Who is getting the COVID-19 Vaccine?

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Wordplay all you like. Section 7 gives right to life, liberty, and security of person.

It's wild the lengths people will go to, to argue that the government(or your employer) should have the right to do whatever the fuck they want to you.

And what of the employer's right to make decisions?

You need to read up on the different between a "negative right" and a "positive right". Short answer: if you require someone else to do something for you, you are asking for a positive right - and there are very few circumstances where those make sense.

[SportEL]

Dr. Kobi Haviv, "Vaccinated account for 95% of Severe Covid Hospitalizations. Vaccine effectiveness is fading"

--

But what's the solution? More Jabs of course. More. More. More.

It's not like there aren't effective outpatient treatments that significantly reduced hospitalizations and deaths such as HCQ and Ivermectin. Too bad doctors can't prescribe it, else they get reported and lose their job. So, is this about Health or what?

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19 --> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And what of the employer's right to make decisions?

You need to read up on the different between a "negative right" and a "positive right". Short answer: if you require someone else to do something for you, you are asking for a positive right - and there are very few circumstances where those make sense.

Glad we are on the same page now.

[born2workoncars]

Acquired immunity from natural infection > Vaccination

FWIW - I'm not suggesting 'don't get vaccinated'. I'm suggesting that not including acquired immunity on a vaccine passport is not based on science.

Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine—but no infection parties, please

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021...ection-parties

[kertejud2]

Although reinfections with SARS-CoV-2 are rare, and often asymptomatic or mild, they can be severe.

In another analysis, the researchers compared more than 14,000 people who had a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were still unvaccinated with an equivalent number of previously infected people who subsequently received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. (In Israel, it’s recommended that people who have been previously infected get just one dose.) The team found that the unvaccinated group was twice as likely to be reinfected as the singly vaccinated.

“We continue to underestimate the importance of natural infection immunity … especially when [infection] is recent,” says Eric Topol, a physician-scientist at Scripps Research. “And when you bolster that with one dose of vaccine, you take it to levels you can’t possibly match with any vaccine in the world right now.”

So still get vaccinated, even if you have it.

What's so hard to understand about this?

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Glad we are on the same page now.

Im pretty sure we aren't.

[born2workoncars]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So still get vaccinated, even if you have it.

What's so hard to understand about this?

The idea is to reallocate vaccines to developing countries where they will be more impactful than using them on previously infected individuals.

You realize reinfection is rare, as in, orders of magnitude less likely than getting infected after vaccination/no prior infection?

[duaner]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Wordplay all you like. Section 7 gives right to life, liberty, and security of person.

It's wild the lengths people will go to, to argue that the government(or your employer) should have the right to do whatever the fuck they want to you.

What's wild is the lengths you go to to support your position, by making an argument that no one is making. Quite the double standard when you want the right to decide for yourself whether or not to get the vaccine, but don't want to give businesses the right to decide who they let onto their premises. "No shirt, no shoes, no service." Remember those days?

[JRSC00LUDE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And what of the employer's right to make decisions?

Stop fucking with my personal definitions of freedom you bastard.

Let the market decide is obviously the correct way forward with most things. I have trouble seeing a sharp line of distinction between this vaccine and the potential for a wild west of Gov't/Corporate involvement in future health/lifestyle measures deemed "necessary" is my issue. I don't trust either to not take their respective mile from the inch.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So still get vaccinated, even if you have it.

What's so hard to understand about this?

Can't really disagree here. Although it is impossible to prove at this point I still feel entirely positive I had this virus in Feb. of 2020 as I had never been sick like that, or in that way with those kinds of symptoms and duration, at any point in my life. I find it interesting that none of the people around me acquired it but that's another conversation I am sure. Regardless of that, I opted to get these shots in this instance. I'm not always pro shot (never had a flu shot for example) but it made what I feel to be "common sense" this time. And I didn't need Gov't coercion to do it.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The idea is to reallocate vaccines to developing countries where they will be more impactful than using them on previously infected individuals.

But why would we want to do that if ‘natural immunity’ is so good? The storage limitations of the Pfizer vaccine still makes it a poor option to send to a lot of countries without proper capacity, so we’re not really taking away from there.

You realize reinfection is rare, as in, orders of magnitude less likely than getting infected after vaccination/no prior infection?

