Author Topic: Vaccine Passports  (Read 8398 times)

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Vaccine Passports
« on: August 06, 2021, 09:55:55 AM »
Who's down for that? Maybe it was discussed on the coronavirus thread but that's lost in the noise there.

Are we cool with a 2 tiered society based on who submits to government-mandated experimental medical treatments?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2021, 10:05:46 AM »
So when the vaccines get full approval next month or Oct, what will your complaints be then?  Or will you be ok with not mandating all of the other vaccines that are currently required for school and such?

Oh you mean Trumps experimental vaccine?

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2021, 10:29:54 AM »
Your papers, please


Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2021, 10:33:03 AM »
According to the CDC only 28.4% of the black community have received the Covid vaccine. The black community would be most affected by this modern day segregation

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2021, 10:37:46 AM »
Lloyd you need to say that in a proper German accent to get the proper sense of menace you are looking for.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2021, 10:55:05 AM »
If we're going to be consistent, requiring any kind of vaccination passport is appearing to be an inherently racist policy.

Like voter ID, a majority of people opting out of vaccinations are black and brown.

It will be interesting to see if this particular identification policy gets a racist pass in the media. The mayor of Boston is already saying exactly this quite loudly.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2021, 11:52:20 AM »
If we're going to be consistent, requiring any kind of vaccination passport is appearing to be an inherently racist policy.

Like voter ID, a majority of people opting out of vaccinations are black and brown.

First off - BS.  57% of the unvaccinated adults are white.  So the 'vast majority' of unvaccinated adults are white.

Now then, if you meant 'vaccination ratios' for hispanics it is 1.1 whites: 1 hispanic; 1.3 whites: 1 black, and .7 whites:1 asian.  However that is for the entire population, and hispanics and blacks have more children on average who won't be eligible for vaccination.  That would eliminate the hispanic ratio difference, but the black/white disparity would still be pretty siginificant.  Most of that disparity appears to be not hesitancy but ease of access.

In states with the largest black populations, the 'vaccine hubs' were set up in the 'white' districts.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fewer-black-americans-are-getting-the-covid-19-vaccine-no-its-not-hesitancy/

Regarding voting ID,

If every effort were made to ensure that 'black and brown' people could in fact get a voting ID, it wouldn't be racist.  It is only racism when efforts are made to ensure that they are targeted to not have specific ID and to ensure tehre will be challenges in getting it.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2021, 03:43:52 PM »
First off - BS.  57% of the unvaccinated adults are white.  So the 'vast majority' of unvaccinated adults are white.

Talk about lying through statistics.  Big whoop.  I guess it's not your fault since you copied from a "made for argument" liberal think tank report.  The percentage of the population that is eligible for the vaccine is much higher than 57%.  In fact the greater presence of children in non-white demographics makes that statistic even worse because it means "whites" are over-represented in the sample of US adults compared to their actual incidence in the population as a whole.

Not to mention, the actual eligible population is 12 and older, which means focusing on 18 and up is already designed to skew the statistics, as the group of 12-18 is over-skewed in the opposite direction.

Nut shell if "57%" of unvaccinated adults are white that represents a MASSIVE difference in the rates of vaccination in the non-white populations. 

You are literally burying the actual meaningful statistic - that non-white populations are under vaccinated.  Is there a reason you would do something that smacks of blatant racism that is likely to divert focus away from actually targeting those populations for additional vaccine support?  It seems to me that you're playing politics with black and brown lives for no reason but to push a story about "evil" conservatives (presumably).

I don't think it is okay to use your politics to hurt black and brown people in that manner.

Quote
Regarding voting ID,

If every effort were made to ensure that 'black and brown' people could in fact get a voting ID, it wouldn't be racist.  It is only racism when efforts are made to ensure that they are targeted to not have specific ID and to ensure tehre will be challenges in getting it.

Calling BS, you couldn't care less if it were completely 100% easy to get IDs, you'd still be against them, and I'm guessing you don't even really know why your party takes this position.  Hint, it has nothing to do with the actual difficulty of obtaining an ID and everything to do with the difficulty that vote harvestors have in getting the IDs from the persons whose votes they want to harvest.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #8 on: August 06, 2021, 05:28:05 PM »
One relatively new problem with the vaccine passports is that the vaccinated still spread the virus. The passports rested on the unproven, and now disproven, theory that it would be extraordinarily rare for the vaccinated to be contagious.

So what's likely to happen is that you'll get the vaccinated spreading variant after variant around between them until we get the ones that evade the vaccine protections the best. And the ones that do that will evade natural immunity and our natural defenses the best too until we see variants with more than double the transmissibility of delta, the mortality rate of SARS, MERS, and the Spanish Flu, and that hit kids much harder.

I'm not opposed to vaccine passports to give the vaccinated access to crowded venues but they still need to be coupled with masks. So it's now gone from the vaccinated being able to go unmasked in discretionary crowded venues with the unvaccinated left out to the vaccinated being allowed to go masked into the same optional crowded places with the vaccinated still left out. And we're talking about concerts, cruises, bars, and the like that are on private property so the owners make the rules and it's not like freedom is greatly impacted as it would be for transportation and necessary services. The states in question would have to manage the passports in most of those places as the federal government wouldn't have jurisdiction but if a state government wanted to do it then that's fine. And if they don't we'll see the difference between the ones that do and don't.

It's still not ideal and we're still going to pay a price for it with much more spread, death, and illness than with lockdowns but compromises are necessary both politically and economically.

And I'll just go on record even with no proof and say this was a genetically modified lab created and lab released virus that's much more dangerous than anything we could have expected from nature so that's why it should be treated differently. And if it's actually the case that it did arise naturally and the lab had absolutely nothing to do with it, we should treat it as unnatural anyway because that's the way it's acting. And yes I know technically it is acting naturally the way viruses do but I mean look around; this just doesn't feel natural at all. People can believe what they want but which belief is more pragmatic? People have been saying there's no reason to panic since the beginning and they've been wrong every time. If we don't wise up and fast then we haven't seen nothing yet. And so far every time that's been said about this virus it's been absolutely correct.

So I don't think the passports should keep people from doing what they need to do to survive and for those things everyone should be masking up anyway including the vaccinated. But for the optional stuff, yes passports and masks.

fizz

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #9 on: August 06, 2021, 05:45:55 PM »
I don't know how it's being done in the US, but here in Europe the Green Pass does *not* replace the need to wear masks and social distance, it simply give access to places, simplify crossing borders, and will give access to transport and so on.
And as it have already been stated by most governments, if the numbers will start to climb again, the lock downs will be back.

Considering right now the vaccine is available to anybody that wants it, without shortages or queues, it's more of a way to filter out the ones that are also usually quite lax in those other measures: most anti-vaxxers I know are also not good at wearing masks, distance themselves, washing and all the other stuff.
Also, it gives the undecided a push, to encourage them.
I know more than one person that finally decided to get the vaccine simply because so they can go on vacation this summer.

fizz

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #10 on: August 07, 2021, 04:00:47 PM »
Just for general amusement: I was just reading that here in Italy on Telegram somebody started some groups offering to sell fake Green Pass certificates for a price of 150-350€, an obvious scam (due to some technical reasons about how it's designed, it's almost impossible to really fake the Green Pass, without ).

As the people that bought these fake certificates were not receiving it, they started organizing in groups demanding their money back and threatening to denounce the fake sellers if they did not receive either the money or a working certificate.

According to some of the messages I read in the buyer channel,  at this point many of them concluded that all of it had been a scam organized by the government to force them to get the vaccine...

At this point, the sellers answered by pointing out that they, the sellers, were anonymous, while the buyers had bought the certificates by leaving a financial trace, and providing private id card data to the sellers, and by trying to cheat on the certificate had committed a felony, so if they wanted to avoid the sellers sending *their* data to the police and generally publishing everything on the net, they had to pay another 350€ ransom.

According to people that are following the bitcoin wallet, it seems they are paying...

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #11 on: August 07, 2021, 08:15:24 PM »
No honor among thieves.

It's also sad how many people seem so willing to keep spreading the virus around.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #12 on: August 08, 2021, 01:43:26 PM »
Talk about lying through statistics.

Talk about being a assh*le who falsely accuses me of lying.

Quote
Big whoop.  I guess it's not your fault since you copied from a "made for argument" liberal think tank report.

I used the only source I could find given the level of effort I was willing to expend, I tried to calculate it from first principles but the source I found thinking it was total population vaccinated by ethnicity, was only for adults vaccinated by ethnicity.  I'm not sure if adolescent data is available.

Quote
The percentage of the population that is eligible for the vaccine is much higher than 57%.

Yes, the 57% is the percentage of unvaccinated adults who are white.  The assertion was that 'the majority' of those 'refusing vaccination' were 'black and brown' people.  Based on the data, this is clearly false.  Even including adolescents (12-17 year olds) we wouldn't expect it to be significantly different.

Quote
In fact the greater presence of children in non-white demographics makes that statistic even worse because it means "whites" are over-represented in the sample of US adults compared to their actual incidence in the population as a whole.

So instead of 57% it will be 55% or so.

Quote
Not to mention, the actual eligible population is 12 and older, which means focusing on 18 and up is already designed to skew the statistics, as the group of 12-18 is over-skewed in the opposite direction.

The most likely explanation is that data isn't available.

Quote
Nut shell if "57%" of unvaccinated adults are white that represents a MASSIVE difference in the rates of vaccination in the non-white populations.

I provided data on ratios of vaccinated adults.  Asian (Indians, Chinese, etc.) have a greater vaccination rate.  Hispanics are about the same as 'Whites'.  African Americans have about 30% lower. 

