Least Vaccinated States Lead Spike in Children’s Cases -- 30,000 went to hospital in 1 month

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Vaccinations for people under 18 has just recently been available so a lot of people are still skeptical about giving their children the vaccine since it’s still in the very early experimental stage.

No, it is in the late experimental phase, many thousands of 12-18 yr olds have been vaccinated and monitored prior to the EUA being granted. now we are in the final phase before regular approval is granted as we were with the adult vaccine until just recently.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

No we’re not vaccinated. I don’t like the idea of having to sign a waiver releasing the people administering it from any liability. That doesn’t seem very reassuring to me. So I’m not ready to trust the safety of the vaccine. I couldn’t believe that the school is not requiring the kids to wear a mask where I live. I’ve heard rumors that it’s illegal for them to make it a requirement which doesn’t make any sense to me since it was enforced by law last year.

If I remember correctly, the waiver I signed to get the shot was only to not hold the administrator of the vaccine liable for complications relative to the actual injection and has nothing to do with the vaccine itself. I think you should check and read the waiver more closely. It was also an informational piece to inform us that there was a slight risk of allergic reactions which was why we had to stay at the injection site for 15 minutes and that our signature said that we understood this. I wouldn't actually call it a waiver, more of a standard consent document.

 

[dogs4thewin]

If I remember correctly, the waiver I signed to get the shot was only to not hold the administrator of the vaccine liable for complications relative to the actual injection and has nothing to do with the vaccine itself. I think you should check and read the waiver more closely. It was also an informational piece to inform us that there was a slight risk of allergic reactions which was why we had to stay at the injection site for 15 minutes and that our signature said that we understood this. I wouldn't actually call it a waiver, more of a standard consent document.

Yup we had to stay at the site for 15 minutes both times, as well

 

[KCfromNC]

One does not become ill because he is exposed to an "unvaccinated person". He becomes ill because he is exposed to the virus itself, which can come from ANYONE whether or not said person got the jab.

The odds of being exposed are higher around unvaccinated people.

Secondly - that study came out two days ago and is still undergoing peer review, hence the weasel language, which is always used. There will be more confirming it.

What information do you have that the researchers don't?

 

[BNR32FAN]

No, it is in the late experimental phase, many thousands of 12-18 yr olds have been vaccinated and monitored prior to the EUA being granted. now we are in the final phase before regular approval is granted as we were with the adult vaccine until just recently.

Yes so it’s still in the experimental stage.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If I remember correctly, the waiver I signed to get the shot was only to not hold the administrator of the vaccine liable for complications relative to the actual injection and has nothing to do with the vaccine itself. I think you should check and read the waiver more closely. It was also an informational piece to inform us that there was a slight risk of allergic reactions which was why we had to stay at the injection site for 15 minutes and that our signature said that we understood this. I wouldn't actually call it a waiver, more of a standard consent document.

a consent form that releases them from liability is called a waiver.

 

[Mayzoo]

a consent form that releases them from liability is called a waiver.

I signed the exact same form for the Covid shot as I did my last tetanus shot. Nothing nefarious or new there.

Have you actually read what the administration site is asking you to sign, or are you going off an internet article about said form?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Again (not sure how many times I've had to explain this on CF...probably at least two dozen times now to various people). mRNA isn't a "new/rushed" technology. Clinical trials (in phase II and III) have leveraged that technology in larger trials going back to 2009. And viral vector technology (like J&J and AstraZeneca) have been around since the disco era.

The "leave people alone" mentality doesn't fly here.

A) nobody can claim to know who's going to end up carrying a high enough viral load to cause externalities. It'd be like saying "these drunk driving laws are wrong, some people are staggering drunk after 3 beers, others are mostly sober".

B) while it's true that "some vaccinated and unvaccinated have both died", saying that implies that the risk is equally likely between the two groups. It's not even close.

Here's my state for the last 9 months:
View attachment 305878

Yes "both vaccinated and unvaccinated have been hospitalized and died"...but the odds of that happening between the two groups aren't even in the same ball park.

