CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

[Don Johnson 4,802]

6 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

For those who continue to bleat on about natural immunity...

 

 

Is this any different than people saying vaccines don't work because someone gets Covid after being vaccinated?  Both clearly provide protection but aren't bulletproof.

Studies released yesterday show protection against Delta was ranked:

1.  Vaccination plus prior infection

2.  Prior Infection only

3.  Vaccination only

4.  No vaccination and no prior infection

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/prior-covid-infection-more-protective-than-vaccination-during-delta-surge-us-2022-01-19/

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm7104e1_w

 

Quote

 

Jan 19 (Reuters) - People who had previously been infected with COVID-19 were better protected against the Delta variant than those who were vaccinated alone, suggesting that natural immunity was a more potent shield than vaccines against that variant, California and New York health officials reported on Wednesday.

Protection against Delta was highest, however, among people who were both vaccinated and had survived a previous COVID infection, and lowest among those who had never been infected or vaccinated, the study found.

Nevertheless, vaccination remains the safest strategy against COVID-19, according to the report published in U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The results do not apply to the Omicron variant of the virus, which now accounts for 99.5% of COVID-19 cases in the United States.

"The evidence in this report does not change our vaccination recommendations," Dr. Ben Silk of the CDC and one of the study's authors told a media briefing.

 

 

[fattyflattie 4,640]

18 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Swam was an idiot but I don’t think he ever graduated. You are even dumber than he was. 

Got damn. That’s out of line. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

9 minutes ago, Bravo said:

#1 you never went to UT and for the last time just to shut you up. 

That’s totally shopped. 
 

But I’ll get around to posting a picture of my UT degree on it with a bravo sticker stuck on it to prove i went to UT. Right about the time I start giving a shit what some idiot on the net thinks about it. 

[Chuckie Finster 22,978]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The issue is not really one of vaccine effectiveness, from my perspective.  It is one of which levers are most effective to increase vaccination rates, can be supported by the scientific evidence, applied with some level of logical coherence and consistency based on that evidence, and respect and balance the relevant principles of biomedical ethics.  I think that there are various forms of mandates that can appropriately balance those considerations, and many forms of mandates that do not. Broad authoritarian stick-based initiatives, esp to the extent that they are government enforced, will have predictable consequences.  They harden the battle lines, and result in spillover effects on the public perception of a broad range of public health initiatives, both vaccine related and otherwise.

I think that the vast majority of us want to see vaccination rates as high as possible. The question is how to get there. From my perspective, generally more carrot and less stick. And to the extent that we need to talk mandates, they need to balance a variety of considerations.    

By far, the most effective method to get reluctant vaxxers on board has been employer mandates.  So here we are.

[Skipper 6,406]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't understand questioning the utility of mandates. They work in that they increase the uptake of vaccinations. I do understand questioning whether we should do them despite the fact that they work. For instance, perhaps you think the mandates trample on individual liberty and responsibility. I believe there is merit to that argument, although it is in my view tempered by the fact that the unvaccinated cause broader societal harm in the form of marginal increased Covid risk to others and increased healthcare costs/healthcare overrun. I also see some merit in being concerned about how the precedent of allowing forced vaccination, while in my view helpful here, may be abusively used by the government in the future. I think this is a legitimate concerned anytime power is conferred upon government. 

My view is somewhat the first bolded point, definitely the 2nd bolded point.  I think the more the govt utilizes a hammer (mandates) the more fucked we are as a society the next pandemic when a hammer is needed.  The boy who cried wolf and what not.  I'll give 2 current examples of what I feel represent the slippery slope/bridge too far.

1.  Cities extending the vaccine passport to young children (i.e., NY/New Orleans).  It's indisputable all variants to date have shown extremely low risk of severe disease in the pediatric population.  The FDA has yet to grant full approval in the 5-11 population (still emergency use authorization).   3.  At this point neither the WHO nor UK is even recommending the vaccine in this age group for HEALTHY children given limited benefit (this view is shared/debated within the medical community). I'm aware the thought was it would help limit the spread (which as we've discussed isn't really happening with Omicron) but this is the most obvious example of a mandate that falls easily on the side of unreasonable.
 

