Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Right now it looks like the Moderna vaccine is causing some side effects (chills, body aches, etc.) and the Oxford vaccine appears to be pretty good.
I already knew your opinion on that. You didn't answer either of the two questions I posed.
I don't think anyone should be allowed to mandate vaccines. Sure, the government can and I hope the population riots DC if they attempt to do that. My body my choice, right libs?
I’m hoping the vaccine will be effective for most of them as well. If it isn’t we’re going to need a new vaccine.
Ultimately yes. But it’s permissible to restrict what you can and cannot do if you don’t take it.
I get the "government shouldn't mandate" part, but again, that doesn't answer either of the two questions above, neither of which were regarding whether government should be allowed to mandate vaccines.
If someone is in the middle of chemo treatments then adding a vaccine may not be smart. Herd immunity is wonderful for this small (yet very important) population.
It's all 'freedom' to those that won't take it and tears for the parents of the immuno compromised kid that dies from it. But that's america in a nutshell. 30% of the population thinks 'who gives a crap'
Typically around 40% of adults per the CDC, and 10-20% higher for kids.
Any amount adds to natural immunity (hopefully) from those already infected, inching us closer to the herd immunity threshold.
Pretty sure it was a typo by him. He’s pro vaccine but won’t rush out to get this one. That’s kinda of where my uneducated opinion is leaning.
Oops, I got my "antis" confused. Meant to say that I'm anti-anti-vax.
Good point. Also, our likely incompetence at procurement should help save us from at least some of the dangers of incompetently rushing out a vaccine. (Kidding, but only partly)
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
For the same reason that seat belts promote safety even though they sometimes cause deaths.
Uh, no. You're making the same faulty argument that anti-vaxxers make.
Ah when you guys attempt to discredit Stealthy's comparisons it's because you actually support it. Weird but thanks for verifying. Your whataboutism is pretty far off. I could quote similar stats and say we should open everything fully no masks because the overall percentage of people not affected by Covid largely outweighs those that are affected. Screw those that are affected like you're saying screw those that are affected by vaccines, amirite?
No. You're missing the conclusion entirely. Bringing Stealthycat's terrible analogies into the equation isn't helping things, though.
No. You're missing the conclusion entirely. Bringing Stealthycat's terrible analogies into the equation isn't helping things, though.
Seat belts save lives. But they also occasionally hurt people. Society does not say "Screw those people!"; it says, essentially, "Driving is a privilege, not a right; and if you want to experience that privilege, then you must also accept a certain amount of risk."
It's a similar deal with vaccines: they save lives, but they also occasionally hurt people. Society does not say "Screw those people!"; it says, essentially, "Participating in certain aspects of society is a privilege, not a right; and if you want to experience those privileges, then you must also accept a certain amount of risk."
I respect the right of people to opt-out of vaccines, but those same people should respect the rights of others not to be killed by their careless behavior.
And, again, your drunk driving analogy is not comparable in any way. I could quote the stats but I'm not going to.
Get out of here with the trollish dramatic nonsense. You can reply and have the last word I'm out of this discussion with you.
This may go back to what I wrote earlier and depend on the way the question was asked. If you asked me, "Will you get a vaccine immediately as soon as it's available?", my answer would be no. If you asked me, "Will you get a vaccine once you're satisfied it wasn't rushed to market and satisfied that it is safe?", my answer would be yes.
There could definitely be some subtlety there.
Ro for this is somewhere in the 3 range. So for an 70% effective vaccine we need 95% compliance.
Vaccine companies need at advertise the secondary effects loudly so the anti- vax conspiracy theory crowd can't scream about this stuff being hidden.
So this is me. I've not made that a secret. I simply don't trust our pharmaceutical complex at all and that's with relatively decent oversight from the federal government. We don't have that. If the vaccine comes from the trials happening at Oxford, I'd give it a go. I've been following that very closely and feel it has been the proper way as best as I can tell.
Well, two doses 28 days apart for 200,000,000 people is going to some time to manufacture and then administer. Especially if the federal government sits on its ### like it has so far.whoknew said:
