Popular National Acquisition - Covid

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by G1911

Here you are, expressly and explicitly denying that it is a belief, an opinion, and asking if I agree it is a fact, not a belief or opinion.

All I can do is read your actual words, as written.

I get what you are saying now. "They are bad" is a statement as fact, and technically it is the same as if I had said 'aliens are orange'. on it's face, false.. and while I quibble with your use of "believe to be" as a proxy for belief, it is all good. Or I should say, it is believed to be all good.

The 'victim' you identified injected his age into the discussion when he presented his youth as some sort of superpower.

I'm positive that I had that same superpower when I was in his age group. I'm curious how many of us look back on our actions from that period with at least some measure of cringe or regret.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Some idiot will blame the vaccines on the excess deaths and then ask "prove me wrong".

Literally a few hours later:

https://cdn.jwplayer.com/previews/1GybXQfm

[cannonballsun]

Originally Posted by bnorth

The main thing I have noticed with how people look at Covid is how it affected those around them. I live in a city that got hit very hard so most here take it very serious. My younger brother lives in an area that only one person got it and it was a mild case.

So when I went to where he lives for our mothers funeral they made a joke of it. After I explained how many died where I live and my other younger brother(different mothers) got it and it left him with lasting problems they changed their opinion. It also helped me understand why some people act like it was nothing.

Just my 2 cents and maybe not worth that.

I live in New Orleans. The nightmare scenario for our city would be for the pandemic to hit during Mardi Gras. We have a million and a half people in town and on the streets at that time.
That is when we in New Orleans got hit. Mardi Gras was February 25th, 2020. The celebration starts as much as a week or two before the actual Mardi Gras day.
At that time, the pandemic was only known to be in China, I believe South Korea, and a few outbreaks in California and Washington state. We thought the virus was no where around us. Our eyes were to the west, to see when the virus got near us.
Meanwhile, the virus had spread from China to Europe, mainly Italy at first. The virus then spread to the US from the east, not from the west. New York got hit hard, and here in New Orleans we also got hit hard, due to all the tourists coming for Mardi Gras.
At the time, the US didn't even have tests available in our area. People would go to the hospital for the flu. The hospital would test for the flu, tell you that you didn't have the flu, and send you home after some treatment. The virus was here, and for a couple of weeks, nobody knew.
Many of my co-workers got sick. Three died the first month. It was pretty bad. So here in New Orleans, we took the virus very seriously.

[KMayUSA6060]

New CDC Guidelines focuses on Individual Decisions

- Those exposed to virus no longer have to quarantine
- Unvaxxed now have same guidance as vaxxed
- Students can stay in class after being exposed to the virus
- No longer recommended to screen those without symptoms

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...es-covid-rules

Shove your goal-post-moving "science" where Monkeypox starts.

Laugh. It's good for you (unless there's a political gain to be made from sadness, then they'll tell you it's not good for you)

[irv]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

New CDC Guidelines focuses on Individual Decisions

- Those exposed to virus no longer have to quarantine
- Unvaxxed now have same guidance as vaxxed
- Students can stay in class after being exposed to the virus
- No longer recommended to screen those without symptoms

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...es-covid-rules

Shove your goal-post-moving "science" where Monkeypox starts.

Laugh. It's good for you (unless there's a political gain to be made from sadness, then they'll tell you it's not good for you)

Crazy how many times the goal-posts were moved yet people continued to trust and follow right along without questioning anything.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by irv

Crazy how many times the goal-posts were moved yet people continued to trust and follow right along without questioning anything.

Crazy that learning evolved with something new. What’s even crazier is the conspiracy theories that abound. Trump spearheaded the vaccine by the way. Try not to forget that.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Crazy that learning evolved with something new. What’s even crazier is the conspiracy theories that abound. Trump spearheaded the vaccine by the way. Try not to forget that.

Good sheep.

Facts literally stare you in the face that COVID is basically the common cold/flu, as insinuated by the CDC, and you turn to attacks on Trump. All this after playing the race card earlier for no reason.

When they say jump, you say, "Baaaaaa" (How high in sheep)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Where did he attack Trump?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Where did he attack Trump?

You're right. "Brought up Trump" is a better phrase, because Trump Derangement Syndrome is a real thing. Always comes back to Trump.

See? I'm capable of admitting when I'm wrong. You should try, given the CDC's latest.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The CDC's latest seems to me to be a response to changed circumstances. It doesn't mean it was wrong in its prior views based on the facts and data as were understood then, about earlier and more deadly versions of the virus. This is an evolving, not a static, phenomenon. I am not suggesting the CDC is perfect, far from it, but the inference you and others want to draw is wrong IMO.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The CDC's latest seems to me to be a response to changed circumstances. It doesn't mean it was wrong in its prior views based on the facts and data as were understood then, about earlier and more deadly versions of the virus. This is an evolving, not a static, phenomenon. I am not suggesting the CDC is perfect, far from it, but the inference you and others want to draw is wrong IMO.

