So, you don't believe the CDC director?

I don't think he means what you claim he means but if he somehow agrees with you then no., obviously I wouldnt agree with him.

And this completely dishonest spin endures.

The pretense that 'stopping transmission is the be all and end all and nothing else matters is just a deeply stupid partisan spin that shows a certain subset of the population knows they lost this battle on the merits and can only only this fake issue as a win.

Again, no one cares about Covid past or current, NO ONE, if hospitalizations and deaths are nearly eliminated amongst the vaccine.

That is a massive win for society and answer the derp question of that tweet that others will pretend has never been answered.

Sigh, derps gonna derp.

I kind of enjoy their "logic." Using an extreme example:

Assume not vaccinated = 99% death

Assume vaccinated = 0% death

Assume vaccine does nothing to prevent infection and transmission

Conclusion: Vaccine is of no use.


Better to go to a feed store and get some Ivermectin paste (used to de-worm horses) after doing internet research. Pick a package with a nice horsey picture on it, slap on some Zinc, stand in the sun and you are good to go!

You are the one who spouts gibberish. Are you typing this from your bunker, hiding from Biden's agents who are on their way to put you in an internment camp?

Anyway regarding the silly question in your tweet... try using your imagination. How do you think a vaccine that reduces severity of illness and likelihood of death (and also reduces likelihood of infection and therefore transmission), might benefit a company, city, populace, etc.? It's not hard. Then ask yourself why a company like, say, Amazon, might be inclined to want their employees vaccinated. If you think long and hard I bet the answer comes to you.

I guess I am lost in your argument. The whole reason for demanding mass vaccination is to reduce transmission and protect vulnerable people.

If it doesn't prevent transmission, there is no reason to demand people get vaccinated.

Demanding people get vaccinated solely for their own protection seems like an entirely new line of thinking that I haven't previously heard.

Right because transmission without hospitalization and death is meaningless.

Only transmission matters thus why we have always shut down cities for the common cold. We don't want transmission as transmission is the only thing that matters. :{


I cannot explain it any more simply. Derps gonna derp and derps do not have the intellectual capacity to bridge this divide.

But here it is again. No one, NO ONE, cares about transmissibility if it does not result in hospitalizations and deaths. Transmissibility is NOT the issue.

NO one would care about cancer if a new medication was found that stopped hospitalization and deaths from cancer. A derp would say 'but people are still getting cancer, this medicine just stops it getting to a serious state where anyone needs hospitalization and no one dies from cancer. What a failure this drug is'.

And believe me, i get it, this forum has an extraordinarily high percent of derps who cannot comprehend what i am saying here. They simply cannot make this leap.

I don't blame them. They just don't have the intellectual capacity.

Unlike you, I think many "get" it, and for some their messaging has adapted a bit (Covid is a hoax then Covid is just the flu then Covid just kills useless olds and fatties etc.), but the reality is that they have no good foundation for their messaging so they keep bouncing about trying to get something that sticks, but nothing really sticks, because how can it. Definitely some are too stupid to get it, but those are the really lower end derps, and at least they are great as a source of income for others, so they do serve a purpose.



Well, in theory those in government would prefer that a huge chunk of the people in their country avoid a choice that greatly increases their chances of being hospitalized (expensive, uses up space for other needs there) and deaths (less expensive outcome), so one cannot really fault them for making those efforts.

As I am part of team "Let it Rip!" I basically agree with you that people can choose to cull themselves as they like, even though that does come with a short term cost. Realistically, the strongest message for many anti-vaxxers is watching people they believe get really sick and croak, as that has definitely spurred an increase in vaccinations more than any message from health authorities could do at this point, so one could argue that the thousands and tens of thousands that are choosing death will result in hundreds of thousands or millions to make a different choice once they see someone they know croak.

But we allow people to engage in activities that have a direct link to cancer. So if we mandate a vaccine, why aren't we banning those activities?

Derp logic 101 :

- Sickle cell anemia : used to be a pain filled life and early death (teens) for those diagnosed with this disease. Medications now manage this disease in a way that people live a normal life.

Derps : but this in no way diminishes the prevalence of the disease so the medication does now work. People still get it!!! What is point?

- HIV : also painful early death as HIV would progress to full Aids. Now medication can allow people to live with HIV a mostly normal life.

Derps : but this does not stop people getting HIV so what is the point???

I am somewhat losing you here.

If I have AIDS, do I have to get treatment? Is there a government mandate saying that I have to take whatever treatment the government says is in my best interest?

They do not care about your selfish specific concerns and interests with regard to public health policies for many of the reasons I listed. Fact is the derps that share your beliefs are the first ones to rush to the hospitals when they cannot breathe due to Covid. Now, if people who choose to not get the vaccine also choose to not use any medical resources to treat them then that equation changes, even with the relatively small cost of discovering and removing the various derp corpses in their homes.

I guess that is the question I would ask you. If you believe you have the right to not take a preventative medication that would keep you out of the hospital when you get Covid, which you will, then would you agree to not use up any medical resources after you get Covid. Your choice, your body etc. etc.

Think the big difference is if you get sickle cell anemia and don't get treatment you live a painful life often leading to a early death. If you get HIV and don't get treatment it leads to Aids.

If you get Covid and don't receive treatment many people cure from it naturally.

Your response is really odd. I am vaccinated. I wear a mask. I didn't do anything during the height of the pandemic to put myself or my family at risk.

The question isn't whether I believe the vaccines work. The question is whether or not the government should mandate people to get vaccinated.