And you realize that it’s even less after a vaccine and eliminates the chance of a serious infection the second time around, with better protection with even just a single dose? There’s your science. Get vaccinated even if you’ve had Covid, otherwise stop pretending your decisions are based on science.

[zechs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You sure sound a little butthurt by that

Hey man, leave my ass out of this :p

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You mean like the right to work in a healthy and safe environment?

Well exactly. I need to know everything about you, your personal life, and your family to insure I am SAFE at work. Its for the greater good comrade.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Stop fucking with my personal definitions of freedom you bastard.

Let the market decide is obviously the correct way forward with most things. I have trouble seeing a sharp line of distinction between this vaccine and the potential for a wild west of Gov't/Corporate involvement in future health/lifestyle measures deemed "necessary" is my issue. I don't trust either to not take their respective mile from the inch.

haha.

This stuff is easy once you figure out some First Principles.

I always ask myself: Am I advocating for a Negative Right, or a Positive Right? That is, is it a right that simply involves someone else NOT doing something, or is it a right that requires someone else to do something for me? There are very few legitimate Positive Rights, because oftentimes enforcing that right will infringe on someone else's negative right.

If you are claiming that you have a "right" to be employed while unvaccinated, then that requires that your employer do something for you (pay you despite not having a choice). Enforcing a "positive right" ultimately requires you to be okay with men with guns assaulting an unwilling person.

So forcing someone to get a vaccine is unethical because it infringes their basic negative rights
Forcing someone to employ you because you don't want to verify your vaccination status infringes on THEIR negative rights.

[zechs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You have all the liberty you want to not work or visit where a vaccine is required…

You have all the liberty you want to not work or visit where not everyone has a vaccine

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Wordplay all you like. Section 7 gives right to life, liberty, and security of person.

It's wild the lengths people will go to, to argue that the government(or your employer) should have the right to do whatever the fuck they want to you.

Section 7 isn't as broad as you think it is.

It protects you from being forced to get a medical treatment you don't want. But doesn't protect you from getting fired for something not covered under the Human Rights Act.

[JRSC00LUDE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

haha.

This stuff is easy once you figure out some First Principles.

I always ask myself: Am I advocating for a Negative Right, or a Positive Right? That is, is it a right that simply involves someone else NOT doing something, or is it a right that requires someone else to do something for me? There are very few legitimate Positive Rights, because oftentimes enforcing that right will infringe on someone else's negative right.

If you are claiming that you have a "right" to be employed while unvaccinated, then that requires that your employer do something for you (pay you despite not having a choice). Enforcing a "positive right" ultimately requires you to be okay with men with guns assaulting an unwilling person.

So forcing someone to get a vaccine is unethical because it infringes their basic negative rights
Forcing someone to employ you because you don't want to verify your vaccination status infringes on THEIR negative rights.

I hate it when you give me a boner with your freedom talk.

[born2workoncars]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

But why would we want to do that if ‘natural immunity’ is so good? The storage limitations of the Pfizer vaccine still makes it a poor option to send to a lot of countries without proper capacity, so we’re not really taking away from there.

Lol, so that people who haven't been infected yet can gain some protection. Isn't this why were vaccinating people?

The storage argument is weak, and applicable only to very limited circumstances. You don't think countries capable of spending trillions of dollars on 'war on terror' could find a solution to keeping a drug between 2'c-8'c before delivery? lmao.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And you realize that it’s even less after a vaccine and eliminates the chance of a serious infection the second time around, with better protection with even just a single dose? There’s your science. Get vaccinated even if you’ve had Covid, otherwise stop pretending your decisions are based on science.

Why are you so concerned about about such an infinitesimally small risk of someone getting re-infected? And the chance of that reinfection being serious is even smaller? Save vaccines for those who really need them. Risk assessment Kertejud2 - it's part of the science.

Since you're obviously concerned about reinfection, we should definitely allocate the vaccines for boosters so you can get a third and fourth shot, since the risk of 'vaccination/no prior infection' group getting sick is significantly higher than acquired immunity, and vaccinated immunity wanes rapidly.

So far your argument is emotional, not scientific or logical.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I hate it when you give me a boner with your freedom talk.

Just let it go. No shame.

I'll get you an invite to my libertarian bathhouse.