So now it's ok if people die, if COVID is as deadly as some think?

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't follow you. These are very difficult and nuanced balancing acts, always have been, and always will be. It seems to me the CDC is recognizing that overall we may be in a better place for the time being, perhaps in part due to the dominant variants being less deadly, which in turn is perhaps in part due to their characteristics, and perhaps in part due to all the vaccines that have been administered and people who have been infected. Does it confer absolute immunity, no, but the data strongly suggests it reduces the amount of death and (at least short term) serious illness. But it is and will continue to be an evolving and complicated situation that is not susceptible to being discussed in little soundbites like the one you posted.

[G1911]

Most of this can be seen as adjusting to new variants, etc., but the same guidelines for the unvaccinated and the vaccinated seems to be a significant and sharp 180. Vaccines were supposed to prevent infection (with, of course, the understanding that not everything can be 100% when we are talking about such huge scales as the entire population), then the science changed to that it mostly prevents serious illness, then that it sometimes prevents serious illness and you need 2 more shots, and now the CDC position is that the vaccinated and the unvaccinated should take the same exact precautions, drawing little to no distinction between the two and how many shots of what one has or has not taken anymore. I'm not reading how this isn't a big, big shift

One can see how the changing narratives (not evolutions of knowledge as more is learned, as some of these new CDC guidelines are or can fairly be read to be, but fundamental questions like "what does this vaccine being effectively forced on people actually protect against and do?" having answers that keep changing as events show each answer was clearly incorrect) and 180's on this whole saga (Fauci's mask flip being the most blatantly obvious and undeniable) did not produce broader faith in appeals to experts and to "trust the science" (a terrible motto for the supporters of heavy measures, as that is the opposite of how science works and is more like faith. Both sides often choose motto's that do not really serve their purposes to hang their hats on anyways).

I don't know what this lack of belief here really has to do with Trump. It seems one of several issues on which many of his supporters, right or wrong, fundamentally do not agree with him. He waffled on masks, but he was all about the vaccine, travel bans, etc. Trump was and is very pro-vax. I am aware as I type this that it is probably futile to attempt any even halfway objective point about him.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't follow you. These are very difficult and nuanced balancing acts, always have been, and always will be. It seems to me the CDC is recognizing that overall we may be in a better place for the time being, perhaps in part due to the dominant variants being less deadly, which in turn is perhaps in part due to their characteristics, and perhaps in part due to all the vaccines that have been administered and people who have been infected. Does it confer absolute immunity, no, but the data strongly suggests it reduces the amount of death and (at least short term) serious illness. But it is and will continue to be an evolving and complicated situation that is not susceptible to being discussed in little soundbites like the one you posted.

Soundbites?

The CDC literally said it does NOT matter if you're exposed, vaxxed, or anything. When did that science change?

[Peter_Spaeth]

My understanding is that early on against the original virus the vaccines were fairly effective though obviously not completely effective at preventing illness period, not just serious illness and death. But the herd immunity narrative probably wasn't realistic, even assuming a higher vaccination rate, given the nature of coronaviruses, which will mutate in order to survive.

[Republicaninmass]

"Now" its just a bad cold. It was a really bad one, where very few died .12% excess deaths, but up to 60% could have been asymptomatic. How can a someone be sick, that has no symptoms? No vax and un vax have the same protocols...ie mrna just didnt work, or maybe the ole "flu shot" never did, people just didnt run out and get tested with no symptoms

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My understanding is that early on against the original virus the vaccines were fairly effective though obviously not completely effective at preventing illness period, not just serious illness and death. But the herd immunity narrative probably wasn't realistic, even assuming a higher vaccination rate, given the nature of coronaviruses, which will mutate in order to survive.

So why the fight in this thread? If the jab is your saving grace and always has been, why care what I or others do? Why is this thread a thing if people just contracted a cold?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

So why the fight in this thread? If the jab is your saving grace and always has been, why care what I or others do?

I wouldn't call it a saving grace. Assuming I still care about avoidance, IMO an N95 is the best way to achieve that. I guess the high level answer to your question is that with a disease one gets from other people, it's in my interest if fewer people I might encounter have the disease, and one can extrapolate from there to the health of society. If what you did affected only you, my only concern would be humanitarian.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

"Now" its just a bad cold. It was a really bad one, where very few died .12% excess deaths, but up to 60% could have been asymptomatic. How can a someone be sick, that has no symptoms? No vax and un vax have the same protocols...ie mrna just didnt work, or maybe the ole "flu shot" never did, people just didnt run out and get tested with no symptoms

1 in 8 long Covid according to the most recent study. That's pretty high for a post-viral syndrome, as I understand it.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Soundbites?

The CDC literally said it does NOT matter if you're exposed, vaxxed, or anything. When did that science change?

