1. #33451
    Veteran hater's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    70,742
    group 1 has taken all reasonable steps to mitigate damage. group 2 has not. its not a measuring compe ion to have more immunity than your neighbor. its about a collective effort to promote public safety
    Dumb logic. You said dangerous. We are talking about a virus. Group 2 is as or less dangerous with the virus than group 1.

    Follow da science


    Cheers

  2. #33452
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    group 1 has taken all reasonable steps to mitigate damage. group 2 has not. its not a measuring compe ion to have more immunity than your neighbor. its about a collective effort to promote public safety
    This isn't science based though, it's a social issue. You feel people should do everything in their power to mitigate the risk, but what does science care about intentions or effort? If group 2 is just as immune as group 1, they are the same as far as science goes.

  3. #33453
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,026
    This isn't science based though, it's a social issue. You feel people should do everything in their power to mitigate the risk, but what does science care about intentions or effort? If group 2 is just as immune as group 1, they are the same as far as science goes.
    i dont give a about intentions. i give a about public safety. group 2 could still do more to that end. group 1 can't (i dont think asking them to get infected is a reasonable ask)

  4. #33454
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    i dont give a about intentions. i give a about public safety. group 2 could still do more to that end. group 1 can't (i dont think asking them to get infected is a reasonable ask)
    You're still giving an emotional "ought to" that isn't science based. Is the goal to get everyone to the same immunity level as vaxxed people or to have super immunity like those with both infections and vaxx?

    "not doing enough" isn't a science based response. Results are all that matter.

  5. #33455
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Post Count
    18,121
    2 and 3 are different

    2, at this point, is a less dangerous group (though we've seen that even natural immunity is waning with time), but even they could bolster their level of immunity by getting vaccinated. that provides more protection to them, and by extension, the general public

    the only way group 1 could bolster their immunity would be to get the disease, which is not a reasonable ask
    Dangerous in what way?

  6. #33456
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,026
    You're still giving an emotional "ought to" that isn't science based. Is the goal to get everyone to the same immunity level as vaxxed people or to have super immunity like those with both infections and vaxx?

    "not doing enough" isn't a science based response. Results are all that matter.
    there is an assumed "ought to" here, that we ought to mitigate the harm of this disease through reasonable means.

    obviously, there is no scientific basis to ever get vaccination or any medical care, because who says we "ought to" prevent any deaths. not need to be so pedantic. i'm aware that science answers "is" questions and not "ought" questions. i'm not trying to get bogged down in philosophy here.

    the science says that people who have natural immunity get further protection when they get vaccinated, and that vaccination pose minimal risk.

  7. #33457
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,026
    Dangerous in what way?
    i'll let you guess what i mean in the context of a contagious disease that has already killed 800k americans

  8. #33458
    Take the fcking keys away baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    93,160
    + that face stole my $1200.
    No, it was the face kicked out of the White House on January 20th, 2021 that promised you $2800 and never delivered. But your duly elected President Biden had your back even though you're too much of a chicken to be grateful.

  9. #33459
    notthewordsofonewhokneels Thread's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Post Count
    81,202
    No, it was the face kicked out of the White House on January 20th, 2021 that promised you $2800 and never delivered. But your duly elected President Biden had your back even though you're too much of a chicken to be grateful.
    No, I was clear; it was the face squattin' in there right now that stole my 1200 smackers. He's a sack of that lies.

  10. #33460
    Against Home Schooling Ef-man's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    17,536
    No, it was the face kicked out of the White House on January 20th, 2021 that promised you $2800 and never delivered. But your duly elected President Biden had your back even though you're too much of a chicken to be grateful.
    I heard that the $1,000 was loaned to Mexico so they could pay for the wall plus $200 was used to develop trump’s healthcare plan.

  11. #33461
    Believe. Dirks_Finale's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Post Count
    4,096
    but you just said you would choose getting vaccinated in that scenario
    Yes. I told you from the get go I am not anti vaxx.

    You never addressed the issue of natural immunity. Is it sufficient or not?

  12. #33462
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,026
    Yes. I told you from the get go I am not anti vaxx.

    You never addressed the issue of natural immunity. Is it sufficient or not?
    ive addressed that may times i this thread


    unvaccinated < vaccinated < natural immunity < natural immunity + vaccination

    plus the jury is still out whether natural immunity wanes quicker than vaccination

  13. #33463
    Veteran hater's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    70,742
    i dont give a about intentions. i give a about public safety. group 2 could still do more to that end. group 1 can't (i dont think asking them to get infected is a reasonable ask)
    The virus dont give a about your feelings.

