What have you done to encourage people to get the vaccine?

[Sagittarius83]

“Each person” doesn’t have anything to do with pandemic laws on the books. Well, they could vote someone in that would change public safety laws with regard to pandemics, but so soon after Covid that’s likely to not be popular enough at the ballot box.
And privately… “each person” conducts a risk/benefit assessment with regard to the health and safety of others in their community? What gives them the right to risk the health of others? Let me answer for you: they don’t have the LEGAL right to risk the health of others during a global pandemic.

Ok, so in your ethical system as you have described it, there will be people who choose not to be ethical within your standards.

They refuse to get the vaccine. What should be done to them?

 

[brianpatrick]

Nothing complicated in the fact that you say you pm’d me and did not.

I might also point out that claiming victory is not the same as achieving it and that you appear to be unsuccessfully trying to intimidate me and there is no reason to pollute open forum with this.

I told you, my posts are mostly not for you. I am not interested in playing one-on-one. When I make posts they are public for a reason.

Also… never told you I sent you a PM. Maybe you misunderstood. I’m not trying to threaten you at all. I called your mistake out publicly, as it should be. We can leave it at that. Up to you.

 

[Sagittarius83]

Ye

I have every right given by God to refuse any vaccine. Let me know when that changes. The vaccinated are just going to have to man up and accept a smudge of insignificant risk

Yes that risk is about 18 in ten thousand in the US About 10 in ten thousand in the Netherlands and about 5 in ten thousand in the world.

I don’t see how these numbers can be viewed as large risks especially for anyone not elderly.

 

[brianpatrick]

Ok, so in your ethical system as you have described it, there will be people who choose not to be ethical within your standards.

They refuse to get the vaccine. What should be done to them?

Nobody should be forced to get vaccinated. Instead, if they choose not to, during a global pandemic, the unvaccinated should be barred from public life outside their own home.

 

[brianpatrick]

I have every right given by God to refuse any vaccine. Let me know when that changes. The vaccinated are just going to have to man up and accept a smudge of insignificant risk

God isn’t real, but if he were he would be disappointed in you. So, you’re lucky.

 

[Sagittarius83]

Nobody should be forced to get vaccinated. Instead, if they choose not to, during a global pandemic, the unvaccinated should be barred from public life outside their own home.

Ok so what should happen if they leave their enforced home confinement?

Should they wear an ankle bracelet?

Should they be arrested?

 

[Ginger Ale]

2020? lol... Russia is calling and want the 80's back

Do you miss the 80's VySky, I bet things were shaken for ya back then.

This is 2021. Just a reminder. Deal with the here and now.

 

[Sagittarius83]

W

Why not take a try at answering the question.

What pray tell is the question I have not answered?

 

[Sagittarius83]

We

I told you, my posts are mostly not for you. I am not interested in playing one-on-one. When I make posts they are public for a reason.

Also… never told you I sent you a PM. Maybe you misunderstood. I’m not trying to threaten you at all. I called your mistake out publicly, as it should be. We can leave it at that. Up to you.

I believe you are playing games and I don’t have time for this.

I have told you the only way I will continue this dialogue.

If you feel that you can argue me into next week or whatever you said then have the better taste to do it one on one. And if you were within an hour or two of here I would meet you in person. These are the ways adults do proper argumentation. Not in an endless back and forth anonymous forum annoying the other members.

I can’t deal with those who hide in anonymity.

I wish you the best.

 

[Ethel2]

The poster didn't "play word games", he used the appropriate word in his original response to another poster's assertion. You picked up on the word, unaware of its specific meaning and usage and now you know - you are making a different (and valid) point about pre-symptomatic individuals.

Asymptomatic cases don't spread SARS-CoV-2 transmission and are in line with multiple studies (9–11).

And it is also consistent with my other readings that the likelihood of spreading peaks near the date of symptom onset (which includes the day before) and then quickly declines.

Fine
Lets stipulate that there is little evidence that truly asymptomatic people can spread Covid but that presymptomatic people do.
Not really sure what difference it makes since you can’t tell which category a person falls into when you are exposed to him until a few weeks have passed. If I knew that someone tested positive five days ago but as yet wasn’t showing any symptoms and I wasn’t vaccinated I would stay away from him no matter which category he ended up falling into.
It’s because of presymptomatic people that masks are required in certain situations: you can’t tell who these people are. They look and feel fine-until they don’t.

 

[VySky]

Do you miss the 80's VySky, I bet things were shaken for ya back then.

This is 2021. Just a reminder. Deal with the here and now.

I’m serious. I appreciate the response. The 80’s was insane. The Southern California beach scene with tasty waves and hot chicks at The Rincon.

 

[brianpatrick]

Ok so what should happen if they leave their enforced home confinement?

Should they wear an ankle bracelet?

Should they be arrested?

At first it’s the honor system. After that it’s fines, and if it continues, it could be forced confinement. Pretty much like all US laws.
Vaccine passports would suffice. “Ankle bracelets” is a little hyperbolic.

My side is not crying because people don’t take the vaccine. Your side is crying because they can’t have full unvaccinated access to all the things they WANT to do.

 

[Ginger Ale]

I’m serious. I appreciate the response. The 80’s was insane. The Southern California beach scene with tasty waves and hot chicks at The Rincon.

You're a good sport. Sounds sweet!

 

[brianpatrick]

We

I believe you are playing games and I don’t have time for this.

I have told you the only way I will continue this dialogue.

If you feel that you can argue me into next week or whatever you said then have the better taste to do it one on one. And if you were within an hour or two of here I would meet you in person. These are the ways adults do proper argumentation. Not in an endless back and forth anonymous forum annoying the other members.

