Restrictions Continue for the Vaccinated

[CITIZEN_2015]

Seriously Winston, I give up trying to prove the obvious. Seriously!!!!!

[myata]

Maybe the fact that it cannot be proven with rational arguments to a reasonable opponent means something else rather than "obvious"? Ever considered that possibility?

[CITIZEN_2015]

No, it is data manipulations. gross allegations, rumors and intentional confusing statements by some anti-vaxers who have no argument to present against an ocean of data and evidence that vaccines are effective in reducing the risk of infections and hospitalizations and deaths. They knowingly or unknowingly are causing people's death by their campaign of misinformation against the vaccines or staging uncivilized somewhat violent protests (like protests outside the hospitals where sick people are recovering or resting or blocking the sick people from their appointments).  Shame.

Edited September 3, 2021 by CITIZEN_2015

[Winston]

12 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Seriously Winston, I give up trying to prove the obvious. Seriously!!!!!

It depends on what you mean by the obvious?

You have proven by use of current stats, that the infected unvaccinated people would pose a higher risk in public than infected vaccinated people, by the severity of infection. 

What more can I say? I never stated this was untrue. 

 

[Zeitgeist]

6 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

No, when a person makes unhealthy choices in lifestyle he or she only harms himself or herself and has the right to do so whereas in vaccine refusal case he or she harms himself or herself as well as others. A very wrong analogy.  He or she has no right to do so.

I’m vaccinated and not at all worried about exposure to unvaccinated people. If I thought I’d need to worry about them after vaccination then I wouldn’t have been vaccinated.  Nevertheless it’s good to get vaccinated to protect yourself and other unvaccinated people.  I do NOT think it’s fair to impose restrictions on the population when the vast majority of eligible people are vaccinated.  I certainly don’t think they should be imposed on the vaccinated.  

[Argus]

22 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

As evidenced by workplace protocols being implemented right now, you will still need to wear masks if you are vaccinated.

Of course, if the idiot unvaccinated would GET vaccinated, those restrictions would be a lot fewer.

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Goddess said:

No.  Vaccines drive viruses to mutate. 

This is utter nonsense. The new variants began appearing well before vaccines were released.

[Winston]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

Of course, if the idiot unvaccinated would GET vaccinated, those restrictions would be a lot fewer.

This is what does not make sense, why are there restrictions? Unvaccinated made a choice and continue to make a choice, they are responsible for their actions, we are not responsible for their inaction. Restrictions are unnecessary unless there is a threat to the public safety. 

[Zeitgeist]

4 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

I have long expounded on the tyranny of mandatory penis coverings like trousers and shorts. These laws have long been a symptom of authoritarian fascism, and I'm glad to see more of you on my side. Although the masks don't bother me so much because they mess up the facial recognition tech in my local mall.

Yeah facetious, but we communicate a tremendous amount of expression through our mouths, noses, and facial expressions.  The destruction of community and connection due to masking is significant, apart from the discomfort.  I don’t think we breathe through our dicks, last I checked.  

[Argus]

45 minutes ago, myata said:

Maybe the fact that it cannot be proven with rational arguments to a reasonable opponent means something else rather than "obvious"? Ever considered that possibility?

Maybe it just demonstrates the opponents are NOT reasonable.

[Argus]

22 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I’m vaccinated and not at all worried about exposure to unvaccinated people. If I thought I’d need to worry about them after vaccination then I wouldn’t have been vaccinated. 

Alberta is already postponing operations because of all the unvaccinated idiots jamming hospitals.

In Oklahoma, people who have been shot are having to be put aside while they deal with the flood of morons who poisoned themselves with horse dewormer.

[Argus]

11 minutes ago, Winston said:

This is what does not make sense, why are there restrictions? Unvaccinated made a choice and continue to make a choice, they are responsible for their actions, we are not responsible for their inaction. Restrictions are unnecessary unless there is a threat to the public safety. 