  14. #33464
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,026
    The virus dont give a about your feelings.
    ok

  15. #33465
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Meh, you're all going to get it eventually.

  16. #33466
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    there is an assumed "ought to" here, that we ought to mitigate the harm of this disease through reasonable means.
    So you shouldn't see your relatives, shouldn't be in a restaurant, should wear a mask anywhere and everywhere. "Reasonable" is always a subjective term. Some people don't think it's reasonable to get a shot when they are just as immune as you, just to make you feel better about their contribution to the cause. I don't think you can use "reasonable means" here just to cherry pick methods that don't bother you. We should stick to the science. Isn't what you really saying is you'd feel better if people who have already been infected with COVID would get vaxxed because that would show they are doing more to mitigate the pandemic? It's certainly not about the science.
    obviously, there is no scientific basis to ever get vaccination or any medical care, because who says we "ought to" prevent any deaths. not need to be so pedantic. i'm aware that science answers "is" questions and not "ought" questions. i'm not trying to get bogged down in philosophy here.
    I asked above, what's your goal? If it's to get everyone to the same immunity level then what's the issue? Instead though, it seems the goal is to have the feeling that you did all you could, and everyone else played along, helpful or not. Hey, I shined my headlights into the home were people were freezing to death, that was providing at least some heat. Scientifically insignificant and I had no idea how much, but if everyone did it.. I'd feel better. Not sure who would survive, but the collective effort would show we all care.
    the science says that people who have natural immunity get further protection when they get vaccinated, and that vaccination pose minimal risk.
    And it shows they have even further protection when you don't encounter them, so never visit your relatives. The risk you decide to take seems ok, but the risk they decide to take isn't because their risk doesn't cost you.

  17. #33467
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,026
    So you shouldn't see your relatives, shouldn't be in a restaurant, should wear a mask anywhere and everywhere. "Reasonable" is always a subjective term.
    obviously reasonable is a subjective term. otherwise it would be really easy to deal with any political/public issue.

    Some people don't think it's reasonable to get a shot when they are just as immune as you, just to make you feel better about their contribution to the cause.
    complete strawman

    I don't think you can use "reasonable means" here just to cherry pick methods that don't bother you.
    i think reasonable means is a perfectly useful term. are there arguably public health benefits to things like mandatory daily testing and quarantines? sure, possibly. but we do balance that with the imposition we place on people's general liberty. its always a balancing act

    We should stick to the science. Isn't what you really saying is you'd feel better if people who have already been infected with COVID would get vaxxed because that would show they are doing more to mitigate the pandemic? It's certainly not about the science.
    first of all, what does "the science" say we should do? nothing. science doesnt answer "ought" questions. there is no big book of science that answers what policy is the correct one. how does science determine what level of infringement of liberty is appropriate? it doesnt.

    as for the bolded, you keep going back to this strawman. its not about me "feeling" better. its not about people "showing" they are doing more. its about actual doing more and actually contributing to greater public safety

    I asked above, what's your goal? If it's to get everyone to the same immunity level then what's the issue?
    its not. its not a penis measuring contest about what your level of immunity is. the goal should be maximal herd immunity within reasonable means (ie not placing undue burdens on people). its about the greater public benefit, not an individual being able to hold a scoreboard about how many antibodies he has.

    i dont care if you dont like the "reasonable" term. its how we guide public policy.

    Instead though, it seems the goal is to have the feeling that you did all you could, and everyone else played along, helpful or not. Hey, I shined my headlights into the home were people were freezing to death, that was providing at least some heat. Scientifically insignificant and I had no idea how much, but if everyone did it.. I'd feel better. Not sure who would survive, but the collective effort would show we all care.
    i know you want this to be my position, but its not, as stated above.

    And it shows they have even further protection when you don't encounter them, so never visit your relatives. The risk you decide to take seems ok, but the risk they decide to take isn't because their risk doesn't cost you.
    i dont think turning everybody into an antisocial bubble locked in their homes is a reasonable means to address covid-19

  18. #33468
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,026
    Meh, you're all going to get it eventually.
    we're also all going to die eventually. might as well shut down all hospitals and cease all medical care for everybody

  19. #33469
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Post Count
    18,121
    i'll let you guess what i mean in the context of a contagious disease that has already killed 800k americans
    I'm guessing you still think vaccinated people can't be infected or spread the virus and unvaxxed are a danger to vaxxed

  20. #33470
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    we're also all going to die eventually. might as well shut down all hospitals and cease all medical care for everybody
    Vaxxed people spreading it, too. Have to live with it now.

