Coronavirus

[emtee]

I had hoped and expected the trends to be more favorable with nearly 25% vaccinated. At this juncture, it's a bit deflating to see where we are.

[Stadler]

I'm on vacation this week, and I've been away from here for the most part.  I'm enjoying a glass of wine while sitting in on a staff call (yes, I sometimes work on vacation; it's habit and it's worked for me in the past) and ducked in.  It's striking me that I've been in three threads so far, and two of the three require us to put full faith and credit into "science", even in the face of personal experience and anecdotal evidence.  That's fine, I guess, and I can only speak for myself, I'll come around to it in due time, but it's counter to OTHER science - the science of human psychology - that says we don't do this very well. 

I've given all kinds of data about things like cable news, gun usage and gun crime, the performance of certain states/countries vis-a-vis COVID, etc., and yet I'm still having the same conversations over and over with certain people.  Are they stupid?  Of course not; they're HUMAN.  Why do we expect people to all of a sudden just say "Yay, science!" and buy in without question?  Not that the science isn't accurate, but the RECEPTION to that science.   We - people - don't do well with risk; we just don't. 

[cramx3]

I had hoped and expected the trends to be more favorable with nearly 25% vaccinated. At this juncture, it's a bit deflating to see where we are.

Don't fall prey to the negative headlines, we are still doing well here in the US.  The J&J pause will slow things down, but we are still headed in the right direction even though the numbers didn't really go down this week.  Cases went up a bit, and deaths stayed in the 700s daily.  As long as we don't see the deaths go up, I think we are doing as well as you can be all things considered.  If the J&J pause goes into next week (which seems likely) I think I'll have to re-adjust my timeline for getting back to normal, but it's still well within reach.

Fauci said 10k cases per day is when we can get back to normal.  I'm not entirely sure when that will happen though.  Too many people are anti-vax and Fauci's own words don't help those anti-vaxxers want to get it.

[bosk1]

I wouldn't throw the anti-vax label around too casually.  There really aren't THAT many anti-vaxxers out there.  What is baffling to me is the number of people who aren't anti-vaxxers that are hesitant to get their anti-Covid vaccines.  I know many, and I listen patiently, and their explanations do not really make much sense to me.  There is a lot of "we're just not in a rush.  We're going to 'wait and see.'  Just not comfortable with how fast these were rolled out."  And it doesn't seem to help at all to debunk the misperceptions built into those statements. 

[cramx3]

I lumped the historical anti-vaxxers with the hesitant covid vaxxers, because at the end of the day, both groups are currently not getting vaccinated. 

[Grappler]

I wouldn't throw the anti-vax label around too casually.  There really aren't THAT many anti-vaxxers out there.  What is baffling to me is the number of people who aren't anti-vaxxers that are hesitant to get their anti-Covid vaccines.  I know many, and I listen patiently, and their explanations do not really make much sense to me.  There is a lot of "we're just not in a rush.  We're going to 'wait and see.'  Just not comfortable with how fast these were rolled out."  And it doesn't seem to help at all to debunk the misperceptions built into those statements.

My wife was talking about this last night and I told her that there's just too much skepticism and misinformation on social media.  People don't understand that these companies already know how to make a vaccine and they started mid-way through the process.  Somewhere there's a guy working on a cold vaccine. They know how to make flu vaccines.  COVID is related to both of those, so it didn't take them long to figure it out, since they didn't have to start from absolute scratch. 

[Ben_Jamin]

The thing is people have their own minds and thoughts. And people can and are able to make informed decisions and make decision that's best for them.

Your decision to get the vaccine, is your decision that you thought is best for you.

There's various reasons why people are not getting the vaccine. The same as there are reasons why people got the vaccine.

And also, of those who did. What was their decision to get the vaccine? And I bet, for some, it's not because of Covid. Could be because they didn't want to lose their job, lose some friends, or face the backlash that is being dealt to people who did not take the vaccine, and would rather not deal with it and just got it anyways.

It's like how people voted for Biden because they disliked Trump. Not because they like Biden.