I replied back to you with this info in a different thread a few days back
Florida (Tampa) hospitals won't mandate vaccine for workers


(showing that has time goes on, hospitalizations among unvaccinated are increasing at a rate that's 12 time faster than among vaccinated, and deaths among unvaccinated are increasing at a rate that's 20 times faster than among vaccinated)


Saying "the vaccinated have still died from covid too" (as a means to undermine the credibility of the vaccine) is basically on par with the smokers who don't want to quit, and bring up the fact that "non-smokers can get lung cancer too!" as justification for not changing their behavior or acting as if their decision to keep smoking "isn't as bad as everyone says it is".... when everyone knows full well that smoking makes that outcome more likely.

Minnesota:

The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) said Monday it has recorded 12,559 breakthrough infections among the state's 3,028,670 who had been fully vaccinated as of Aug. 1.

That puts the infection rate among that group at 0.415%, about one in every 241 people.

That's a jump from state health department figures as of July 11, when there were 5,599 breakthrough infections among 2,948,744 fully vaccinated people — a rate of 0.19%

This increase in breakthrough cases is a trend health officials are seeing nationally.



Of course there is this problem, which is true all over the country: MDH also notes the hospitalization figures include all patients admitted for any reason within 14 days of a positive COVID test, even if COVID isn't what caused the hospital stay.

So, the numbers of hospitalization and death are low and always have been low, relative to the population. Only a fraction of those who got Covid at all are likely to be hospitalized from Covid; lots of those positive Covid tests are among those who are actually hospitalized for another reason, yet happened to also get exposed to Covid.

Among those, most of those who require invasive treatment and/or die are elderly, or have serious risk factors.

Stop talking as if one seriously risks hospitalization and death just from existing in society without Pfizer, or from already having recovered from Covid. Almost all of the high risk people have been vaccinated already, by their own choice, as it always must be in a free country.

Suggesting mandatory vaccination is like wearing a seatbelt or not driving drunk is disingenuous. Those are mere restrictions on driving - things to do, much unlike demanding one inject something with NEVER BEFORE USED technology into their bodies to engage in society. Maybe you want to live in Minority Report, but most of us do not.

Get out of here with the "They have tested Mrna since 2009". Not in humans, they haven't. That experiment is occurring now and doesn't end until 2023, if I recall correctly in the Pfizer extension of the EUA and simultaneous separate approval of the not yet produced "Conmirnaty".

Here's a little piece for you from Dr. Kamran Abassi, head of the British Medical Journal, where, ironically, free speech from scientists is not shut down as it has been silenced, in the "land of the free". Here, we are only permitted to hear a single official perspective since the autocrats came to power.
Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Minnesota:

The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) said Monday it has recorded 12,559 breakthrough infections among the state's 3,028,670 who had been fully vaccinated as of Aug. 1.

That puts the infection rate among that group at 0.415%, about one in every 241 people.

That's a jump from state health department figures as of July 11, when there were 5,599 breakthrough infections among 2,948,744 fully vaccinated people — a rate of 0.19%

This increase in breakthrough cases is a trend health officials are seeing nationally.



Of course there is this problem, which is true all over the country: MDH also notes the hospitalization figures include all patients admitted for any reason within 14 days of a positive COVID test, even if COVID isn't what caused the hospital stay.

So, the numbers of hospitalization and death are low and always have been low, relative to the population. Only a fraction of those who got Covid at all are likely to be hospitalized from Covid; lots of those positive Covid tests are among those who are actually hospitalized for another reason, yet happened to also get exposed to Covid.

Among those, most of those who require invasive treatment and/or die are elderly, or have serious risk factors.

Stop talking as if one seriously risks hospitalization and death just from existing in society without Pfizer, or from already having recovered from Covid. Almost all of the high risk people have been vaccinated already, by their own choice, as it always must be in a free country.

Suggesting mandatory vaccination is like wearing a seatbelt or not driving drunk is disingenuous. Those are mere restrictions on driving - things to do, much unlike demanding one inject something with NEVER BEFORE USED technology into their bodies to engage in society. Maybe you want to live in Minority Report, but most of us do not.

Get out of here with the "They have tested Mrna since 2009". Not in humans, they haven't. That experiment is occurring now and doesn't end until 2023, if I recall correctly in the Pfizer extension of the EUA and simultaneous separate approval of the not yet produced "Conmirnaty".