2.  CDC recommendation that all 12-17 kids "should" rather than "may" get boosted.  Evidence is clear that a healthy double vaxed 12-17 is about as low risk as there is.  I happened to have a slow afternoon and followed the CDC committee debate on this issue.  I was astounded that essentially the entire discussion revolved around safety of the booster dose and not the benefit.  As in nobody even brought up whether the rec should be limited to immunocompromised or those with co-morbidities or displayed data reflecting a single healthy vaccinated 12-17 year old has had severe disease.  My takeaway was it's awesome that it's safe and low risk but WTF are we solving for here?  And it's a small and minor item in the grand scheme of things (I don't have kids in this category nor is it a 'mandate') but it made me question how much science vs. policy is driving decision making even among our scientists/doctors.  Lots of businesses/schools take what the CDC states as gospel and let that drive their policy (for businesses it is certainly a pragmatic approach from a legal risk perspective).  Again, a minor issue overall, but probably more than anything in this pandemic it made me a skeptic. 

[jimmyjazz 46,976]

56 minutes ago, Bravo said:

I got the vaccine. You're dense as hell. Would I of got the vax if I believed that? That's what I spoke about earlier. Some here project the perceived thoughts behind the words to discredit anything they say factual or not. So much hatred you can't even have an ounce of logic. There is no point. I tried. Pointless. Thanks for telling me you're going to neg me. Clown. 

You literally say the things I've attributed to you.  Fuck off.

[Don Johnson 4,802]

15 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

Is this any different than people saying vaccines don't work because someone gets Covid after being vaccinated?  Both clearly provide protection but aren't bulletproof.

Studies released yesterday show protection against Delta was ranked:

1.  Vaccination plus prior infection

2.  Prior Infection only

3.  Vaccination only

4.  No vaccination and no prior infection

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/prior-covid-infection-more-protective-than-vaccination-during-delta-surge-us-2022-01-19/

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm7104e1_w

 

 

From the study published by the CDC yesterday

The understanding and epidemiology of COVID-19 has shifted substantially over time with the emergence and circulation of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, introduction of vaccines, and changing immunity as a result. Similar to the early period of this study, two previous U.S. studies found more protection from vaccination than from previous infection during periods before Delta predominance (3,7). As was observed in the present study after July, recent international studies have also demonstrated increased protection in persons with previous infection, with or without vaccination, relative to vaccination alone^{†††, §§§} (4). This might be due to differential stimulation of the immune response by either exposure type.^¶¶¶ Whereas French and Israeli population-based studies noted waning protection from previous infection, this was not apparent in the results from this or other large U.K. and U.S. studies**** (4,8). Further studies are needed to establish duration of protection from previous infection by variant type, severity, and symptomatology, including for the Omicron variant.

[TurkeyChew 383]

11 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

By far, the most effective method to get reluctant vaxxers on board has been employer mandates.  So here we are.

But at what cost? If you don't care that the country is further divided and hateful to one another, then that's fair I guess, but by politicizing we've created camps and teams that naturally align to competing political teams.

If your thinking is that the country will divide and hate each other anyways, if not this topic then the next topic de jour, then I also understand it. In the 50's and then the 60's when civil rights and all that stuff was going on but I've heard the country was just as divided and hateful to the other half then if not more so. Just hard for me to fathom, I guess, having not lived through it but living through these political times.

[elfenix 34,658]

the elephant in the room on "natural immunity" is that in order to acquire it, at least prior to omicron, is by facing a much higher risk of long term illness and death than you are from vaccination and more common illnesses like seasonal flu.  along with the risk of spreading that trial to others, which the vax don't do. 