[hunnus2000]

I wouldn't throw the anti-vax label around too casually.  There really aren't THAT many anti-vaxxers out there.  What is baffling to me is the number of people who aren't anti-vaxxers that are hesitant to get their anti-Covid vaccines.  I know many, and I listen patiently, and their explanations do not really make much sense to me.  There is a lot of "we're just not in a rush.  We're going to 'wait and see.'  Just not comfortable with how fast these were rolled out."  And it doesn't seem to help at all to debunk the misperceptions built into those statements.

I am right there with you. I know several people who have that attitude and typically add 'besides, it'll open a spot for someone else who really needs it'.

This gal I work with gave me this same spiel weeks ago when she was eligible and now - she's got a pretty bad case from what I understand. She regularly attends church, sings in the choir, been going to child functions etc... I can only imagine the number of people she has come in contact with. And this  could have been prevented. 

[gmillerdrake]

I am right there with you. I know several people who have that attitude and typically add 'besides, it'll open a spot for someone else who really needs it'.

Welll...I mean, this virus is extremely survivable so I can understand that point of view. Even the most at risk categories the survivability if infected is in the 90% range. Now, that's not to discount the millions of deaths that this thing has been a part of globally....only to say that if a relatively healthy person chooses not to get the vaccine so that someone who is more in need of getting it is assured to get it then well....that's their choice.

[XeRocks81]

but it’s infinitely better if the healthy person gets the vaccine and thus lessens the risk of passing it on.  Right?

[kirksnosehair]

I am right there with you. I know several people who have that attitude and typically add 'besides, it'll open a spot for someone else who really needs it'.

Welll...I mean, this virus is extremely survivable so I can understand that point of view. Even the most at risk categories the survivability if infected is in the 90% range. Now, that's not to discount the millions of deaths that this thing has been a part of globally....only to say that if a relatively healthy person chooses not to get the vaccine so that someone who is more in need of getting it is assured to get it then well....that's their choice.

Almost 570,000 dead people and their families might not agree with you there.

[Harmony]

I am right there with you. I know several people who have that attitude and typically add 'besides, it'll open a spot for someone else who really needs it'.

Welll...I mean, this virus is extremely survivable so I can understand that point of view. Even the most at risk categories the survivability if infected is in the 90% range. Now, that's not to discount the millions of deaths that this thing has been a part of globally....only to say that if a relatively healthy person chooses not to get the vaccine so that someone who is more in need of getting it is assured to get it then well....that's their choice.

Agreed.  Also, we should forget that people who have had Covid and recovered have some natural immunity at least for 4-6 months.  Yes, they should eventually get the vaccine but they shouldn't necessarily run right out and get it unless it was early in the pandemic when they were sick.

When we factor in the percentage of folks who are vaccinated, we also should factor these folks in as well toward the numbers - and I don't know what those are, but even so it is bound to be a good chunk.  We are getting there in the US.  I am more hopeful each day, even with the J&J pause.

[hunnus2000]

I am right there with you. I know several people who have that attitude and typically add 'besides, it'll open a spot for someone else who really needs it'.

Welll...I mean, this virus is extremely survivable so I can understand that point of view. Even the most at risk categories the survivability if infected is in the 90% range. Now, that's not to discount the millions of deaths that this thing has been a part of globally....only to say that if a relatively healthy person chooses not to get the vaccine so that someone who is more in need of getting it is assured to get it then well....that's their choice.

Agreed.  Also, we should forget that people who have had Covid and recovered have some natural immunity at least for 4-6 months.  Yes, they should eventually get the vaccine but they shouldn't necessarily run right out and get it unless it was early in the pandemic when they were sick.

When we factor in the percentage of folks who are vaccinated, we also should factor these folks in as well toward the numbers - and I don't know what those are, but even so it is bound to be a good chunk.  We are getting there in the US.  I am more hopeful each day, even with the J&J pause.

At this point, I am talking about personal responsibility. Sure it's her choice but she put a lot of people at risk including her 3 children and her husband. Thankfully, her parents got fully vaccinated about a month ago.

BTW - I think we're past the argument "let someone more in need get it first'. In these parts, anyone over the age of 16 can get the vaccine if they want it. Those who choose not to, play with fire.