  21. #33471
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    obviously reasonable is a subjective term. otherwise it would be really easy to deal with any political/public issue.
    So why do you keep using it? Define "reasonable" if not a similar level of immunity? Is it the act that makes it reasonable, the attempt or the outcome?
    complete strawman
    You just admitted it's a subjective term. Being as such, to satisfy it in your mind would mean it makes you feel better about the effort.
    i think reasonable means is a perfectly useful term. are there arguably public health benefits to things like mandatory daily testing and quarantines? sure, possibly. but we do balance that with the imposition we place on people's general liberty. its always a balancing act
    It's a balancing act but what's the center point other than your personal opinion on reasonableness?
    first of all, what does "the science" say we should do? nothing. science doesnt answer "ought" questions. there is no big book of science that answers what policy is the correct one. how does science determine what level of infringement of liberty is appropriate? it doesnt.
    If it's an "ought" question then you need to explain how similar levels of immunity don't create similar levels of outcome because one of those levels "could" be better therefore "ought" to be.
    as for the bolded, you keep going back to this strawman. its not about me "feeling" better. its not about people "showing" they are doing more. its about actual doing more and actually contributing to greater public safety
    It's absolutely about you feeling better. You staying home and not visiting your relatives and doing all the "muh freedoms" things I mentioned already would be you contributing to a greater level of public safety. You choose not to because the reward isn't worth the cost. You'd feel better if other people gave up what they consider to be their own freedoms and become more immune than you, therefore providing you with a better public safety environment so you can have your freedoms without needing to do anything of the sort. These people are at least as safe as you.
    its not. its not a penis measuring contest about what your level of immunity is. the goal should be maximal herd immunity within reasonable means (ie not placing undue burdens on people). its about the greater public benefit, not an individual being able to hold a scoreboard about how many antibodies he has.
    There you go with the "within reasonable means" comment. That caveat puts a moat between your position and theirs because, as I said, you're asking for something but giving nothing in return. You're not going to avoid seeing your loved ones, you want all the mandates to go away and everyone to just do what you want (it seems you're the arbiter for "reasonable" in this discussion) so you can feel better. It's always about feeling better.
    i dont care if you dont like the "reasonable" term. its how we guide public policy.
    The term is fine but in order to use it you need to show how it's reasonable to insist that someone with the same level of immunity as you go even further to become even more immune than you, to protect you and others like you. Are these people not only responsible to live through COVID itself but to become super immune because it benefits the motherland?
    i know you want this to be my position, but its not, as stated above.


    i don't think turning everybody into an antisocial bubble locked in their homes is a reasonable means to address covid-19
    Not surprisingly, you're against an act that requires sacrifice on your part but think it's reasonable to expect others to sacrifice for you. If public safety is job 1, where's your contribution? If you're going to say it's that you've been vaxxed, all you did was raise your immunity to a level they were already. How does that make you a hero or them any less so?

  22. #33472
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,026
    I got vaccinated. I expect others to, too. I’m not expecting anybody to do this i wouldn’t do or haven’t already done.

  23. #33473
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    Vaxxed people spreading it, too. Have to live with it now.
    seems to be your position that nothing whatsoever should be done to mitigate morbidity and mortality. is that right?

  24. #33474
    Veteran hater's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    70,742
    I got vaccinated. I expect others to, too. I’m not expecting anybody to do this i wouldn’t do or haven’t already done.
    Fascist logic

  25. #33475
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    I got vaccinated. I expect others to, too. I’m not expecting anybody to do this i wouldn’t do or haven’t already done.
    i covered that already in the last line.

    Their immunity level = 95% after COVID
    Your immunity level = 95% after vax

    Why does it matter how you got there? If anything you took the easy route.

    Maybe a better argument for your side is that those with natural immunity could/should remove themselves from the registers of re-infected people completely by becoming super-immune and that those who are vaxxed without natural immunity should be number 2, not number 1.

    The counter could be data that shows even vaxxed COVID survivors get reinfected. I personally know someone who has been vaxxed to the 3rd injection, survived COVID and still has a low antibody count.

    But those COVID survivors who won't get vaxxed don't believe you have a leg to stand on since they believe they are as immune as you, so no more dangerous to society than you. We could all do more, but what's really reasonable?
    Last edited by DMC; 12-04-2021 at 11:46 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •