Anti-VaX Mandate Protest in Lansing, MI 8/6/21

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: chr0naut

US numbers: 616,829 deaths. 35,764,022 cases. That is 1.72%.

81% of all people that get covid-19 have mild to no symptoms. Therefore if you have 100 people with covid-19 only roughly 30% is going to go to the hospital or doctor and get tested. Of those 30 people 5 (1.75%) of them will die.

5 deaths out of 100 cases, is a 5% death rate. 5 deaths out of 30 hospitalized is 16.66% of those hospitalized.

This equates to .58% death rate overall. Of that .58% the vast majority is very old people with underlying conditions thus raising the average persons survival rate much much more being that 90% of the population is under age 65. So the number I showed earlier which is about .1182% is a more realistic death rate for MOST people.

90% of the U.S. population is under age 65 yet over 80% of covid-19 deaths are of people age over 65. Also take into account the number I listed above with 81% of people that get covid-19 has mild to no symptoms and you get a very small fraction of the population which already are very old and have underlying conditions that die of covid-19. These people are fragile and on their way out already! Let THEM take the shot. We don't need to have the entire country taking an experimental vaccine with only 6 months of study and NOT FDA approved because of fragile people (a very small percentage of the population) that are already on their way out and dying.

This vaccine could very well have serious insidious consequences for a large percentage of our population in as little as a few years and literally has the potential to cause vastly more damage to the human race than covid-19 could ever dream of.

I say let the people that are at the most risk of covid-19 take it the shot if they want. There is no sense for people that have such an extremely low death rate to risk this experimental vaccine. For most of the population the vaccine is literally more risky than covid-19!

source

That isn't entirely how a vaccination campaign is effective. It is all about population numbers. If a few immunize, because they are at risk, then the contagion still spreads unchecked among the rest of the population. Some of them, though they aren't in the at risk group, will die. The vaccines are also not 100% effective and so some of the immunized will die, too.

So what you are suggesting will, without a doubt, kill more people than if everyone gets vaccinated and the spread of the pathogen is vastly curtailed.

Perhaps it only takes a few protestors who congregate in crowds, to negate everything that the lockdowns and other mitigations might have attempted to achieve?

And, absolutely, the vaccine is vastly less risky than COVID-19.

a reply to: chr0naut

What are you even talking about? You didn't respond to a single thing that I said, you just posted a non-response.

Thanks for pretending, I guess.

a reply to: PeteMitchell

Thanks...I would at least have to have 2 or 3 to make it worthwhile. Funny thing with me, the more beers I have, the less tolerance I have to talk politics lol

a reply to: chr0naut

5 deaths out of 100 cases, is a 5% death rate. 5 deaths out of 30 hospitalized is 16.66% of those hospitalized.

It was obviously missing the decimal point.

1.75% of 30 is .5 😏

a reply to: chr0naut


Did you know that the flu has killed well over 50,000,000 people? Why aren't you people pushing for vaccine mandates for the flu?

When the covid-19 vaccination gets approval from the FDA then I'll see about getting it then.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Nyiah

How sad that it comes to this that some idiots on social media push their dangerous opinion and so many have insufficient discernment to realize that anyone can say just about anything on social media and people believe it more than credible sources.

I see some irony in this statement.

The thing that you seem to fail to comprehend is that, here in America, there is still a large number of people who like their freedoms to remain intact.

The USA incarcerates more of its citizens, both per-capita, and in absolute numbers, than ANY other country on Earth. This wasn't always the case, but with the privatization of prisons, has become a major reason for the loss of freedom of so many US citizens (it has nothing to do with crime, as evidenced by the fact that the crime rate has stayed much the same).

The vast majority of US citizens are not living debt free, nor will they, at any time in their lives, fully escape that debt. Those few with wealth leverage their power over all the other citizens and actively implement various schemes to actively prevent the poor from acquiring the means to their own financial freedom.

Your government is now suggesting mandatory vaccination and other and other infringements upon your ability to choose for yourselves. There is a significant body of residual law, some of which has nothing to do with harm reduction, or the public good, anymore, in force in the USA.

Are you really so sure that the US is a bastion of freedom? It looks quite the opposite, especially to those from other countries that don't have the same restrictions or mandates.

The concept of freedom has been bastardized (over the past century, mostly...the past 50 years, definitely), but some of us still prefer to exercise our first-amendment right to call out for such preservation of freedoms.

The word "freedom" in the US has become meaningless. A jingoistic and propagandist call for the unthinking to comply - or else be vilified as 'unpatriotic'. And since when has patriotism not included the greater good for the majority of a country? It is impossible for a dictatorial minority to be 'patriots'. A patriot must be motivated by wanting the best for their country - for all citizens.