Here's a little piece for you from Dr. Kamran Abassi, head of the British Medical Journal, where, ironically, free speech from scientists is not shut down as it has been silenced, in the "land of the free". Here, we are only permitted to hear a single official perspective since the autocrats came to power.
Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science

Wow Minnesota has seen an increase in hospitalized patients that have been vaccinated now that they are testing all hospitalized patients regardless of incoming reason. This has brought the rate of vaccinated hospitalized from .19 to .4 %. So, it says nothing about the danger of being unvaccinated which far and away accounts for most Covid hospital patients.

As for Comirnaty vs Pfizer Bnt... drop it, they are exactly the same thing except for the label on the vial. Per the FDA you can use either one on hand in any permitted case. That is what the FDA approval says if you actually read it.

Finally re your politicisation link. You do remember last year when Trump was suppressing his own experts, It was a pretty big stink. Yup it happens, it is better now.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Minnesota:

The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) said Monday it has recorded 12,559 breakthrough infections among the state's 3,028,670 who had been fully vaccinated as of Aug. 1.

That puts the infection rate among that group at 0.415%, about one in every 241 people.

That's a jump from state health department figures as of July 11, when there were 5,599 breakthrough infections among 2,948,744 fully vaccinated people — a rate of 0.19%

This increase in breakthrough cases is a trend health officials are seeing nationally.

Yes, because as more people get vaccinated, the number of breakthrough infections among that group will represent a larger piece of the puzzle. For instance, if you had a country where 100% of people were vaccinated, 100% of infections would occur among the vaccinated.

Breakthrough hospitalizations and breakthrough deaths are the important metric to track (when comparing to their unvaccinated counterparts), because those are the things we're heavily focused on preventing.

Getting vaccinated doesn't mean "I'll never get a mild fever or a cough again", it's aimed at keeping people out of the hospital or the grave. You could tell me tomorrow that 100% of vaccinated people contracted the virus, if rate of hospitalizations and deaths among that group of infinitesimally low compared to their non-vaxxed counterparts, then the vaccine is doing its job.

Get out of here with the "They have tested Mrna since 2009". Not in humans, they haven't.

Sorry, but I believe you're incorrect on that one.

If you'd like to read through some of them, have at it...

Search of: mrna | Completed Studies - List Results - ClinicalTrials.gov

You can even add the "Start Date" column with the options at the top if you'd like to browse them by date.

The earlier ones are mainly focused on cancer research, but you can see some viral based ones for things like Zika, Influenza, and Rabies.

Not to mention, the over-arching point, I'm not aware of any non-live vaccine that's caused side effects years later. Adverse reactions from non-live vaccines typically happen in the "days-to-weeks" time period, not "5 years later" (same goes for the clinical trials listed in the link I provided). We've had people getting these vaccines for 9 months now. If something bad's going to happen, it's going to happen in the first 2-14 days.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Yes, because as more people get vaccinated, the number of breakthrough infections among that group will represent a larger piece of the puzzle. For instance, if you had a country where 100% of people were vaccinated, 100% of infections would occur among the vaccinated.

Breakthrough hospitalizations and breakthrough deaths are the important metric to track (when comparing to their unvaccinated counterparts), because those are the things we're heavily focused on preventing.

Getting vaccinated doesn't mean "I'll never get a mild fever or a cough again", it's aimed at keeping people out of the hospital or the grave.
....


Not to mention, the over-arching point, I'm not aware of any non-live vaccine that's caused side effects years later. Adverse reactions from non-live vaccines typically happen in the "days-to-weeks" time period, not "5 years later" (same goes for the clinical trials listed in the link I provided). We've had people getting these vaccines for 9 months now. If something bad's going to happen, it's going to happen in the first 2-14 days.

But wait...they keep arguing as a selling point, now that it is clear that the vaccine does not in fact prevent infection or transmission, that if everyone is vaccinated, there will be no more breakthrough infections, because the "unvaccinated" as said to be causing the problem.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Either they are the reason for the mutation of the virus and if everyone is vaccinated, it stops - or the vaccine may be causing the mutation.

You do acknowledge the rhetoric has changed. Vaccines do indeed prevent disease, and that is what we were told at first. Then it dropped to "serious protection", then "protection", now, "well you will stay out of the hospital with a serious case". Now we know that none of that is true.

Just like before the vaccine, some people will have it and never know, some people will have it with mild symptoms, and a few will get ill, vaccine status irrespective.

