know that live in the 'real' world.  Group Think isn't the real world.  I don't buy Group Think.  None of the great inventions came from Group Think.  None of the great discoveries came from Group Think.  There wasn't a group of people of which  Albert Einstein was one.  There wasn't a group gathered around the apple tree when Newton had his epiphany.  Group Think is actually group stink.  The individual thought process from great minds is where innovation and most things marvelous occur. 

So if you want to poo poo my thought process go ahead.  I don't care.  But your silliness is just that.

but nazis were a group, and so  are todays liberals.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

And most governments around the world are talking of "covid passports" to even get into a movie theatre or football game.

So when you are saying 'mandatory', do you mean mandatory or be charged with a crime, is that what Australia politicians are proposing? I haven't heard that.

6 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

That's a universal right, in my opinion, and it trumps all other rights, even your right to not be carelessly infected. You have the right to get a vaccine put in your body and the vaccine will then protect you from such people regardless of how careless they are. Put another way, my worldview values freedom as more important than safety.

There is a glaring hole in your worldview to me, in this situation you seem to be saying that your freedom is more important than other people's safety.  You don't have a 'right' to endanger other people's safety, I have no clue where you got that idea.  Saying, "You have the right to get a vaccine put in your body and the vaccine will then protect you from such people regardless of how careless they are." is like saying, 'you have the right to wear a seatbelt and it will protect you from drunk drivers regardless of how careless they are", as both have the same issue: neither vaccines or seatbelts are perfect.  I support people's right to not get vaccinated, but I don't support them then thinking they then can just do anything they want like assemble in groups, if situations are bad enough they can stay home and get home delivery if they don't want to get vaccinated right now.  I'm going to butcher this saying I saw, it's something like, "Asserting your liberty without taking into account your responsibilities isn't freedom, it's adolescence". 

6 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

There is a difference between infecting a person because you are not vaccinated and driving while intoxicated. It's reductive rather than additive - "I DIDN'T get a vaccine" vs "I DID drink 2 litres of bourbon and then I CHOSE to take control of a vehicle".

Both of these different things do accomplish the same thing though:  they endanger other people.  Again, I don't have a problem with 'I didn't get a vaccine and I stayed home until the pandemic was over', which I don't hear many people discuss. The scenario is more like, "I didn't get a vaccine and I CHOSE to go to the football game" - that's not so different than driving drunk, actually the drunk may have a better excuse since they are impaired when they made the bad decision, choosing to drive.

7 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

There was no nuance behind this, no triage situation where needs must be prioritised.

Fair enough, but in the US the media talks enough about having to ration care and the shortage of hospital beds that this may be context relevant to the comment that was made.

7 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

In any case, as more and more people get vaccinated, unless covid mutates into a crazy killer virus that circumvents vaccines, this is becoming a less and less relevant line of reasoning and only serves to demonise a minority of the population.

And how best to allow viruses to mutate, as this one already has, increasing the chances that it will evolve to circumvent vaccines (moreso, the vaccines aren't 100% effective)?  By allowing it to spread freely in a population.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
16 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

So when you are saying 'mandatory', do you mean mandatory or be charged with a crime, is that what Australia politicians are proposing? I haven't heard that.

More the case of mandatory or be denied the rights and freedoms that everyday Australians should rightly expect to have in a free and democratic society. 

Whatever the case, it doesn't take away from the other areas in which our rights are being eroded, some of which I mentioned in my last post (eg, the right to open a business in a lockdown where Australians are not allowed more than 5km from their own home and only "essential businesses" are allowed to open).

 

Quote

There is a glaring hole in your worldview to me, in this situation you seem to be saying that your freedom is more important than other people's safety.  You don't have a 'right' to endanger other people's safety, I have no clue where you got that idea.  Saying, "You have the right to get a vaccine put in your body and the vaccine will then protect you from such people regardless of how careless they are." is like saying, 'you have the right to wear a seatbelt and it will protect you from drunk drivers regardless of how careless they are", as both have the same issue: neither vaccines or seatbelts are perfect.  I support people's right to not get vaccinated, but I don't support them then thinking they then can just do anything they want like assemble in groups, if situations are bad enough they can stay home and get home delivery if they don't want to get vaccinated right now.  I'm going to butcher this saying I saw, it's something like, "Asserting your liberty without taking into account your responsibilities isn't freedom, it's adolescence".

I don't agree with you at all. If you are vaccinated, the covid mortality rate is lower than the flu. Yes, technically you are correct. seat belts won't always protect against drunk drivers. But vaccines are far more likely to protect you from a virus, that's just a fact.  