I assume that it will be positioned as, since deaths or believed deaths are dropping, the need to quarantine also drops as it is less likely to kill vaxxed people (at least according to the narrative before yesterday; I’m unclear on what the new science narrative of the vaccines will be with this paradigm shift but it will almost certainly take a new direction now).

I am trying to read this in any way other than a massive step backwards from the most tenuous and difficult to support parts of the narrative of the State and science. Are they finally going to acknowledge that the risk for generally healthy and younger people is, as the CDC’s standards the entire time have clearly shown, absolutely tiny? ‘The vaccines are effective, it stops death for most people, we can worry less about infection now’ would seem the obvious counter argument to make, but the guidance here that we need not to distinguish between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated (I lose track of how many shots that is now, 0-2? 0-1? I’m not sure) seems to sink that argument right away.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

I assume that it will be positioned as, since deaths or believed deaths are dropping, the need to quarantine also drops as it is less likely to kill vaxxed people (at least according to the narrative before yesterday; I’m unclear on what the new science narrative of the vaccines will be with this paradigm shift but it will almost certainly take a new direction now).

I am trying to read this in any way other than a massive step backwards from the most tenuous and difficult to support parts of the narrative of the State and science. Are they finally going to acknowledge that the risk for generally healthy and younger people is, as the CDC’s standards the entire time have clearly shown, absolutely tiny? ‘The vaccines are effective, it stops death for most people, we can worry less about infection now’ would seem the obvious counter argument to make, but the guidance here that we need not to distinguish between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated (I lose track of how many shots that is now, 0-2? 0-1? I’m not sure) seems to sink that argument right away.

Las we’ve gotten through the worst of it hopefully and slowed the curve in the initial stages when the world really did look like a dark place, doesn’t it ease the conspiracy theories to know that even the bluest states have eased or eradicated mandates?

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

1 in 8 long Covid according to the most recent study. That's pretty high for a post-viral syndrome, as I understand it.

No doubt, but how can it even be quantifiable in the 60% of asymptomatic. Same with "this strain isnt as bad, but the vax will make you less sick" not quantifiable whatsoever.


From your buddies as the cdc

"There is no test to diagnose post-COVID conditions, and people may have a wide variety of symptoms that could come from other health problems. This can make it difficult for healthcare providers to recognize post-COVID conditions"

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

No doubt, but how can it even be quantifiable in the 60% of asymptomatic. Same with "this strain isnt as bad, but the vax will make you less sick" not quantifiable whatsoever.


From your buddies as the cdc

"There is no test to diagnose post-COVID conditions, and people may have a wide variety of symptoms that could come from other health problems. This can make it difficult for healthcare providers to recognize post-COVID conditions"

I have to go back and look at how the study tried to quantify the incidence, and to control for other possible confounding variables. In any individual case, for sure, it can be challenging. I disagree that in the aggregate, it is not possible to quantify the impact of the vaccine on serious illness and death. It's a pretty elementary statistical exercise as I understand it, from aggregate data. Again, in a single case, perhaps not.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Las we’ve gotten through the worst of it hopefully and slowed the curve in the initial stages when the world really did look like a dark place, doesn’t it ease the conspiracy theories to know that even the bluest states have eased or eradicated mandates?

I cannot possibly answer a question about the inner thoughts of conspiracy theorists (do we mean people who might not agree with you? Actual conspiracists that believe the disease is not real?). I would think walking back closer and closer to what the people who treated this like a bad flu and went about their normal lives said when it started is not a win for those in favor of heavy lockdowns and measures. I have advocated no conspiracy theory; I used the CDC’s own data to calculate that my risk was beyond minuscule, and then just lived my normal life to the vocal outrage (at best) of my neighbors.

Compliance with the narratives has been greatly hurt this year in blue states. Even here in California, as far left and compliant to government orders as anywhere in the US, maybe ~25% followed the last mask mandate we had recently that was dropped after so few bought it into it this time. I don’t know what that means to conspiracy theorists feelings and thoughts.

One side should not make the mistake of seeing everything as an evil conspiracy, and the other of seeing all dissent as belief in conspiracies. The sales pitch for Covid hysteria was never in line with the CDC’s own statistics and death rate estimates for people below 70 or 80. It does not take a conspiracy theory to realize that a survival rate above 99.9% for one’s age group does not pose a big risk and that participating in the hysteria is questionable.

[G1911]

If the vaccines 1) reduce death significantly or 2) newer versions are less dangerous then we should see a big uptick of deaths in 2020 and maybe early 2021, and a decline once vaccines became widely available and actually injected into people and new variants came to be the common ones. There may still be a surplus of deaths, but it should be much smaller in 2021 than in 2020, and the 2022 death count should be significantly smaller than 2021.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

I cannot possibly answer a question about the inner thoughts of conspiracy theorists (do we mean people who might not agree with you? Actual conspiracists that believe the disease is not real?). I would think walking back closer and closer to what the people who treated this like a bad flu and went about their normal lives said when it started is not a win for those in favor of heavy lockdowns and measures. I have advocated no conspiracy theory; I used the CDC’s own data to calculate that my risk was beyond minuscule, and then just lived my normal life to the vocal outrage (at best) of my neighbors.

