Covid-19 News/Discussion

[Xenos]

12 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

BINGO. Confirmation bias and cherry picking whatever supports their preconceived conclusions while discarding anything else as opposed to using any semblance of the scientific method.

The people who should be taking this the most seriously are the ones that are memes, and to be blunt, the “Cole Beasleys” should be renamed the Lamar Jacksons after his presser today.

I’m fine with it being called Lamar Jacksons. Or both honestly.

[AkronsWitness]

21 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

BINGO. Confirmation bias and cherry picking whatever supports their preconceived conclusions while discarding anything else as opposed to using any semblance of the scientific method.

The people who should be taking this the most seriously are the ones that are memes, and to be blunt, the “Cole Beasleys” should be renamed the Lamar Jacksons after his presser today.

Just scrolling through Beasley/Derek Anderson's timelines and the one thing that keeps popping up is "so many unknowns"

My response to that is: Here what IS known, you don't get the vaccination you stand a high risk of getting Covid. You also are more susceptible to pass it to others and potentially hurt them long-term.

It's not even what your doing to yourself because it's honestly at a point where if you play with fire, don't get the vaccine, get Covid and wind up in the hospital---you have nobody to blame but yourself. What they don't seem to understand is their ability to be a carrier and pass it on to others. That's a guilty conscience I would not want to have. You not getting the vaccine is nothing to do with you. It has everything to do with who you could pass it along to who might be unable to receive the vaccine. 

Im not worried about Cole Beasleys health, at all. Im worried he might be a carrier and pass it along to children who cant get the vaccine he is around or maybe older people he might come in contact with. Its about them, not him and HE needs to understand that.

Your own personal choice can effect other people who may not have a choice b/c of age, prior medical concerns, ect. 

Edited August 9, 2021 by AkronsWitness

[MWil23]

2 minutes ago, Xenos said:

I’m fine with it being called Lamar Jacksons. Or both honestly.

The entire situation is making me angrier by the day, and every American leader will have to answer for their culpability. (I’m not trying to be political here; I’m incredulous)

[vikesfan89]

8 minutes ago, Xenos said:

You don't support vaccine passports? 

[Xenos]

23 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

A good friend (and former co-worker) won't get the vaccine, at least not right now. He's reluctant because he's concerned about the potential side effects, although not just with the COVID vaccine... he doesn't take anything. Dealing with heroin addicts on a regular basis, many have said that their addiction began with oxycodone, which they were taking for a legitimate injury, and it spiraled out of control. They've lost their lives - almost literally. It's tough to watch.

One thing he said to me was that, if the vaccines work and people that get vaccinated are protected, why are they trying to force others to get vaccinated right now? (The two words in bold are key here.) He said he'd get it once they were approved for full use, but doesn't understand why, if people who received the vaccine are protected, the government is trying to force others to do something to their body that they don't feel comfortable doing.

I made the argument that it's to protect others, but, really, I get his perspective. There's a lot that we do that can potentially put others at risk, but we do those things anyway... and those things are legal.

Edit: part underlined. You still wear a mask every time you go outside, right?

(Looking for respectful conversation here. If the above made you mad, we probably don't have to talk about it.)

The forcing right now part is easy. We have tried the carrot method but it’s not helping the vaccination rate. Now it’s time for the stick method. 

It’s a big deal that people get vaccinated because they’re less likely to get infected and therefore less likely to spread it to the truly vulnerable like the immunocompromised. Additionally if you’re vaccinated and do have a breakthrough infection, there’s an even smaller chance that you get hospitalized and take up valuable resources. 

I want you to imagine what would happen if we didn’t have laws protecting against personal choices that put others at risk. What would happen if it was legal to text and drive, or even drink and drive? Someone like your friend could make the argument that why should it matter if he drives under the influences since other people are protected as well behind their own cars with the seatbelts, airbags, etc. But like anything else in life, no protection is 100% effective.

 

Edit: I only wear a mask indoors.

Edited August 9, 2021 by Xenos

[Xenos]

Yo @ramssuperbowl99, it’s slowly starting. But I wouldn’t surprised if things start escalating more.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2021/08/08/coming-soon-for-the-unvaccinated-a-50-monthly-paycheck-deduction-from-your-employer/amp/
 

Quote

“Employers have tried encouraging employees to get vaccinated through offering incentives like paid time off and cash, but with the Delta variant driving up infections and hospitalizations throughout the country – at the same time that vaccination rates have stalled – we have received inquiries from at least 20 employers over the past few weeks who are giving consideration to adding health coverage surcharges for the unvaccinated as a way to drive up vaccination rates in their workforce,” said Wade Symons, Mercer’s regulatory resources group leader. 

 

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

33 minutes ago, Xenos said:

The forcing right now part is easy. We have tried the carrot method but it’s not helping the vaccination rate. Now it’s time for the stick method. 