Edited January 20, 2022 by elfenix

[TurkeyChew 383]

4 minutes ago, elfenix said:

the elephant in the room on "natural immunity" is that in order to acquire it, at least prior to omicron, is by facing a much higher risk of long term illness and death than you are from vaccination.  along with the risk of spreading that trial to others, which the vax don't do. 

That's an elephant in the room to only half the country though, considering the other half were seemingly content to let Mamaw and PawPaw die if it came to it because they didn't want the vax.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34,079]

12 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

But at what cost? If you don't care that the country is further divided and hateful to one another, then that's fair I guess, but by politicizing we've created camps and teams that naturally align to competing political teams.

If your thinking is that the country will divide and hate each other anyways, if not this topic then the next topic de jour, then I also understand it. In the 50's and then the 60's when civil rights and all that stuff was going on but I've heard the country was just as divided and hateful to the other half then if not more so. Just hard for me to fathom, I guess, having not lived through it but living through these political times.

bullshit, all of this. only one side has politicized this shit, and they're dying around 3x the rate as the other side. one side has science, facts, reason, and logic. The other side has faith, feelings, muh freedumbs, "own research", and "mask hurt facey!." get fucked on your both sides attempt. there is only one 'side' prolonging this shit.

[Chuckie Finster 22,978]

15 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

But at what cost? If you don't care that the country is further divided and hateful to one another, then that's fair I guess, but by politicizing we've created camps and teams that naturally align to competing political teams.

If your thinking is that the country will divide and hate each other anyways, if not this topic then the next topic de jour, then I also understand it. In the 50's and then the 60's when civil rights and all that stuff was going on but I've heard the country was just as divided and hateful to the other half then if not more so. Just hard for me to fathom, I guess, having not lived through it but living through these political times.

Well, that's the issue.

Here's what @Anastasis said: "I think that the vast majority of us want to see vaccination rates as high as possible. The question is how to get there."

Seems straightforward enough.  But it's not, as you've highlighted.  People's FEELINGS are involved.  Now, once you take those into account, whatever solution you come up with is no longer the one that gets vaccination rates as high as possible.  It's one that rewards those who have chosen to politicize an issue that has no business being politicized.  And the resulting hostility from those who are genuinely trying to get vaccination rates as high as possible is predictable and justified.

[TurkeyChew 383]

2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

bullshit, all of this. only one side has politicized this shit, and they're dying around 3x the rate as the other side. one side has science, facts, reason, and logic. The other side has faith, feelings, muh freedumbs, "own research", and "mask hurt facey!." get fucked on your both sides attempt. there is only one 'side' prolonging this shit.

I mean...literally. Literally politicizing--as in introducing politics via laws and policies via mask mandate, vaccine mandates, etc. 

You don't know or understand things very well at all but are the loudest and most expressive and aggressive in your opinions. You are David Dunning and Justin Kruger's wet dream.

[Foosters 18,225]

Just now, TurkeyChew said:

I mean...literally. Literally politicizing--as in introducing politics via laws and policies via mask mandate, vaccine mandates, etc. 

You don't know or understand things very well at all but are the loudest and most expressive and aggressive in your opinions. You are David Dunning and Justin Kruger's wet dream.

So when the people who were protesting schools mandating MMR, polio, DTap, etc., you agree with them that the other side is "politicizing the issue" and by requiring the shots, the pro-vaccine folks have furthered the divide in our country and pushed us into opposing camps?

or is your definition only applicable when you disagree with the outcome?

[lemonlime 5,503]

5 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

I mean...literally. Literally politicizing--as in introducing politics via laws and policies via mask mandate, vaccine mandates, etc. 

You don't know or understand things very well at all but are the loudest and most expressive and aggressive in your opinions. You are David Dunning and Justin Kruger's wet dream.

So then you think having to wear shoes when you enter a restaurant is political?  Or wearing a seatbelt is a political issue?  And whether you use a seatbelt is a political statement?  Since they're mandated by the government.  

[JimmyJames 12,271]

6 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

I mean...literally. Literally politicizing--as in introducing politics via laws and policies via mask mandate, vaccine mandates, etc. 