Compliance with the narratives has been greatly hurt this year in blue states. Even here in California, as far left and compliant to government orders as anywhere in the US, maybe ~25% followed the last mask mandate we had recently that was dropped after so few bought it into it this time. I don’t know what that means to conspiracy theorists feelings and thoughts.

One side should not make the mistake of seeing everything as an evil conspiracy, and the other of seeing all dissent as belief in conspiracies. The sales pitch for Covid hysteria was never in line with the CDC’s own statistics and death rate estimates for people below 70 or 80. It does not take a conspiracy theory to realize that a survival rate above 99.9% for one’s age group does not pose a big risk and that participating in the hysteria is questionable.

A conspiracy theory would be thinking the deep state had a secret agenda to require masks and vaccinations for reasons other than the social welfare. My own definition. If the governor of California turned out to be the 90% shareholder of the world’s largest mask producer that would be one thing but that’s not the case.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I cannot possibly answer a question about the inner thoughts of conspiracy theorists (do we mean people who might not agree with you? Actual conspiracists that believe the disease is not real?). I would think walking back closer and closer to what the people who treated this like a bad flu and went about their normal lives said when it started is not a win for those in favor of heavy lockdowns and measures. I have advocated no conspiracy theory; I used the CDC’s own data to calculate that my risk was beyond minuscule, and then just lived my normal life to the vocal outrage (at best) of my neighbors.

Compliance with the narratives has been greatly hurt this year in blue states. Even here in California, as far left and compliant to government orders as anywhere in the US, maybe ~25% followed the last mask mandate we had recently that was dropped after so few bought it into it this time. I don’t know what that means to conspiracy theorists feelings and thoughts.

One side should not make the mistake of seeing everything as an evil conspiracy, and the other of seeing all dissent as belief in conspiracies. The sales pitch for Covid hysteria was never in line with the CDC’s own statistics and death rate estimates for people below 70 or 80. It does not take a conspiracy theory to realize that a survival rate above 99.9% for one’s age group does not pose a big risk and that participating in the hysteria is questionable.

When the governor and the mayor of LA ignore the mask mandates to party at the Super Bowl and go to fancy restaurants, it's probably hard for the masses to take them seriously.

As for hysteria, I think the truth is that the disease is less serious than the most hysterical Armageddon media depictions and quite a bit more serious, for many people but far from all, than the nothingburger dismissals from certain quarters. Of course this is America, where every issue is politicized, where there is extreme divisiveness and antipathy among the populace and little consensus, where to both sides narrative matters more than truth, and where government generally does a bad job, so it's no surprise it's been a mess.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Crazy that learning evolved with something new. What’s even crazier is the conspiracy theories that abound. Trump spearheaded the vaccine by the way. Try not to forget that.

I'm not going to get involved deeply in this thread as most know my thoughts on the vaccines/covid based on what I said in those other 2 threads, but I will say it is pretty remarkable, isn't it, that a lot of those conspiracy theories have now come true, don't you think?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

A conspiracy theory would be thinking the deep state had a secret agenda to require masks and vaccinations for reasons other than the social welfare. My own definition. If the governor of California turned out to be the 90% shareholder of the world’s largest mask producer that would be one thing but that’s not the case.

Don't forget the microchips.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

When the governor and the mayor of LA ignore the mask mandates to party at the Super Bowl and go to fancy restaurants, it's probably hard for the masses to take them seriously.

As for hysteria, I think the truth is that the disease is some degree less serious than the most hysterical media depictions and quite a bit more serious, for many people but far from all, than the nothingburger dismissals from certain quarters.

I know of no way to quantify it, but the very blatant “rules for thee and not for me” that made clear those pushing the lockdowns acted as if there was little to no threat, was a PR disaster even among the far left. Pretty much all of the lefties I know (which is not a valid datapoint, but I don’t have a valid datapoint) softened their stances after these events and I got less threats from tolerant progressives for going about normal life. Personally, I thought I was probably more at danger from the progressives wanting to start fights in stores, parking lots and on sidewalks for not wearing a mask then I did from the disease itself

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

A conspiracy theory would be thinking the deep state had a secret agenda to require masks and vaccinations for reasons other than the social welfare. My own definition. If the governor of California turned out to be the 90% shareholder of the world’s largest mask producer that would be one thing but that’s not the case.