[Ben_Jamin]

I am right there with you. I know several people who have that attitude and typically add 'besides, it'll open a spot for someone else who really needs it'.

Welll...I mean, this virus is extremely survivable so I can understand that point of view. Even the most at risk categories the survivability if infected is in the 90% range. Now, that's not to discount the millions of deaths that this thing has been a part of globally....only to say that if a relatively healthy person chooses not to get the vaccine so that someone who is more in need of getting it is assured to get it then well....that's their choice.

Agreed.  Also, we should forget that people who have had Covid and recovered have some natural immunity at least for 4-6 months.  Yes, they should eventually get the vaccine but they shouldn't necessarily run right out and get it unless it was early in the pandemic when they were sick.

When we factor in the percentage of folks who are vaccinated, we also should factor these folks in as well toward the numbers - and I don't know what those are, but even so it is bound to be a good chunk.  We are getting there in the US.  I am more hopeful each day, even with the J&J pause.

At this point, I am talking about personal responsibility. Sure it's her choice but she put a lot of people at risk including her 3 children and her husband. Thankfully, her parents got fully vaccinated about a month ago.

BTW - I think we're past the argument "let someone more in need get it first'. In these parts, anyone over the age of 16 can get the vaccine if they want it. Those who choose not to, play with fire.

Let me put it this way...

Who is one to say whether what one person decides/chooses to risk? Is that your decision or theirs to make?

What you are doing is choosing and making a decision for someone based on YOUR own reasoning of beliefs and morals. Not everyone has the same morals and beliefs as you.

You think those people did not analyze those risks for their own family and came to the decision what they feel is best for THEIR family. The same that YOU determine what is best for YOUR family? Of course they have and their decision is to not take a vaccine...

What is so hard about understanding and respecting this decision?

It's why they say, to just focus on YOU. And don't be worrying about anyone else that isn't YOU.

[XeRocks81]

it’s not about deciding for anyone else.  At this point the optimal solution to this crisis for both health and economic reasons is for everyone to be vaccinated as fast as possible.  To use your phrase, what’s so hard to understand about that?

[Ben_Jamin]

it’s not about deciding for anyone else.  At this point the optimal solution to this crisis for both health and economic reasons is for everyone to be vaccinated as fast as possible.  To use your phrase, what’s so hard to understand about that?

Knowing that people make their own informed decisions, makes it almost impossible for people to be vaccinated as fast as possible. And what we are seeing occurring right now is proof of this.

People are not going to be convinced or told to do something. It's why they have to have Russell Wilson and these celebrities go out and soapbox how important these vaccines are. Because no one is convinced or their minds are being changed to take this vaccine.

My right as a Human is to deny anything that I do not want in my body. If that means I will be exiled into being a mountain man surviving on my own self-reliance, then so be it. And that is how many people are thinking as well.


And the most optimal solution is for everyone to be doing everything they can to become healthy. And to not have these underlying conditions that are causing people to succumb and end up with bad side effects of Covid-19, that puts them in the hospitals or on their death beds. Because you also have to look at how Singapore has the lowest Mortality Rate of Covid...

Singapore sticks rigidly to the WHO’s case definition for classifying COVID-19 deaths. It does not include non-pneumonia fatalities like those caused by blood or heart issues among COVID-19 patients in its official tally.

“I have no doubt that if the WHO revises its case definitions, some of the non-pneumonia deaths will be reclassified and the mortality rate will change,” said Paul Tambyah, president of the Asia Pacific Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infection, without specifying how much it would likely shift.

The health ministry has said its approach is consistent with international practice, although some countries like Britain have taken broader counts. NUH’s Fisher said any change from reclassifications in Singapore would be marginal.

https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-singapore-explainer-idUSKBN2680TF


This is a really interesting map as well...

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

[XeRocks81]

I don't know why I even tried. Keep on trucking dude.

[Ben_Jamin]

I don't know why I even tried. Keep on trucking dude.

Dude, it's what Stadler is saying as well...