And for the record, no, seat belts should not be mandated, educational campaigns against smoking are fine if they're factual (taxing them into oblivion as an effort to force cessation and making it criminal to resell single cigarettes because the state doesn't get their tax money, not so much).

ZERO mandates surrounding COVID are necessary, as you imply. It would appear that you lack clarity of the bigger picture in regard to the preservation of personal freedoms AND the true severity of COVID-19.

And the fact that you make light of a government forcing adults to wear seatbelts shows the degree to which you do not think deeply.

Every man for themselves, and anarchy, are not freedoms or rights. There is such a thing as the greater good.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: chr0naut

5 deaths out of 100 cases, is a 5% death rate. 5 deaths out of 30 hospitalized is 16.66% of those hospitalized.

It was obviously missing the decimal point.

1.75% of 30 is .5 😏

Yes, but CFR is based upon those who are tested and found positive. The number that have died divided by the total number of those confirmed to have the disease, not just those who end up hospitalized.

Hospitalization is just a step on the way to death for some, it isn't the sole indicator that someone has the infection.

1.75% of the original 100 cases that you proposed, is 1.75%, or almost two people in every hundred.

You could continue to recursively divide things down, smaller and smaller, but don't expect the numbers you come up with to have any relevance.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: chr0naut


Did you know that the flu has killed well over 50,000,000 people? Why aren't you people pushing for vaccine mandates for the flu?

When the covid-19 vaccination gets approval from the FDA then I'll see about getting it then.

I am not opposed to the flu vaccine, at all.

I am personally fully vaccinated against this season's flu strains, as well as against COVID-19.

In New Zealand, the coverage for the flu vaccine is higher than ever before.

You don't need to mandate public health mitigations for an educated public. They can weigh the risks for themselves and be trusted to make rational decisions.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Are you really so sure that the US is a bastion of freedom? It looks quite the opposite, especially to those from other countries that don't have the same restrictions or mandates.

When did I claim that it was "a bastion of freedom?" In the comment to which you replied, all I said was that there is a large group of people who still want to keep our freedoms in tact.

I'm not sure where you take that as a means to go on a rant about things that I never claimed. Nearly everything that you point out, I have commented against in one way or another on this site, so I don't know why you're directing it at me. But that said, keep in mind that if you think that higher tax rates in return for services isn't a form of debt, you're delusional.

The word "freedom" in the US has become meaningless. A jingoistic and propagandist call for the unthinking to comply - or else be vilified as 'unpatriotic'. And since when has patriotism not included the greater good for the majority of a country? It is impossible for a dictatorial minority to be 'patriots'. A patriot must be motivated by wanting the best for their country - for all citizens.

No, that's called altruism and philanthropy. You need to get your definitions straight. And "best for their country" is, as shown throughout history, a subjective term.

What do you consider the greater good for a country that has 67.5 times the population that yours does, and covers 36.5 time the land mass that your country does? Please, advise us, because I live 1.5 hours away from a COUNTY that has more than twice the population that your entire country does.

You'll have to excuse me if I dismiss your opinions of what would be best for America, and what freedom means here. You don't even have the definition of "patriotism" figured out, you just project what you think that it should mean.

Every man for themselves, and anarchy, are not freedoms or rights. There is such a thing as the greater good.

That's not what I've advocated for, at all. For the love of logic, please stop misinterpreting what I'm saying just so that you can regurgitate feel-good talking points on the internet.

a reply to: chr0naut

You don't need to mandate public health mitigations for an educated public. They can weigh the risks for themselves and be trusted to make rational decisions.

So you are against a covid-19 vaccine mandate?

a reply to: chr0naut

You could continue to recursively divide things down, smaller and smaller, but don't expect the numbers you come up with to have any relevance.

You can continue to discount the well over 50%-80% of actual covid-19 cases that never get tested positive but don't expect the numbers you come up with to have any relevance.

You can continue to ignore the fact that the overwhelming number of people who are in danger of covid-19 in any meaningful way are a very small fraction of the human population but don't expect your rhetoric to have any relevance.

With the overwhelming majority of the population not in need of a potentially disastrous experimental vaccination, it seems logical for only people that are at the most risk of covid-19 to receive this shot. It is illogical to endanger the entire human race unnecessarily.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: chr0naut

You don't need to mandate public health mitigations for an educated public. They can weigh the risks for themselves and be trusted to make rational decisions.

So you are against a covid-19 vaccine mandate?

Yes, nearly as much as I am against the anti-vax BS. People have to decide for themselves but they have to know the truth, or else they will make bad decisions.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: chr0naut

You could continue to recursively divide things down, smaller and smaller, but don't expect the numbers you come up with to have any relevance.