Your response is yes, because unvaccinated people take up valuable health resources. I think this argument is really flawed, because we allow other activities that have a far greater impact on health resources.

If it's okay to demand people get vaccinated for the public good, then why do we allow other activities that have a far greater negative impact on our society?

The reason people are required to get other vaccinations, against measles for example, is because of the potential negative impact on others, and because the vaccine stops transmission. If the measles vaccine had the same impact on that virus as the covid vaccine has, I couldn't possibly see a reason to require it, although I could see where it would be recommended.

Honestly unhappy misanthropes like Monteroy are why fascism and brutal communism were able to rise. Just brain dead + a touch of misanthropy + poorly developed ethical principles = fascism and communism if enough people are like that guy.

You could maybe argue (badly) for forcing the vaccine in public spaces when it actually stopped covid spread, but now with delta it doesn't even do that to a meaningful degree - scientists now openly say covid is going to go through everyone multiple times despite vaccination - so there's no moral case at all for forcing people out of public life and work and school if they refuse a medical treatment.

It's very basic democratic foundational morality that you cannot be coerced into medical treatment, and you have to wonder about the morality of people who don't instinctively understand that.

Heh, all your recent posts are latching onto other people to whine about me. Stop being such a beta snowflake and just join team "Let it Rip!" already. As part of the team, you can even take partial credit for any future followers, since you have yet to get any on your own, with your messaging, for several years.

We will have to agree to disagree on whether people should be allowed to do anything they like that have a negative impact on society, since other than the absolute worst example (whatever that would be) - one can simply say "why stop this when there are worse things that can happen."



Realistically, if the vaccines did stop some levels of transmission - that would not change positions like yours in the bulk of the people that have those beliefs. Its not like "they do not prevent transmission as well as before" was the thing that turned them into anti-vaxxers. They get triggered pretty easily!

I’m getting triggered!!
The CDC director is a she not a he!
Rochelle is a badass chick who’s the bomb at messaging and science. Not even remotely hysterical.

There are all sorts of required vaccines for school, travel, etc. already. The idea that since Covid can be spread by vaccinated people (although even there it is less likely, but leaving that aside) - this means there is no social good to requiring them, is faulty. Keeping hospital beds from being unavailable to people with other illnesses, keeping the economy moving by reducing employees who end up in the hospital or dead, these are net positives to society.

I don't understand the pivot among the anti-vaxxers lately. They work well at preventing hospitalization and death, that is beyond dispute at this point. But since they don't fully stop infection and transmission, we should just forget the whole thing and let it rip?

The vaccine hysteria is so overdone. Billions of people vaccinated worldwide. About to get full FDA approval within a few days. Will Shuffle stop calling it "experimental" when that happens? Just suck it up and get the shot, it's not that hard.

Its pissing into the gale of derp but UK data show vaccine has some ability to prevent transmission, its obviously not 100% but a vaccinated person is still less likely to both catch the vid and then pass it on, which is two processes, not one, which is how most of the derp hoard are presenting it.

What we know about the vaccines:
*Reduces probability to contract COVID.
*Reduces probability to infect others with COVID if you do get COVID.
*Reduces probability of having serious symptoms.
*Reduces probability of being hospitalized.
*Reduces probability of death.

Every one of these helps in achieving these key goals of fighting COVID:
*Keeping the people healthy.
*Protecting our economy.
*Protecting our healthcare.
*Protecting the elderly & weak of our society.
*Getting closer to a pre-COVID society.

Vaccines should be mandatory for people with jobs with lots of contact with weak & elderly, no discussion imo.
Going further than that, I think making the vaccine mandatory in regions where vaccination efforts are not going well, is a good idea. The government should focus on education first, but it is clear a lot of people are dying on the anti-vax hill regardless of what is presented to them.
I do think making being not vaccinated incredibly annoying is the first good thing to do.

I cringe very hard when I see people saying that a vaccine passport for restaurants, bars, traveling, etc, is some horrible thing destroying our freedom. People have it all wrong. Not having vaccine passport-regulations is what will destroy our freedom if a country or region is not vaccinated sufficiently. If R>1 and there is a significant portion of unvaccinated people in a region/country, there will be new lockdowns necessary at some point if rules are relaxed. Nothing has changed, it actually got worse with delta.

And, on a more personal level, I also don't want to be in high-risk close-contacts with unvaccinated people. I see that as an infraction my freedom. People saying they don't need a vax and then want to be able to get into high risk close contact situations with elderly or weak people, are incredibly egoistic. You will need to pick, get the vaccine or have less freedom. It will happen everywhere at some point.

Entirely possible R > 1 even with 100% vaccination.

That's still not a reason to not get a vaccine.

It's just a fact that Covid spreads slower among vaccinated (lower viral load generally) and the vaccinated just doesn't get nearly as sick as the unvaccinated, on average.

The difference between covid and all the other examples is that of putting others at risk.

People can argue about that risk but that is the difference. I doubt there are any people who support enforcement measures that they dont think reduces risk for others.

None of you guys care about others getting the vax because you are worried about their and societies well being. You want them to take the vax because YOU already took the vax and if something ends up going wrong you will feel better knowing things are going wrong for everyone. You need to come to terms with your inner abyss, meditate and understand.

I think you may be getting confused between public health and getting married

Is this a strawman being stuffed? Who is discussing that?

I am all for allowing people that choice as long as they are all for allowing others to not associate with them. Both sides get freedom of choice.