I'm on vacation this week, and I've been away from here for the most part.  I'm enjoying a glass of wine while sitting in on a staff call (yes, I sometimes work on vacation; it's habit and it's worked for me in the past) and ducked in.  It's striking me that I've been in three threads so far, and two of the three require us to put full faith and credit into "science", even in the face of personal experience and anecdotal evidence.  That's fine, I guess, and I can only speak for myself, I'll come around to it in due time, but it's counter to OTHER science - the science of human psychology - that says we don't do this very well. 

I've given all kinds of data about things like cable news, gun usage and gun crime, the performance of certain states/countries vis-a-vis COVID, etc., and yet I'm still having the same conversations over and over with certain people.  Are they stupid?  Of course not; they're HUMAN.  Why do we expect people to all of a sudden just say "Yay, science!" and buy in without question?  Not that the science isn't accurate, but the RECEPTION to that science.   We - people - don't do well with risk; we just don't. 

If you know this and understand this. Then you know that it's a pretty daunting task to get "EVERYONE" vaccinated. And not everyone will be able to get vaccinated, because of their own personal health reasons. So, it's up to them whether they risk getting vaccinated and seeing if they will get a severe side effect.

My friend and another person I know, took it, not out of their own will mind you, they didn't have a choice really. And they ended up getting some bad side effects from it. My friend had twitches, and the other almost had to go in to a hospital because she almost stopped breathing. These people have legit concerns, because they were concerned before taking the vaccine about how their body will react because they have health issues.

[cramx3]

Luckily everyone doesn't need to be vaccinated, but the amount of people who don't trust the science is a bit alarming to me.  It seems more people have been turning the tide to choose to get vaccinated, but I'm not sure it'll be enough, BUT those people are likely to end up just getting a natural infection and that's their choice.  We will still reach herd immunity eventually. 

Having said that, there was a notice yesterday that someone in my office was covid positive.  They won't say who and I asked around and no one will either tell or knows... but there's one personal noticeably not in.  The one anti-mask guy and far right leaning (nice guy, this is not personal I like him but he is an extreme conservative).  So while I can't right now say 100% it's him, it kind of makes sense and also goes along with what I said.  Either you are going to get covid or you will get vaccinated at some point. 

IMO it's best to get vaccinated as it's safer than a natural infection AND provides better long term protection PLUS helps move the country and humans in general forward quicker out of this pandemic. Your choice sure, but one's a better choice than the other.

[bosk1]

Let me put it this way...

Who is one to say whether what one person decides/chooses to risk? Is that your decision or theirs to make?

What you are doing is choosing and making a decision for someone based on YOUR own reasoning of beliefs and morals. Not everyone has the same morals and beliefs as you.

You think those people did not analyze those risks for their own family and came to the decision what they feel is best for THEIR family. The same that YOU determine what is best for YOUR family? Of course they have and their decision is to not take a vaccine...

What is so hard about understanding and respecting this decision?

As Xe said, this isn't about "deciding" for anyone.  We are just discussing that some of the "logic" that some of those decisions are based on is...well, illogical.

To the part I bolded, the point I was making initially a few posts back, and which I believe Hunnus was making in his, is that some people (not all, but definitely some) are not analyzing the facts and making a decision based on that analysis.  They are making kneejerk reactions or decisions that are based on faulty assumptions and faulty facts.  It is those people that I commented on as far as not "understanding" their decision.  Can I respect it?  Sure.  It is their decision to make.  Can I understand it?  Nope.  Because it is, again, based on error.  It isn't that I disagree with their ultimate decision to not get vaccinated.  I am, again, talking about the subset that make that decision based on faulty assumptions and faulty facts. 

[ProfessorPeart]

To put it bluntly, seeing what the lifelong side effects of getting this disease are, I'm not interested in getting that. So many people will suffer lung and breathing issues for the rest of their lives. Some of these people end up with ravaged lungs as a result. I saw something recently about an NBA player that came down with the disease and now has to take an inhaler before every game because he is experiencing long haul effects. There is a WNBA player whose career may be over due to how bad her long haul symptoms have been.