[ZenOps]

Japan takes a million+ doses off the shelf. "Metallic" and "reacts to magnets".

Insert conspiracy chip implant theory here.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Lol, so that people who haven't been infected yet can gain some protection. Isn't this why were vaccinating people?

Since you're obviously concerned about reinfection, we should definitely allocate the vaccines for boosters so you can get a third and fourth shot, since the risk of 'vaccination/no prior infection' group getting sick is significantly higher than acquired immunity, and vaccinated immunity wanes rapidly.

So far your argument is emotional, not scientific or logical.

I'll just snip these. Why do you think we are vaccinating people if you're mocking the 'some protection' people get from the vaccine?

Why should we subject countries least able to afford the 'third and fourth' shots and the consequences of waning immunity rather than just letting them get infected and have better protection? Why advocate for not giving the vaccine to people here because it's better somewhere else when people who have had Covid still need the vaccine to get better protection and reduce spread risk in the case of reinfection?

You're pretending to be benevolent in giving other countries vaccines, when you'd seemingly prefer people to get infected first. You also ignore that we still have people who are unvaccinated and uninfected, so we still need supply. And we're donating more doses to COVAX than we're getting in vaccines now anyway, so the supply issues to developing countries aren't getting messed up based on trying to get the hesitant and pro-disease population vaccinated.

Why are you so concerned about about such an infinitesimally small risk of someone getting re-infected? And the chance of that reinfection being serious is even smaller? Save vaccines for those who really need them. Risk assessment Kertejud2 - it's part of the science.

The "infinitesimally small risk" isn't infinitesimally small (small sure, but still greater than the risks associated with taking the vaccine) and in the chance of reinfection the chance of spread is greater even in non-severe cases, making it harder to deal with the disease. On top of that, this is all based on research for only 6 months after infection, and the chance of reinfection jumps with Delta. What is known that getting vaccinated, even a single-dose, after having Covid mitigates that risk, particularly against the variants of concern like Delta.

So from a personal health perspective, and a public health perspective, getting people vaccinated, even those who have previously been infected, is the best course of action with the least amount of risk.

[born2workoncars]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'll just snip these. Why do you think we are vaccinating people if you're mocking the 'some protection' people get from the vaccine?

Don't know where I've mocked you at any point in this thread - but the emotional component clearly resonates with you. Identifying this reality doesn't equate an insult.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why should we subject countries least able to afford the 'third and fourth' shots and the consequences of waning immunity rather than just letting them get infected and have better protection? Why advocate for not giving the vaccine to people here because it's better somewhere else when people who have had Covid still need the vaccine to get better protection and reduce spread risk in the case of reinfection?

Not sure if you're goal is to get me to repeat myself:

1. You're better off vaccinating the unvaccinated than vaccinated those with acquired immunity
2. COVID running rampant in developing countries contributes to the development of variants
3. Reducing the rate of infection globally is key to reaching 'herd immunity' (although given the lack of sterilizing efficacy, this seems unlikely)
4. Getting vaccines to at-risk groups (poor health, aging populations, malnutrition) saves lives. If your goal is saving lives (I assume it is), you're going to save significantly more of them by vaccinating at risk groups in developing countries. People dying of COVID under 30 is negligible. They are the group most likely to get infected, recover, and gain acquired immunity. Putting them at a lower risk spreading COVID than the vaccinated group. They are also not the ones overloading the ICU - this is the older, at risk groups. If you're trying to reduce hospitalization, convince the at-risk vaccine adverse group, focus on the children later.
5. Once the target of vaccinating at risk populations is achieved, then start focusing on vaccinating not-at-risk groups based on a cost-benefit analysis.
6. SARS1 (OG Sars!) has been well studied with acquired immunity remaining robust after 15-years. This is likely to be the case for SARS2.
7. Infinitesimally small is the correct verbiage - something like 0.65% of initial cases get re-infected. What's more interesting - those who get re-infected most often have two or more co-morbidities.

The rest of your post is not really worth replying to (pro-disease, lol obvious mocking attempt), because you're trying to make an argument that vaccinating those with acquired immunity is more efficacious than vaccinating those with no prior infection. No logic. My logic seeks to minimize death, maximize immunity on a global scale and address populations who need the vaccine the most.