Got it. I do not subscribe to this belief.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I know of no way to quantify it, but the very blatant “rules for thee and not for me” that made clear those pushing the lockdowns acted as if there was little to no threat, was a PR disaster even among the far left. Pretty much all of the lefties I know (which is not a valid datapoint, but I don’t have a valid datapoint) softened their stances after these events and I got less threats from tolerant progressives for going about normal life. Personally, I thought I was probably more at danger from the progressives wanting to start fights in stores, parking lots and on sidewalks for not wearing a mask then I did from the disease itself

Newsom trying to rationalize going to the French Laundry unmasked, then the utter bullshit explanations from him and Garcetti for their Super Bowl hijinks, were truly a disgrace. Not to mention Obama's birthday party, where he and his guests were unmasked but the servants (I mean the staff) had to wear them. True WTF moments. There were many others too, like Birx travelling despite recommending a travel ban.

[irv]

"THE PANDEMIC"
https://youtu.be/6zHpOwqrbek

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The CDC's latest seems to me to be a response to changed circumstances. It doesn't mean it was wrong in its prior views based on the facts and data as were understood then, about earlier and more deadly versions of the virus. This is an evolving, not a static, phenomenon. I am not suggesting the CDC is perfect, far from it, but the inference you and others want to draw is wrong IMO.

Exactly. All science is provisional and is updated as new information becomes available. If people want truth that, once stated, never changes, there are institutions more suited for them than the modern academy.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by G1911

I assume that it will be positioned as, since deaths or believed deaths are dropping, the need to quarantine also drops as it is less likely to kill vaxxed people (at least according to the narrative before yesterday; I’m unclear on what the new science narrative of the vaccines will be with this paradigm shift but it will almost certainly take a new direction now).

I am trying to read this in any way other than a massive step backwards from the most tenuous and difficult to support parts of the narrative of the State and science. Are they finally going to acknowledge that the risk for generally healthy and younger people is, as the CDC’s standards the entire time have clearly shown, absolutely tiny? ‘The vaccines are effective, it stops death for most people, we can worry less about infection now’ would seem the obvious counter argument to make, but the guidance here that we need not to distinguish between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated (I lose track of how many shots that is now, 0-2? 0-1? I’m not sure) seems to sink that argument right away.

The recommendations are due to overall vaccination rate of 79% (1 dose)/ 67% (2 dose) combined with unvaxxed infections resulting in approx 95% having at least some immunity. Some states are as low as 60%/51%.

You are correct that excess deaths have dropped since spiking pre-vax, and are expected to continue to decline, though not as quickly as one would expect due to the unknowns of post-covid realities.

As for those that make the silly "See? We told you so!" argument, that's akin to someone in 1959 saying the Washington Generals were going to win and in 1971 saying "See? I told you so!".

2.5 years and 1 million deaths later, those who seem to care more about being personally inconvenienced than the minimization of damage a worldwide pandemic is causing are trying to take a nonsensical victory lap?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Deertick

The recommendations are due to overall vaccination rate of 79% (1 dose)/ 67% (2 dose) combined with unvaxxed infections resulting in approx 95% having at least some immunity. Some states are as low as 60%/51%.

You are correct that excess deaths have dropped since spiking pre-vax, and are expected to continue to decline, though not as quickly as one would expect due to the unknowns of post-covid realities.

As for those that make the silly "See? We told you so!" argument, that's akin to someone in 1959 saying the Washington Generals were going to win and in 1971 saying "See? I told you so!".

2.5 years and 1 million deaths later, those who seem to care more about being personally inconvenienced than the minimization of damage a worldwide pandemic is causing are trying to take a nonsensical victory lap?

So much for our shared humanity, eh? Old people? They were about to die anyway. Sick people? Same, and it's probably their fault anyhow. Those who are vulnerable from not taking optimal care of themselves? To hell with them, get out of my way, if you don't like it stay home, I'm more important and deserving. Reminds me of that chilling scene in Cabaret, for some reason.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by G1911

I know of no way to quantify it, but the very blatant “rules for thee and not for me” that made clear those pushing the lockdowns acted as if there was little to no threat, was a PR disaster even among the far left. Pretty much all of the lefties I know (which is not a valid datapoint, but I don’t have a valid datapoint) softened their stances after these events and I got less threats from tolerant progressives for going about normal life. Personally, I thought I was probably more at danger from the progressives wanting to start fights in stores, parking lots and on sidewalks for not wearing a mask then I did from the disease itself

Agree completely. I initially avoided unmasked people as much as possible, but I was protected by N95. After the vaccines were available for a while, I started wearing a vented N95 (not recommended, since it only protected me) since most people weren't wearing any anyway.

I was assaulted in July 2020 by a grown-ass man. I walked out of a store and he complimented me on my hat. As I turned to thank him, he said something to the effect of "But I don't like that" then "You don't have to wear that" and grabbed my mask. I leaned back and tried to throat punch him, but luckily for both of us I missed. He seemed genuinely surprised that I swung at him. A passerby stepped between us, and the guy walked into the store. The whole thing happened in like 6 seconds.