I realize that their are people that will see all of that and still scoff. To them, I won't even say good luck. To be that self-righteous that you would put yours and others health at risk, nope, can't say anything nice. Reminds me of the idiot pundit I saw on Twitter today. Responded to a pic of Biden in a meeting and he was double-masked. The guy ranted and raved that he shouldn't even have one on and that the liberals want us masked forever. Why is this the hill they want to die on? How is a mask impinging on your liberty?

Okay, enough. I got a little excited tonight. Moving on.

[emtee]

I got vaccinated but I understand why some people choose not to. Science is not perfection nor a guarantee. As time passes, what we currently trust as scientific fact, can and will be proven innacurate.

Many medications and pharma products that went through a rigorous approval process, were found many years later to cause cancer or some other nasty side effects, and were pulled from the market. Of course, lawsuits were plentiful.

Here is an article that proves what I'm trying to say. While it has no direct bearing on the topic of this thread, it serves as proof of the evolution of science and learning. We don't know as much as we think we know but at least we are intelligent enough to realize when we're wrong. Unfortunately, we sometimes don't realize this until a point in the future and can't undo the past.

https://api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/science/article/ultra-precise-experiment-finds-hints-of-unseen-particles-in-the-universe

[jingle.boy]

To the part I bolded, the point I was making initially a few posts back, and which I believe Hunnus was making in his, is that some people (not all, but definitely some) are not analyzing the facts and making a decision based on that analysis.  They are making kneejerk reactions or decisions that are based on faulty assumptions and faulty facts.  It is those people that I commented on as far as not "understanding" their decision.  Can I respect it?  Sure.  It is their decision to make.  Can I understand it?  Nope.  Because it is, again, based on error.  It isn't that I disagree with their ultimate decision to not get vaccinated.  I am, again, talking about the subset that make that decision based on faulty assumptions and faulty facts.

To the women (especially those taking on birth control), I completely understand and respect the decision not to take AZ or JnJ - those are informed and calculated decisions.  There are probably lots of other people out there making informed and calculated decisions.

For those that aren't making INFORMED decisions, I might respect those decisions if it only impacted them.  When those decisions create an unnecessary risk on public health, I don't think any respect is deserved.  It's like respecting someone's decision to drive drunk because they are ok with that choice.  On the second matter that I bolded, I would correct the word "error" with "ignorance".  And as was mentioned - that's towards SOME of the people that are choosing not to vaccinate, not ALL.

Mrs.jingle saw a meme the other day that went something like this.

Little girl:  "Mommy, what's that circle scar on your shoulder"
Mother: "It's from my small-pox vaccine"
Little girl: "Why don't I have one"
Mother: "Because we all took it and it worked"

[Podaar]

I got vaccinated but I understand why some people choose not to. Science is not perfection nor a guarantee. As time passes, what we currently trust as scientific fact, can and will be proven innacurate.

Many medications and pharma products that went through a rigorous approval process, were found many years later to cause cancer or some other nasty side effects, and were pulled from the market. Of course, lawsuits were plentiful.

Here is an article that proves what I'm trying to say. While it has no direct bearing on the topic of this thread, it serves as proof of the evolution of science and learning. We don't know as much as we think we know but at least we are intelligent enough to realize when we're wrong. Unfortunately, we sometimes don't realize this until a point in the future and can't undo the past.

https://api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/science/article/ultra-precise-experiment-finds-hints-of-unseen-particles-in-the-universe

There is a huge difference in discovering new phenomenon at the subatomic level that may alter physics as we know it, then there is to the widely confirmed practices of immunology. Science is a single word but it is by no stretch as monolithic as that implies. As Jingle mentions above, vaccines are proven technology because of highly verifiable results.

Remember, science isn't making infallible truth claims. It never has. The role of science has always been to explain observed phenomenon and advance human understanding. The methods of science are, develop the explanation (hypothesis) and try to come up with anyway to falsify the explanation. Even when a hypothesis becomes a theory (no falsifications found) the goal of science is still to find a way to disprove the theory. Every failed attempt confirms the theory, any successful attempt expands our collective knowledge.

So while I completely agree with you when you say:

Science is not perfection nor a guarantee.