Also, US population is 60% white, and 60% of those who expressed 'vaccine hesitancy' were white,


Quote
The new data shows that, by 2019, the white population share declined nearly nine more percentage points, to 60.1%

https://www.brookings.edu/research/new-census-data-shows-the-nation-is-diversifying-even-faster-than-predicted/


Quote
In that survey, 60% of individuals who expressed vaccine hesitancy self-identified as white.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/vaccination-rates-lag-communities-color-due-hesitancy-experts/story?id=77272753

Quote
You are literally burying the actual meaningful statistic - that non-white populations are under vaccinated.  Is there a reason you would do something that smacks of blatant racism that is likely to divert focus away from actually targeting those populations for additional vaccine support?

I was countering a direct assertion with facts.  He asserted something, I provided facts contrary to that assertion.  I've provided additional facts proving the assertion wrong.  If he would have stated 'blacks are undervaccinated' - that is a defensible statement.

I then proceeded to show that a different assertion, that blacks are undervaccinated is true.  The cause though doesn't appear to be primarily hesitancy, but lack of access.

Quote
It seems to me that you're playing politics with black and brown lives for no reason but to push a story about "evil" conservatives (presumably).

Well work on your reading comprehension.  I was providing facts to counteract a false assertion.  I then addressed a more interesting proposition of undervaccination and whether it was due to hesitancy.

Quote
I don't think it is okay to use your politics to hurt black and brown people in that manner.

As per usually lately, you are full of crap.  If he hadn't made the false statement, then I wouldn't have had to correct it.  I know that you no longer care about facts due to your joining the Trump cult.  It is rather sad and disappointing, maybe you will recover some day.

You make it sound like I mislead about undervaccination by African Americans when I directly showed that they had lower ratios.  So spare me your claims of 'playing politics'.  He was the one making a false claim.  I provided accurate and useful data.

I've also provided data that suggests that 'hesitancy' is not a driving factor for the undervaccination - rather access to vaccines in terms of lack of paid time off.

Quote
Calling BS, you couldn't care less if it were completely 100% easy to get IDs, you'd still be against them,

I'm actually perfectly fine with ID requirements.  So again, you are wrong.  You seem to have a habit of being wrong about everything these days.

Quote
and I'm guessing you don't even really know why your party takes this position.  Hint, it has nothing to do with the actual difficulty of obtaining an ID and everything to do with the difficulty that vote harvestors have in getting the IDs from the persons whose votes they want to harvest.

What utter horsesh*t.  You ignore the stated immoral intent and carefully crafted laws to deny legitimate voters voting rights by allowing IDs like hunting licenses, but not student IDs.  It is sad to see you so completely blind and lacking in reason, I can't believe how much you've declined in ability to think rationally.

LetterRip: Please see your email. -OrneryMod
« Last Edit: August 08, 2021, 05:06:03 PM by OrneryMod »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #13 on: August 09, 2021, 05:56:59 PM »
Talk about lying through statistics.

Talk about being a assh*le who falsely accuses me of lying.

Lying through statistics, in other words, presenting a statistic that has been deliberately crafted to create a misleading impression.  And yes, that's exactly what the statistic you presented is, and you expressly used it in exactly the way it was misleading.  Do you recall?  You actually said, "First off - BS.  57% of the unvaccinated adults are white.  So the 'vast majority' of unvaccinated adults are white."

The "vast majority" of adults in the US are white (the lowest count is around 61%), even if the vaccination ratios were perfectly identical, the "vast majority" of both the vaccinated and unvaccinated would be white.  Yet you presented this as if it were meaningful that the "vast majority" are white. 

The reality is that the percentage of "white" over 18's is higher than even the 61% figure, and if you actually look the best vaccination rates are in the oldest cohorts of every race.  The younger you go the bigger the disparity in the rates of vaccination by race, and at the same time the proportion of the demographics that are "non-white" is increasing.

In fact if you look at the statistic the same group calculated (but chose to bury) you'd see that while "57%" (reported as "56" on the back pages) of the unvaccinated are "white," "64%" of the vaccinated are white.

Of course their data is 4 months stale.  More than 40% of vaccinations didn't record demographic data.

In April, there was statistical difference between those who said they would never get the vaccine and those who were in the wait and see camp.  But the strongest predictor then - and now - is that those who routinely get flu vaccines got the Coronavirus vaccine and those who routinely refuse flu vaccines did not.

Quote
Yes, the 57% is the percentage of unvaccinated adults who are white.

It's not actually.  It's a guess, based on polling.  Whether its a good guess or not is a different question.

Quote
The assertion was that 'the majority' of those 'refusing vaccination' were 'black and brown' people.  Based on the data, this is clearly false.  Even including adolescents (12-17 year olds) we wouldn't expect it to be significantly different.

Actually we would.  The demographic difference by race is the greatest in the 12-15 group, followed by the next age group.  I've only looked at it in a couple states, but the disparity was running at close to 2/3's of "white" kids vaccinated versus 1/3 of non-white kids.  That is absolutely tied into the "wait and see" group of vaccine hestitancy.  And it's not even that unreasonable, kids are the least at risk and the least likely to spread and the potential impact on them is the hardest to predict. 

Quote
Quote
In fact the greater presence of children in non-white demographics makes that statistic even worse because it means "whites" are over-represented in the sample of US adults compared to their actual incidence in the population as a whole.

So instead of 57% it will be 55% or so.

Again, you push an irrelevant statistic, that hides a massive difference in the rate of adoption.  Why are you doing that?

I can't see any reason other than politics, you could have just as easily, pointed out that when you include kids "white" people are going to make up something like 68-69% of the vaccinated population, but that doesn't sell the "story" you want to push.

Quote
Quote
Not to mention, the actual eligible population is 12 and older, which means focusing on 18 and up is already designed to skew the statistics, as the group of 12-18 is over-skewed in the opposite direction.

The most likely explanation is that data isn't available.

The data is available. Virtually everything you "reported" is based on polling data not on actual medical reports.  I like I said, barely more than have of the vaccines provided recorded demographic details.

Quote
I provided data on ratios of vaccinated adults.  Asian (Indians, Chinese, etc.) have a greater vaccination rate.  Hispanics are about the same as 'Whites'.  African Americans have about 30% lower.

Asians are the highest.  Whites have a greater percentage in the vaccinated population than the unvaccinated population, both Hispanics and blacks have the opposite.

Quote
Also, US population is 60% white, and 60% of those who expressed 'vaccine hesitancy' were white,

The biggest slice of those who will "never" get the vaccine were white (in April around 70%).  Those that identified as white were only 49% of the "wait and see" group refusing to get the vaccine.

All told the refusers were around 13% of adults, the waiters around 11% (percentage of population of the total population will be larger for the second group and smaller for the first if you add 12-18, effectively making them equal).

If not one "refuser" got a vaccine and everyone else did, we'd be more than over the "threshold" for herd immunity.

Quote
Quote
The new data shows that, by 2019, the white population share declined nearly nine more percentage points, to 60.1%

https://www.brookings.edu/research/new-census-data-shows-the-nation-is-diversifying-even-faster-than-predicted/

The "only white" population reported at 60.1%, the "white" population reported closer to 75% if you look at the census report.

Quote
Well work on your reading comprehension.  I was providing facts to counteract a false assertion.  I then addressed a more interesting proposition of undervaccination and whether it was due to hesitancy.

No.  You asserted as fact polling data without any sourcing, then you proceeded to make a series of non-factual claims that were in fact directly erroneous.

The point of the comment you were correcting is that a vaccination passport will in fact have a racist result.  That is an actual fact, notwithstanding the misdirection.   You jumped on a particular general population statistic because it seemed to say what you wanted to hear even though the same group did further breakdowns on the underlying details.  There are a number of divides in that group that will impact that result even further, like for example, that there is a strong correllation with the "never" group and a rural lifestyle (least likely to be impacted by a passport), and that wait and see has been repeatedly study as a justifiable problem for black and brown communities given their history with the government.  The very fact that passports are going to be required in urban areas is going to massively multiply the impact of those policies by race.

So yes, it's not true that the "majority" of the unvaccinated are black or brown, it's unlikely to be true that the majority of the "refusers" are black or brown but that's not certain with the data you cited being 4 month stale polling data.

Quote
I've also provided data that suggests that 'hesitancy' is not a driving factor for the undervaccination - rather access to vaccines in terms of lack of paid time off.

There are multiple studies on this that show hesitancy is a driving factor.  Even the numbers you cited too said that if you looked in the back.  There was no evidence at all that access was a primary issue, nor is it credible where anyone can walk in on virtually any day in hundreds of locations.

Quote
What utter horsesh*t.  You ignore the stated immoral intent and carefully crafted laws to deny legitimate voters voting rights by allowing IDs like hunting licenses, but not student IDs.  It is sad to see you so completely blind and lacking in reason, I can't believe how much you've declined in ability to think rationally.

Except the reality is that nothing has been crafted to deny legitimate voters.  Acceptable forms of ID share features in common that things like student IDs do not, like being issued by a state agency and requiring proof of identity to receive.  Not even sure what "hunting license" you're looking at, but I doubt if you cite the law you're going to show an ID that doesn't require verification.

Student IDs?  Virtually no standards at all.  is there one state in the country that prosecutes someone for having a fake or invalld student ID?  That sees it as criminal to create a fake student ID?  What identity standards does someone have to meet to be issued a student ID?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2021, 09:55:34 AM »
Vaccine requirements to travel aren't new and I don't have a issue with that.

A vaccine passport to go to the local pub...  I don't think so.

I suspect the talk and even partial implantation of the idea is a attempt to 'influence' people to get vaccinated and that in a year's time we won't hear any more about it.


Assuming no new deadlier variants show up and that the health impact remains mostly on the elderly.  As all things their would be a tipping point. If enough kids and young people start dying... maybe not even then. 

The 'worry' of creating a second class citizens is funny, as if their hasn't always been such a thing,

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2021, 10:02:22 AM »
Vaccine requirements to travel aren't new and I don't have a issue with that.

A vaccine passport to go to the local pub...  I don't think so.
...

Vaccine requirements to go to the local school exist in every state. Just the first time in 50 years that we need adults to be as willing to vaccinate for everyday life. Apparently adults are much less responsible than our kids.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2021, 10:30:46 AM »
Vaccine requirements to travel aren't new and I don't have a issue with that.

