half of GOP men won't get vaccinated- why the stupidity?

Author: n8nrgmi ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 212
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,100
    3
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    this is a pandemic. maybe we should wear masks, and stay away from folks who may have the virus. maybe we should get vaccinated. ya know the things that stops the disease from killing you. 

    what's so complicated about this? 

    they say only two thirds of folks want to be vaccinated, and that might not be enough to reach herd immunity. 

    a lot of you are GOP'ers, so id think a lotta you dont want vaccinated. 

    this doesn't have anything to do with sensibility, but it has everything to do with being politically brainwashed. 

    so, why the stupidity? 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,330
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @n8nrgmi
    Why do you care?
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,330
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @n8nrgmi
    they say only two thirds of folks want to be vaccinated, and that might not be enough to reach herd immunity. 
    Who is "they" and what do you know about herd immunity?
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,100
    3
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    --> @Greyparrot
    the only sensible response is to agree with me. because half of GOPers are being irrational on this. 

    "they" are scientists, like fauci. the commonly cited number is three fourths or eigthy percent needing vaccinated to reach herd immunity, 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,330
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @n8nrgmi
    Like fauci.

    Fauci is a politician.

    People like you that listen to him are the main reason why schools are still closed.
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,100
    3
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    --> @Greyparrot
    most of what he talks about aren't political issues. it's basic public health policy. 

    plus i dont know why you are trying to change the focus of this thread, which is to call out the stupidity of half of the GOP, which again is the only sensible response. 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,330
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @n8nrgmi
    I mean it's fine if you really are invested in labeling people instead of ideas or policies, but citing  Fauci doesn't lend much weight to your opinions.
  • MisterChris
    MisterChris avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 2,592
    5
    9
    11
    MisterChris avatar
    MisterChris
    --> @n8nrgmi
    Oh shut up. Just months ago the Dems were raving about how the vaccine was "rushed" by the FDA and was going to kill of all us due to Trump's ineptitude. 

    But Republicans have hardly been alone in their skepticism. When Mr. Trump was president, Democrats were more likely than Republicans to be concerned that the Food and Drug Administration was rushing the vaccine. Vice President Kamala Harris was criticized last year when she at first declined to say whether she would take the vaccine and said she "would not trust Donald Trump" on its reliability. 

    GOP men are stupid for this but don't play high and mighty, the Dems are just as guilty. All of politics is just hypocrisy nowadays. 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,330
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @n8nrgmi
    the commonly cited number is three fourths or eigthy percent needing vaccinated to reach herd immunity, 

    GOP men are around 20%, so you are gucci. Turn the panic knob down a notch.
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 7,483
    3
    5
    10
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @n8nrgmi
    Shouldn’t you be happy that they’re gonna only harm themselves lol
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,330
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @ILikePie5
    He can probably only feel what Fauci tells him to feel.

    Sad result of public education.


  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,330
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @ILikePie5
    When it comes to navigating the pandemic, many proudly proclaim: "Follow The Science." It's a popular and feel-good message. To me, #FollowTheScience means that science is essential to making good and rational decisions and implies that science makes policy decisions clear. The first half of that sentence is right. The second half is dangerously wrong. I think we must address what science is and is not.

    Of course, science is necessary to navigate the pandemic. Science -- in the form of randomized trials -- allows us to separate therapies that work (dexamethasone) from those that do not (hydroxychloroquine). Science has allowed us to develop two mRNA vaccines, which may yet free us from this plague. The rapid development of a vaccine on this timespan is a great success of science, or as the "The Onion" reports, "Nation Can't Believe They Spent So Long Overlooking Obvious Solution Of mRNA Instructions For Spike Protein Encapsulated In Lipid Nanoparticle."

    At the same time, science will never be sufficient to guide choices and trade-offs. Science cannot make value judgments. Science does not determine policy. Policy is a human endeavor that combines science with values and priorities. In other words, science can help quantify the increased risk (or lack thereof) of school reopening on SARS-Cov-2 spread, and help quantify the educational losses from continued closure, but science cannot tell you whether to open or close schools. Making the decision requires values, principles, a vision of the type of society we want to be. How much do we care about the kids that rely on public school? Is it enough to offset a theoretical (but unsubstantiated) risk of viral spread? On this topic, I agree with others that we have chosen poorly.

    When it comes to COVID-19 policy, we have faced and continue to face immense trade-offs. Every restriction we place may slow viral spread, but may carry dozens of unforeseen countervailing consequences. Scientists can help define these trade-offs, but scientists have no special ability to speak about values on behalf of all citizens. In other words, science is necessary but not sufficient to deal with COVID-19. Thinking otherwise is a dangerous view that steals political power from people and gives it to scientists under false pretenses.

    There are several other misconceptions about science in the age of COVID-19. Let me discuss a few.

    1. Credentialism is not science. Science is not the degrees someone has or where they trained. Is their view justified or is it unsupported? I joke that when someone disagrees with you about COVID-19 policy, you ask if they have an MD, MPH, PhD, faculty appointment, policy expertise, and infectious disease background. But if they agree with you, none of that matters. They are a self-taught savant and amateur expert!