Why are we doing this again? I strongly suspect this pandemic would have died out already had we not attempted to rush this injection and intervene. But no way to know.

We really don't know what effects vaccines are having on humans in the long run, actually. Maybe none. Maybe they are a driver of the heavily diseased state of many adults, especially in the states. No way to prove it.

Just because some side effects show up early in normal vaccines does not mean at all that with this brand new technology never-before-used on humans, we won't see something different. One thing is not like the other.

Thank you for the link. I will check it out.

 

[KCfromNC]

But wait...they keep arguing as a selling point, now that it is clear that the vaccine does not in fact prevent infection or transmission, that if everyone is vaccinated, there will be no more breakthrough infections, because the "unvaccinated" as said to be causing the problem.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Either they are the reason for the mutation of the virus and if everyone is vaccinated, it stops - or the vaccine may be causing the mutation.

You do acknowledge the rhetoric has changed. Vaccines do indeed prevent disease, and that is what we were told at first. Then it dropped to "serious protection", then "protection", now, "well you will stay out of the hospital with a serious case". Now we know that none of that is true.

Just like before the vaccine, some people will have it and never know, some people will have it with mild symptoms, and a few will get ill, vaccine status irrespective.

Why are we doing this again? I strongly suspect this pandemic would have died out already had we not attempted to rush this injection and intervene. But no way to know.

We really don't know what effects vaccines are having on humans in the long run, actually. Maybe none. Maybe they are a driver of the heavily diseased state of many adults, especially in the states. No way to prove it.

Just because some side effects show up early in normal vaccines does not mean at all that with this brand new technology never-before-used on humans, we won't see something different. One thing is not like the other.

Thank you for the link. I will check it out.

I'd be curious if you could quote "them" saying what you've said "they" are saying.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I'd be curious if you could quote "them" saying what you've said "they" are saying.

You know I can. I have quoted sources throughout this discussion, which you aren't really interested in. You simply wish to defend your own viewpoints. That's fine, but its' completely transparent, which is why I told you this conversation has grown unfruitful.

But here you go again: these are the lies being spread widely: Unvaccinated people are 'variant factories,' infectious diseases expert says - CNN

And here is the pattern being followed: "A recurrent theme in Nazi antisemitism propaganda was that Jews spread diseases. To prevent non-Jews from attempting to enter the ghettos and from seeing the condition of daily life there for themselves, German authorities posted quarantine signs at the entrances, warning of the danger of contagious disease. " United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: Deceiving the Public

I've answered you probably 20 times and you don't read the documents and you aren't following because you keep stating and restating the same comments, so I think we are done on this topic.

 

[KCfromNC]

You know I can. I have quoted sources throughout this discussion, which you aren't really interested in.

Oh, starting off with a personal attack. That's not a good look. Let's see if the post improves at all.

You simply wish to defend your own viewpoints. That's fine, but its' completely transparent, which is why I told you this conversation has grown unfruitful.

Nope, still not great.

But here you go again: these are the lies being spread widely: Unvaccinated people are 'variant factories,' infectious diseases expert says - CNN

Hmm, I didn't see any quotes from "them" in the previous post in this article.

Oh well, glad I didn't get my hopes up.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Oh, starting off with a personal attack. That's not a good look. Let's see if the post improves at all.



Nope, still not great.



Hmm, I didn't see any quotes from "them" in the previous post in this article.

Oh well, glad I didn't get my hopes up.

It's hard to see what you refuse to read. I've tried enough times. Another day.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But wait...they keep arguing as a selling point, now that it is clear that the vaccine does not in fact prevent infection or transmission, that if everyone is vaccinated, there will be no more breakthrough infections, because the "unvaccinated" as said to be causing the problem.

Early on with the original strain and the alpha variant, the vaccines carried an impressive prevention score beyond their originally stated purpose. (with transmission prevention > 90%)

That's not the case with the delta variant.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Either they are the reason for the mutation of the virus and if everyone is vaccinated, it stops - or the vaccine may be causing the mutation.

It's not a matter of anyone "wanting it both ways" it's a matter of acknowledging nuance.

Transmission prevention going from 90% down to 40% (while still boasting high efficacy in terms of staving off the most severe effects...which they do) doesn't mean "we now know it doesn't prevent infection". It prevents some, others slip through. That rate varies based on the variant.