A vaccine passport to go to the local pub...  I don't think so.
...

Vaccine requirements to go to the local school exist in every state. Just the first time in 50 years that we need adults to be as willing to vaccinate for everyday life. Apparently adults are much less responsible than our kids.

Good point.
While I was in the military there was never any choice and you traveled with your immunization papers. The media is making is seem as if their is a choice now, but that would surprise me.

I really don't understand what is happening, why everything has to become such a either or fight. Its exhausting. I suspect I'm one of the 'burned outs' as I don't really care anymore.   
Its not like my opinion on such things has ever changed anything for anyone or even myself. Foolish I think to imagine it should.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #17 on: August 10, 2021, 10:43:46 AM »
Vaccine requirements to travel aren't new and I don't have a issue with that.

A vaccine passport to go to the local pub...  I don't think so.
...

Vaccine requirements to go to the local school exist in every state. Just the first time in 50 years that we need adults to be as willing to vaccinate for everyday life. Apparently adults are much less responsible than our kids.

Good point.
While I was in the military there was never any choice and you traveled with your immunization papers. The media is making is seem as if their is a choice now, but that would surprise me.

The military has a choice. But I think it is about to go away. Maybe Biden/DOD are waiting for the full FDA approval but it seems like the COVID vaccine is about to be required for those in uniform. Probably most on site government employees as well. After there isn't emergency use in front of the authorization I think we're going to see a lot of major businesses start to require vaccination for employees. Along with requirements for medical workers. Maybe that would be enough to get us to herd immunity. But that's really hard to reach until younger kids can get vaccinated as well.

I think school isn't going to go as well this year. Hopefully teachers all get vaccinated, but most students still aren't and delta seems to hit younger people harder than the original.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #18 on: August 10, 2021, 10:48:12 AM »
If you want to stay unvaccinated then stay home. If you want to come out and rejoin society then get vaccinated to protect yourself and the people around you.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #19 on: August 10, 2021, 10:55:51 AM »
The 'worry' of creating a second class citizens is funny, as if their hasn't always been such a thing,

There are already second class citizens; they are called the poor. Americans rarely talk about class (although they should), but a vaccine passport is hardly a good example of being treated as a second class citizen. We're talking about keeping dangerous people away from other people in a medical crisis (in theory). And that's mostly a self-selected group, whereas being underclass is almost never anyone's choice. So if you want to call them something, maybe the 'non-vax club' or 'society of the blunted needle.' 

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #20 on: August 10, 2021, 01:50:18 PM »
The 'worry' of creating a second class citizens is funny, as if their hasn't always been such a thing,

There are already second class citizens; they are called the poor. Americans rarely talk about class (although they should), but a vaccine passport is hardly a good example of being treated as a second class citizen. We're talking about keeping dangerous people away from other people in a medical crisis (in theory). And that's mostly a self-selected group, whereas being underclass is almost never anyone's choice. So if you want to call them something, maybe the 'non-vax club' or 'society of the blunted needle.'

I agree
One of the reasons I found the 'concern' of creating this  'new' passport second class citizen funny. As if there were no such thing in America and this 'passport' would be the thing to create it

Lots of valid arguments for or against a vaccine passports, the creation of a second class citizen as if that concerned people enough to take action, isn't one.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #21 on: August 10, 2021, 05:03:55 PM »
Quote
Dr. Anthony Fauci says COVID-19 vaccines should be mandatory for schoolteachers, citing the need to protect children who are too young to be vaccinated during a pandemic that has grown worse with the spread of the delta variant.

"I'm going to upset some people on this, but I think we should [require teacher vaccinations],"

With millions of students now beginning to return to school for in-person classes, Fauci stressed that teachers and education officials have two main tools for protecting children who are not eligible to receive the vaccine. One step is for everyone to wear masks. The other step should be treated as a duty of school staff, he said.

Vaccine mandates are coming. Maybe not a huge federal one, but workplaces, schools, and maybe some other public places are going to have one.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #22 on: August 10, 2021, 06:59:42 PM »
Vaccine requirements to go to the local school exist in every state. Just the first time in 50 years that we need adults to be as willing to vaccinate for everyday life. Apparently adults are much less responsible than our kids.

That's true but misleading information.  Yes, all 50 states require certain specific vaccinations, virtually all of which are directly related to diseases that are more fatal than COVID to children, more transmissable among children than COVID, and/or have worse consequences in children than COVID.  For most of those vaccines the underlying disease is completely treatable with a vaccine and otherwise has no known treatment after contracting.  For one, tetanus apparently even contracting it doesn't provide immunity if you recover.  Many of those states also have exemption policies for religion and ethics.

Literally only one state requires children to have the Flu vaccine.  We have a large number of vaccines, like Malaria, that no state requires.  So is COVID more like the Flu for children (the Flu is more dangerous for children), or like one of the diseases below?

Generally speaking there are not actually that many diseases included in the required vaccine list, only 7, with an 8th, mumps, required in 49 states and Hep B in 43.  Individual states may have added others that have not been adopted as widely.

These three are bacterial and generally in a combined shot:

Diptheria - bacterial - used to infect millions of people a year, with a death rate in those under 5 that exceeded 20% at times.  Highly communicable among children.  Almost completely treatable with vaccine.

Tetanus - bacterial - not transmissible human to human but highly common in environment to human transmission, 10% or higher death rate (10% death rate is only possible with modern treatment).  Around 2000, neonatal tetanus (babies whose mothers were not vaccinated) was responsible for about 14% of all neonatal deaths worldwide.  US infections average around 50 a year because of the vaccine.  Almost completely preventable by vaccination, still highly fatal even treated if not vaccinated.

Pertussis - whooping cough - bacterial - highly contagious, with untreated symptoms (and spread of infection for at least the first 3 weeks) of up to 10 weeks of coughing.  This infection is particularly dangerous for young children (half of babies are hospitalized after contracting), with adults having milder or even asymptomatic infection - while still being highly infectious to children.  While not as fatal, this disease is highly debilitating to everyone, with increased impact the younger the patient.  It has a long infectious period and high rate of transmission.  The vaccination does not provide complete immunity.  This may be the closest analogue to COVID in the required vaccines, but it the impact is actually flipped, with adults having mild symptoms and children having the worst symptoms and adults are still highly contagious with pertussis, while children are not with COVID.

Polio - virus - highly communicable through fecal matter (which frequently coincides with poor water and sewer treatment, but is not completely avoidable absent physician level cleaning practices).  Most cases are asymptomatic but still highly infectious.  Consequences are very rare, but are extreme, and without wide spread vaccine the large amount of hidden carries would ensure exposure is wide spread.  No cure once contracted, but almost completely avoidable with vaccination.

These 3 viral vaccines are usually bundled:

Measles - viral - no cure once contracted - death rate without care (and in countries with malnutrition)  could be as high as 10% and most victims are young children.  Deaths in the US run around 0.2% because of vaccination, world wide deaths have been reduced from 2.6 million to about 75k in the last 40 years.

Rubella - viral.  It doesn't seem like this one was added because it kills the patient, but rather because it's devastating on a fetus when their mother contracts it.  Severe risks of miscarriage, still birth and development of severe fetal deformity (including, blindness).  Mass vaccination was the only way to avoid that severe risk (pregnant women with first world care are always tested for anti-bodies).

Mumps - viral - highly contagious, low risk of death, but reasonably high risk of severe side effects.  Included in the vaccines in all but one state.  Presumably because it most commonly occurs symptomatically in children 5-9.  Only required in 49 states.

varicella -chicken pox - viral - highly contagious, less severe impact on children than adults.  Apparently before vaccination became wide spread the number of cases in a year was roughly equal to the number of births (pretty much approaching 100% infection).  Even now there are more than 100 million cases a year.

hepatitis B - viral - only 43 states require - probably because it's generally given at birth and risks decline by age 5.  Transmitted mostly by blood contact (either at birth or after) for children (sexually for adults) - estimates that 1/3 of the world's population is or has been infected (750k die from complications generally each year).  Not usually fatal, however, can result in severe consequences.  Infections  caught around birth lead to chronic infections at a 90% rate (chronic infection risk declines to 10% after 5).  Vaccination of children is targeted at eliminating that risk of chronic infection.

Long and short, COVID is not similar to those other required vaccines, it is more similar to the Flu vaccine, particularly in respect of its impact on children.  Everyone should get the vaccine, but mandates don't seem to be warranted.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #23 on: August 11, 2021, 01:31:58 PM »
Vaccine requirements to go to the local school exist in every state. Just the first time in 50 years that we need adults to be as willing to vaccinate for everyday life. Apparently adults are much less responsible than our kids.

That's true but misleading information.  Yes, all 50 states require certain specific vaccinations, virtually all of which are directly related to diseases that are more fatal than COVID to children, more transmissable among children than COVID, and/or have worse consequences in children than COVID. 
....

Generally speaking there are not actually that many diseases included in the required vaccine list, only 7, with an 8th, mumps, required in 49 states and Hep B in 43.  Individual states may have added others that have not been adopted as widely.

...
Polio - virus - highly communicable through fecal matter (which frequently coincides with poor water and sewer treatment, but is not completely avoidable absent physician level cleaning practices).  Most cases are asymptomatic but still highly infectious.  Consequences are very rare, but are extreme, and without wide spread vaccine the large amount of hidden carries would ensure exposure is wide spread.  No cure once contracted, but almost completely avoidable with vaccination.

These 3 viral vaccines are usually bundled:

Measles - viral - no cure once contracted - death rate without care (and in countries with malnutrition)  could be as high as 10% and most victims are young children.  Deaths in the US run around 0.2% because of vaccination, world wide deaths have been reduced from 2.6 million to about 75k in the last 40 years.

