91–100 of 104 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one is arguing for forced vaccinations. Arguing to absurdum, does not make a logical argument.
Six months ago "no one" was arguing for coerced vaccinations, either, and people like you mocked us for suggesting it was going to happen. Who's the absurdum here exactly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nurses don't deliver babies anyway - doctors do. Gender, race, sex preferences, or political beliefs are very different from being anti-vax. Being anti-vax is evidence of low intelligence. So no, I would not want someone with low intelligence to handle or assist my baby's delivery. But the most obvious reason is that they directly endanger mothers and babies in the delivery ward because unvaccinated people are more c…
Having discussed with nurses dealing with vaccination, some are quite sceptical about the vaccine, due to the great amount of secondary effects they witness after the shot. The remark about "low intelligence" is quite wrong anyway: most people get vaccinated because the news told them so, not because they read through the peer-reviewed studies and concluded that it's safe. Anyway, for a pregnant women of 30 years old…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nurses don't deliver babies anyway - doctors do. Gender, race, sex preferences, or political beliefs are very different from being anti-vax. Being anti-vax is evidence of low intelligence. So no, I would not want someone with low intelligence to handle or assist my baby's delivery. But the most obvious reason is that they directly endanger mothers and babies in the delivery ward because unvaccinated people are more c…
> unvaccinated people are more contagious and carry higher viral loads Unless they've already had covid of course. In which case the situation is flipped on its head. How many nurses do you think may have already encountered covid prior to vaccines even becoming available?
They are not making that argument. They are simply anti-vax.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, except that there's a 100% chance of risk with taking the vaccine and a much less chance than that of actually getting COVID before it mutates into something less deadly and serious, as all plagues have done.
> there's a 100% chance of risk with taking the vaccine ... Probability doesn't work that way. That's like saying I should buy lottery tickets instead of index funds, because with lottery there's a 100% chance of getting a chance of getting the first prize.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there's a 100% chance of risk with taking the vaccine ... Probability doesn't work that way. That's like saying I should buy lottery tickets instead of index funds, because with lottery there's a 100% chance of getting a chance of getting the first prize.
No, I'm saying that electing to not take the vaccine means I have to multiply the probabilities of complications from COVID by the chance I'll get COVID, while if I take the vaccine, I multiply the probabilities of complications from the vaccine by 100%.
0% times 100% is 0%
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the CDC: "Yes, you should be vaccinated regardless of whether you already had COVID-19 because: * Research has not yet shown how long you are protected from getting COVID-19 again after you recover from COVID-19. * Vaccination helps protect you even if you’ve already had COVID-19. Evidence is emerging that people get better protection by being fully vaccinated compared with having had COVID-19. One study showed…
To be fair, that's the same CDC that only 5 months ago was saying getting vaccinated meant "getting back to normal" -- no masks, distancing rules, etc. Their reputation as being authoritative on this topic is understandably tarnished.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the CDC: "Yes, you should be vaccinated regardless of whether you already had COVID-19 because: * Research has not yet shown how long you are protected from getting COVID-19 again after you recover from COVID-19. * Vaccination helps protect you even if you’ve already had COVID-19. Evidence is emerging that people get better protection by being fully vaccinated compared with having had COVID-19. One study showed…
Right, but those CDC statements make it clear that the CDC is guessing and asking people to get vaccinated - not knowing if it's helpful or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There doesn’t seem to be any problem with vaccination after infection. It’s unclear if that actually translates into better outcomes, but it’s likely. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/09/07/1033677...
I feel like if they tested positive for covid-19 antibodies, that might be a valid exemption - because it's a bit much to require vaccinations for them if we still don't even know that it makes much difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A healthcare professional who may already have antibodies from prior infection, and who therefore does not need a vaccine, perhaps.
That’s just covid - what about all the other diseases like polio, tb, pertussis, chicken pox… Would you expect healthcare workers to be vaccinated against those ? Or should they wait to get the natural antibodies?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Contagious? Yes. Deadly? Not really, especially for a novel virus. That's the difference. If we had a plague as bad as the Black Death, then yes, it would be deadly. People will use the death numbers as counter-arguments, yet most deaths (94%-ish last I heard) are from people who had comorbidities, like obesity and such. Until there is the same logic being applied to obese people as to the unvaccinated, as well as co…
> Deadly? Not really, The Delta variant has a case fatality rate in the US of 0.1% for the general population, and 2% for those over 50. That's not nothing. There are a LOT of people over 50 in a hospital.