You don't know or understand things very well at all but are the loudest and most expressive and aggressive in your opinions. You are David Dunning and Justin Kruger's wet dream.

Asking people to be reasonable and not total assholes is not supposed to be political. Although I suppose since the Republican Party’s only platform is “Just be a total asshole” I guess it is inevitable. 

[TurkeyChew 383]

5 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Well, that's the issue.

Here's what @Anastasis said: "I think that the vast majority of us want to see vaccination rates as high as possible. The question is how to get there."

Seems straightforward enough.  But it's not, as you've highlighted.  People's FEELINGS are involved.  Now, once you take those into account, whatever solution you come up with is no longer the one that gets vaccination rates as high as possible.  It's one that rewards those who have chosen to politicize an issue that has no business being politicized.  And the resulting hostility from those who are genuinely trying to get vaccination rates as high as possible is predictable and justified.

You have a reasonable point of view on the matter, but I think the bolded is a matter of opinion and the reason we are the crossroads today that we are. It is very clear that there is a huge human population that has a competing opinion and to be definitive in your opinion on this is arrogance, in my personal opinion. I say this as someone who is fully vaxxed but will not have my children jabbed for Covid-19.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

So then you think having to wear shoes when you enter a restaurant is political?  Or wearing a seatbelt is a political issue?  And whether you use a seatbelt is a political statement?  Since they're mandated by the government.  

But muh freedumbs! I should be allowed to walk in a restaurant with no pants swinging my dick around if I want to! I should be allowed to bust up my face and have the taxpayer pay for my recovery if I want to!

[DDD Dad 14,571]

Dammit.  Alzheimer's struck again.  nvm.

Edited January 20, 2022 by DDD Dad

[TurkeyChew 383]

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

So then you think having to wear shoes when you enter a restaurant is political?  Or wearing a seatbelt is a political issue?  And whether you use a seatbelt is a political statement?  Since they're mandated by the government.  

Yes, in the literal sense. They are behaviors governed by law with an offense subject to penalty. What is hard to understand about that? Mandating helmet laws to ride bikes was politicizing the issue of wearing helmets if you ride a bike or not. 

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34,079]

nm

Edited January 20, 2022 by Longhorn_Fan68

[TurkeyChew 383]

9 minutes ago, Foosters said:

So when the people who were protesting schools mandating MMR, polio, DTap, etc., you agree with them that the other side is "politicizing the issue" and by requiring the shots, the pro-vaccine folks have furthered the divide in our country and pushed us into opposing camps?

or is your definition only applicable when you disagree with the outcome?

No I agree with that as well. Both sides can be guilty of politicizing issues, and do. Water is wet.

What I don't understand is why Democrats want to run from this truth and pretend they aren't politicizing it.

[lemonlime 5,503]

4 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

Yes, in the literal sense. They are behaviors governed by law with an offense subject to penalty. What is hard to understand about that? Mandating helmet laws to ride bikes was politicizing the issue of wearing helmets if you ride a bike or not. 

 

So by that theory, I  guess we should take our murder laws off the books then.  Since by enacting laws that make it illegal to kill people, we're making killing people a political issue.

[TurkeyChew 383]

8 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Asking people to be reasonable and not total assholes is not supposed to be political. Although I suppose since the Republican Party’s only platform is “Just be a total asshole” I guess it is inevitable. 

This reeks of "the world is not like how I thought it would be or how it should be and my world view is challenged and I can't deal with reality".

Are you a small farm boy who just moved to New York City?

Edited January 20, 2022 by TurkeyChew

[Foosters 18,225]

1 minute ago, TurkeyChew said:

No I agree with that as well. Both sides can be guilty of politicizing issues, and do. Water is wet.

What I don't understand is why Democrats want to run from this truth and pretend they aren't politicizing it.

Are democrats running from the fact that they have passed legislation and proposed rules and regulations regarding covid?

