Global Protests Against Social Distancing, Lockdown, Vaccine Mandate

[Greatbee]

'From' Covid, not 'with' Covid

The CDC requirements on this are quite, quite clear:

"When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death on the death certificate, it is coded and counted as a death due to COVID-19. COVID-19 should not be reported on the death certificate if it did not cause or contribute to the death."

COVID-19 Death Data and Resources - National Vital Statistics System

National Center for Health Statistics

www.cdc.gov

'With' implies that someone who had Covid, but died in a Car Crash (for example) would be included in the stats, that is not the case.


You know that's being used for Covid prevention how?

It is in my country Latvia. The "Berlin wall of covid"

 

[VolkswagenX]

'From' Covid, not 'with' Covid

The CDC requirements on this are quite, quite clear:

"When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death on the death certificate, it is coded and counted as a death due to COVID-19. COVID-19 should not be reported on the death certificate if it did not cause or contribute to the death."

COVID-19 Death Data and Resources - National Vital Statistics System

National Center for Health Statistics

www.cdc.gov

'With' implies that someone who had Covid, but died in a Car Crash (for example) would be included in the stats, that is not the case.


You know that's being used for Covid prevention how?

I disagree with the CDC on this point. Throwing around numbers of deaths without clearly pointing out how COVID effects different people in different ways is dishonest. Atleast most experts here (including the pro mandate experts) agree that a large majority of the people ending up in the hospital and/or dying are people that are very old, and/or have some kind of comorbidity.

Just compare the number of people who died from Covid in America to that of the Netherlands. Clearly there are more factors than just COVID.

 

[Imari]

I'm confused.. When is it ok to compare COVID to a virus/disease? The Flu kills many people to but there is no vaccine mandate for the Flu. Is that a fair comparison?

You're getting ahead of yourself.

You said that you don't think it's a fair comparison. That's your statement, and I'm asking you to back that up with a little more reasoning than "no, wrong".

My opinion hasn't even come into it yet, so you don't get to ask me what a fair comparison is before you've explained your own stance. You start there, then we can discuss.

It is in my country Latvia. The "Berlin wall of covid"

Bigger version.

Comparing that to the Berlin Wall is like comparing vaccine mandates to the Holocaust. Completely disrespectful and shows a wild misunderstanding of what actually went on in the past. It's a ****ing builders fence.

Also, a quick reverse image search suggests that all may not be as it appears...

I disagree with the CDC on this point. Throwing around numbers of deaths without clearly pointing out how COVID effects different people in different ways is dishonest. Atleast most experts here (including the pro mandate experts) agree that a large majority of the people ending up in the hospital and/or dying are people that are very old, and/or have some kind of comorbidity.

I mean, you understand that old people don't just die of old though, right? They weaken to the point that something else finishes them off, be it pneumonia or a fall down the stairs or COVID. That doesn't mean that those statistics don't count, it just means that they're against a vulnerable population. But it's still a death from COVID, one that wouldn't have occurred at the time and in the way it did without the presence of the virus.

Maybe you think that those deaths count for less than deaths among more "healthy" populations. How do you suggest that the death numbers should be altered in order to accurately and clearly communicate this? You can't ignore that those people died, but you want to somehow communicate that some deaths are less meaningful than others. That seems difficult but I'd love to see you try.

 

[MatskiMonk]

It is in my country Latvia. The "Berlin wall of covid"

Seems like a really **** way of segregating people even if the fence was a 100% hermetic barrier... at best even the vaccinated people can't get to all the stuff they might want to buy, why would a supermarket or store think that was a good idea?

Given the source of the photo, I think most people would like proof that one side of the fence is for the vaccinated and one side is for the unvaccinated, and that it was in anyway enforced. If that photo was in here in the UK, the obvious assumption is that it's a temporary one way system to stop people mixing too much, a technique that was widely applied early on during lockdown here, but had nothing to do with vaccination status. I could be wrong of course, but there's nothing in the photo to support the claim that's being implied.

 

[Greatbee]

Seems like a really **** way of segregating people even if the fence was a 100% hermetic barrier... at best even the vaccinated people can't get to all the stuff they might want to buy, why would a supermarket or store think that was a good idea?