Rubella - viral.  It doesn't seem like this one was added because it kills the patient, but rather because it's devastating on a fetus when their mother contracts it.  Severe risks of miscarriage, still birth and development of severe fetal deformity (including, blindness).  Mass vaccination was the only way to avoid that severe risk (pregnant women with first world care are always tested for anti-bodies).

Mumps - viral - highly contagious, low risk of death, but reasonably high risk of severe side effects.  Included in the vaccines in all but one state.  Presumably because it most commonly occurs symptomatically in children 5-9.  Only required in 49 states.

varicella -chicken pox - viral - highly contagious, less severe impact on children than adults.  Apparently before vaccination became wide spread the number of cases in a year was roughly equal to the number of births (pretty much approaching 100% infection).  Even now there are more than 100 million cases a year.
...

Long and short, COVID is not similar to those other required vaccines, it is more similar to the Flu vaccine, particularly in respect of its impact on children.  Everyone should get the vaccine, but mandates don't seem to be warranted.

COVID killed 600,000 people in the US last 1.5 years with mitigation strategies. That's 15 years of flu deaths. COVID isn't like the flu.

COVID is very similar to most of the other viral infections.
Polio - Rare but serious complications with children. See MIS.
Rubella - Pregnant woman are a high risk group with COVID. So we can require children to get a vaccine to help protect pregnant women but we can't require an adult to do the same?
Chicken pox - Highly contagious virus with more serious consequences in adults than children. Which virus was I describing Chicken Pox or COVID???

I was advocating for adults to have mandatory vaccines to be in public places just like kids are required to get all those vaccines to go to school. COVID (particularly Delta) is a highly contagious virus that is more harmful to many adults than many of those diseases are to kids. So mandating that adults get vaccinated so we can have a more normal society seems like a good idea. Its consistent with how we've treated public health for the last 70+ years. Don't want to get vaccinated? Fine, go be a hermit but don't insist on your right to be a danger to everyone around you.

Getting kids vaccinated also seems like a good idea because its only a matter of time before one of the variants hits kids harder. Delta seems to infect and be spread more easily among kids than the previous variants.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #24 on: August 11, 2021, 01:39:58 PM »
Quote
Polio - Rare but serious complications with children.

Yossarian's right.  I recall seeing something that said that the percent of deaths from Covid-19 was similar to the percentage of serious paralysis from polio.  (Polio kills a far fewer percentage of people than Covid-19.)  So in some ways, Covid-19 is not more dangerous than polio, and in some ways it is safer.  But no one objects to requiring polio vaccines these days.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #25 on: August 11, 2021, 01:49:42 PM »
Well there are some but my guess is most of them have never had an older relative who had polio.  It very much seems that those against vaccines have not seen the down sides of the disease the vaccines fight.  You basically wipe out a disease and people say "What was the big deal?". They never had a relative who was in an iron lung or had to use canes to get around in their entire life. Or where made deaf by measles.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #26 on: August 11, 2021, 01:56:58 PM »
COVID killed 600,000 people in the US last 1.5 years with mitigation strategies. That's 15 years of flu deaths. COVID isn't like the flu.

COVID is very similar to most of the other viral infections.
Polio - Rare but serious complications with children. See MIS.
Rubella - Pregnant woman are a high risk group with COVID. So we can require children to get a vaccine to help protect pregnant women but we can't require an adult to do the same?
Chicken pox - Highly contagious virus with more serious consequences in adults than children. Which virus was I describing Chicken Pox or COVID???

One thing to be careful of when going based on the sheer numbers and comparing them to historic numbers is you are going to have incompatible apples-to-oranges counting methods. So the numbers may be meaningless to an extent depending on how you're using them. I've heard many reports that covid-19 counts were erring on the side of always counting a death as a covid death, if the person was infected. This may be inconsistent depending on the state, or even county (who knows??), but the real question is how they counted plague deaths 100 years ago when there were multiple illnesses going around. If someone had polio, and died of a heart attack at the age of 80, was that a polio death or 'old age with complications'? For covid that would be a clear count as a covid death. So depending on how deaths were counted in the past (were they politicized back then the way they are now?) you may be looking at up to an entire order of magnitude of variance in what the real death toll would be. If covid-19 had happened in 1905, how many deaths would be the official number? Would it be 600,000? Less? More?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #27 on: August 11, 2021, 02:05:25 PM »
COVID killed 600,000 people in the US last 1.5 years with mitigation strategies. That's 15 years of flu deaths. COVID isn't like the flu.

COVID is very similar to most of the other viral infections.
Polio - Rare but serious complications with children. See MIS.
Rubella - Pregnant woman are a high risk group with COVID. So we can require children to get a vaccine to help protect pregnant women but we can't require an adult to do the same?
Chicken pox - Highly contagious virus with more serious consequences in adults than children. Which virus was I describing Chicken Pox or COVID???

One thing to be careful of when going based on the sheer numbers and comparing them to historic numbers is you are going to have incompatible apples-to-oranges counting methods. So the numbers may be meaningless to an extent depending on how you're using them. I've heard many reports that covid-19 counts were erring on the side of always counting a death as a covid death, if the person was infected. This may be inconsistent depending on the state, or even county (who knows??), but the real question is how they counted plague deaths 100 years ago when there were multiple illnesses going around. ...

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

You can look at historical death rates and how many people would have been expected to die and compare it to the rate that happened. There is a clear and noticeable uptick in deaths from early 2020 up until this summer. The higher vaccination rate among the elderly seems to be bringing the death rate back down around historical norms.

Hospitalizations are also a good way of tracking serious cases. Hospitalizations as a result of COVID were very high in 2020 and early 2021 and are increasing again. Looking at the society wide data its pretty clear we aren't exaggerating the scope of the problem.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #28 on: August 11, 2021, 02:12:32 PM »
I'm not sure I can take the time now to parse and test what that page says, yossarian, but thanks for sharing it anyhow.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #29 on: August 11, 2021, 03:44:21 PM »
Misinformed posts claiming that vaccines turned “I Am Legend” characters into zombies have circulated online for months, according to Reuters, which reported in December that the posts were being shared after the U.S. government authorized the use of Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine. As of Wednesday, more than 166 million Americans have been fully vaccinated. The zombie count, however, remains at zero.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #30 on: August 11, 2021, 03:44:31 PM »
One thing to be careful of when going based on the sheer numbers and comparing them to historic numbers is you are going to have incompatible apples-to-oranges counting methods. So the numbers may be meaningless to an extent depending on how you're using them. I've heard many reports that covid-19 counts were erring on the side of always counting a death as a covid death, if the person was infected.

You don't need to really guess at this, as many states explicitly publish what constitutes a "covid death". Here in OR, it's any fatality where the person had a positive covid test within 60 days - regardless of any symptoms or sickness. Fall off a ladder after testing positive a month ago? Covid death.

If that scenario sounds absurd, welcome to the new reality. Hospitals are now incredibly efficient at cross-referencing any death to a previous positive case for, um, budgetary reasons.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #31 on: August 11, 2021, 04:28:41 PM »
COVID killed 600,000 people in the US last 1.5 years with mitigation strategies. That's 15 years of flu deaths. COVID isn't like the flu.

Of which, 354 (as of yesterday) where in the 0-17 age group, which is over inclusive of the group of children that are required to get vaccines.  As the "mandatory" requirement is tied to school admission, adults that were not vaccinated are not currently required to become vaccinated (other than legal immigrants - who are - yet apparently not illegal immigrants).

Home schooled children are not required to be vaccinated at all in more than half the states and apparently only a handful require proof of vaccination for the home schooled.  More than 40 states have religious and/or personal belief exemptions that allow unvaccinated children to attend public schools.

You're actually opening a brand new can of worms with your argument for mandatory vaccines for adults unconnected with any state or federal service.  And again, 354 deaths in the only age group currently subject to any wide spread mandatory vaccination program is not enough.  Nor is an analogy to Rubella where children are not  terribly infectious to the adults around them.

Quote
COVID is very similar to most of the other viral infections.

Saying so, doesn't make it so.  COVID's risks to children are small, that's just literal fact.

Quote
Polio - Rare but serious complications with children. See MIS.

Most cases of polio occurred in children between 6 months and 4 years.  That is a completely different and contrary fact pattern to COVID, where very few cases appear in that age group and very few of them that did involved serious side effects.

Quote
Rubella - Pregnant woman are a high risk group with COVID. So we can require children to get a vaccine to help protect pregnant women but we can't require an adult to do the same?

At the time we did, pregnant women were exposed to small children virtually constantly.  It may have been sexist but you literally could not have separated the demographics.  An infection that is highly transmissable in children would be carried back to a very high percentage of pregnant women.

Require?  No. 

Quote
Chicken pox - Highly contagious virus with more serious consequences in adults than children. Which virus was I describing Chicken Pox or COVID???

I think you were describing a fear fantasy version of COVID.  I read the other day that those who are 65 plus are approaching 90% vaccination.  65 plus accounts for almost 483,000 of the 610,000  US COVID deaths.  Roughly 80%.

Quote
I was advocating for adults to have mandatory vaccines to be in public places just like kids are required to get all those vaccines to go to school.

Sure, but you're arguing for a total violation of rights to access anything on one hand, versus a limited violation of rights to access a public benefit that's actually provided by the state government.  A benefit that you can literally opt out of if you choose to do so.  The idea that "freedom" is consistent with government control of your ability to access any public place is insane.

If you were advocating for a vaccine requirement to enter a government building, you'd be closer to apples to apples, so long as you provided for the ability to receive mandatory services without entering said building.

Quote
COVID (particularly Delta) is a highly contagious virus that is more harmful to many adults than many of those diseases are to kids.

So are a thousand other diseases.  It's tough to say whether citing to Delta helps or hurts the case.  It's definitely more infectious -some are literally describing it as infectious as chicken pox- but the boat is still out on whether its as deadly (the data seems to say that it's not, but the data are confounded by the vaccinations that have occurred, particularly in the elderly who are at great risk).

Quote
So mandating that adults get vaccinated so we can have a more normal society seems like a good idea.