 

[Chuckie Finster 22,978]

2 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

No I agree with that as well. Both sides can be guilty of politicizing issues, and do. Water is wet.

What I don't understand is why Democrats want to run from this truth and pretend they aren't politicizing it.

Because no sane human being considers shit like seatbelt laws politicization.  Apologies for this apparently arrogant position.

[elfenix 34,658]

30 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

That's an elephant in the room to only half the country though, considering the other half were seemingly content to let Mamaw and PawPaw die if it came to it because they didn't want the vax.

i didn't know danny goeb posted here

[TurkeyChew 383]

Just now, lemonlime said:

So by that theory, I  guess we should take our murder laws off the books then.  Since by enacting laws that make it illegal to kill people, we're making killing people a political issue.

No. I'm saying that it seems pretty basic table stakes that one should acknowledge that a) the issue has been politicized and b) it's a pretty hotly contested issue without an overwhelming majority or consensus and so the pushback and and noise is going to be loud, versus something as obviously valuable to all like a law against murder.

It was a risk of you to use such a ridiculous analogy, but I think we got there anyways.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34,079]

lol @ y'all engaging DonkeyCigars.

[TurkeyChew 383]

2 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Because no sane human being considers shit like seatbelt laws politicization.  Apologies for this apparently arrogant position.

No sane human considers it for a couple of reasons (in my opinion):

1) It's temporary (can be easily removed or added, without any long term or irreversible effects)

2) The value is clear to the majority of folks who choose to drive

3) Nobody cares if others choose to not wear and take the risk in their own hands, so the noise/harassment is minimal

[Sawbonz 28,082]

4 hours ago, Bravo said:

How dumb and disingenuous are you? You left this part out. Wonder why? BTW that does not mean that was the patient where the mutation started. I am not even saying this was patient 0 but you stating things as facts and then also intentionally leaving out critical facts makes you look foolish at best. You don't know and either does anyone.

The variant was first detected in southeastern France in a vaccinated person who had recently travelled to Cameroon, according to a research paper that was published in December. 

You think the new variant mutation actually arose within the vaxed traveller in whom it was isolated?

[TurkeyChew 383]

7 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Are democrats running from the fact that they have passed legislation and proposed rules and regulations regarding covid?

 

LonghornFan8 was scoffing at the idea that Democrats have done anything even remotely political and that it was all the other evil side.

Aggressively stupid is his brand, though. I'm still waiting to have him explain how we can have a company worth $2T (now $3T) and not necessarily have the existence of billionaires, given our brand of capitalism and business ownership models. 

[lemonlime 5,503]

4 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

No. I'm saying that it seems pretty basic table stakes that one should acknowledge that a) the issue has been politicized and b) it's a pretty hotly contested issue without an overwhelming majority or consensus and so the pushback and and noise is going to be loud, versus something as obviously valuable to all like a law against murder.

It was a risk of you to use such a ridiculous analogy, but I think we got there anyways.

WTF.  No sane person thinks outlawing murder or requiring people to wear seatbelts to be politicizing the issue.  Just like no sane person thinks wearing a mask during a worldwide pandemic or encouraging a vaccine against something that killed 800k Americans and left hundreds of thousands more with significant permanent health problems to be politicizing the issue.  Reasonable can disagree on whether mandates are the best way to encourage vaccination or mask usage. But no sane person thinks that the efficacy of vaccines is a political issue.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34,079]

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

You think the new variant mutation actually arose within the vaxed traveller in whom it was isolated?

[TurkeyChew 383]

Just now, lemonlime said:

WTF.  No sane person thinks outlawing murder or requiring people to wear seatbelts to be politicizing the issue.  Just like no sane person thinks wearing a mask during a worldwide pandemic or encouraging a vaccine against something that killed 800k Americans and left hundreds of thousands more with significant permanent health problems to be politicizing the issue.  Reasonable can disagree on whether mandates are the best way to encourage vaccination or mask usage. But no sane person thinks that the efficacy of vaccines is a political issue.