I feel it's important to point out that it is a monumental and terribly difficult task, taken up by dedicated, hardworking, brilliant, and (often times) poorly rewarded people. It is the best human system ever dreamed up because, it works. Time and time again. Yes, even when it fails.

Also, (this has nothing to do with Emtee, of course) I keep reading in this thread and others, people claiming to have done their own research and implying a false equivalency with the research done by the actual biochemists and immunologists. This is so far off base that it's not even up to being wrong yet. Medical science is hard and requires years of patient study, testing and real research. An afternoon with Google doesn't stack up.

[hunnus2000]

Let me put it this way...

Who is one to say whether what one person decides/chooses to risk? Is that your decision or theirs to make?

What you are doing is choosing and making a decision for someone based on YOUR own reasoning of beliefs and morals. Not everyone has the same morals and beliefs as you.

You think those people did not analyze those risks for their own family and came to the decision what they feel is best for THEIR family. The same that YOU determine what is best for YOUR family? Of course they have and their decision is to not take a vaccine...

What is so hard about understanding and respecting this decision?

As Xe said, this isn't about "deciding" for anyone.  We are just discussing that some of the "logic" that some of those decisions are based on is...well, illogical.

To the part I bolded, the point I was making initially a few posts back, and which I believe Hunnus was making in his, is that some people (not all, but definitely some) are not analyzing the facts and making a decision based on that analysis.  They are making kneejerk reactions or decisions that are based on faulty assumptions and faulty facts.  It is those people that I commented on as far as not "understanding" their decision.  Can I respect it?  Sure.  It is their decision to make.  Can I understand it?  Nope.  Because it is, again, based on error.  It isn't that I disagree with their ultimate decision to not get vaccinated.  I am, again, talking about the subset that make that decision based on faulty assumptions and faulty facts.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to decide what's best for the people I reference in my post and Ben_J I don't know how you read that into my post. 

Bosk is right, some people are making ill-informed decisions based on faulty (sometimes purposely faulty) information. Do I understand why people won't get the vaccine, nope but can I respect that decision? No, I can't because on a selfish level, I want to return to some sort of normalcy and the more shots in arms the faster we get back but in the end it's a bad decision.

And for the record, when I have these conversations with people, I do not preach to them that they should get the vaccine as it's not my place.

[Ben_Jamin]

Thing is people make these faulty decisions all the time. And that's what Stadlers post is about.

There'e Science that shows people make faulty decisions involving their risk all the time. In America, we know these foods are bad for us and cause health related issues, same with Alcohol, but we do it anyways.

We do many things that are detrimental to peoples overall well being, besides coughing on someone and getting them sick.

That's why when your sick, you should stay home. But some people can't afford to even stay home one day. They have to work, and earn that money to survive. Not everyone can afford these comforts. That's why poverty stricken people are more susceptible, well one of the many reasons.

But, you said it yourself. Just as those people are considered Selfish to not take a vaccine, you admitted you are exactly as selfish for wanting to return to normalcy.

It's the same selfishness on the same bird just on different wings.

I personally think, the world leaders make faulty decisions that are way worse than a virus could be. Affecting millions of people in the process. I don't fault them because in the end, they're human just like you and me. And I do not expect anyone to make informed decisions on their own, because your decisions have consequences and outcomes. It's like reading a Choose Your Own Adventure book, only you can't go back and choose a different path.

It's why Pontius Pilot handed the decision and fate of Jesus to the people. And amazingly the people chose to release a murderer whom physically harmed someone and killed people, over a man who just said things.

To them the risk of jesus spreading his words was a threat they deemed as the better one to get rid off, rather than the murderer.

I'm just saying that it's no surprise to me that people do not want to take a vaccine, based on whatever they are told, and without making their own mind up.

[Stadler]

it’s not about deciding for anyone else.  At this point the optimal solution to this crisis for both health and economic reasons is for everyone to be vaccinated as fast as possible.  To use your phrase, what’s so hard to understand about that?

Because, implicitly, it is.  The judgement.  The use of "stupid" and "illogical" and "selfish" all have connotations to them.   There are hundreds of issues facing America (the world, frankly) where the "optimal solution" is disregarded in favor of either political, cultural or individual concerns, and we bend over backwards to make sure we DON'T use judgmental language in order to protect those - emotionally - that we align with.  You know it and I know it.