The road to the bad place is paved with good intentions.  Forcing other people to do something over their objections is something that represents a fundamental disrespect of their personhood, and in no way is it going to lead to a more "normal" society, or at least not to one we recognize.  I'm sure you can easily understand this in the context of abortion, but you're having trouble in the context of vaccination.  The American and most of the western medical establishment has long been ethically tied to the patient's right to refuse treatment, without regard to the consequences that choice has on the patient.  You're overriding that and asking medical professionals to engage in forced vaccination programs for the "greater good."  Lots of things will be added to the "for the greater good" standard if you walk that path, after all we can't let people make wrong and anti-social decisions that are easily preventable if they were just right thinking persons.

If you have a friend who is vaccine hestitant, do your part and talk to them about why, convince them to get a vaccine, but don't betray them by thinking you have the right to make personal decisions for them.

Quote
Its consistent with how we've treated public health for the last 70+ years.

It's not.  The Obama administration wouldn't even consider lock-downs to deal with Ebola.  The only reason Ebola is in a "less threatening" category is because it kills so fast and so consistently that it wipes out its own ability to spread.

In fact if you go back around 70 years, you run smack into one of the biggest debacles in vaccination history.  https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/long-shadow-1976-swine-flu-vaccine-fiasco-180961994/  There were good intentions, but there were real harms.  No question on earth that people would have traded those results to stop a pandemic, but to protect against a virus that never actually arose?

Vaccine makers have a special exemption from liability for the harms their vaccines cause for a reason.  They are not riskless, they need to be worth the trade.  For children?  Roughly 70 million in the US, with roughly 5 in a million dying of COVID (and that's heavily weight to children with severe complications and the older end of the bracket).  The risk for an otherwise healthy 5 year old entering school from COVID?  Pretty darn low, probably less than 1 in a million.

Is it really outside the realm of possibility that a vaccination would have a worse than 5 in a million serious side effect?   It's not, we know its not, some of those  mandatory vaccines I listed before have confirmed serious side effects that are more frequent than that.

So when you go to tell a parent they have to vaccinate their very young children, you're literally asking them to take on a risk that may be several times greater for their childrens' health than what you're protecting against.  Rubella?  Was a distressing disease that was highly visible impacting children and the protection was for the whole family, including unborn siblings of the child in question.  The state required kids to go to school which exposed the family to an increased risk, the vaccine eliminated it.  However, it would  literally be lying to assert that the [COVID] vaccination is clearly better for the child than not being vaccinated.  For an adult that's completely true, for a child?  it's not even clear its likely true.

We accept vaccine risk because it's less than the risk posed by the disease, so far there is no evidence that is true for healthy young children.  And once you get past children, whom the state has an interest in protecting even from their parents in some cases, you get to adults who have the legal authority to make their own judgement about the risks.  Sure they may be making an objectively poor risk decision, but there are millions of such decisions made everyday, and a large number of deaths that result from those decisions in the correct circumstances, and no right to stop those decisions from being made.

Quote
Don't want to get vaccinated? Fine, go be a hermit but don't insist on your right to be a danger to everyone around you.

Which is backwards of course.  The toll Delta takes is largely on the unvaccinated (at least based on the reported foreign results, and even on the US results as they come in).  Quite literally the vaccinated are a threat to the unvaccinated, specifically because the vaccinated can still catch COVID, and Delta seems very good at that, but generally have mild or even no symptoms while they are infectious.  Americans are completely selfish about going to work, shopping and out in public with a "small" cold, you can see people with snuffly noses every time you're in a large crowd.

Plus the demanding for vaccinations for everyone is way over inclusive.  Anyone with a prior confirmed case doesn't need to be vaccinated, with the evidence being that their natural immunity is at least as good as the vaccine benefit.  Why would a rule not have that exception?  What about the medically fragile, the very people "herd immunity" is supposed to protect?

Quote
Getting kids vaccinated also seems like a good idea because its only a matter of time before one of the variants hits kids harder. Delta seems to infect and be spread more easily among kids than the previous variants.

And whether a vaccine works on a variant is one of the first things they try to measure for a reason.  You're speculating completely, about a new variant that completely flips the targets of who is at risk to be dangerous to the group least at risk, while also speculating that an existing vaccine would protect against it. If that disease comes about you'd have a stronger case, at the moment you're just discounting the risks for the risk benefit analysis without justification. 

End of day, everyone should get the vaccination - even though you can make a reasonable case that children are being exposed to increased risk to do so.  Talk to your friends, convince them.  But be aware there are lots of reasons that some may refuse, it could be religion, or - as is common in my area - it could be minority parents willing to use an "experimental" vaccine on themselves to see what happens, but not willing to put it in their child's body without greater certainty.  And whether you understand it or not, woke liberals clamoring for mandatory vaccines actual trigger them worse because their fears are tied into real events where the government did not have their best interests in mind when it experimented on people of their race.

And be honest about it, what you're saying in respect of children is that you have to break a few eggs, and in respect of adults is that "wrong thinkers" should have their bodies violated against their will or be imprisoned in their homes.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2021, 04:35:01 PM by Seriati »

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #32 on: August 12, 2021, 09:50:46 AM »
And be honest about it, what you're saying in respect of children is that you have to break a few eggs, and in respect of adults is that "wrong thinkers" should have their bodies violated against their will or be imprisoned in their homes.

I've said nothing about children other than we've traditionally required them to be vaccinated for school, which they are legally required to attend. Yes if their parents are wealthy enough they have other options but most households don't have private or home schooling options.

What I'm asking is why creating a similar level of requirements for adults for a COVID vaccine? This disease has upended our lives and society for over a year. It has led to 600,000 deaths (0.2% of the US population) in 1.5 years. It has stretched medical resources to the limits and many of the survivors of COVID have symptoms lasting months and there is some worry among researchers that some of the damage done could lead to people developing alzheimer's.

How deadly would a disease need to be before you thought "violating someone's body" would be justified? The problem is people refusing to get vaccinated doesn't only impact themselves. They spread the disease to others and provide the virus opportunities to mutate.

What limitations are reasonable for someone refusing to get vaccinated? Airline travel? Mass transit? Public indoor venues? Forced to wear a mask indoors at all times in public?

If 6,000,000 people had died in the US in the last year would your opinion change? What about at 60,000,000 people?

Is your position absolute? Or is there a level of seriousness where you think requiring a vaccine to participate in normal society makes sense?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #33 on: August 12, 2021, 09:58:56 AM »
If 6,000,000 people had died in the US in the last year would your opinion change? What about at 60,000,000 people?

Is your position absolute? Or is there a level of seriousness where you think requiring a vaccine to participate in normal society makes sense?

This is the reason the "no can tell me what to do" argument falls flat on its face. I can certainly understand a case-by-case argument regarding whether a particular plague is severe enough to take serious, binding, or even drastic actions; but I cannot understand a position that states unequivocally that no one should ever be made to take medical precautions. Looking at any novel about a species-decimating viral outbreak (like the Captain Tripps virus in Stephen King's The Stand), there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that in a case like that the military would be on the streets using deadly force against any non-compliance. Martial law would be a no-brainer, and in fact it would be lucky if the military command structure even remained intact. How far any particular virus is in seriousness compared to that is of course crucial to determining how far to stray from routine standards, but any argument that says you fundamentally cannot make people take medical precautions under any circumstances just makes me laugh.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #34 on: August 12, 2021, 10:29:20 AM »
You don't need to really guess at this, as many states explicitly publish what constitutes a "covid death". Here in OR, it's any fatality where the person had a positive covid test within 60 days - regardless of any symptoms or sickness. Fall off a ladder after testing positive a month ago? Covid death.

If that scenario sounds absurd, welcome to the new reality. Hospitals are now incredibly efficient at cross-referencing any death to a previous positive case for, um, budgetary reasons.

I think you are misreading, here is the page, the paragraph you are thinking,

Quote
n Oregon a death is reported as a COVID death if:

The death is of a confirmed or probable COVID-19 case within 60 days of the earliest available date among exposure to a confirmed case, onset of symptoms, or date of specimen collection for the first positive test; or


https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/BIRTHDEATHCERTIFICATES/VITALSTATISTICS/DEATH/Pages/reporting-covid-deaths.aspx

is in reference to staff doing cross referencing of death certificates and hospital reports of COVID-19 deaths,

Quote
Health care facilities provide one source of COVID-19 reporting. Because COVID-19 is a reportable infectious condition, healthcare facilities report cases of COVID-19 directly to Public Health. Later, if those patients pass away, their deaths are also reported.


Quote
Death certificates provide a second source of COVID-19 reporting.

Quote
The two sources of COVID-19 reporting described above are cross-referenced. Each week, CHS compares the list of COVID-19 deaths reported to Public Health to the list of death records where the underlying cause of death is determined to be COVID-19 (i.e., the underlying cause of death is coded as U07.1). Staff then follow up on any deaths appearing on one list but not the other to determine how the death should be categorized.

Now - if a death certificate and/or a hospital report a death as COVID-19, and then there is also laboratory confirmed that they had COVID-19 - It is pretty certain that they died of COVID-19.

I know you are just repeating a lie that most conservatives believe.  I'm really shocked though that you guys are so gullible - does it really seem conceivable on the face of it that any and all deaths are being reported as COVID-19 deaths?  The level of lack of reading comprehension that gets from what that page actually says - to what you have asserted here, is simply mind boggling.

What made you decide to accept an absurd belief as truth instead of googling?  If you have accepted such an absurd claim as fact without bothering to check - and it is so absurd that anyone even basic reasoning should check - what does that say about your general ability to evaluate reality?  Are you deeply embarrassed about this?  Are you going to apologize?  Are you angry and upset at the sources you received this claim from and have you lost your trust in them?  Are you going to apologize to people you've repeated this claim to outside of this forum?

This claim isn't just stupid - it is dangerously stupid - huge numbers of people have been mislead by it and are thus grossly underestimating actual deaths from COVID-19 and refusing vaccination.