I think you are suffering from a recency bias or something, because a quick google search shows that in the 80's, seatbelt laws were a HUGE political issue. Just google and read about it. 

Quote

 

When David Hollister introduced a seat belt bill in Michigan in the early 1980s that levied a fine for not buckling up, the state representative received hate mail comparing him to Hitler. At the time, only 14 percent of Americans regularly wore seat belts, even though the federal government required lap and shoulder belts in all new cars starting in 1968.

Resistance to the life-saving devices at the time was the norm.

Drivers and passengers complained that seat belts were uncomfortable and restrictive, but the uproar over mandatory seat belt laws was mostly ideological. One of Hollister’s colleagues in the Michigan House called the seat belt bill “a pretty good lesson in mass hysteria created by a corporate-controlled media” and warned that the government would outlaw smoking next. Another said that anyone who voted for the bill should be recalled.

 

https://www.history.com/news/seat-belt-laws-resistance

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/16/when-battle-over-american-freedom-was-centered-seat-belt-laws/

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,279]

50 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

But at what cost? If you don't care that the country is further divided and hateful to one another, then that's fair I guess, but by politicizing we've created camps and teams that naturally align to competing political teams.

If your thinking is that the country will divide and hate each other anyways, if not this topic then the next topic de jour, then I also understand it. In the 50's and then the 60's when civil rights and all that stuff was going on but I've heard the country was just as divided and hateful to the other half then if not more so. Just hard for me to fathom, I guess, having not lived through it but living through these political times.

 

41 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

That's an elephant in the room to only half the country though, considering the other half were seemingly content to let Mamaw and PawPaw die if it came to it because they didn't want the vax.

 

29 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

I mean...literally. Literally politicizing--as in introducing politics via laws and policies via mask mandate, vaccine mandates, etc. 

You don't know or understand things very well at all but are the loudest and most expressive and aggressive in your opinions. You are David Dunning and Justin Kruger's wet dream.

 

21 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

You have a reasonable point of view on the matter, but I think the bolded is a matter of opinion and the reason we are the crossroads today that we are. It is very clear that there is a huge human population that has a competing opinion and to be definitive in your opinion on this is arrogance, in my personal opinion. I say this as someone who is fully vaxxed but will not have my children jabbed for Covid-19.

 

18 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

Yes, in the literal sense. They are behaviors governed by law with an offense subject to penalty. What is hard to understand about that? Mandating helmet laws to ride bikes was politicizing the issue of wearing helmets if you ride a bike or not. 

 

 

14 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

No I agree with that as well. Both sides can be guilty of politicizing issues, and do. Water is wet.

What I don't understand is why Democrats want to run from this truth and pretend they aren't politicizing it.

 

13 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

This reeks of "the world is not like how I thought it would be or how it should be and my world view is challenged and I can't deal with reality".

Are you a small farm boy who just moved to New York City?

 

10 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

No. I'm saying that it seems pretty basic table stakes that one should acknowledge that a) the issue has been politicized and b) it's a pretty hotly contested issue without an overwhelming majority or consensus and so the pushback and and noise is going to be loud, versus something as obviously valuable to all like a law against murder.

It was a risk of you to use such a ridiculous analogy, but I think we got there anyways.

 

5 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

No sane human considers it for a couple of reasons (in my opinion):

1) It's temporary (can be easily removed or added, without any long term or irreversible effects)

2) The value is clear to the majority of folks who choose to drive

3) Nobody cares if others choose to not wear and take the risk in their own hands, so the noise/harassment is minimal

 

2 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

LonghornFan8 was scoffing at the idea that Democrats have done anything even remotely political and that it was all the other evil side.

Aggressively stupid is his brand, though. I'm still waiting to have him explain how we can have a company worth $2T (now $3T) and not necessarily have the existence of billionaires, given our brand of capitalism and business ownership models. 