It’s a big deal that people get vaccinated because they’re less likely to get infected and therefore less likely to spread it to the truly vulnerable like the immunocompromised. Additionally if you’re vaccinated and do have a breakthrough infection, there’s an even smaller chance that you get hospitalized and take up valuable resources. 

I want you to imagine what would happen if we didn’t have laws protecting against personal choices that put others at risk. What would happen if it was legal to text and drive, or even drink and drive? Someone like your friend could make the argument that why should it matter if he drives under the influences since other people are protected as well behind their own cars with the seatbelts, airbags, etc. But like anything else in life, no protection is 100% effective.

 

Edit: I only wear a mask indoors.

If you believe that all persons should be required, via the "stick method", to do things that they don't want to do to protect others, shouldn't all people be forced to wear masks while inside and outside?

(I tend to believe that alcohol is damaging to the population in general, and, based on the "protect yourself and others" rationale, shouldn't be legal... but I don't drink, so I'm probably bias.)

[AkronsWitness]

22 minutes ago, Xenos said:

Yo @ramssuperbowl99, it’s slowly starting. But I wouldn’t surprised if things start escalating more.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2021/08/08/coming-soon-for-the-unvaccinated-a-50-monthly-paycheck-deduction-from-your-employer/amp/
 

 

Good. You know what would solve all of this, have a 10 day music festival that only vaccinated are allowed to attend lol 

Also, stadiums and sporting events should require vaccination cards upon entry.

If they want a scarlet letter than let them wear a scarlet letter

Edited August 9, 2021 by AkronsWitness

[-Hope-]

13 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

If you believe that all persons should be required, via the "stick method", to do things that they don't want to do to protect others, shouldn't all people be forced to wear masks while inside and outside?

no, because we have tangible data that indicate that outdoor spread is significantly less of a risk than indoor spread.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

Just now, -Hope- said:

no, because we have tangible data that indicate that outdoor spread is significantly less of a risk than indoor spread.

I mean, "less of a risk" isn't "no risk". We should do absolutely everything in our power to limit risk as much as possible, right? Not doing so could put a high-risk person at risk.

[Xenos]

11 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

If you believe that all persons should be required, via the "stick method", to do things that they don't want to do to protect others, shouldn't all people be forced to wear masks while inside and outside?

(I tend to believe that alcohol is damaging to the population in general, and, based on the "protect yourself and others" rationale, shouldn't be legal... but I don't drink, so I'm probably bias.)

No one cares if you drink yourself to death. It would be sad but it only affects you. But as soon as you get behind the wheel of a car, it’s illegal because….?

As for your opening comments, the end goal was always to get enough of the population vaccinated and get out of the pandemic that way. Everything else, like lockdowns/social distancing/wearing masks, was only a short term measure until we get the vaccine and use it to reach herd immunity. We unfortunately are returning to indoor masking because not enough people are getting vaccinated. Even indoor masking is a minor inconvenience to me, I would hate to go back even further because of other people’s bad decisions.

[-Hope-]

Just now, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

I mean, "less of a risk" isn't "no risk". We should do absolutely everything in our power to limit risk as much as possible, right? Not doing so could put a high-risk person at risk.

pre-delta variant, there was not a single documented case of covid transmission anywhere in the world from casual outdoor interaction (ie walking past someone, etc). as we learn more about the delta variant, we may revise that. and if a significant enough portion of cases are determined to be derived from outdoor transmission, we should adjust our masking requirements accordingly. doing this slippery-slope nonsense about what constitutes risk is silly. 

[Xenos]

14 minutes ago, AkronsWitness said:

Good. You know what would solve all of this, have a 10 day music festival that only vaccinated are allowed to attend lol 

Also, stadiums and sporting events should require vaccination cards upon entry.

If they want a scarlet letter than let them wear a scarlet letter

If they can somehow get the vaccine identification or passport thing done correctly, it would be great. It’s just extremely convoluted right now. Hopefully it improves. I guess we’ll see with NYC. 

[vikesfan89]

6 minutes ago, -Hope- said:

pre-delta variant, there was not a single documented case of covid transmission anywhere in the world from casual outdoor interaction (ie walking past someone, etc). as we learn more about the delta variant, we may revise that. and if a significant enough portion of cases are determined to be derived from outdoor transmission, we should adjust our masking requirements accordingly. doing this slippery-slope nonsense about what constitutes risk is silly. 

What about at something like an outdoor BBQ?

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

4 minutes ago, -Hope- said:

pre-delta variant, there was not a single documented case of covid transmission anywhere in the world from casual outdoor interaction (ie walking past someone, etc). as we learn more about the delta variant, we may revise that. and if a significant enough portion of cases are determined to be derived from outdoor transmission, we should adjust our masking requirements accordingly. doing this slippery-slope nonsense about what constitutes risk is silly. 

But, knowing that that's a possibility, shouldn't we take those precautions now, at least until we're sure? (Part in bold: surely we know that it's impossible to document every transmission. Relying on only what's document is somewhat foolish, in my opinion.)