If I were you, I'd feel deeply ashamed at falling for this, and extremely angry at the sources who originated and repeated the lie.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2021, 10:31:58 AM by LetterRip »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #35 on: August 12, 2021, 10:50:26 AM »
LR,

If this text is so easy to parse, that someone should be ashamed for misreading it, can you explain how you are so certain about ambiguities in the text:

Quote
Categorization of an Oregon COVID death

In Oregon a death is reported as a COVID death if:

-The death is of a confirmed or probable COVID-19 case within 60 days of the earliest available date among exposure to a confirmed case, onset of symptoms, or date of specimen collection for the first positive test; or

-The death results from any cause in a hospitalized person during admission or in the 60 days following discharge AND a COVID-19-positive laboratory diagnostic test at any time since14 days prior to hospitalization; or

-The death is of someone with a COVID-19-specific ICD-10 code listed as a primary or contributing cause of death on a death certificate, regardless of the dates of diagnosis or death.

[a bit of highlighting and editing is mine]

So you can see that they do receive reports from two sources - death certificates, as well as the covid-reporting. They do cross reference these. However it does not state anywhere what you suggest, that only someone proved to die of covid-19 counts as a covid-19 death. The three clauses I quoted are OR clauses, meaning any one is sufficient for it to count as a covid-19 death. Let's parse each clause:

1) If the person recently had either a positive covid test, OR probably had it, it counts as a covid death. This clause says nothing about cause of death, merely that the person had it (or probably had it). Note some possible ambiguity here: does "death of a confirmed covid case" mean the person died of covid? I would suggest the correct parsing here is that "covid case" means "person that had covid", where the word "case" means person who was infected. I do not think "death of a covid case" means death of covid, I think it means death of someone that had it.

2) This one is actually clearer: it says that it counts as a covid death if the person was hospitalized and died, and had been a confirmed covid-bearer within 14 days of the hospitalization. It also does not say that the cause of death had to be covid, merely that they were hospitalized for any reason and died, while having covid, or having had covid recently.

3) This clause is closest to what you are saying, that the death certificate specifically says they died of covid; but it also includes the "contributing factor" part, which ends up being a medical decision I don't know how to weigh just by reading this text. Is it standard procedure for a coroner to assume that any ailment a person has when they die is automatically a contributing factor? It's hard to imagine how it wouldn't be contributing to have a cold, or flu, or covid, or anything else, when you finally die of a heart attack or whatever other cause of death. They weaken you, surely, so must be contributing. But I suppose the question is - how much of a contribution were they? This clause is a brief summary so it doesn't say. But in theory this could include patients with a minor case of covid who die of something else serious that was going to kill them anyhow. In practice I have no clue.

I'm not sure why you think this page was so easy to parse that it would be embarrassing to get anything wrong. I suppose you'll be able to come up with suitable responses to my points above, but at first glance it doesn't look like ScottF was making an unreasonable conclusion from what it says. 

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #36 on: August 12, 2021, 10:58:39 AM »
So you can see that they do receive reports from two sources - death certificates, as well as the covid-reporting. They do cross reference these. However it does not state anywhere what you suggest, that only someone proved to die of covid-19 counts as a covid-19 death. The three clauses I quoted are OR clauses, meaning any one is sufficient for it to count as a covid-19 death. Let's parse each clause:

A hospital reported death of COVID-19 or a Death Certificate death of COVID-19 are only reported if the person died of Covid-19.

A hospital won't report a car accident as a Covid-19 death even if they test positive for Covid-19, a death certificate will not list Covid-19 as a cause of death unless the virus was a cause of death.

So the staff member is only confirming that other information is consistent with the death certificate and/or hospital report before putting it into their Covid-19 tracking statistics.  So confirming a reliable source with an outside source - their  methodology is perfectly reasonable.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #37 on: August 12, 2021, 12:01:08 PM »
A hospital reported death of COVID-19 or a Death Certificate death of COVID-19 are only reported if the person died of Covid-19.

But according to the site the death certificates are only one source for potential covid cases to be counted. In fact it's listed as #2, of which #1 is this:

Quote
1 - By health care facilities

Health care facilities provide one source of COVID-19 reporting. Because COVID-19 is a reportable infectious condition, healthcare facilities report cases of COVID-19 directly to Public Health. Later, if those patients pass away, their deaths are also reported.

So the person enters the 'reporting pool' even when the health care facility first comes into contact with them, whether or not they die. As you can see from my bold, a second report is added into the system if they subsequently die. But it's from this combined pool of reports, from #1 (health care facilities) and #2 (death certificates), that the three OR clauses are drawn from.

Putting aside this point, you seem to also be neglecting the contributing factor part of clause 3 (from my previous post), which does not necessitate that they outright died of covid. But clauses 1 and 2 are both triggered by reasons other than a certificate saying the person died of covid, and any one of the three clauses is sufficient to count as a covid death.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #38 on: August 12, 2021, 01:55:47 PM »
So we have 3 scenarios

1) Hospital reports a Covid-19 death; Death certificate reports Covid-19 death - both sources are consistent - no checking needed
2) Hospital reports a Covid-19 death; Death certificate doesn't mention Covid-19 - use the criteria listed as confirmation
2) Death certificate mentions cause of death as Covid-19, No report from hospital of a Covid-19 death - use the criteria listed as confirmation

If the hospital or death certificate hasn't first reported a death as being caused by Covid-19, then it is never checked for confirmation - thus it is always an undercount - there is no possibility of an overcount.

It is not - random person dies in car accident, if they had a positive Covid-19 test in the past 60 days (or the other two criteria) - count as a Covid-19 death.  This is the absurd belief and rumor spread among Trumpists.

Quote
Putting aside this point, you seem to also be neglecting the contributing factor part of clause 3 (from my previous post), which does not necessitate that they outright died of covid. But clauses 1 and 2 are both triggered by reasons other than a certificate saying the person died of covid, and any one of the three clauses is sufficient to count as a covid death.

Ultimate cause of death is always some sort of organ failure or multisystem organ failure.  The proximate cause is the infection.  You could say that people never die of infections - just the organ failure caused by the infection.  So either no infection ever causes death - or we use the same reporting criteria as every other infection - from influenza to S. aureus in which cases these are rightfully 'Covid-19' deaths.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2021, 02:02:55 PM by LetterRip »

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #39 on: August 12, 2021, 02:03:18 PM »
A hospital reported death of COVID-19 or a Death Certificate death of COVID-19 are only reported if the person died of Covid-19.

But according to the site the death certificates are only one source for potential covid cases to be counted. In fact it's listed as #2, of which #1 is this:

Anytime to look at the cdc site that tracks all deaths? Its easy to see something happened last year that caused a lot of people to die that weren't dying in previous years. Then you can quit chasing conspiracy theories about hospitals and ME's classifying people dying in car crashes or falling off of ladders as COVID deaths. The societal level data shows excess deaths inline or slightly exceeding COVID deaths. And factor in that the flu and other random communicable diseases killed almost no one last year it probably means that if anything COVID deaths are slightly under reported nation wide.

Edit: Or you can just look at LR's explanation of what those criteria mean to understand what's going on. But if you can't parse the language just know data does not support over reporting of COVID deaths.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2021, 02:08:47 PM by yossarian22c »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #40 on: August 12, 2021, 02:51:55 PM »
Edit: Or you can just look at LR's explanation of what those criteria mean to understand what's going on. But if you can't parse the language just know data does not support over reporting of COVID deaths.

yossarian, both you and LR are responding as if I'm making the "people falling off a ladder = covid deaths" argument. I'm not. I'm strictly addressing LR telling ScottF he should be embarrassed for having (in his opinion) misunderstood the Oregon website. I am basing my comments only[ on what that website says. If the website is ambiguously worded (which I think it is) and there is a potential way to parse it that is consistent with what LR is saying, fine. But like I said, the way ScottF is interpreting it seems consistent with the words on the page. If they're not consistent with other websites (like CDC) that's another matter.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #41 on: August 12, 2021, 03:08:40 PM »
So we have 3 scenarios

1) Hospital reports a Covid-19 death; Death certificate reports Covid-19 death - both sources are consistent - no checking needed
2) Hospital reports a Covid-19 death; Death certificate doesn't mention Covid-19 - use the criteria listed as confirmation
2) Death certificate mentions cause of death as Covid-19, No report from hospital of a Covid-19 death - use the criteria listed as confirmation

If the hospital or death certificate hasn't first reported a death as being caused by Covid-19, then it is never checked for confirmation - thus it is always an undercount - there is no possibility of an overcount.

I get what you are saying, but this doesn't seem to (explicitly) be what the website is saying. I'm not arguing that what you're saying doesn't make sense. As I just mentioned to yossarian, I am strictly parsing what the actual web page says. I'm going to reiterate, that based on the wording of #1 (health care facilities reporting), they report any covid case directly to Public Health, no matter the outcome or state of the individual. It then says "Later, if those patients pass away, their deaths are also reported." It doesn't say how much later, whether it's during the initial hospitalization, or if there even is a hospitalization (as many people with covid no doubt go to health care facilities, which by the way are not all hospitals, but do not end up hospitalized even if they have a positive test). Based on how the testing is done, often with an excess of cycles used compared to how it's supposed to be done (resulting in pinpointing smaller quantities of covid in a person), a person can go to hospital, get a positive test, and then go home. Those people are still reported to Public Health, and still fall under the rubric of "later, if they pass away." This is just an example of how it's not at neat as you're making it. Likewise, someone can be hospitalized for something other than covid, get tested while there and test positive (results of which go to Public Health), and die of the thing they went to the hospital for. That death then has to be checked.