    2. Science is not dogmatic; it demands testable, falsifiable hypotheses. The hallmark of science is that when there are competing ideas, we can agree on studies that will decide who is correct. Believing in things that cannot be falsified or tested is religion. Science is everything else. I worry we have a lot of religion when it comes to COVID-19.

    3. Science is never censoring. Over the course of the pandemic, YouTube removed videos by university professors with unpopular views, and Facebook and Twitter have labeled some posts as false or inaccurate. Even if we disagree with these speakers, this is dangerous. Science is the idea that we must confront, discuss, debate, and refute ideas. Using brute force, the power of the platform, to proclaim the truth is antithetical to our creed.

    The simple fact is that most heretical ideas will turn out to be false, but some may be true. Academic freedom is the idea that we allow many people to be wrong, so that some may be right. That doesn't mean we blindly accept everything folks say, in fact, it means the opposite, we must interrogate and challenge them, but we must create an environment where folks can argue their case, even if initially unpopular.

    4. Science is not a popularity contest of consensus. In an era of petitions, it seems as if science is the belief that most scientists hold. This is incorrect. Science is a process to make sense of the world, and folks in the minority may well be vindicated. In fact, throughout history, there have been many moments in medicine where the majority was wrong.

    5. Science is applying criticism impartially, equally, fairly. Let's say there are two studies about masks. One is a randomized trial with a wide confidence interval, the other is a retrospective observational study with myriad deficiencies. It is completely fine to fault the RCT for having results that are compatible with a broad range of outcomes, and I did, but one cannot celebrate the observational study as "proving masks work" simply because its conclusion aligns with one's worldview. In other words, we have to apply critical appraisal fairly. If we try to convince others that weak or faulty evidence proves something works, we are not scientists, but magicians.

    6. Observational studies on hot topics are a self-fulfilling prophecy. For popular and debated questions, such as the benefit of hydroxychloroquine, vitamin D, and other interventions, retrospective observational studies are guaranteed to give you what you wish. I don't mean any specific study will be positive or negative, but some studies will be positive and some will be negative.

    Consider this: there are thousands of datasets, and tens of thousands of investigators and these folks carry strong biases in both directions (that an intervention helps or is useless), and there is enough flexibility in analysis, that it is guaranteed with enough time, we will get observational studies showing that these practices help or hurt. The only way out of the maze is randomization. Randomized trials are desperately needed on hot topics, as these constrain multiple testing, and limit analytic flexibility through pre-specified protocols.

    7. What works, in theory, does not always work in practice. There is an entire branch of science called Implementation science, which studies the gap between what works in ideal settings and what works given the messy realities of the real world. Some scientists fault the public for not heeding public health recommendations, but these folks miss the point. How you communicate your message and the sustainability and uptake of your message are part of the intervention itself, and you must be judged by what is achieved. Public policy is a pragmatic science. It is what happens when science meets real life.

    Science is a tool. It is quite possibly the best tool human beings have ever devised, but just like any tool, it has limits. It cannot tell you how to adjudicate trade-offs. It is not merely what the majority believe. It requires open-mindedness and humility. It may not offer insights where bias and multiple hypothesis testing dominate. It requires one to constantly question one's assumptions, to devise experiments that may surprise. It is necessary to battle a pandemic, but it is not sufficient. We can and should embrace science, but we cannot follow it. It is up to us to make the hard choices. Not scientists.

  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 13
    Forum posts: 1,367
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @n8nrgmi
    this is a pandemic. maybe we should wear masks, and stay away from folks who may have the virus. maybe we should get vaccinated. ya know the things that stops the disease from killing you. 

    what's so complicated about this? 

    they say only two thirds of folks want to be vaccinated, and that might not be enough to reach herd immunity. 

    a lot of you are GOP'ers, so id think a lotta you dont want vaccinated. 

    this doesn't have anything to do with sensibility, but it has everything to do with being politically brainwashed. 

    so, why the stupidity? 
    First, and this is important: vaccines DO NOT CURE; THEY INOCULATE. THEY DON'T "STOP" ANYTHING. IN FACT, THEY CAN HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT WHICH PRODUCES THE RESULT YOU CLAIM IT STOPS.

    Second, I have not been vaccinated, and I don't ever plan to get vaccinated. And I'm not a "GOP'er."

    Third, here's the sensibility in not being vaccinated: the media has been exaggerating the effects of this so-called "disease" especially by producing mass panic in claiming that contractions of this disease may produce NO SYMPTOMS. (Not to mention the lockdowns and "social distancing.") Given the fact that it's primarily a respiratory infection, as long as one CAN BREATHE one can contract it regardless of social distancing, masks, or vaccination when one is exposed. Furthermore, unless one has a compromised immune system, the resiliency of the human immune system as well as one's off the counter supplements should suffice (I've personally seen this work with one who contracted the virus three times and bore a compromised immune system.)

    The stupidity is in posting a hit-piece based on the information of sheep.