They fill up hospitals. That is a threat to public health as people can't get necessary treatment for other illnesses. 

[Winston]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

They fill up hospitals. That is a threat to public health as people can't get necessary treatment for other illnesses. 

Yes infected individuals may be admitted to ICU or hospital care.

Let me clarify, why are there restrictions on uninfected vaccinated or uninfected unvaccinated individuals? 

I can completely understand restrictions on infected individuals. I can understand mandatory self isolation or hospitalization for infected individuals. 

If a vaccinated individual or an unvaccinated individual is in public, with no infection, they pose no risk. 

[Goddess]

42 minutes ago, Argus said:

This is utter nonsense. The new variants began appearing well before vaccines were released.

It's science.  Are we now throwing out the window everything we've ever known about viruses? A vaccine must completely eradicate a virus, or else it mutates.

The vaccine does not, and was never intended to eradicate the virus, only lessen the symptoms.  Such a vaccine allows the virus to mutate.  This is why many doctors and scientists are speaking out against mass vaxxing for Covid and only recommending it for those most at risk - the elderly, obese and others with underlying health conditions. 

[Argus]

15 minutes ago, Winston said:

Yes infected individuals may be admitted to ICU or hospital care.

Let me clarify, why are there restrictions on uninfected vaccinated or uninfected unvaccinated individuals? 

I can completely understand restrictions on infected individuals. I can understand mandatory self isolation or hospitalization for infected individuals. 

If a vaccinated individual or an unvaccinated individual is in public, with no infection, they pose no risk. 

The risk of an unvaccinated person catching the disease is far higher. Which means the risk they will infect others is much higher. and the risk they will fill up hospital spots is much, MUCH higher since not only are they more likely to get it they are way more likely to need hospitalization.

[Argus]

Just now, Goddess said:

It's science.  Are we now throwing out the window everything we've ever known about viruses? A vaccine must completely eradicate a virus, or else it mutates.

It's illogical. Are we now throwing out the window all logic? The more a vaccine spreads around the more likely there will be mutations. Most people who get the disease do not die, which is where the mutations are coming from. 

Vaccinated people are less likely to get the disease, which means the more people who are vaccinated the less mutations there will be.

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Vaccinated people are less likely to get the disease, which means the more people who are vaccinated the less mutations there will be.

No.  Because vaccinated people are not eradicating the virus with the vaccine when they contract it, it is mutating.  This is how viruses work. 

The vaccine should have been an "in-between" measure to keep those most vulnerable safe, until a true vaccine could be developed.  This isn't even a true vaccine.

[Winston]

13 minutes ago, Argus said:

The risk of an unvaccinated person catching the disease is far higher. Which means the risk they will infect others is much higher. and the risk they will fill up hospital spots is much, MUCH higher since not only are they more likely to get it they are way more likely to need hospitalization.

I agree, the data indicates that an unvaccinated person is more likely to catch the disease than a vaccinated person. 

But who are these vaccinated and unvaccinated people catching the disease from ? If you test positive for the disease you self isolate, go to the hospital or ICU. How can an uninfected person catch a disease from an uninfected person?  

"Which means the risk they will infect others is much higher" how? Are they not self isolating? 

[Winston]

13 minutes ago, Goddess said:

No.  Because vaccinated people are not eradicating the virus with the vaccine when they contract it, it is mutating.  This is how viruses work. 

The vaccine should have been an "in-between" measure to keep those most vulnerable safe, until a true vaccine could be developed.  This isn't even a true vaccine.

What is a true vaccine? 

As you mentioned Viruses mutate all the time, most of the mutations are not beneficial to the virus. Mutations can and do occur in both vaccinated and unvaccinated people, it only depends on if that individual is infected. 