That brings us to the section where they describe what happens when deaths from column 1 and column 2 don't match (either cause of death doesn't match, or someone appears on one list and not the other). They then resort to the three clauses I described earlier, in order to determine whether they should classify it as a covid death or not. As I mentioned, the clauses as stated on the website absolutely do not require the death certificate to say the person died of covid. And remember that these clauses come into play when columns 1 and 2 don't match, which is all those scenarios where they did not die outright of covid but nevertheless had it to any degree. For example, someone with a very mild case (even with no symptoms) and tests positive, gets onto list #1, and obviously not onto list #2, and maybe then (to use the accursed example) falls off a ladder and dies. The lists don't match, so they go to the three clauses, and see if any of them (does not have to be the third clause, about death certificate) triggers it being categorized as a covid death.

I'm sorry, but this matter is not simple at all. You can argue all day long about how the covid deaths reported are legit, and I don't actually have a problem with that, but don't tell me this site tells a very simple story that one should be embarrassed for disagreeing with you about it. The more I think about it, the more ScottF's reading of the website seems like the logical interpretation of what they wrote. Maybe IRL this does not translate into shady categorizing, and if so, fine. But then the state's own website is giving potentially misleading information.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #42 on: August 12, 2021, 03:39:12 PM »
Edit: Or you can just look at LR's explanation of what those criteria mean to understand what's going on. But if you can't parse the language just know data does not support over reporting of COVID deaths.

yossarian, both you and LR are responding as if I'm making the "people falling off a ladder = covid deaths" argument. I'm not.
...

Earlier you made the argument that its impossible to trust covid death data because its been politicized and who knows what is classified as a COVID death. I pointed you to a CDC website with lots of data and you responded that its too complex to look at right now. Then later defended an absurd reading of what a covid death is (even if you didn't specifically advocate for the absurd reading).

From the same CDC website
Quote
Total predicted number of excess deaths since 2/1/2020 across the United States: 595,688 - 758,749.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

600,000 reported deaths from covid. Almost no flu deaths for the year. We aren't seeing a rash of deaths from other causes attributed to COVID. Like I said the 600k is likely an undercount.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #43 on: August 12, 2021, 03:48:04 PM »
And since we're discussing Oregon. The CDC estimates between 2800 and 6500 deaths above the expected for the state and Oregon reports 2,944 COVID deaths. So its apparent from the data that Oregon hasn't been "padding" their COVID death numbers. Just like the rest of the country their reported number of deaths is probably below the true number of COVID deaths.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #44 on: August 12, 2021, 03:55:30 PM »
Then later defended an absurd reading of what a covid death is (even if you didn't specifically advocate for the absurd reading).

Ok, I'm not sure what exactly you're responding to when you say something like this, because the interpretation I've just been laying out is based on the wording on a website. If you find it absurd then as far as I'm concerned you're calling the website absurd, because the case I've been laying out is 100% rational. If may not match facts on the ground, hence my repeated statement that I'm parsing the website's information alone. And I was only doing that, not to support ScottF's initial position, but rather to oppose LR's inflammatory response to it. There is simply not a chance in hell my reading of that site is "absurd".

Quote
600,000 reported deaths from covid. Almost no flu deaths for the year. We aren't seeing a rash of deaths from other causes attributed to COVID. Like I said the 600k is likely an undercount.

I wasn't (and am still not) prepared to parse that site, and so can't reasonably discuss whether the number are accurate or not. I don't have that much of interest in finding out, tbh. That the covid issue has been unfortunately politicized is IMO non-controversial. Anyone denying that is essentially delusional. That doesn't mean people didn't die from it. But it really doesn't help when you can see Fauci in front of the senate lying his ass off and looking stupid when asked fairly simple questions about gain of function research. You should be surprised that people will be skeptical of anything at that point?

You may note, once again, that I've been rabidly pro-mask and pro-serious measures in my posts here, probably more so than most of the lefties, so I find it peculiar (it's actually not peculiar at all but predictable) that when opposing a particular point (such as the one LR was making re: ScottF) I end up being categorized as probably an anti-vaxxer. I hate to tell you, but I'm probably more vehement about covid being taken seriously than you are. So you are deeply mistaken about my purpose in making various posts.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #45 on: August 12, 2021, 04:10:11 PM »
Then later defended an absurd reading of what a covid death is (even if you didn't specifically advocate for the absurd reading).

Ok, I'm not sure what exactly you're responding to when you say something like this, because the interpretation I've just been laying out is based on the wording on a website. If you find it absurd then as far as I'm concerned you're calling the website absurd, because the case I've been laying out is 100% rational. If may not match facts on the ground, hence my repeated statement that I'm parsing the website's information alone. And I was only doing that, not to support ScottF's initial position, but rather to oppose LR's inflammatory response to it. There is simply not a chance in hell my reading of that site is "absurd".

Quote
600,000 reported deaths from covid. Almost no flu deaths for the year. We aren't seeing a rash of deaths from other causes attributed to COVID. Like I said the 600k is likely an undercount.

I wasn't (and am still not) prepared to parse that site, and so can't reasonably discuss whether the number are accurate or not. I don't have that much of interest in finding out, tbh. That the covid issue has been unfortunately politicized is IMO non-controversial. Anyone denying that is essentially delusional. That doesn't mean people didn't die from it. But it really doesn't help when you can see Fauci in front of the senate lying his ass off and looking stupid when asked fairly simple questions about gain of function research. You should be surprised that people will be skeptical of anything at that point?

The interpretation is absurd because it assumes bad intent and a vast conspiracy among people reporting COVID data. The fact you can find some parsing of the medical/technical language on a website probably written by some non expect and then spin that as a reasonable way to interpret reality absent of other evidence to support that reading is just arguing for arguments sake. You stated you don't care about the truth but will defend someone spewing things that defy common sense because maybe if you parse and categorize the statements this way its a valid interpretation. So you don't care about the actual truth on the ground. Only if a certain website can be parsed in such a way to misrepresent what is actually happening on the ground. If so then that's a valid argument. Shrug, I guess this is why we can't agree on facts anymore. Otherwise reasonable people will give cover to people with absurd interpretations because if you squint hard enough at this one website that could be what it means.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #46 on: August 12, 2021, 04:13:56 PM »
I'm strictly addressing LR telling ScottF he should be embarrassed for having (in his opinion) misunderstood the Oregon website.

I think he should be embarrassed for accepting at face value an utterly absurd claim that is completely contrary to logic, reasoning etc.

Quote
I am basing my comments only[ on what that website says. If the website is ambiguously worded (which I think it is) and there is a potential way to parse it that is consistent with what LR is saying, fine. But like I said, the way ScottF is interpreting it seems consistent with the words on the page. If they're not consistent with other websites (like CDC) that's another matter.

If English is a language that you have a poor understanding of, it is possible to misinterpret that sentence.  Would any rational person interpret it that way? No.  Even non-native speakers should be able to interpret it correctly.  You have to completely shut off your thinking to misinterpret since from the full context - it is extremely clear that the criteria are confirming Covid-19 deaths established from death certificates stating Covid-19 as cause, and from hospital reports of Covid-19.  The fact that they include a extraneous detail - that hospitals also report whenever someone gets a reportable infection - shouldn't be enough to lead to the bizarre interpretation that any and all deaths where someone tested positive for Covid-19 in the past 60 days will be reported as a Covid-19 death.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #47 on: August 12, 2021, 05:05:38 PM »
And there is, of course, a far more reliable way of knowing which deaths are reported as being from Covid-19.

Ask the people who compile the data--those who report it. :)

But we don't do that anymore, because many of us assume that those who disagree with us are lying.  That no one of the "other side" has integrity or honesty.  That we can simply assume they are trying to pull a fast one on us, and all we need to do is find that one kink in their armor that proves they have been lying to us all along.

Case in point, the Big Lie that Trump won the election, despite the assurance of every single election official in this country.  Some would rather believe that they are all lying and are part of some vast conspiracy than that most of these people, who were hired to do a job, actually do it as well as they can.  Because that would mean that Trump lost.  ::)

So we have no more sympathy for those who misread directions and point them out as proof that everyone is lying, no matter if you could possibly see that interpretation if you squint just right, unless they admit that they were wrong.  Because we've seen such people, who will never admit they were wrong, storm the Capitol and try to shut down the government based on such a lie.  That is what happens when you don't challenge the lies and try to explain how they might be mistaken.  You get an insurrection.

So while, maybe, technically, it could be argued that he may be right in a very narrow view from the wording of this one website, the big picture is ScottF is actually wrong. :)  His main point is wrong.  And arguing how wrong he is, whether technically wrong about a small point or not, distracts from the overall fact that he is wrong.

Don't let the little details keep you from seeing the big picture.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #48 on: August 12, 2021, 06:30:56 PM »
I've said nothing about children other than we've traditionally required them to be vaccinated for school, which they are legally required to attend. Yes if their parents are wealthy enough they have other options but most households don't have private or home schooling options.

What I'm asking is why creating a similar level of requirements for adults for a COVID vaccine?

First off, home school families are demographically similar to public school families on wealth with a greater percentage of home school families at or below 200% of the poverty line.  Private school families are vastly in the over the 200% line compared to public and home school.  Most states require vaccines for private schools on the same terms as public schools.

But the question you are asking is about a fundamental misconstruction of what the state is doing and why it's allowed to do it in the first place.  The rights of the state over children are deliberately greater than the states rights over adults.  Parents are considered to be the best proxy for exercising the rights of their children in the ordinary course, but children are not property, and the state can intervene when the parents are acting against the child's interest.  When the state does this it is replacing the parent as the proxy of the child's rights, neither the parent or the state is exercising its own rights over the child like a piece of property.

This state is also deliberately very limited, as we do believe that the parent is the best proxy, in the ordinary course, for exercising the child's rights and the best determinant of the child's best interests.  Accordingly, the state is permitted to interfere and intervene on behalf of children on a limited set of reasons, virtually all of which are directly tied to the health, safety and best interests of the child.  That list is deliberately kept narrow to avoid the risk that the state can justify anything as for the best interests of a child.  It's not the state's interest that justifies the vaccination, its the child's interest.