I've got my first shot under my belt, and my second is scheduled for this Monday.  I, generally, trust science, I, generally, trust the facts, but there ARE variables here we do not know the values for.   And I won't lie:  I was scared before the first shot, and I'm even more scared before this one.  Scared I'm going to get sick, scared I'm going to increase my odds of some debilitating condition, scared that I'm a lab rat.   

But I will do it; not because it's "optimal solution", not because I'm more logical, smarter or giving than anyone else (though I am ) or any of those more sanctimonious reasons (though all of that IS a part of it, on one level).  I'm doing it because I feel - not KNOW, FEEL - it's the right thing for ME and for my FAMILY, and will afford me the best odds of staying capable of doing those things - earning, running a house, being a dad - that my family relies on me for.   But here's the thing:  I would not, I CANNOT, begrudge ANY other human being from doing the same internal calculus, from making the same decision I made, even if they get an opposite answer.  Or if they let their fear overcome them and drive their decision.   Some - most, maybe all - of us here have stood up for people that cannot or will not make the best decision "logically" or big picture out of fear and we think nothing of it.  No, we CELEBRATE it.   Abortion is the ready example; science, facts, say it's probably the "optimal solution" for a certain subset of women to opt for abortion.  It's "logical", it's "smart" and it's "selfless", but we wouldn't, for racial, gender, or cultural concerns even DARE to suggest that she should.

[Stadler]

Let me put it this way...

Who is one to say whether what one person decides/chooses to risk? Is that your decision or theirs to make?

What you are doing is choosing and making a decision for someone based on YOUR own reasoning of beliefs and morals. Not everyone has the same morals and beliefs as you.

You think those people did not analyze those risks for their own family and came to the decision what they feel is best for THEIR family. The same that YOU determine what is best for YOUR family? Of course they have and their decision is to not take a vaccine...

What is so hard about understanding and respecting this decision?

As Xe said, this isn't about "deciding" for anyone.  We are just discussing that some of the "logic" that some of those decisions are based on is...well, illogical.

To the part I bolded, the point I was making initially a few posts back, and which I believe Hunnus was making in his, is that some people (not all, but definitely some) are not analyzing the facts and making a decision based on that analysis.  They are making kneejerk reactions or decisions that are based on faulty assumptions and faulty facts.  It is those people that I commented on as far as not "understanding" their decision.  Can I respect it?  Sure.  It is their decision to make.  Can I understand it?  Nope.  Because it is, again, based on error.  It isn't that I disagree with their ultimate decision to not get vaccinated.  I am, again, talking about the subset that make that decision based on faulty assumptions and faulty facts.

But that's really my point, Bosk:  when you take out the sort of "objective reading" of science that just assumes everyone will follow that the same way, and inject the well-documented blind spot that many - most - humans have toward that exact "objective reading" of science when it comes to personal risk, it's NOT illogical.   The shot is NOW. It's REAL.  It's HAPPENING, and based on a personal decision. There is accountability, there is causation, and for a benefit that is existential at best (for some).  THIS IS HOW HUMANS GENERALLY JUDGE RISK.   These decisions are logical in that regard.   

I've quoted this book many, many times, and I will do so again:  "How Risky Is It, Really?" by Dave Ropeik.   This is NOT surprising behavior to me; I make the same mistake that others make - I DO plug it into more general philosophical ideas, like freedom of choice, etc. - but even those aren't really necessarily about objective logic.  Ask El Barto; he's better at explaining it than I am; even "free will" is sort of a misnomer; we're guided by our human nature, by our genes, by our upbringings.  What we THINK are choices, aren't always, and even when they are, they aren't all "logical".

tl;dr:  Some of you are yelling SCIENCE at the top of your lungs, and that's okay, but don't ignore ALL science, is my point.  It's selective reasoning - and ignoring OTHER science - to assume that all people should read the same fact and arrive at the same conclusion, independent of fear, human psychology, or any other pertinent, human emotion.

[hunnus2000]

So Stads, you're a "feelie"?