[lemonlime 5,503]

1 minute ago, TurkeyChew said:

I think you are suffering from a recency bias or something, because a quick google search shows that in the 80's, seatbelt laws were a HUGE political issue. Just google and read about it. 

https://www.history.com/news/seat-belt-laws-resistance

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/16/when-battle-over-american-freedom-was-centered-seat-belt-laws/

I don't think you're making the point you think you are.  They were enacted over some ridiculous controversy by stupid people at the time.  Highway fatalities decreased.  And 40 years later no one sane drives a car without a seatbelt as some sort of political statement.

[TurkeyChew 383]

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

I don't think you're making the point you think you are.  They were enacted over some ridiculous controversy by stupid people at the time.  Highway fatalities decreased.  And 40 years later no one sane drives a car without a seatbelt as some sort of political statement.

The point I'm making is that mandating them was absolutely politicizing the issue at the time.

We aren't in the year 2060 when covid-19 vaccines are the norm and everyone who doesnt want them as died off and it's a no-brainer non-political issue. We are in today, where it is a big political issue.

I think we are in agreement now, yes?

[Sawbonz 28,082]

7 minutes ago, Bravo said:

No. We have no clue. 1st documented case which very likely wasn't patient 0 was a vaxxed traveler. Where did you get that? 

A vaxed traveler to an area with a very low vax rate correct?

[DDD Dad 14,571]

19 minutes ago, Bravo said:

dafuq? 

Dammit.  I got my usernames mixed up.  Apologies.  Had you confused with BHMCruiser.

[Chuckie Finster 22,978]

7 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

The point I'm making is that mandating them was absolutely politicizing the issue at the time.

We aren't in the year 2060 when covid-19 vaccines are the norm and everyone who doesnt want them as died off and it's a no-brainer non-political issue. We are in today, where it is a big political issue.

I think we are in agreement now, yes?

"My right to be embarrassingly wrong about an issue in hindsight is more important than the general health of the country."

[TurkeyChew 383]

Just now, Chuckie Finster said:

"My right to be embarrassingly wrong about an issue in hindsight is more important than the general health of the country."

That’s a logical fallacy of hindsight is 20/20. I tend to agree that the odds are low that anything but your quote above will come to fruition, but let’s not act like it’s scripture in the stone tablets from the mouth of the Lord himself just yet. That’s a bit arrogant and vain, for my tastes at least.

[Sawbonz 28,082]

20 minutes ago, Bravo said:

Did you read the article about the person? It even stated scientists say it is unknown where it originated. But feel free to to make concrete claims. 

Just came back from Cameroon but where in the world could the Covid have come from? We will probably never know, but most likely someone who was vaxed

[Sawbonz 28,082]

6 hours ago, Bravo said:

Newest found variant IHU was discovered in France. It is a fairly highly vaxxed population. Can we blame that variant on the vaxxed? (Rhetorical) Of course, not. Blaming variants on the unvaxxed or vaxxed isn't intellectually honest. It can happen in either population. The hyperbole isnt needed.

This was your initial position. You imply the likelihood of it arising in a vaxed population is the same as in unvaxed. That’s ridiculous 

[Celery Man 21,076]

We're on year eleventy billion of never getting anywhere by uniting through concession with the slightly less than half of our population who are stupid and corrupted by evil. Non stop with that shit and they're responding by bringing an end to American democracy.

[Sbbruin 22,082]

I think my man here sums up my feelings best.

 

[Sawbonz 28,082]

12 minutes ago, Bravo said:

Omicron doesn't seem to matter if you're vaxxed or unvaxxed at all. It's going to replicate in both populations regardless.

Which has nothing to do with the likelihood of its starting in a vaxed population. 

[Anastasis 23,699]

[Sbbruin 22,082]

32 minutes ago, Bravo said:

Omicron doesn't seem to matter if you're vaxxed or unvaxxed at all. It's going to replicate in both populations regardless.```

But it clearly matters when it comes to hospitalizations and deaths.  I trust you don't dispute that?

[Sbbruin 22,082]

1 minute ago, Bravo said:

Why did you not post where I said that?