You can continue to discount the well over 50%-80% of actual covid-19 cases that never get tested positive but don't expect the numbers you come up with to have any relevance.

That's a very wide margin of guess.

You can continue to ignore the fact that the overwhelming number of people who are in danger of covid-19 in any meaningful way are a very small fraction of the human population but don't expect your rhetoric to have any relevance.

With the overwhelming majority of the population not in need of a potentially disastrous experimental vaccination, it seems logical for only people that are at the most risk of covid-19 to receive this shot. It is illogical to endanger the entire human race unnecessarily.

Only dead people die. If you ignore them, everyone lives forever, right?

In the USA, in the last year and a bit, 617,798 people have died of COVID-19. You are doing all sorts of flips and twists to try and pretend that is 'a nothing'. And yet you somehow seem to be suggesting that the vaccine is a killer in comparison.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: chr0naut

You don't need to mandate public health mitigations for an educated public. They can weigh the risks for themselves and be trusted to make rational decisions.

So you are against a covid-19 vaccine mandate?

Here's a counter question - do you think it is wise for people to congregate, and potentially catch a disease, while protesting against the very thing that will protect them from that disease? Could they not register their concerns in a safer way and perhaps legitimize their cause?

a reply to: chr0naut

In the USA, in the last year and a bit, 617,798 people have died of COVID-19. You are doing all sorts of flips and twists to try and pretend that is 'a nothing'.

I'm not saying it is 'a nothing'. I'm saying that..."With the overwhelming majority of the population not in need of a potentially disastrous experimental vaccination, it seems logical for only people that are at the most risk of covid-19 to receive this shot."

And yet you somehow seem to be suggesting that the vaccine is a killer in comparison.

I'm suggesting that..."It is illogical to endanger the entire human race unnecessarily."


I agree with you when you said...

You don't need to mandate public health mitigations for an educated public. They can weigh the risks for themselves and be trusted to make rational decisions.

I'm not anti Vax. I think the people at most risk now should take it. This vaccine absolutely can and may cause irreparable harm in as little as just a few years to people that take the shot. I think the risk of the vaccine is outweighed for people that are at high risk of covid-19. I don't think the risk of the vaccine outweighs an extremely at-low-risk person of which whom represents the vast majority of the population.

Therefore 95% of the population should not take the shot, however it is their decision.

If you want the shot take it, if not don't. But don't try and push it on other people. I don't see anyone trying to coerse others into taking the flu shot despite there is well over 50,000,000 dead from that. I agree with you, educate the public and let them make their own decisions.

a reply to: chr0naut

Here's a counter question - do you think it is wise for people to congregate, and potentially catch a disease, while protesting against the very thing that will protect them from that disease? Could they not register their concerns in a safer way and perhaps legitimize their cause?

I think.....

You don't need to mandate public health mitigations for an educated public. They can weigh the risks for themselves and be trusted to make rational decisions. -Chr0naut

If you feel that people that don't get the vaccine is therefore putting others at risk then I would argue that the only people it is putting at risk is the others who decided not to get the vaccine and therefore they have already accepted that risk.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: chr0naut

Here's a counter question - do you think it is wise for people to congregate, and potentially catch a disease, while protesting against the very thing that will protect them from that disease? Could they not register their concerns in a safer way and perhaps legitimize their cause?

I think.....

You don't need to mandate public health mitigations for an educated public. They can weigh the risks for themselves and be trusted to make rational decisions. -Chr0naut

If you feel that people that don't get the vaccine is therefore putting others at risk then I would argue that the only people it is putting at risk is the others who decided not to get the vaccine and therefore they have already accepted that risk.

No, the vaccines are not perfectly effective. It is all about population numbers and shifting the growth of the spread of the disease to become a decline. At the end of that decline is the situation where the disease no longer poses a threat to anyone.

a reply to: chr0naut

The vaccine doesn't stop the spread.

Much like masks.


In fact both are expediting the evolution of the virus.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

The vaccine doesn't stop the spread.

Much like masks.

In fact both are expediting the evolution of the virus.

The virus will evolve with or without the vaccine. In fact, the mutations that kick off new strains is dependent upon host numbers. The more hosts, the more viruses and the more chance of mutation.

The vaccines become a selection pressure on the population of viruses and work by suppressing some strains over others. This only provides an advantage to the spread of the virus if there are more compatible infectible or already infected hosts.

Unlike in a situation where there is competition for resources, like food, a single host can carry multiple strains of virus, and even multiple viruses, simultaneously.

a reply to: chr0naut

You just made a great case to why the vaccine is not warranted. Even without all other extraneous circumstances that surround it.