The only other physical altercations I saw were by maskless people "asserting their right" to go into whatever private establishment that barred them. And lots of verbal confrontations initiated by both camps.

BTW, I wondered many times if that guy survived. Don't really care, but wondered.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So much for our shared humanity, eh? Old people? They were about to die anyway. Sick people? Same, and it's probably their fault anyhow. Those who are vulnerable from not taking optimal care of themselves? To hell with them, get out of my way, if you don't like it stay home, I'm more important and deserving. Reminds me of that chilling scene in Cabaret, for some reason.

Who has made any of these arguments? To be cognizant that people in the end stage of life and with numerous comorbidities are the ones at risk for flu-like diseases, as the CDC's Covid statistics have always made plain, does not mean one thinks it is their fault and they deserve it. The flu kills many such people ever year; and probably always has. That I should stay home because you are in fear makes no sense to me. I am not required to give up my life so that your mind may be assuaged. As you believe your vaccine works and you seem in this thread to now think only N95's work and not the surgical masks they tried to force on everyone, I'm not even clear how, effectively, you believe I ever posed a more lethal threat to the elderly than others. I know it is blasphemy, but one may feel human compassion and not partake in a public hysteria at the same time.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Agree completely. I initially avoided unmasked people as much as possible, but I was protected by N95. After the vaccines were available for a while, I started wearing a vented N95 (not recommended, since it only protected me) since most people weren't wearing any anyway.

I was assaulted in July 2020 by a grown-ass man. I walked out of a store and he complimented me on my hat. As I turned to thank him, he said something to the effect of "But I don't like that" then "You don't have to wear that" and grabbed my mask. I leaned back and tried to throat punch him, but luckily for both of us I missed. He seemed genuinely surprised that I swung at him. A passerby stepped between us, and the guy walked into the store. The whole thing happened in like 6 seconds.

The only other physical altercations I saw were by maskless people "asserting their right" to go into whatever private establishment that barred them. And lots of verbal confrontations initiated by both camps.

BTW, I wondered many times if that guy survived. Don't really care, but wondered.

Isn't it interesting as whoever constitutes the majority seems to simply want to impose their will on their neighbors? Maybe we should all be against that.

In my state if I took violent action against a person grabbing at me, spitting at me, or more I would be in prison right now.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Deertick

The recommendations are due to overall vaccination rate of 79% (1 dose)/ 67% (2 dose) combined with unvaxxed infections resulting in approx 95% having at least some immunity. Some states are as low as 60%/51%.

You are correct that excess deaths have dropped since spiking pre-vax, and are expected to continue to decline, though not as quickly as one would expect due to the unknowns of post-covid realities.

As for those that make the silly "See? We told you so!" argument, that's akin to someone in 1959 saying the Washington Generals were going to win and in 1971 saying "See? I told you so!".

2.5 years and 1 million deaths later, those who seem to care more about being personally inconvenienced than the minimization of damage a worldwide pandemic is causing are trying to take a nonsensical victory lap?

I don't know what to say, there's a whole lot of assumptions here that I do not actually agree with. I suspect you don't really mean to be conceding that the people who did not partake in the hysteria ended up correct, though you think they are correct by random chance.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Who has made any of these arguments? To be cognizant that people in the end stage of life and with numerous comorbidities are the ones at risk for flu-like diseases, as the CDC's Covid statistics have always made plain, does not mean one thinks it is their fault and they deserve it. The flu kills many such people ever year; and probably always has. That I should stay home because you are in fear makes no sense to me. I am not required to give up my life so that your mind may be assuaged. As you believe your vaccine works and you seem in this thread to now think only N95's work and not the surgical masks they tried to force on everyone, I'm not even clear how, effectively, you believe I ever posed a more lethal threat to the elderly than others. I know it is blasphemy, but one may feel human compassion and not partake in a public hysteria at the same time.

Not directed at you. Lots of people in society have these attitudes though as far as I can tell, and some posters on this form are not too far from them.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

Exactly. All science is provisional and is updated as new information becomes available. If people want truth that, once stated, never changes, there are institutions more suited for them than the modern academy.

I agree with this; science is not a monolith and it is usually a 'best guess of the moment with what is available right now' more than 'concrete truth', though some actual science is, I think, in the realm of fact (much of chemistry, the basic principles of gravity, etc.).

The problem of course, is that we were presented a narrative, told that this narrative was truth, to ignore every flip flop, and to trust it as absolute truth and that not to do so was being unscientific, stupid, and a conspiracy theory. Using the data, questioning the contradictions, not acceptable. People were forced to take shots they didn't want (yes, being forced to take one or be fired and not able to provide for your family is coercion). These shots were advertised as scientifically validated, and would prevent most infections. This was untrue, it never really did this and I don't think even the CDC still pretends that it did. Then the shots were advertised as preventing death and serious illness, which may be somewhat true but not to the degree as originally billed. Family gatherings and even attending the funerals of your loved ones were heavily restricted or even criminalized in blue states.