  • dustryder
    dustryder avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 942
    3
    2
    4
    dustryder avatar
    dustryder
    --> @MisterChris
    A rushed vaccine and possible health impacts are a legitimate concern. Relying solely on the words of someone who is not a health expert, let alone a buffoon is common sense, lest we forget the hydroxychloroquine debacle. Finally, the point is moot because the various vaccines have been shown to be safe. Being able to change ones mind in the face of new information and ideas is a sign of intelligence, not hypocrisy.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,330
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    Relying solely on the words of someone who is not a health expert, let alone a buffoon 

    like those 15,000 dead liberals in New York?
  • dustryder
    dustryder avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 942
    3
    2
    4
    dustryder avatar
    dustryder
    --> @Greyparrot
    Nice job. Huehuehue Cuomo bad.

    Did you actually have a relevant point to make here?

  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,100
    3
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    --> @Athias
    you still haven't given a coherent response as to why a person wouldn't get vaccinated. the risk to reward here is a no brainer. 
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 13
    Forum posts: 1,367
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @n8nrgmi
    you still haven't given a coherent response as to why a person wouldn't get vaccinated. the risk to reward here is a no brainer. 
    My response was coherent enough. Once again, vaccines inoculate; they don't cure. I don't know what "reward" you assume you're getting from being vaccinated.
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,100
    3
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    --> @Athias
    how often do you see someone die, who's vaccinated?  seems like a pretty big reward, if you ask me. 
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,868
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Athias
    vaccines DO NOT CURE; THEY INOCULATE. THEY DON'T "STOP" ANYTHING.
    That claim is a bit cheeky. Inoculation [the process by which a vaccine is introduced, so the two terms are mostly synonymous] does not, by itself, "stop" a disease, but it does bolster the immune system to recognize and attack the viral infection to eradicate, or "stop" its progress. Is there is a distinction between "cure" and "stop?" The effect is much the same in the short term. Even "curing" a disease does not necessarily preclude its occurring again, so, in the end, what is really the difference between a stop and a cure? Example: as an infant, I had small pox, and having the disease, so it was thought, then, was as good as having the vaccine in childhood. Åt the time, it was thought I did not need the vaccine, and never had it, because it was thought that by having the disease, I would never contract it again. But, medical science has improved since those days [the 50s] in more fully understanding the body's immune system [not a great name considering what has been found] and now recognizes that I am not "cured" of ever contracting the disease again. Every five years, I am now vaccinated for small pox.
  • Conway
    Conway avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 226
    0
    2
    5
    Conway avatar
    Conway
    --> @n8nrgmi
    I'm sort of considering getting this one, but really there's no reason to commit to it at this point.  I don't really get sick so ordinarily getting a vaccine is something I would consider wasteful, but I have friends who saw people perish.  My consideration is more about how it might bring comfort to people than a risk/reward calculus, similar to wearing a mask except that a sense of finality to this momentous occasion would extend beyond personal connections to benefit society at large.
  • dustryder
    dustryder avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 942
    3
    2
    4
    dustryder avatar
    dustryder
    --> @fauxlaw
    A smallpox vaccine every 5 years? Is that not a tad precautious against a disease that has been eradicated?
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,330
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @dustryder
    Did you actually have a relevant point to make here?
    Are you willing to call 15,000 dead liberals "stupid?"

    A smallpox vaccine every 5 years? Is that not a tad precautious against a disease that has been eradicated?
    No more precautious than a person under 65 with no co-morbidities that has a .003% chance of dying from Covid deciding to get a vaccine since they are sooo afraid of that risk of dying.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,330
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @n8nrgmi
    Are you willing to call 15,000 dead liberals "stupid?"

    I certainly am not.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 13
    Forum posts: 1,367
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @fauxlaw
    That claim is a bit cheeky. Inoculation [the process by which a vaccine is introduced, so the two terms are mostly synonymous]
    Inoculation and vaccination can be synonymous. So then it's merely a matter of describing that which vaccination/inoculation does, and that's to introduce the infection to one's immune system. So when I state vaccines "inoculate," I'm not stating that vaccines "vaccinate" which would reflect the cheeky characterization you mentioned. I'm stating that vaccines "introduce the infection to one's immune system [inoculate.]"

    does not, by itself, "stop" a disease, but it does bolster the immune system to recognize and attack the viral infection to eradicate, or "stop" its progress.
    That's like arguing that training to use one's firearm "stops" intruders. It's the immune system that produces the necessary antibodies that may "stop" the disease. The vaccine helps with this, but so does contracting the infection in the first place should one not succumb to it. And this is the reason I made sure to make mention of compromised immune systems as well. What good is a vaccine to an immune system which can't fight off the infection?

    I maintain my argument: vaccines neither "stop" nor "cure"; they inoculate.

    But, medical science has improved since those days [the 50s] in more fully understanding the body's immune system [not a great name considering what has been found] and now recognizes that I am not "cured" of ever contracting the disease again. Every five years, I am now vaccinated for small pox.
    If you're getting vaccinated every five years, what has the vaccine accomplished? If it's to bolster one's immune system, then there are alternatives that don't require intravenous introduction of an infection/disease/syndrome.