Biden Drops the Hammer on Unvaccinated

Clizby WampusCat said:

So, that means let them die? You don't get to assume what other people think and then screw them over because of what you think.

Click to expand...

When they make it abundantly clear, it isn't ambiguous or presumptuous. And we should not have to abide by people's selfish attitudes when it is endangering others. Give them treatment, but don't act like they're remotely equal to those who have taken the precautions.

If they die, it is not by the actions of others, but withholding of care based on their own attitude that they know better than medical professionals, thinking that they're corrupt or otherwise unable to be objective, while they gargle disinfectant and self medicate with anti parasites meant for livestock.

They screw themselves over with this petulant arrogant narcissistic entitled attitude, I'm just demanding they be consistent in their delusions of grandeur instead of suddenly folding like a napkin when faced with unavoidable consequences.

Clizby WampusCat said:

No, the government told people what to do. No one Trump nor Biden has gotten in front of the nation and made a case for vaccinations. Biden actually pitted each of us against each other.

Click to expand...

And Trump didn't poo poo vaccinations? Selective memory much? He changed his tone to flip flop when it suited him, he's far more of an opportunist than Biden, who at least has some measure of subtlety versus the so called "businessman" who was deluded enough to think he could "drain the swamp"

Clizby WampusCat said:

If you don't have individual freedom you don't have freedom. In the US we don't value freedom or privacy anymore. If you want true freedom there are consequences as well. This is it, not everyone will do what you want them to do.

Karma is BS and an unethical concept.

Click to expand...

Individual freedom does not supersede civil welfare necessarily, otherwise you have it as everyone for themselves, which is anarchy and sociopathy.

You can value freedom without dismissing security, it is a BALANCE between them which you apparently don't want to even consider because it might inconvenience your fragile ego

Karma as dictated by someone, yes (which is Hindu's more common position, not Buddhist, the principle is distinct between them, overlapping with Jainism as well, iirc) but that's not what I saying: people reap what they sow, to quote a more familiar principle

Hank77 said:

Businesses with fewer than 100 employees can mandate vaccinations, they just have a choice.

Click to expand...

They might have to violate state or local laws or ordinances. I don't think that OSHA regs require that choice for small businesses.

whatbogsends said:

That was you saying "most people in Israel in general are full vaccinated" as a response to high rates of hospitalization for the vaccinated in Israel.

Click to expand...

Yes. Greater than 50% of x means a majority are x. Your post seems terribly excited to try and use this as some sort of gotcha, but I'm just not seeing it. Perhaps there's a misunderstanding of what the word "most" means in this context?

When i bring up that they have the highest rates of infections at any point in the pandemic it's "what's the overall fully vaccinated rate in "[h]ighly vaccinated Israel"?"

Click to expand...

Your argument seems to have something to do with the fact that less than 2/3rds of the population is vaccinated and the fact that the current case count is high, and some how connected those two data points to conclude that "vaccines do very little to impede the spread of Covid". I'm not seeing the connection, and was hoping you'd be able to explain the missing steps.

Blade said:

I like what one comedian said about "pharmaceutical companies". You never trusted them before but NOW there ok.

Click to expand...

Is this "you" in any way related to "they"? Because I've been reading a lot of claims about what "they" say about stuff. Never really accompanied by actual quotes from "them", though, which is curious.

Clizby WampusCat said:

If you want true freedom there are consequences as well.

Click to expand...

And yet you seem to be arguing for exactly the opposite. You want people to be able to refuse a vaccine and yet still be able to call on medical help when they catch the illness.

Ultimately people who make sensible choices should be prioritized for help. It's natural justice. If a hospital only has 1 bed remaining and both a vaccinated person and un-vaccinated person arrive with Covid then it should be obvious who should get the treatment.

Kentonio said:

And yet you seem to be arguing for exactly the opposite. You want people to be able to refuse a vaccine and yet still be able to call on medical help when they catch the illness.

Ultimately people who make sensible choices should be prioritized for help. It's natural justice. If a hospital only has 1 bed remaining and both a vaccinated person and un-vaccinated person arrive with Covid then it should be obvious who should get the treatment.

Click to expand...

Should we be denying medical services for heart attacks, blood clotting and myocarditis for those who've gotten the vaccine?

KCfromNC said:

Yes. Greater than 50% of x means a majority are x. Your post seems terribly excited to try and use this as some sort of gotcha, but I'm just not seeing it. Perhaps there's a misunderstanding of what the word "most" means in this context?

Your argument seems to have something to do with the fact that less than 2/3rds of the population is vaccinated and the fact that the current case count is high, and some how connected those two data points to conclude that "vaccines do very little to impede the spread of Covid". I'm not seeing the connection, and was hoping you'd be able to explain the missing steps.

Click to expand...

If most meant simply "greater than 50%", than it does little to explain efficacy against hospitalization since ~60% (couldn't find a good recent source) of hospitalized patients in Israel are fully vaccinated.

