• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Covid-19 Outbreak of new SARS-like coronavirus (Covid-19)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
Ahhh, I see, soooo, I won't let you work at my restaurant, serving people food, unless you've been vaccinated.

Therefore the government has made vaccines mandatory.

Please. I remember when the right was all on board with businesses being able to decide who works for them.
 
no vaccine will be working by the end of the year at the rate of covid mutations. Infact none of them acutally do on south african strain and brazlian strain and this new mutated UK strain. Haha fuck they are just ripping governments off to pay for these things that won't work we will then be forced to buy two more doses per each person for a vaccine that does fucking work next year
 
@JGrimez a bunch of us are going to hold you down and vaccinate you whether you like it or not (I'm strong as an ox so it would probably only take two of us 😌).

(But before I get censored, I'm just busting your balls 😭)
 
no vaccine will be working by the end of the year at the rate of covid mutations. Infact none of them acutally do on south african strain and brazlian strain and this new mutated UK strain. Haha fuck they are just ripping governments off to pay for these things that won't work we will then be forced to buy two more doses per each person for a vaccine that does fucking work next year
we have vaccines that work again polio, which is kinda known for being a mutating little bastard. we're working on analoguous vaccines for SARS-COV2 that should be much better at providing immunity to different strains.

on average (well according to Vincent Racaniello) RNA viruses mutate at a rate of about 1 bases per 30kb. so every single copy is a 'mutant.' the concept of species barely makes sense in the case of viruses, we just group together ones that have over x (i think like 97 or 98)% of their genome in common and say those are the same species. in fact even in the case of humans (and DNA replication has higher fidelity than RNA replication), its very likely that every single cell in your body has a slightly different genome due to errors during replication.
 
i wonder how rich pzifer will become from covid been around forever it will always need booster shots at $20-30 per dose how many countries can afford to give people vaccine booster shots it will end up people having to pay for said booster shots to make things possible to keep affording for nations. I hope pzifer is forced to sell them cheap after the initial vaccine boosters should imo only be a few $$$ max.
 
not actually that rich i don't think. because you're not taking it every day for life.

like pharmaceutical companies don't bother developing new antibiotics- researchers have loads of potentially workable ideas - because you generally only go on them for like max 2 weeks. big money is made in things you have to take daily for a long period of time. i'm not defending this, i think its disgusting, but i doubt this is that big of an earner for them, given development costs.
 
Ahhh, I see, soooo, I won't let you work at my restaurant, serving people food, unless you've been vaccinated.

Therefore the government has made vaccines mandatory.

Please. I remember when the right was all on board with businesses being able to decide who works for them.

Quick thought experiment, is an employer allowed to mandate an employee to use birth control or even ask whether someone does? Or is the employer entitled to require that a waitress gets an abortion?
Taking the waitress example pregnant waitresses cost money so there is a clear economic justification...

Is the employer allowed to ask about HIV status? or Herpes?

There is a good reason to say these are private medical matters and the employer can ask but the employee is entitled to tell the employer to go fuck themselves. If the employer then fires them for refusing to disclose confidential medical information that is pretty clear constructive dismissal.

Employers buy the employees work product, they don't own the employee and the employee owes the worker nothing more than work in exchange for consideration.
 
The fact that some companies are requiring vaccination does not point to a sinister government plot to force vaccination. Private companies, whether or not you agree it is right or fair, have the right to make that decision, and individual businesses can come to that policy conclusion without it having any bearing on their federal, state or local government. The business in question just has management who would like their employees to be vaccinated and decided to require it. All it points to is that that business's management decided to make that policy, nothing more.

Personally I think it's sensible to require vaccination at a place that serves people food. As for other sorts of businesses, I would have a problem with, say, my place of business, where we aren't working with customers face to face, requiring such a thing. I would also be wary if my government started requiring vaccination. But so far that has not happened, and I'd prefer to keep the doomsaying to a minimum until such a thing were to actually come to pass.
 
Quick thought experiment, is an employer allowed to mandate an employee to use birth control or even ask whether someone does? Or is the employer entitled to require that a waitress gets an abortion?
Taking the waitress example pregnant waitresses cost money so there is a clear economic justification...

