281–290 of 925 posts
I think it's worth noting that among the demographics that frequent this site there is ostensibly a deep distrust and skepticism of the American government on matters of surveillance, and law enforcement. Yet simultaneously there is ostensibly a high degree of trust in the motives and competency of the American government when it comes to COVID. There's been multiple threads lately, including one that is on the front…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? The risk of a bad outcome from children under 12 catching COVID is basically nil.
A family can spread it to their child, who brings it to school and then home to their family. I agree the chances are lower, but even if the kids themselves don't have severe cases or bad outcomes, if they have any symptoms they are probably spreading it to the rest of their household.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what it's (not) worth, it prompted me to sign up today. :)
Interesting, as someone who got vaccinated the first day it was available to all adults in Utah(3/24), I'm surprised that this news changed any ones mind. But either way I'm glad it did!.
Every decision is a risk/reward calculation.
The vaccine does carry the risk of side effects and adverse reactions. That risk, for most, is VERY small.
But if the person in question also has very low risk of contracting or spreading Covid (works from home, rarely goes out, young, healthy) and if being vaccinated doesn’t actually enable you to live any differently than you already are, then there’s no compelling reason to get vaccinated and assume the risk of side effects, no matter how small.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Berkeley 94707 zip code was already at 98% of eligible population with at least one shot on April 30th. [1] I would guess a number of cities will be overall in the 90% range pretty soon. [1] https://abc7news.com/california-vaccination-rate-sf-vaccine-...
Berkley is possibly the most liberal and educated area in the USA (of significant population) so of course it will be high. In your average city, we will be EXTREMELY lucky if it reaches 65-70%, in the rural areas of the country 50% would be a win.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is the part where we have to just "let people be adults". We're at the point now where those who are at risk for COVID complications should have access to a vaccine which will greatly reduce that risk. For the rest of the population, it's on you if you want to go to a crowded movie theater without a vaccination. "If he dies, he dies"
Except it's not really "on you". If you're sick, masks protect other people from you getting them sick too. So if an irresponsible unvaccinated anti-masker goes to the theatre and there's an unvaccinated but responsibly mask-wearing person, the unmasked person can get them sick. The responsible person pays the price.
How cynical is it to question whether or not this was timed at least in part to bolster economic outlook in the face of the market shrinkage this week over inflation fears? (Experts have been asking for more explicit guidance from the CDC for months now.) Edit: for reference, up until this point, the CDC has not even been willing to concede the safety of outdoor activities: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/11/briefing…
I can't judge your cynicism, but I can say it's quite suspect that media outlets—apparently—behaved as the mouthpiece of the state: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27145446
I find it interesting that the people who screamed "trust/listen to the CDC!" the loudest when the CDC's position was "everyone wear your mask and stay home as much as you can" are now the ones looking hardest for reasons to ignore/downplay/criticize the CDC's guidance.
My personal hesitation is that people are just going to ignore the explicit condition of full vaccination. Worst case outcome could result in dragging the pandemic out and providing opportunity for new variants to develop.
A concern closer to home is that this will increase risk for my parents, who have been hesitant about the mRNA vaccines and refuse J&J because is produced using a fetal cell line.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's okay to do harmless things for political reasons, and bad to do harmful things for political reasons. It's ridiculous to try to turn that into a claim of hypocrisy and that everything is just politics.
Continuing to wear a mask yourself is harmless, but trying to make everyone else continue wearing masks is harmful.
Who's doing that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are vaccinated, why do you care if others are or not? I mean sure, there is a small chance someone could infect you, and a much much smaller chance that than infection actually causes you a hospitalisation, but it’s not a big risk once you are vaccinated yourself. If you think the vaccine works, which I assume you do, then why do you need to know others vaccine status?
_I_ don't need to know it, but my friend who can't take the vaccine as she is pregnant might wish to use the information to make risk assessments. Further: it is literally illegal not to wear a mask here in certain public areas - I'm specifically interested in how one would enforce that if you split between those who have to wear masks and those who now don't have to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it suspect? It's huge news, and will affect businesses, events, weddings, vacation, personal life for the millions of people who have still been taking public health and the CDC seriously. It's news. And I don't think it's surprising that they would have the scoop around the same time.
It’s not that it is all over the news nor that they all had the news at roughly the same time; it’s that they apparently released news saying the CDC said so before the CDC actually publicly said so.