Given the source of the photo, I think most people would like proof that one side of the fence is for the vaccinated and one side is for the unvaccinated, and that it was in anyway enforced. If that photo was in here in the UK, the obvious assumption is that it's a temporary one way system to stop people mixing too much, a technique that was widely applied early on during lockdown here, but had nothing to do with vaccination status. I could be wrong of course, but there's nothing in the photo to support the claim that's being implied.

It was to separate unvaccinated and vaccinated. Vaccinated had opportunity to visit all stores. But unvaccinated was able to go only in food store.

It is segregation. It's political and nothing to do with human health.

 

[VolkswagenX]

You're getting ahead of yourself.

You said that you don't think it's a fair comparison. That's your statement, and I'm asking you to back that up with a little more reasoning than "no, wrong".

1. Smallpox is 60 times more deadly than COVID
2. Smallpox or any other desease is not a factor in me being against state enforced vaccine mandates.

My opinion hasn't even come into it yet, so you don't get to ask me what a fair comparison is before you've explained your own stance. You start there, then we can discuss.

I only asked, when is it fair to compare COVID to something else?

I mean, you understand that old people don't just die of old though, right? They weaken to the point that something else finishes them off, be it pneumonia or a fall down the stairs or COVID.

Yes, different people are affected differently by COVID. Finally something we agree on.

That doesn't mean that those statistics don't count, it just means that they're against a vulnerable population. But it's still a death from COVID, one that wouldn't have occurred at the time and in the way it did without the presence of the virus.

Who said they don't count? They count (here, I said it), but there are different ways to present statistics. Different people are affected differntly by COVID.

Maybe you think that those deaths count for less than deaths among more "healthy" populations. How do you suggest that the death numbers should be altered in order to accurately and clearly communicate this? You can't ignore that those people died, but you want to somehow communicate that some deaths are less meaningful than others.

Wow there, don't accuse me off being a ghoul. I never said that one that is meaningless compared to another death.

That seems difficult but I'd love to see you try.

It's difficult to convince a person when they are set on disagreeing with you no matter what you say.

 

[Imari]

1. Smallpox is 60 times more deadly than COVID
2. Smallpox or any other desease is not a factor in me being against state enforced vaccine mandates.

So smallpox doesn't exist any more, but other diseases that require vaccinations still do. You say that they all play no part in your opinion.

Which is interesting, because it's an implicit admission that you do not take the health outcomes into consideration.
Which is double interesting, because whatever else you might think is more important than the health outcomes, it's difficult to make use of it if you're dead.

If you're being sensible, you need to consider the threat and outcomes of each specific disease in order to make a rational decision about the sacrifices (or lack of sacrifices) that you're willing to accept in order to avoid those risks. If you're refusing to take the risks into account at all then that's just having your head in the sand. Nobody ever made a good decision about risk without taking the risk itself into account.

It's difficult to convince a person when they are set on disagreeing with you no matter what you say.

Said like someone trying to avoid the simple act of explaining how they would prefer statistics to be presented. It's not actually as easy as it looks, is it?

If you could do it I'd actually be pretty interested. But I spend a fair bit of time working with numbers and my first impression is that the sort of statistical presentation that you're looking for is both not trivial to put together and not very easy to understand for a layman.

There's a reason that most information for the general public just sticks to simple death numbers, and it's because they're clear and simple. Yes, there is more depth of knowledge that can potentially be gained by looking at more complex statistics, but the sort of people who would understand that are generally assumed to be capable of tracking it down from sources that are less widely available or simply generating it from the available raw data themselves. The fact that X number of people have died today/this week/this month is generally enough to support the broad overview presented to a layman.

It's why I ask you what data you would like to see, because if you don't even know what you're looking for then you're just complaining for the sake of complaining. If you say what you actually expect from a set of "good" statistics, then they probably exist out there somewhere and we can use them to further the discussion based on actual facts.

 

[VolkswagenX]

but other diseases that require vaccinations still do.

And where back to this again. None of these vaccines currently have a state enforced mandates.

 

[Greatbee]

 

[Famine]

View attachment 1097473

I'd say that the people who put the barricades up are gibbering imbeciles who don't have the first clue about pretty much anything.

This being the second time you've brought up moronic ways of mitigating viral spread in Latvia, what's the relevance?

 

[Scaff]

I disagree with the CDC on this point.

That much was clear from the manner you used to phrase it (which to be blunt was an attempt to mislead)..