When you ask to mandate vaccines on an adult, you are actually overruling a citizen who has an inherent right to make their own judgments and has clearly expressed what they view as in their best interests.  The state has no authority and no valid interest in protecting an otherwise sane  adult from themselves or even the consequences of their decision.  It's a fundamental violation of civil rights.

Quote
This disease has upended our lives and society for over a year. It has led to 600,000 deaths (0.2% of the US population) in 1.5 years. It has stretched medical resources to the limits and many of the survivors of COVID have symptoms lasting months and there is some worry among researchers that some of the damage done could lead to people developing alzheimer's.

People's fear about this disease is what has uprooted our lives, and in most cases that's been compounded by the intense desire of out leaders to appear to "do something."  Many many policies have been of minimal impact on transmission or have even been counterproductive on transmission or treatment, and many of them have had an economic impact that far exceeds the benefit.

I mean, do you remember that early in the pandemic, police officers were arresting people for parking their cars in church parking lots to hear their pastor's sermon?  That literally was nothing but posturing and authoritarianism with absolutely no science behind it.

It didn't stretch medical resources to the limits, at least past the early days.  In fact, once we got over the hump caused in the North East by the insane and completely insane policies that forced exposure on the most vulnerable people on earth (i.e., nursing home patients) the biggest impact was from the "rules" rather than the disease.  The long term impacts of missed appointments, forced isolation, and excessive eating and drinking, are almost certainly going to cause a massive amount of additional harm.

Forcing vaccinations and mandating passports will create an additional and real harm to our society.  Encouraging people to get the vaccine creates a real benefit, providing those vaccines so widely and free of charge creates a real benefit.  Forcing people may, and I mean may, provide a marginal increase in compliance, but it will also trigger harms from monitoring and enforcing compliance and degrade our institutions.  Autocrats want that because they can pretend to be heroes while they permanently undermine our institutions.  You'll note they keep fighting when they're forced to give up their powers and many have always considered themselves exempt (because they're smart enough to make their own decisions).  That is exactly why we have instance after instance of politicians ordering restrictive regimes for others and then getting caught giving exemptions to family, having fancy dinners or getting maskless haircuts.  At a very basic level they believe that everyone is either exactly like themselves (i.e., only follows rules when they'll get caught) or too stupid to be able to make a decision, and therefore they have to be forced to obey.  None of which reflects someone who should be making policy in a free country.

Quote
How deadly would a disease need to be before you thought "violating someone's body" would be justified?

Wrong question. 

You completely dismissed that person's autonomy.  Draw the line, how little fear on your part justifies you overruling a decision for someone?

Better question though, is why if a disease is "so deadly" are people refusing a vaccine?  In your head, it's so far beyond clear that the threat to you justifies the imposition on them, if it is that clear why don't they see it too?  And I can tell you it's really not because of "misinformation" for the vast majority.

Quote
The problem is people refusing to get vaccinated doesn't only impact themselves. They spread the disease to others and provide the virus opportunities to mutate.

The people choosing to violate others rights don't only impact themselves either.  They harm the rights of everyone in the country and create new structures that respect our rights even less.  From such pathways are serfs and slaves made.

Well you're reflecting a mixed up view of how these vaccines work there.  The cat is completely out of the bag on eliminating COVID.  It's going to be with us either in a mildly symptomatic form, or in a series of mutated forms of varying danger until science can discover how to make cures. 

I do agree though, the unvaccinated provide an easy accelerator for infections.  But even spread among the vaccinated is  going to be enough to for Delta to continue to spread globally.   

Quote
What limitations are reasonable for someone refusing to get vaccinated? Airline travel? Mass transit? Public indoor venues? Forced to wear a mask indoors at all times in public?

What does "indoors in public" mean, and how would you "force" the unvaccinated to wear a mask?  Let's be real, for enforcement in your new world order there are only two choices, force everyone to comply whether or not vaccinated or essentially arrest the unvaccinated.  You have to be authoritarian to have a workable policy that uses force.  Which means your fear is going to push you to be more and more authoritarian.

Funny how many on the left can rant about Trump being "authoritarian" for doing things like enforcing the law on the border, but don't see true authoritarianism when its on their team.

As to your specifics, the science already answered several of those questions.  Airlines have touted their safety record from before the vaccine was available.  Mass transit is not going to be safe no matter what until the trains and buses are adequately ventilated and not overcrowded (both of which will not be fixed because it will run straight into budgetary restrictions).  Restaurants have been a mixed bag, but it's unclear how much of that is the patrons' fault.  Packed indoor bars have been a problem.

A really common solution appears to be to require COVID tests if you're not vaccinated.  As those tests get to be more and more rapid, its hard to explain how that wouldn't provide a virtually complete solution to your fear.

Quote
If 6,000,000 people had died in the US in the last year would your opinion change? What about at 60,000,000 people?

I got vaccinated, my opinion wouldn't change if more people had died.  A bunch of unvaccinated peoples' opinions would have changed. 

So if 60M had died, and a 100% effective vaccine had been found with a 90% blindness side effect, would your opinion have changed?  Or would you still be entitled to force it on others?

The fact is that vaccines are a risk balancing decision, and others are not required to weigh the scale of your personal fear (which seems great) into their decision.  But you do know, you are perfectly capable of yourself staying out of public if you're that afraid.  If your fear is so paralyzing you'd rather live in a totalitarian society, maybe you should in fact consider staying home before you consider imposing your will on others.

Quote
Is your position absolute? Or is there a level of seriousness where you think requiring a vaccine to participate in normal society makes sense?

Look at Jennifer Anniston, she literally said she ended friendships with people that won't get vaccinated.  Convince them, put pressure on them, ostracize them go right ahead, arrest them, strap them down and inject them, legally bar them from existing in society you've gone too far.  There's a difference between effectively requiring a vaccine to be part of society and mandating a vaccine to be part of society. 

I mean honestly, what does it mean to have an absolute position?  You seem to want to posit a disease so dangerous that we "have" to act, but yet don't acknowledge that virtually no one would refuse a vaccine in those circumstances.

Its too early to calculate the life time risk of dying from COVID, and there are so many things that will occur that will change that calculus over time.  The distribution of deaths by age makes it clear that for the old COVID was essentially as big as or bigger a risk than heart disease (life time risk about 1 in 6), while for the healthy young (under 40 and no comorbidities for example), the risk was well below other every day risks (e.g, dying in a car crash or dying from a fall -each about 1 in 105 lifetime).  For healthy children?  More like on the scale of less likely than dying from a lightening strike.

How would it be irrational on their part to choose to wait to get vaccinated until their older, or to do so only if they have a comorbidity?  It wouldn't be at all.

Honestly, for the immediate future they are far more likely to die in a car crash than COVID, and reckless driving and speeding are endemic in that population. In fact, I'm wiling to bet many of you engage in reckless driving and speeding despite the death rate (which is also imposed on those into whom you crash). 

It would be terrible for the country if everyone made that selfish decision, and there are certainly reasons the young do car about older and at risk people they would be protecting.  But the idea that they would be stupid to do so?  Just not true, no more than someone's stupid for following a doctor's advice about getting certain exams after they're 45 or 55.  Risks change.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Passports
« Reply #49 on: August 12, 2021, 06:50:57 PM »
Quote
I am basing my comments only[ on what that website says. If the website is ambiguously worded (which I think it is) and there is a potential way to parse it that is consistent with what LR is saying, fine. But like I said, the way ScottF is interpreting it seems consistent with the words on the page. If they're not consistent with other websites (like CDC) that's another matter.

If English is a language that you have a poor understanding of, it is possible to misinterpret that sentence.  Would any rational person interpret it that way? No.

That's a bizarre interpretation on your part.  If Fenring accurately quoted the language then it's actually your interpretation that is non-grammatical and illogical.  You seem to be outraged from a moral position that it couldn't mean what it says, to the point that you're insulting people for reading it in good faith and concluding it does mean what it says.

Does that not seem off to you?  To insult people for giving a sentence it's plain meaning as if that's an impossible result?

You answered your own question though.  People have the "wrong" interpretation because they correctly read the guidelines and didn't jump to a conclusion those guidelines don't support.

Quote
You have to completely shut off your thinking to misinterpret since from the full context - it is extremely clear that the criteria are confirming Covid-19 deaths established from death certificates stating Covid-19 as cause, and from hospital reports of Covid-19.  The fact that they include a extraneous detail - that hospitals also report whenever someone gets a reportable infection - shouldn't be enough to lead to the bizarre interpretation that any and all deaths where someone tested positive for Covid-19 in the past 60 days will be reported as a Covid-19 death.

Actually, you're off again.  You've started from a false premise, that in "context" it would be crazy to have that reading.  It's not, if you have any concept of how government actually works.  That regulation is written by bureaucrats to allow them to reach firm and certain conclusions without actually having to have medical tests or proof in hand.  To a bureaucrat it makes perfect sense to over-count something if they believe that an undercount is risky and there would be a verification cost to getting it correct.  Literally, they favor the ability to immediately classify over the accuracy of the classification.

It's endemic in all of government.  What happens if a you spend 4 hours in line at a government agency and you're missing a document?  They don't open a file and keep going with a note to follow up.  They tell you to get out of line and get the document.  Heck it's even common in vaccines, where side effect reports are carefully scrubbed of reports that are not made to the bureaucrat's satisfaction - that's literally, disqualifying potential data for bureaucratic reasons (and can be justified for non-bureaucratic reasons).

It makes complete sense that a paper pusher who is not a doctor or medical staff member, someone who may have zero access to medical records and zero authority to request any kind of test results related to a person, but who is responsible and accountable for publishing those numbers in a timely manner (without excuses for necessary follow up)  would create a rule that hardcodes counting any death where there is a COVID positive result in the same time window as a COVID death.  They may not even have an exemption for cases that are known not to be because of COVID because they can't rule it out as a contributor based on the information in front of them. 

That is literally how they operate in so many areas today, it would be completely exceptional believe they are operating in a different manner when they told you exactly how they intend to do the categorizing.