I can’t deal with those who hide in anonymity.

I wish you the best.

I’m not playing games. I’m not even sure what you mean by that. And anonymity… forums are traditionally anonymous because there are a lot of creeps out there in the world. This is the reason doxxing is illegal.

 

[Fledermaus]

W

What pray tell is the question I have not answered?

The one you responded to but did not answer.

What obligation does YouTube et al have to publish disinformation

 

[Sagittarius83]

The one you responded to but did not answer.

What obligation does YouTube et al have to publish disinformation

It has no obligation to publish anything. I have made this clear.

My point was that if it decides not to publish disinformation, it should first define what disinformation is.

YouTube has decided that if it doesn’t like a particular content then it has a duty to not allow that content to be seen lest it mislead others.

I find this patriarchal and largely YouTube is saying that some people are so dumb they will fall for anything so we must protect the rabble from themselves.

I suspect that you might define misinformation as information that differs from the orthodoxy of conventional thinking on a subject.

I guess I don’t view consensus on a topic the sword of Truth in an evolving and murky field as biology still is among the sciences.

This is why I chose to study a more rigorous scientific discipline.

 

[Fledermaus]

It has no obligation to publish anything. I have made this clear.

My point was that if it decides not to publish disinformation, it should first define what disinformation is.

YouTube has decided that if it doesn’t like a particular content then it has a duty to not allow that content to be seen lest it mislead others.

I find this patriarchal and largely YouTube is saying that some people are so dumb they will fall for anything so we must protect the rabble from themselves.

I suspect that you might define misinformation as information that differs from the orthodoxy of conventional thinking on a subject.

I guess I don’t view consensus on a topic the sword of Truth in an evolving and murky field as biology still is among the sciences.

This is why I chose to study a more rigorous scientific discipline.

So YouTube has to explain to you why they don't allow pseudoscience and crackpot medicine?

 

[brianpatrick]

It has no obligation to publish anything. I have made this clear.

My point was that if it decides not to publish disinformation, it should first define what disinformation is.

YouTube has decided that if it doesn’t like a particular content then it has a duty to not allow that content to be seen lest it mislead others.

I find this patriarchal and largely YouTube is saying that some people are so dumb they will fall for anything so we must protect the rabble from themselves.

I suspect that you might define misinformation as information that differs from the orthodoxy of conventional thinking on a subject.

I guess I don’t view consensus on a topic the sword of Truth in an evolving and murky field as biology still is among the sciences.

This is why I chose to study a more rigorous scientific discipline.

Not only should we protect the rabble from themselves, we are legally and ethically obligated to do so. They should have shut this thread down earlier, around the “stupid people shouldn’t have internet” comment.

 

[Sagittarius83]

So YouTube has to explain to you why they don't allow pseudoscience and crackpot medicine?

YouTube is a private company and does not have any obligation to me to explain anything but if it’s claim is to filter out content based on what they consider misinformation then there should be some criteria on which to base that filtering.

Just out of curiosity, were YouTube to disallow content supporting abortion and any content based on any proposed gun regulations or anything critical of Trump, would you be as supportive of them as a private company just exercising their rights as a platform provider?

 

[Moderate Right]

As we all know, getting the vaccine is the only thing that can keep us safe and prosperous.

But as with everything human, ignorance abounds. Some folks simply will not get the shot.

I'd like to establish a thread where we can all post examples of how we encouraged others to get the vaccine and encouraged businesses to make it mandatory for their employees or refuse service from a business whop does not compel it's employees.

For example, this week I fired my exterminator for not being vaccinated.

I have also cancelled my gym membership because no rule exists and have not bought sporting events tickets that I other wise would have.

What is your story of valor?

It would have been very funny if Trump would have been re-elected and the vaccine rollout began under his second term. The left would have continued with "Trump is pushing an unproven vaccine" and it would have been funny to see how you reacted had Trump forced you to be vaccinated. You would be screaming a completely different story.

 

[Sagittarius83]

It would have been very funny if Trump would have been re-elected and the vaccine rollout began under his second term. The left would have continued with "Trump is pushing an unproven vaccine" and it would have been funny to see how you reacted had Trump forced you to be vaccinated. You would be screaming a completely different story.

The other thing is that there is now an increasing assumption that if it weren’t for Biden there would be no vaccine when the vaccine was being researched heavily from very early on (shockingly mostly within the Trump administration)

 

[brianpatrick]

The not funny part about that is both political realities would be terrible. The one you’re imagining, and the one we are now living in.

 

[brianpatrick]

The other thing is that there is now an increasing assumption that if it weren’t for Biden there would be no vaccine when the vaccine was being researched heavily from very early on (shockingly mostly within the Trump administration)

There is not an “increasing assumption” of anything that came after that quote, and “shockingly” is a little dramatic, don’t you think?

 

[Ethel2]

I’m serious. I appreciate the response. The 80’s was insane. The Southern California beach scene with tasty waves and hot chicks at The Rincon.

I was there in the 80s too....Huntington Beach, Irvine. That was before there became way too many people. Now there is a constant traffic jam and the air quality can be pretty awful.
Hard to beat the long days and sunsets at the beach in the 80s and further inland the perfume smell of the orange groves in bloom.
Its much different now.
I suppose everything is.

 

[Ethel2]

It would have been very funny if Trump would have been re-elected and the vaccine rollout began under his second term. The left would have continued with "Trump is pushing an unproven vaccine" and it would have been funny to see how you reacted had Trump forced you to be vaccinated. You would be screaming a completely different story.

It’s pretty funny if that’s what you really think.
The jackass wouldn’t have had to force me. I got vaccinated on the very first day vaccines became available from my healthcare provider