Is the employer allowed to ask about HIV status? or Herpes?
none of those conditions pose a risk to other employees or clients, to whom employers have a duty of care. vaccine preventable diseases do.

employers can and do ask how much time you have had off sick in the past year or so at application because they don't want people who are off sick all the time. i imagine that medicals that check for blood-transmissible diseases are required for jobs in which people might end up bleeding, probably not cheffing but the armed forces require a lot of medical history.

most employers also realise that there is a long term economic justification for procreation.
As for other sorts of businesses, I would have a problem with, say, my place of business, where we aren't working with customers face to face, requiring such a thing. I would also be wary if my government started requiring vaccination.

i wouldn't have a problem with it if the unvaccinated who have no medical conditions precluding vaccination could be shown not to pose a threat to the other workers and waived their right to sick pay if they got a vaccine preventable disease. i don't want to lose my next pay rise cos some contrarian idiot cost the company a shit ton in sick pay and lost work for something entirely preventable.

i have colleagues who divide their time between the office and installing/servicing safety critical devices in public spaces that huge numbers of people pass through. it seems obvious to me that they should be up to date on vaccinations so it would be unfair if the entirely office based people they sit next to on a daily basis weren't required to do the same. but its intellectual at the moment as vaccines aren't required.
 
none of those conditions pose a risk to other employees or clients, to whom employers have a duty of care. vaccine preventable diseases do...................

i wouldn't have a problem with it if the unvaccinated who have no medical conditions precluding vaccination could be shown not to pose a threat to the other workers and waived their right to sick pay if they got a vaccine preventable disease. i don't want to lose my next pay rise cos some contrarian idiot cost the company a shit ton in sick pay and lost work for something entirely preventable.
Ultilitarian collectivism dressed up as altruistic concern for others and the greater good. only it isn't atruistic is it? the last sentence quoted is most revealing.

Employers have a duty of care to ensure safety of their employees and customers by reducing risk as low as reasonably practical. What you are proposing is neither reasonable nor practical so you are going to continue to have a problem.

But hey NP at least you get your pay rise.
 
Ultilitarian collectivism dressed up as altruistic concern for others and the greater good. only it isn't atruistic is it? the last sentence quoted is most revealing.
its possible to care about other people without wanting to literally pay for other people's poor decisions.

i don't get why you support people making those decisions so strongly, yet you seem to think that, rather than people taking responsibility for the consequences of their own decisions, society should bear that responsibility.
 
its possible to care about other people without wanting to literally pay for other people's poor decisions.

i don't get why you support people making those decisions so strongly, yet you seem to think that, rather than people taking responsibility for the consequences of their own decisions, society should bear that responsibility.
it is purely pragmatic, being facetious about it, I don't do a moral reckoning on it because that is for God and she said let it go when I asked her.

I hold this position because otherwise where do you draw the line? you are essentially dividing people into deserving/worthy and undeserving/unworthy, but you naturally include yourself in the former category. Objectively this is may or may not be the case. Other people will have different divisions of worthy and unworthy, kuffar, non-kuffar or whatever.
No matter what you do you will pay for other peoples choices, good bad or indifferent.

It is easier, more expedient and more effective to convince people to act in what you hope is their own interest which more often than not aligns with the wider interest. The corollary is allowing other people to weigh up what works for them and respecting their choice, even if you think that they are making a wrong decision, it is not your decision to make.

I reminded of what Martin Niemöller taught us, I don't agree with the extreme antivaxxer position I don't really like socialists either, but Niemöller's warning stands. That is why I support choice.

If you can't convince them then that is a failure of your persuasion efforts, a failure of the persuader , resorting to coercion, ad baculum the stick shows that you never truly intended to persuade debate discuss or convince. Using implicit or explicit force to persuade means at that point you have lost.
If you have to coerce then you have lost.
Covid is not special. The current situation is not special and I am very wary of allowing authoritarians any leeway whatsoever.

Other people will indirectly pay for your dumb decisions and vice versa, but the personal direct consequences are much more significant and are borne by individuals.