It wasn't the CDC saying "look, this thing is real, this is what we think at present based on the limited data we have and this is what we are advising" it was "comply, or you will be forced to comply." If it had been the former, if they had acknowledged it wasn't all correct but was the best guess at the moment, and they gave advice on that, there would be no debate. It was the use of force to push a narrative that was upheld to be absolute truth, changed every few weeks, and in the end appears to have been mostly false, with many of its key tenets walked back. That more and more the narrative of the moment, once upheld as inflexible truth, keeps drifting closer and closer to what the people who did not partake in the hysteria thought after a few weeks should be a lesson that we should not jump to radical measures and the subjugation of day to day life to county health officials.

To be clear, not all shifts are a flip-flop; many are a result of real changing circumstances and thus not problematic at all. But many significant ones clearly are flip flops. The increasing acknowledgement that blue surgical masks don't really protect against this is not a change resulting from new variants; it never did much if anything. Hell, masks were a no go the first week before they declared a complete 180 and demanded them. The flip flop on what the vaccine is for is not just new variants; though additional shots could be defended as such. It was a conspiracy theory to question the origin as a possible accidental lab leak, then... well, they don't want to talk about it anymore. Holding that we need the same rules for the vaccinated as the unvaccinated (some of whom are people with other health conditions or allergies that make it unsafe, not all evil conservatives who our compassion should not be given to) is one hell of a flip flop, that's not a new variant making a change. If there is a new variant that is predominant enough that we base the rules around that variant, and it does not treat the unvaccinated much different from the vaccinated and thus the rules should be the same for each, well.... what do we need to submit to the shots for?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not directed at you. Lots of people in society have these attitudes though as far as I can tell, and some posters on this form are not too far from them.

That's why I asked who has made those arguments . Let us say, for the sake of the argument (I know you know this, but for the others, I do not mean argument in the sense of a contentious or nasty disagreement, but as a contention in a debate), that I am a horrific person, and I care not at all about the suffering of my neighbors or strangers, that I welcome the virus and the death of the elderly because they are a different generation or whatever. This hypothetical me, walking around and living my daily life in 2020, going to the store, taking a walk at the park, attending the weddings and birthday celebrations and funerals of my friends and loved ones, having dinner with friends, without a mask and without a vaccine that did not yet exist. What threat do I pose to the fearful? Is it anymore than a person who buys into the fear, is scared, wears their surgical mask everywhere and anywhere, avoids celebrations and life's joyous social moments and somber remembrances (with other people of similar mindset, not the fearful who are hiding away to protect themselves), going to the store and taking a stroll in the park? If so, how?

Taking these two same people, in 2022, when the significant change is that the vaccine is readily available (to say the least; it could not be easier to get, anyone who wants it and a whole lot of people who never did have had 1, 2, 3, 4 shots), does one pose a markedly greater threat to their elders than the other? If so, how?

If the vaccine works, then the vaccination of others doesn't really matter. If surgical masks don't really work, the the vast majority of masking has done nothing (I agree an N95 might actually do something, but even here in the most left-wing part of the nation very very few people ever went around wearing N95's, and were explicitly told for months not to in order to save N95's for medical personnel), and our dissenter and our assenter have... both posed a very similar or same risk to others. Possibly a very small amount less risk for the fearful, as they spend more time hiding from the world than living it, but the virus seems to get pretty much everyone in the end and it doesn't seem the fearful have avoided infection by this method.

[jethrod3]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

1 in 8 long Covid according to the most recent study. That's pretty high for a post-viral syndrome, as I understand it.

Peter, this is probably the main and most important point that anti-maskers and anti-vaxers ignore, or rather, either do not know about or care not to acknowledge when they say that COVID is like the common cold (I say "probably" because all we have info for currently is data for the current strains of COVID; who knows what future strains might bring?). I say this based on 2 observations. First, several guys I play basketball with that are in their 20's and 30's and in great shape that got COVID (and who were then generally otherwise symptom-free) complained about being winded after they got better and started playing again. And a couple of them still tell me they still find they are getting winded easier, many weeks after they contracted COVID. Again, these are young guys.

Second, studies will take years but I think data are accruing that will suggest that folks that have had COVID and that now have cancer may respond differently to treatment (not just tumor response, but normal organs as well). I sense this to be the case based on opportunities for federal and institutional research funding that have been announced. This is something that will bear watching. In short, there is still a lot we don't know, and it's naive to assume that the older strains and newer strains of COVID have the same effect on us as the common cold. My suspicion is that some organs manifest the "memories" of the virus later on in ways that we have yet to discover.