I think the argument is based on our current data, because more unvaccinated are testing positive, they could be the majority source of mutations, purely by number, ( roughly double the vaccinated group from Aug 13 to Sept 3). But it is unclear if the the testing numbers for unvaccinated vs vaccinated are the same or comparable. I would argue the data on infection rates for both groups is inconclusive until someone can provide a source for total vaccinated tested and total unvaccinated tested. 

[Argus]

43 minutes ago, Goddess said:

No.  Because vaccinated people are not eradicating the virus with the vaccine when they contract it, it is mutating.  This is how viruses work. 

The vaccine should have been an "in-between" measure to keep those most vulnerable safe, until a true vaccine could be developed.  This isn't even a true vaccine.

These vaccines are more effective than almost every vaccine in history. No vaccine is 100%. The only viruses which have been entirely eradicated through vaccine use are those which ONLY occur in humans.

And again speaking logically, everyone who gets the virus risks having it mutate. So the fewer people who get the virus, the less likely are mutations. You seem to be under the impression that if people get the virus who aren't vaccinated there will be no risk of mutation. That is flat out wrong and illogical. 

[Argus]

35 minutes ago, Winston said:

I agree, the data indicates that an unvaccinated person is more likely to catch the disease than a vaccinated person. 

But who are these vaccinated and unvaccinated people catching the disease from ? If you test positive for the disease you self isolate, go to the hospital or ICU. How can an uninfected person catch a disease from an uninfected person?  

"Which means the risk they will infect others is much higher" how? Are they not self isolating? 

Some are not. Plus this disease can have an unusually long period of time between catching it and when symptoms show. As long as fourteen days, during which you can spread it to others. Some get the disease and are asymptomatic, which means they don't even  know they have it - but can still spread it around.

[Winston]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

Some are not. Plus this disease can have an unusually long period of time between catching it and when symptoms show. As long as fourteen days, during which you can spread it to others. Some get the disease and are asymptomatic, which means they don't even  know they have it - but can still spread it around.

"Some are not." - How many is this some? Where is our data on how many are not self isolating. Mandate containment of an infected individual is already in place. 

"Plus this disease can have an unusually long period of time between catching it and when symptoms show." - Possibly, but unless you are actively shedding the virus you are not transmitting the virus.  

"Some get the disease and are asymptomatic, which means they don't even  know they have it - but can still spread it around." - How are they spreading it around without shedding the virus? 

I believe we should solve the problem at the core, we have infected people entering public spaces, unvaccinated, partially vaccinated and fully vaccinated infected people. A system of testing for all individuals entering public spaces is required.  Instead of focusing on one small group that may or may not be infected, lets focus on the actual infected population who is infecting the rest of the population.    

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yeah facetious, but we communicate a tremendous amount of expression through our mouths, noses, and facial expressions.

BubberMiley looks better with a mask on. It covers up the crazy.

 

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

They fill up hospitals. That is a threat to public health as people can't get necessary treatment for other illnesses. 

I don’t buy that anymore.  I couldn’t see a doctor face to face when the hospitals were empty in early summer.   Our hospitals were never full.  Yes the burnout in hospitals is real and we need to keep hospitalizations in check, but we’re not there yet in most of the country, not even close.  

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Some are not. Plus this disease can have an unusually long period of time between catching it and when symptoms show. As long as fourteen days, during which you can spread it to others. Some get the disease and are asymptomatic, which means they don't even  know they have it - but can still spread it around.

Well that’s going to be a problem for the vaccinated too.  Again, we have to decide at some point soon what constitutes acceptable risk and lift restrictions or else we can always look at a statistic and justify maintaining restrictions.  It’s unsustainable.  The goal posts for percentage of population vaccinated keep shifting, so people are right to question.  We cannot and should not live under perpetual restrictions.  I have a British passport and I’m considering leaving Ontario with my family for either Alberta or Britain because I want my kids to enjoy the freedoms I grew up with.  They’re being unfairly punished at this point in the name of unrealistic and unreasonable public health purity.  Risk is part of life.  We can’t let it cripple us.