We established that the risk from of infection from unvaccinated individuals to vaccinated individuals is minuscule and of the same order as that posed by vaccinated individuals with primary or secondary vaccine failure to other vaccinated individuals. Therefore the threat to me from an unvaccinated individual is inconsequential and it doesn't matter in the wider scheme either., as the risk is moderated by whether I personally am vaccinated or not.
This is why I don't care if other people are vaccinated or not. You seem not to want to accept that as a truth because it goes contrary to your strongly ultilitarian beliefs or something something moralistic. Other people take a more pragmatic view of what vaccines can and cannot do and beyond offering individual protection the case is very weak indeed.

The person that cares most about your well being is you, you have the most skin in that particular game, plan accordingly.

off topic,
Your employer is not God, No employer is God. You may have noticed that already, Don't delude yourself that the business you work for cares about you, it simply doesn't, workers are fungible to modern business. There may be much talk of collective purpose and team where you work but it is an illusion a useful lie. Push comes to shove you will be canned like all other supplicants no matter how loyal and how loudly you support them.
The government is not God either, very far from it.
 
Just got a call from my band's drummer, and he just tested positive, and feels like shit. I actually woke up this morning feeling sick, although I feel a good bit better since then, but still under the weather. Just got a test appointment for like half an hour from now. Wish me luck.

I'm not scared about it, but I feel bad for my girlfriend, she's been totally terrified of this the whole time and she's consumed with anxiety right now. And telling me "see I told you you shouldn't have seen anyone for any reason until we all get vaccinated". Bleh. I kinda hope I do have it because otherwise it's gonna be quite a battle trying to get her to accept that I'm not going to stop going to band practice until covid is over. We just got a new bass player and have a shit ton of work to do so we can have an album release event and play shows as soon as it's possible to do so again.
 
Ahhh, I see, soooo, I won't let you work at my restaurant, serving people food, unless you've been vaccinated.

Therefore the government has made vaccines mandatory.

Please. I remember when the right was all on board with businesses being able to decide who works for them.

Remember when the gov't mandated churches provide birth control to their employees? Yeah, good times.

My point, poorly made as it was, is that the right thrives on fear mongering and had made warnings of gov't over-reach. This wasn't a gov't decision but a business one, so I really like your last line about a business choosing how it operates and who it employs. Like Xork below, the idea that a FOOD business wants to ensure it's workers are safe for it's patrons makes sense on the surface, but it's not that simple. Not yet at least.

The fact that some companies are requiring vaccination does not point to a sinister government plot to force vaccination. Private companies, whether or not you agree it is right or fair, have the right to make that decision, and individual businesses can come to that policy conclusion without it having any bearing on their federal, state or local government. The business in question just has management who would like their employees to be vaccinated and decided to require it. All it points to is that that business's management decided to make that policy, nothing more.

Personally I think it's sensible to require vaccination at a place that serves people food. As for other sorts of businesses, I would have a problem with, say, my place of business, where we aren't working with customers face to face, requiring such a thing. I would also be wary if my government started requiring vaccination. But so far that has not happened, and I'd prefer to keep the doomsaying to a minimum until such a thing were to actually come to pass.

In this case, the vaccines are new, and we don't know the long term effects. The lady in question is concerned how such vaccinations will affect her pregnancy, a valid concern I would think for anyone. Here, today, the vaccines are supposedly 'tested' and safe for the public. Has anyone seen anything how it effects pregnancies? Would you be willing to take that chance if it were YOUR child?

Stepping aside from the woman's concern and focusing on the businesses right to REQUIRE a vaccination shot, which is still an individual's choice. I'm pretty twisted trying to determine how I feel about that. First and foremost, I support an individual's rights. Second to that, I do support a business' right to make decisions that effect it's ability to stay alive. I'm struggling for comparisons because I kinda see both sides and support both sides.

A choice, and how you choose affects your employability. How about religion? We have laws that prevent discrimination based on religion....then again, religion doesn't endanger the other workers or the public. The individual isn't blocked from ALL jobs, just that one which requires the shot. I don't feel she has the right to be employed by THAT specific business, or that the business has to accommodate her and her choice. I suppose a better comparison might be drug or alcohol abuse. No employers will abide by that from their employees, as it endangers both the business and the public, though it is an individual choice by the person to do these things or not. I guess that's where I end up on this one, both have the right to make such decisions (the individual and the business) as it affects each's health and well being. They don't have to agree, and neither is infringing on the other, so yeah, I'm ok with this. Sorry for dragging ya'll thru my though process.