[KMayUSA6060]

Let me get this straight. X amount of pages in a thread about people getting COVID at a baseball card show, arguing that the unvaxxed/anti-mask crowd is to blame. CDC comes out 1-2 weeks later, says that there are no longer separate guidelines, you don't have to quarantine, etc. This thread spins that by saying the new guidelines are backed by vaxxed percentages, but now also fears long COVID and the "unknown" (I thought the CDC were the "experts") while continuing to attack the unvaxxed/unmasked.

Incredible.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don't know what to say, there's a whole lot of assumptions here that I do not actually agree with. I suspect you don't really mean to be conceding that the people who did not partake in the hysteria ended up correct, though you think they are correct by random chance.

No random chance, logical progression of any viral threat. Unchecked, we all get infected and recover, or depending on the strain, die. Virus eventually peters out to a nuisance, or gets controlled (or mutates for it's survival). Asymptomatic transmission contributed significantly to the spread, and refusal to accept basic safeguards (for themselves and others) is continuing to extend the event. Now the danger has mostly landed on those who have self selected as principled martyrs (and of course many of their children). The CDC always estimated at least 7-12% would not get the vax. Now they are adjusting to the new reality that people and areas that have a breakout "asked for it".

BTW, there is a huge difference between 'Exposed" and "Infected".

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Now the danger has mostly landed on those who have self selected as principled martyrs (and of course many of their children). ...areas that have a breakout "asked for it".

BTW, there is a huge difference between 'Exposed" and "Infected".

This is incredibly evil. The guilt trip via children to inject something into their body is disgusting (whom, by the way, are statistically all but immune to anything severe with COVID). Saying unvaxxed/unmasked "asked for it" - disgusting. Don't ever call me a stupid, cocksure AH again when the basis of my argument is fighting for EVERYONE'S right to choose what they see as fit for their health and body, praying that everyone is ok in the long run but understanding that uncontrollable things happen in life. While your argument is to do what you and others see as fit or pay the potentially (but highly unlikely) consequences.

By the way, the CDC/government destroyed lives and changed society completely for 2 years to avoid "exposure", so you might want to rethink this "huge difference" between exposed and infected.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

This is incredibly evil. The guilt trip via children to inject something into their body is disgusting (whom, by the way, are statistically all but immune to anything severe with COVID). Saying unvaxxed/unmasked "asked for it" - disgusting. Don't ever call me a stupid, cocksure AH again when the basis of my argument is fighting for EVERYONE'S right to choose what they see as fit for their health and body, praying that everyone is ok in the long run but understanding that uncontrollable things happen in life. While your argument is to do what you and others see as fit or pay the potentially (but highly unlikely) consequences.

By the way, the CDC/government destroyed lives and changed society completely for 2 years to avoid "exposure", so you might want to rethink this "huge difference" between exposed and infected.

The difference between being exposed and infected is like being shot at vs being shot. And yes, the CDC tried to prevent people from getting covid by preventing people from getting sick and transmitting it to other people. What is the difficult part to understand?

When a group of cave divers cuts a gate and go into a particularly dangerous prohibited cave and all wind up dead, other divers understand that they knew the dangers and were idiots, not "freedom-loving adventurers." Fortunately, they didn't drag their kids unwillingly with them.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Deertick

The difference between being exposed and infected is like being shot at vs being shot. And yes, the CDC tried to prevent people from getting covid by preventing people from getting sick and transmitting it to other people. What is the difficult part to understand?

When a group of cave divers cuts a gate and go into a particularly dangerous prohibited cave and all wind up dead, other divers understand that they knew the dangers and were idiots, not "freedom-loving adventurers." Fortunately, they didn't drag their kids unwillingly with them.

You might want to explain that to the CDC. Doesn't seem to be a problem anymore.

The same could be said for the 100+ rounds of shots many parents choose to stick into their kids' bodies. I'm healthy. My wife is healthy. My kids are healthy. I'm going to raise my kids to be respectful, take care of themselves health wise, and unlike you, teach them to not wish ill-will upon people who disagree with their point of view.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Deertick

The difference between being exposed and infected is like being shot at vs being shot. And yes, the CDC tried to prevent people from getting covid by preventing people from getting sick and transmitting it to other people. What is the difficult part to understand?

When a group of cave divers cuts a gate and go into a particularly dangerous prohibited cave and all wind up dead, other divers understand that they knew the dangers and were idiots, not "freedom-loving adventurers." Fortunately, they didn't drag their kids unwillingly with them.

right but abortion after 8 months you are bringing a live baby into it arguably is one side and other side is mother's choice and their right to do with what they want with their body

why i bring it up is i just ask for consistent arguments. If you demand we can tell people what to do with their body with shots, then should be able to tell them what to do with abortions.....yeah there can some differences but to see same people irate on opposition views between those areas is funny to me. (please note i am not taking any side here, just making the case of consistent arguments whichever side is chosen)