Moreover, with nearly 2/3 of Israel being fully vaccinated, if the vaccines were effective at stopping transmission, we should be seeing lower rates of infection than when no vaccines were available. Having a ~1/3 pool of potential hosts should lead to lower infection rates, but that's not what we're seeing.

The picture Israel data paints of the vaccines' effectiveness is murky, at best. US data paints a very different picture, but there's been less transparency with their data as a whole. The picture from UK data lies somewhere between the two.

dogs4thewin said:

Matthew has 28 chapters.

Click to expand...

I know.

dogs4thewin said:

They tried education and insentives that did not help enough we get harsher.

Click to expand...

By harsher you mean let them die.

dogs4thewin said:

God does not just make all problems go away. That does not mean he does nothing.

Click to expand...

Then what is he doing?

muichimotsu said:

Not when it is for the common good and is applied neutrally while accommodating legitimate exemptions and not just willful selfishness. This is hardly "force" or even "coercion", it's you stretching the meaning so you don't have to do something altruistic and make it all about you instead like a voluntaryist scab.

The point is involved because America is not as great as people want to think, unless you're already affluent or can game the system, many people don't have it as easy as some do who can look at the world through their privileged lens

Click to expand...

Whatever priveedge I have has nothing to do with taking care of people that are sick. I thought that most people would want to do that no matter their priveedge. I was wrong.

whatbogsends said:

Should we be denying medical services for heart attacks, blood clotting and myocarditis for those who've gotten the vaccine?

Click to expand...

Even slipperier slope using the logic of denying service. Should the obese be denied services? How about HIV patients? How about smokers and alcoholics?

muichimotsu said:

When they make it abundantly clear, it isn't ambiguous or presumptuous. And we should not have to abide by people's selfish attitudes when it is endangering others. Give them treatment, but don't act like they're remotely equal to those who have taken the precautions.

If they die, it is not by the actions of others, but withholding of care based on their own attitude that they know better than medical professionals, thinking that they're corrupt or otherwise unable to be objective, while they gargle disinfectant and self medicate with anti parasites meant for livestock.

They screw themselves over with this petulant arrogant narcissistic entitled attitude, I'm just demanding they be consistent in their delusions of grandeur instead of suddenly folding like a napkin when faced with unavoidable consequences.

Click to expand...

Your view of the unvaccinated is from MSNBC? Most people I know that are unvaccinated are because they have believed things by bad evidence. They are not drinking disinfectant and such. I agree that people that have not gotten vaccinated have not actually researched the vaccine correctly and are implementing poor thinking skills. An epidemic of poor thinking in the US has led to most of our problems or made them worse. However, this does not disqualify them from getting medical care if they need it.

muichimotsu said:

And Trump didn't poo poo vaccinations? Selective memory much? He changed his tone to flip flop when it suited him, he's far more of an opportunist than Biden, who at least has some measure of subtlety versus the so called "businessman" who was deluded enough to think he could "drain the swamp"

Click to expand...

I don't care about Trump. He sucked. All I said was that Trump nor Biden addressed the nation and made an evidence based case for vaccines. They should have.

muichimotsu said:

Individual freedom does not supersede civil welfare necessarily, otherwise you have it as everyone for themselves, which is anarchy and sociopathy.

You can value freedom without dismissing security, it is a BALANCE between them which you apparently don't want to even consider because it might inconvenience your fragile ego

Click to expand...

The balance is what we are discussing isn't it. I think forcing someone to put something in their body against their will is across the line. Not giving medical care to people that need it because you don't like their life decisions is across the line as well. We disagree on where the balance point is.

Karma as dictated by someone, yes (which is Hindu's more common position, not Buddhist, the principle is distinct between them, overlapping with Jainism as well, iirc) but that's not what I saying: people reap what they sow, to quote a more familiar principle

Click to expand...

In the real world people do not reap what they sow generally. The world is unfair and it is best to realize this.

Kentonio said:

And yet you seem to be arguing for exactly the opposite. You want people to be able to refuse a vaccine and yet still be able to call on medical help when they catch the illness.

Click to expand...

Yes.

Ultimately people who make sensible choices should be prioritized for help. It's natural justice. If a hospital only has 1 bed remaining and both a vaccinated person and un-vaccinated person arrive with Covid then it should be obvious who should get the treatment.

Click to expand...

The one that needs the bed the most should get it. We need to figure out how to treat both.

Clizby WampusCat said:

Whatever priveedge I have has nothing to do with taking care of people that are sick. I thought that most people would want to do that no matter their priveedge. I was wrong.

Click to expand...

I don't think health care workers necessarily don't WANT to help folks who are sick. In some places they CAN'T help everyone. Resources are scarce due to overcrowding of hospitals. If people make the choice not to get vaccinated, they must be willing to face these facts. They may not get the treatment some seem to take for granted.