Here's one for you - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjD0e1d6GgQ

[Stadler]

So Stads, you're a "feelie"?

Here's one for you - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjD0e1d6GgQ

I don't know what a "feelie" is, but I'm 99% sure I'm NOT.   I also am an outlier with the use of social media, I believe my opinion (as related to other opinions) isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and most people (Americans) are so insecure that they HAVE to rely on their opinions as a modest means of generating self-worth in a vicious do-loop of mediocrity.  I used that term to use the terminology of the age we're in.

Don't assume the opposite though; don't assume I think I'm better than anyone else; I try to rely on science and data, but I'm human like everyone else.  I have my blind spots and biases.   Where I tend to differ with everyone else is in my adherence to the fundamental right of a sentient human to be wrong without scathing judgement and/or moral bullying from sanctimonious people that also "feel" they are right.    

[soupytwist]

In the UK we have now vaccinated over 50% of the population and last week came out of our 3rd national lockdown, there are still restrictions in place, we are following a roadmap laid out by our government.
Right now the numbers are really low, the lowest since this pandemic took hold, there is a general good feeling now and we hope the vaccines can keep the numbers from rising again - we are now the test case, for once we've led the world and done some something well with our vaccination program.

[jingle.boy]

In the UK we have now vaccinated over 50% of the population and last week came out of our 3rd national lockdown, there are still restrictions in place, we are following a roadmap laid out by our government.
Right now the numbers are really low, the lowest since this pandemic took hold, there is a general good feeling now and we hope the vaccines can keep the numbers from rising again - we are now the test case, for once we've led the world and done some something well with our vaccination program.

Color me green with envy.  We're the exact opposite here in Canada.

[kirksnosehair]

There's a reason it's called the "practice" of medicine.  No medical procedure of any kind, whether it be a simple drawing of blood or a quadruple bypass surgery is without risk.  In a civil society part of the social contract is we all agree to be treated by doctors knowing full well that something could -and sometimes does- go wrong.  Vaccine hesitancy in this instance, I believe, is mostly based on ignorance of the facts.  I'm not talking about any present company, all I am saying is if you're going to refuse to take the vaccine then you should understand that the rest of us who are taking the vaccine -you know, the overwhelming majority of the people around you- have every right to restrict where you can go and who you can be in the presence of.  WE are you FORCING you to do anything, but when the majority are doing thing A and you are doing thing B don't be surprised when the majority place limitations on what you can and cannot do.  That's the responsibility we all agree to when we decide to live in a civilization among other people.

[Ben_Jamin]

There's a reason it's called the "practice" of medicine.  No medical procedure of any kind, whether it be a simple drawing of blood or a quadruple bypass surgery is without risk.  In a civil society part of the social contract is we all agree to be treated by doctors knowing full well that something could -and sometimes does- go wrong.  Vaccine hesitancy in this instance, I believe, is mostly based on ignorance of the facts.  I'm not talking about any present company, all I am saying is if you're going to refuse to take the vaccine then you should understand that the rest of us who are taking the vaccine -you know, the overwhelming majority of the people around you- have every right to restrict where you can go and who you can be in the presence of.  WE are you FORCING you to do anything, but when the majority are doing thing A and you are doing thing B don't be surprised when the majority place limitations on what you can and cannot do.  That's the responsibility we all agree to when we decide to live in a civilization among other people.

That's exactly what they did in Jesus times. Those whom were at risk, all decided to just exile the lepers. Those people were shunned because they had leprosy Jesus wants afraid and visited the lepers.

That's exactly what they did to us Natives who didn't assimilate. Because we weren't "Civil".

You do know that still is force. Just a nicer way of saying Force.


Also, Natural Remedies have those same risks and also, people are very ignorant about these. Some even consider them "Snake Oil"...But we are ignorant to their benefits because they haven't even been considered for study or tests....until now. It's why you have doctors recommending these Natural Remedies, and a simple diet change.

People will find what works best for them.

[XeRocks81]

good health isn’t a safeguard against covid-19, it’s still very much a roll of the dice.  The vaccines on the hand, really are protecting us but more importantly slowing and stopping the spread.