Because of this, I cannot support denying the unvaccinated entry into society under these conditions. When I used public transport (pre-covid), particularly when I commuted to work, every flu season there would be people on the train or bus coughing and wheezing. By your own logic, these people should be charged potentially with murder because they infected people with a great chance of death than a vaccinated covid patient. 

And like I said, you can choose to get the vaccine, that is your choice. I'm not an anti-vaxxer, I've been vaccinated (technically, my appointment for the vaccine is scheduled very shortly). I'm just pro-choice. 

 

 

Quote

Both of these different things do accomplish the same thing though:  they endanger other people.  Again, I don't have a problem with 'I didn't get a vaccine and I stayed home until the pandemic was over', which I don't hear many people discuss. The scenario is more like, "I didn't get a vaccine and I CHOSE to go to the football game" - that's not so different than driving drunk, actually the drunk may have a better excuse since they are impaired when they made the bad decision, choosing to drive.

I feel like our world views are simply too different here, LG. The pandemic has already destroyed far too many lives. Lockdowns are destroying businesses (my aforementioned hairdresser was just one example of a business owner who is being forced to remain closed and not earn money during this pandemic). They are destroying families. Domestic violence is statistically on the increase. Mental health is declining, calls to the Kids Help Line in Australia tripled in the last 12 months, with kids as young as 5 expressing suicidal ideation (don't have time to find the link where I read that, so take the claim with a grain of salt in the meantime if you like). 

 

Quote

Fair enough, but in the US the media talks enough about having to ration care and the shortage of hospital beds that this may be context relevant to the comment that was made.

That's possibly a result of our different cultural experiences. For what it's worth, the media says the same thing in Australia, but it's all a load of bull. In fact, I remember last year at the height of the pandemic (first wave) the nightly news in Australia ran a story about the hospital system in Melbourne, Australia, interviewing experts and discussing covid preparedness. Meanwhile, the video footage used was CCTV of a hospital overwhelmed by patients, doctors working crazy and everyone getting in each other's way. It actually scared me because I was like "this is really terrible, our system looks like it's stretched to breaking point". 

Turns out that this footage was not even from Australia but was in fact the response to covid in Italy when they were at their most overwhelmed during the early parts of the pandemic in 2020. That was not indicated in the channel 7 broadcast, there was no "this is prerecorded video" comments, it was run as if it was live footage of what was happening right now in Melbourne hospitals.  

That was the moment I stopped trusting the media and government response to covid.

 

Quote

And how best to allow viruses to mutate, as this one already has, increasing the chances that it will evolve to circumvent vaccines (moreso, the vaccines aren't 100% effective)?  By allowing it to spread freely in a population.

And yet that is a risk that should be taken if the alternative is giving away our body autonomy. By all means encourage people to get the jab, and probably a booster shot every year from now on (if you only thought it was two jabs and then done for life you haven't been paying attention to this virus). But you can't penalise people like this. Like mentioned earlier, the vaccines aren't 100% effective but a vaccine will increase your survival rate to virtually zero. 

If risk minimisation is our entire purpose, then we should stop people driving cars altogether. That would prevent deaths on the roads. As no reasonable society would do this I would suggest closing down everything for the mere threat of a disease that has a relatively low mortality rate (and significantly better if you are vaccinated) is the act of an unreasonable society enacting unreasonable laws. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 3:13 PM, Paranoid Android said:

Depends on where you live. In Australia we've had our freedom to assemble mandated away. 

As an Australian I challenge this claim. That's simply not true. That's a wild exageration of gatherings breaching restrictions in place. Not the same thing. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I don't agree with you at all. If you are vaccinated, the covid mortality rate is lower than the flu.

Mortality rate of course is not the only measure, seems like 'ease of transmissibility' should be factored in there.  You have heard of people who are suffering from long-term health effects from covid?

7 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

every flu season there would be people on the train or bus coughing and wheezing. By your own logic, these people should be charged potentially with murder because they infected people with a great chance of death than a vaccinated covid patient. 

No, that is not at all my own logic, quote me please.  When was the last time that the seasonal flu led to as many deaths, and risks of overloading the health care system and its ability to treat other patients? 

7 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

The pandemic has already destroyed far too many lives. Lockdowns are destroying businesses (my aforementioned hairdresser was just one example of a business owner who is being forced to remain closed and not earn money during this pandemic). They are destroying families. Domestic violence is statistically on the increase. Mental health is declining, calls to the Kids Help Line in Australia tripled in the last 12 months, with kids as young as 5 expressing suicidal ideation

There is of course only one thing curiously missing in the things your list above, namely that 4.5 million people have died from the disease.  What effect do you think that has on businesses and mental health?  I'll let you tally up the increase in mortality from the lockdowns and factors above to see how it compares to that. 

7 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

That was the moment I stopped trusting the media and government response to covid.

Except apparently when the media tells you about the effect of lockdowns and increases in domestic violence and mental illness, etc.

7 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

If risk minimisation is our entire purpose, then we should stop people driving cars altogether.

Why do you keep comparing covid to things that don't compare?  The deaths from Covid is double traffic accident deaths over the same timeframe, and traffic accidents don't run the risk of evolving into deadlier accidents in the future.  Let's go extreme, how about Ebola?  Can we curtail the 'freedoms' Australians right expect in a democratic society for that and not allow people to assemble if we have an outbreak of that?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
13 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Mortality rate of course is not the only measure, seems like 'ease of transmissibility' should be factored in there.  You have heard of people who are suffering from long-term health effects from covid?

And I would argue covid is simply not deadly enough (particularly with a vaccine) to justify closing down society, despite the minority who have a "long term effects from covid". 

Quote

No, that is not at all my own logic, quote me please.  When was the last time that the seasonal flu led to as many deaths, and risks of overloading the health care system and its ability to treat other patients? 

Your argument employed a line of reasoning that suggested that the imperfection of a vaccine should be reason enough to demand every person be vaccinated. Your exact words were "both have the same issue: neither vaccines or seatbelts are perfect". That may be true, but the statistics show that vaccinated people have a better chance of dying from the common flu than they do by covid. Thus if your reasons for demanding vaccinations are that "they aren't always perfect" then you have to explain why you aren't that picky when it comes to the flu? We've had flu seasons every year for thousands of years (except perhaps 2020, ironically, due to lockdowns the 2020 influenza was almost non-existent).

The argument fails to sway me for that reason. 

Quote

There is of course only one thing curiously missing in the things your list above, namely that 4.5 million people have died from the disease.  What effect do you think that has on businesses and mental health?  I'll let you tally up the increase in mortality from the lockdowns and factors above to see how it compares to that. 

The vast majority of deaths via covid occurred in elderly people with comorbidities. The vast majority of deaths due to suicide, mental illness and social isolation is not yet measurable for covid, but these deaths affect younger demographics, they affect children. As such, it may be callous to think of it in such a way, but the lives of the young are more important than the lives of the old, in my opinion. Even if we take death out of the equation, small businesses are going out of business at an alarming rate. Are you living in lockdown in America right now? We are in Australia, and every week more businesses go under despite the millions and billions our government is spending to prop up these businesses while the economy is shut down. 

Quote

Except apparently when the media tells you about the effect of lockdowns and increases in domestic violence and mental illness, etc.

Those are statistics you can get from any number of sources. Since the start of the pandemic the media has fed us a steady flow of lies all made to make us fear this pandemic. Tip for the media: If they want us to think they aren't making the pandemic appear worse than it is, don't put footage that was many weeks old and from a different country and play it like it's a live account of what is happening in my backyard! 

Quote

Why do you keep comparing covid to things that don't compare?  The deaths from Covid is double traffic accident deaths over the same timeframe, and traffic accidents don't run the risk of evolving into deadlier accidents in the future.  Let's go extreme, how about Ebola?  Can we curtail the 'freedoms' Australians right expect in a democratic society for that and not allow people to assemble if we have an outbreak of that?

 

Ebola is many factors worse than covid, though. A very quick search for some basic statistics shows that Ebola can have a mortality rate of 40% or higher. That's vastly different to covid, which has a 94.6% survival rate for the most vulnerable groups, and 99.997% survival for the safest groups. And while the majority of the country is being vaccinated, you can pretty much shift the decimal point one place (5.4% mortality becomes 0.54% mortality for people over 70). I'm basing this number off statistics I read that showed vaccinated people 90% better protected than the unvaccinated, I figured shifting the decimal was a rough approximation of this 90% protection, close enough for a discussion of this kind in any case.

I am using these examples to point out that living life is risky. We take risks every day we leave the house. When we cross the road we take a risk. The people who are arguing that covid is deadly enough to warrant changing our entire life are not taking the inherent risks of life into account, and if they legitimately wanted to protect themselves from life in the same way they want to protect from covid then we would not ever do anything in society. 

That's my views, in any case :)

~ Regards, PA 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

As an Australian I challenge this claim. That's simply not true. That's a wild exageration of gatherings breaching restrictions in place. Not the same thing. 

Hey Psyche, perhaps there's a miscommunication here but it sounds like you just said the same thing I said but in more politically correct language. These people aren't "homeless", they're "sleeping rough". These children aren't "suffering from autism", they're "living with a disiability". Our government hasn't "mandated away our freedom to protest", it's "placed restrictions on our ability to gather". Can you help me see a functional difference between these two statements, please?

~ Regards, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Public Health Trump’s everything…. or you quickly have no republic, as we currently see.

The Supreme Court simply saw the writing on the proverbial wall.

This is the end of the simplest of all arguments. To die or not to die ….. 

and the republic is dying fast, thanks to another kind of Trump.

Edited by Raptor Witness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/10/2021 at 7:18 AM, Piney said:

Speaking of which......Is Monty dead yet? :unsure2:

I personally hope that the Supreme Court do use this case as legal precedent, and that they make vaccination mandatory and enforceable. I realize that there are special case situations where this will not be possible, but for all the others jab um!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

I personally hope that the Supreme Court do use this case as legal precedent, and that they make vaccination mandatory and enforceable. I realize that there are special case situations where this will not be possible, but for all the others jab um!

I have this plant client who has a condition where she can't get the vaccine, yet covid will kill her and she is terrified and wishes she could get it. I feel bad for her.

 

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

And I would argue covid is simply not deadly enough (particularly with a vaccine) to justify closing down society, despite the minority who have a "long term effects from covid".

Australia may not, the US seems to have about 500 times the number of deaths you've had. That's no guarantee for the future though.

8 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Your argument employed a line of reasoning that suggested that the imperfection of a vaccine should be reason enough to demand every person be vaccinated. Your exact words were "both have the same issue: neither vaccines or seatbelts are perfect".

Those exact words were in reply to you, "You have the right to get a vaccine put in your body and the vaccine will then protect you from such people regardless of how careless they are.", and noting that no, it doesn't always protect you from people regardless of how careless they are.  You seem to think that people shouldn't drive drunk even though using the same line of reasoning, 'you have the right to wear a seatbelt and it will protect you from such people regardless of how careless they are', applies to that situation also, and as an argument has the same flaws.

8 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Thus if your reasons for demanding vaccinations

I didn't demand vaccinations.  Our primary difference is that you think there should be no repercussions if people choose not to get vaccinations, because of 'freedom' and based on no stats of the actual risks of lockdown dangers.

8 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

We've had flu seasons every year for thousands of years (except perhaps 2020, ironically, due to lockdowns the 2020 influenza was almost non-existent).

"When was the last time the flu season overwhelmed hospitals and lasted for a year and a half?"

8 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

The vast majority of deaths due to suicide, mental illness and social isolation is not yet measurable for covid, but these deaths affect younger demographics, they affect children.

Since you keep making arguments concerning stats you've seen about how dangerous the flu is compared to covid to vaccinated individuals and such, I'll wait for you to produce some stats on the above.  Let's start with mortality since that was the metric you've been focusing on, remember, you're trying to balance against 4.5 million.

8 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Those are statistics you can get from any number of sources.

Sorry man, no, I don't believe you got these statistics from evaluating and comparing studies, I think you got it from 'the media'. 

8 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Ebola is many factors worse than covid, though. A very quick search for some basic statistics shows that Ebola can have a mortality rate of 40% or higher. That's vastly different to covid, which has a 94.6% survival rate for the most vulnerable groups, and 99.997% survival for the safest groups.

And yet 4.5 million people have died from it, blowing away the counts from Ebola. Actually I've heard that Ebola may not be that dangerous, as in difficult to contain, as Ebola hits quickly and obviously, and its victims tend to die quickly limiting their ability to spread.  You seem focused though on 'what's the risk to me right now', which I think is part of the problem in that it ignores science.

8 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

The people who are arguing that covid is deadly enough to warrant changing our entire life are not taking the inherent risks of life into account, and if they legitimately wanted to protect themselves from life in the same way they want to protect from covid then we would not ever do anything in society. 

That just doesn't logically follow, at all.  You seem fine with restrictions and punishments for drunk driving despite 'freedom', thus "if you legitimately wanted to protect yourself from life in the same way you want to protect from drunk drivers then we wouldn't do anything in society" using the same logic. Everything has risks, but obviously not all things are equally risky.  You appear to not be taking the inherent, and documented, and proven, risks of letting deadly viruses continue to mutate into account.

Why don't we just flip your statement and logic around, "people who are arguing that impacts on mental health, suicide, domestic violence, etc are reason enough to forbid constraining the activities of unvaccinated people are not taking the inherent risks of life into account".  Why is 'risk of death by pandemic' any more an 'inherent risk' than 'risk of death by suicide because of lockdowns', why are you so concerned about the increases in those things but concerns about death by virulent disease are just waved off as part of life?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.