Still a long way from the gov't mandates preached by the right, but it is another chance to evaluate where is the line between an individuals rights and someone in power.
 
As I've said before "long term effects" is a cheat.

It is completely infeasible to test the long term effects of everything, and it would be criminal to do it with a vaccine in a time of a pandemic before its used because there's no chance the vaccines gonna hurt more people than the disease after what, decades of testing the long term?

As for pregnant women, well this is all the more reason everyone who isn't in an exclusion criteria should get it, cause some people are.
If memory serves pregnant women are excluded in the criteria here.

Anyway, I'll say it again, I tune out whenever anyone says "we don't know the long term effects". Because it's the standard excuse for not using science. Fear of true unknown.

Unless there is actually scientific reason to think there might be long term side effects, you should worry more about the short term where failing to use the technology we have absolutely definitely will kill lots of people, rather than wait to prove what was already a virtual certainty, that there aren't any long term effects.

Especially since we aren't sure the long term effects of having had covid either yet we have far more reason to believe there are some.

Judging the risks as if this were a vaccine for a pretend virus that doesn't exist, as opposed to an extremely lethal and virulent one, is silly.
 
As I've said before "long term effects" is a cheat.
It is completely infeasible to test the long term effects of everything, and it would be criminal to do it with a vaccine in a time of a pandemic before its used because there's no chance the vaccines gonna hurt more people than the disease after what, decades of testing the long term?
So what is the point of doing trials, or pharmacovigilance at all? Given in your estemed opinion it is criminal to do so? Actually why do clinical trials get done at all if there is no chance that the vaccines could hurt more pople than the disease? why don't the regulators just ask you for your wisdom on the matter?
Anyway, I'll say it again, I tune out whenever anyone says "we don't know the long term effects". Because it's the standard excuse for not using science. Fear of true unknown.
Science is about asking the questions not tuning out. You tune out because of confirmation bias.

The truth is complex but you avoid the complexity by repeating your comforting simplistic mantra and tuning out everything else as conspiracy or irrelevent. It is a great shame because you are capable of much more.

These vaccines are guaranteed to have long term effects, some might be bad.
You don't know, I don't know and neither does 'science'. So how about you tune back in?

Judging the risks as if this were a vaccine for a pretend virus that doesn't exist, as opposed to an extremely lethal and virulent one, is silly.
Objectively this is not an extremely virulent virus (maybe look up what extremely virulent means rather than parroting something you heard)
It is not extremely lethal, even in vulnerable populations the lethality is surprisingly low.

This is a good thing as humans are going to have to live with SARS-CoV-2 for a long while yet.

Ebola is both virulent and lethal as is Hendra or Machupo. SARS-CoV-2 is not even as virulent or lethal as SARS-1. or MERS, It is not nice, but the hyperbole surrounding is just hyperbole. If you are unlucky SARS-CoV-2 can and will fuck you up. You have no way of knowing whether you personally will be lucky or not, but you can guess that with SARS-CoV-2 you are far more likely to be lucky than unlucky.

Look at the top chart, and answer this, if this was an an extremely virulent and lethal virus why is the purple line diverging from the red line?
send your answer on a postcard to the WHO Geneva.
 
Feels like a really bad flu so far. Whenever I stand up I hobble around like an old man. The limb soreness us pretty intense, plus headache. So far my fever hasn't gone above 101.5. My grip is weak enough that it's hard to open a bottle of ibuprofen. I hope I don't have one of those weeks-long cases because this sucks.

On the plus side, I've been really struggling to not keep taking kratom periodically, but it's pretty easy now to just lay around and not go anywhere... going to get some would be an asshole move. So hooray for finally taking the final step there, even if it was forced on me.

These vaccines are guaranteed to have long term effects, some might be bad.

How do you figure they're "guaranteed" to have long term effects, if, as you point out, we don't know whether they will or not?

Also, they didn't come out of nowhere, they were the continuation of work on a vaccine for SARS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top