You do acknowledge the rhetoric has changed. Vaccines do indeed prevent disease, and that is what we were told at first. Then it dropped to "serious protection", then "protection", now, "well you will stay out of the hospital with a serious case". Now we know that none of that is true.

Actually, what we were originally told was that it was designed to drastically reduce hospitalizations and deaths...and that a transmission prevention rate that was on part with a flu shot (40%-50%) would be acceptable.

We have to accept some risk of Covid-19

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/07/cor...f-it-being-highly-effective-is-not-great.html

So yes, the messaging changed, but it was changed going in the opposite direction.

Originally, nobody had the unrealistic standard. That changed and everyone got spoiled when they exceeded expectations, and somewhere along the way, people developed this notion that "anything less than perfection is cause for panic" or "if it doesn't completely prevent any and all illness, that means the vaccine is a failure"

I never had that unrealistic expectation about it.

I was pleasantly surprised when the early efficacy reports where as high as they were, but at the end of the day, if hospitalization and death reduction are > 75%... any significant level of transmission prevention is a bonus.

Right now, the vaccines are still outperforming their original expectations so I see no cause for alarm.

Here's How Well COVID-19 Vaccines Work Against the Delta Variant

It's not an all or nothing thing.

The vaccines scored an A+ against original strain and Alpha.

They're getting a B- against Delta (which thus far, is the most transmissible dominant variant in every country it's found its way to)

 

[KCfromNC]

It's hard to see what you refuse to read. I've tried enough times. Another day.

Hmm, more personal attacks. I guess I didn't really expect anything of substance behind this round of anti-vaxx rhetoric. But it does feel like those posts are capitulating quicker and quicker as time goes on.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Early on with the original strain and the alpha variant, the vaccines carried an impressive prevention score beyond their originally stated purpose. (with transmission prevention > 90%)

That's not the case with the delta variant.

---------



It's not a matter of anyone "wanting it both ways" it's a matter of acknowledging nuance.

Transmission prevention going from 90% down to 40% (while still boasting high efficacy in terms of staving off the most severe effects...which they do) doesn't mean "we now know it doesn't prevent infection". It prevents some, others slip through. That rate varies based on the variant.



Actually, what we were originally told was that it was designed to drastically reduce hospitalizations and deaths...and that a transmission prevention rate that was on part with a flu shot (40%-50%) would be acceptable.

...
Originally, nobody had the unrealistic standard. That changed and everyone got spoiled when they exceeded expectations, and somewhere along the way, people developed this notion that "anything less than perfection is cause for panic" or "if it doesn't completely prevent any and all illness, that means the vaccine is a failure"

I never had that unrealistic expectation about it.

I was pleasantly surprised when the early efficacy reports where as high as they were, but at the end of the day, if hospitalization and death reduction are > 75%... any significant level of transmission prevention is a bonus.

Right now, the vaccines are still outperforming their original expectations so I see no cause for alarm.

Here's How Well COVID-19 Vaccines Work Against the Delta Variant
View attachment 305946

View attachment 305947

It's not an all or nothing thing.

The vaccines scored an A+ against original strain and Alpha.

They're getting a B- against Delta (which thus far, is the most transmissible dominant variant in every country it's found its way to)

You are the most logical and rational poster here, particularly on these issues.

Let's look at a few of these things - I'm on a break from working on a fence right now so I'm not going to address them all.

1) Not the case with Delta variant; it does not work as well. Exactly.

2) It was ALWAYS the case, pre-vaccine, that only vulnerable people got symptomatically infected, mostly the elderly and/or those with co-morbidities (now like 90% vaccinated). Millions upon millions had asymptomatic cases and never knew it, until antibodies were picked up when they were tested later for various reasons. Some had mild cases, where they suspected it. None of these were ever included in the numbers.

It is simply pretense that the current protection is DUE to the vaccine. No, this virus always had a 99% recovery rate BEFORE the vaccine ever existed, with, as frequently is the case, a fraction of the population being highly vulnerable and unfortunately some getting very ill or dying. That has not changed. Though some of the vulnerable are now younger, mostly still with co-morbidities.

[The following is personal opinion and no, I cannot yet prove it yet. We would have been better off NOT to do any vaccine, but merely treat those who become ill. I think the entire incident would be over now. Even the 1918 pandemic was over in a couple years, and it was far more virulent killing much more of the population. My gut reaction is that we have extended it because there were billions of dollars to be made. I hope I am wrong, but suspect I am not. About 50 years from now, we will find out, undoubtedly and nothing will happen.]

3) No, that downgrading of the protection offered definitely happened in the rhetoric. I can link all of that, but not at the moment. Vaccines used to prevent transmission...until now, when you get "some protection". Unless you don't, then it was all risk, zero reward. And the recovered are immune by all evidence. They are not filling hospitals now. They are using the blood of the recovered from Covid to make the monoclonal antibodies!

Let's just call that what is is. Immunity. The pretense that immunity is irrelevant and everyone must still take this vaccine is complete nonsense.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

2) It was ALWAYS the case, pre-vaccine, that only vulnerable people got symptomatically infected, mostly the elderly and/or those with co-morbidities (now like 90% vaccinated). Millions upon millions had asymptomatic cases and never knew it, until antibodies were picked up when they were tested later for various reasons. Some had mild cases, where they suspected it. None of these were ever included in the numbers.

Let's just call that what is is. Immunity. The pretense that immunity is irrelevant and everyone must still take this vaccine is complete nonsense.

I've stated before in a couple different threads, I'd be okay with a positive antibody test in lieu of proof of vaccination for the requirements.

The problem I've run into with that conversation, is that there seems to be quite a bit of overlap between the crowd that doesn't want the vaccine, and the crowd that doesn't want to have to take an antibody test either.

There seems to be contingent that has the mentality of "no masks, no testing, no vaccine...everything just needs to go back to normal now and we everyone has to universally agree that covid is no big deal, anything less than that is tyranny!"

It is simply pretense that the current protection is DUE to the vaccine. No, this virus always had a 99% recovery rate BEFORE the vaccine ever existed, with, as frequently is the case, a fraction of the population being highly vulnerable and unfortunately some getting very ill or dying. That has not changed. Though some of the vulnerable are now younger, mostly still with co-morbidities.

This is where misuse of statistics can be misleading.

Defined in terms of "99% survive, only 1% dies", it doesn't sound very daunting.

When you extrapolate what those numbers mean in the context of a nation of 330 million people, it equates to "326 million people survive, 4 million die"

3) No, that downgrading of the protection offered definitely happened in the rhetoric. I can link all of that, but not at the moment. Vaccines used to prevent transmission...until now, when you get "some protection". Unless you don't, then it was all risk, zero reward. And the recovered are immune by all evidence. They are not filling hospitals now. They are using the blood of the recovered from Covid to make the monoclonal antibodies!

Actually, that's not true. Vaccines have always offered varying degrees of contraction prevention depending on the type.

For instance, the shingles vaccines are only 89% effective in prevent transmission. The mumps component of the MMR vaccine has a pretty wide range of 50-90% depending on the level of community transmission one is exposed to. Meningococcal vaccines are only around 70% effective.

To say that there's zero reward unless transmission prevention is 100% is a fallacy.

I heard an epidemiologist speak on the subject (pre-covid; discussing other vaccines) and they used a couple of analogies that I thought were great (I'm a bit of a analogy connoisseur as it were)

1)
Think of it like being an umbrella.

Without an umbrella, it doesn't matter how heavy it's raining, you're going to get wet.

If you have an umbrella, and it's a light/moderate rain, you'll stay dry.

If you have an umbrella, and it's a downpour, you still may get a little wet, but not nearly as wet as if you didn't have one at all.

2)
Like using flame retardant suit.

In many small/medium, you'll be very well protected and likely won't get burned at all, but if in a large serious fire, you still may get some burn damage, but not nearly as severe as the guy who was in the building wearing a t-shirt and flip flops.

 

[Pommer]

There seems to be contingent that has the mentality of "no masks, no testing, no vaccine...everything just needs to go back to normal now and we everyone has to universally agree that covid is no big deal, anything less than that is tyranny!"

And this, I believe, is the absolute crux of the divide:
The anti-vax, maximum freedom folk, (who have every right to hold these views, mind), are viewing the present issues over the response to the COVID19 Pandemic as a (mainly) political problem.

The “pro whatever-comes-down-the-pike-within-reason” folk, view the strife as a social issue.

“You can’t make me!”
vs.
“We’re not going to make you, until you make us make you.”