Throwing around numbers of deaths without clearly pointing out how COVID effects different people in different ways is dishonest. Atleast most experts here (including the pro mandate experts) agree that a large majority of the people ending up in the hospital and/or dying are people that are very old, and/or have some kind of comorbidity.

And if Covid is a factor in that, then it's not dishonest at all. The CDC have been quite clear and transparent in this regard from the start. It is however a long held and commonly practice that the anti-vaxx community has used for years, you can even find example of members doing the exact same thing here at GTP, long before Covid-19.

Just compare the number of people who died from Covid in America to that of the Netherlands. Clearly there are more factors than just COVID.

You're the one raising it as an issue, as such that burden falls to you, not me.

 

[Greatbee]

I'd say that the people who put the barricades up are gibbering imbeciles who don't have the first clue about pretty much anything.

This being the second time you've brought up moronic ways of mitigating viral spread in Latvia, what's the relevance?

I just inform what is happening in my country.

 

[Famine]

I' just inform what is happening in my country.

Well, I've got some bad news for you... the people who decided that and that were appropriate countermeasures to COVID-19 transmission are blithering idiots, and are likely in charge of a lot more than just that.


The good news is that more sensible approaches are taken elsewhere. Not good news for you so much, I'll admit.

 

[Greatbee]

Well, I've got some bad news for you... the people who decided that and that were appropriate countermeasures to COVID-19 transmission are blithering idiots, and are likely in charge of a lot more than just that.


The good news is that more sensible approaches are taken elsewhere. Not good news for you so much, I'll admit.

It smells for Nuremberg trial 2.0

 

[TexRex]

Covidiocy is mental illness.

 

[VolkswagenX]

That much was clear from the manner you used to phrase it (which to be blunt was an attempt to mislead)..


And if Covid is a factor in that, then it's not dishonest at all. The CDC have been quite clear and transparent in this regard from the start. It is however a long held and commonly practice that the anti-vaxx community has used for years, you can even find example of members doing the exact same thing here at GTP, long before Covid-19.




You're the one raising it as an issue, as such that burden falls to you, not me.

I am against vaccine mandates. You guys keep throwing up new stuff as if that would change my position. Let me be clear. Even at a CFR of 10%, I would still be against a state enforced vaccine mandates. It does not matter how much a mandate worked for a different desease. You guys keep trying to take the argument away from the main point.

We're going in circles and getting nowhere. We disagree, simple as

 

[McLaren]

Everything I don't like about Covid is Hitler.

 

[Famine]

It smells for Nuremberg trial 2.0

I'm not... quite sure why.

What's the parallel between ineffectual virus countermeasures and a genocidal regime which imprisons, enslaves, and mutilates populations based on their ethnicity, sexuality, and physical capability which would bring a case for those who implement the former to be put on trial as if they are the latter?

I am against vaccine mandates. You guys keep throwing up new stuff as if that would change my position. Let me be clear. Even at a CFR of 10%, I would still be against a state enforced vaccine mandate.

Yeah, everyone got that the first dozen times or so.

The question is why. All the "new stuff" people are "throwing up" is trying to get you to explain your position (and therefore think about it) rather than just stating it over and over again.

 

[VolkswagenX]

Yeah, everyone got that the first dozen times or so.

The question is why. All the "new stuff" people are "throwing up" is trying to get you to explain your position (and therefore think about it) rather than just stating it over and over again.

Please explain to me what an acceptable position would be for you guys? The problems we have here is that some of you don't like the explanations I have given on my position. Having to constantly explain to some of you that the positions/opinions ("you seem to think it's ok for x number of people to die", "you think it's ok to go out and spread a desease", "you think vaccines don't work") gets tiresome.

I actually think about my positions a lot. None of the arguments given have conviced me to change my position. If anything, they made me feel more confident in the beliefs that I have.

 

[Famine]

Please explain to me what an acceptable position would be for you guys? The problems we have here is that some of you don't like the explanations I have given on my position. Having to constantly explain to some of you that the positions/opinions ("you seem to think it's ok for x number of people to die", "you think it's ok to go out and spread a desease", "you think vaccines don't work") gets tiresome.

This isn't explaining why. This is dodging explaining why.

We get it. You're against vaccine mandates. Why?

 

[VolkswagenX]

This isn't explaining why. This is dodging explaining why.

We get it. You're against vaccine mandates. Why?

Because I strongly believe that it should be a personal choice if someone gets vaccinated or not.

 

[Greatbee]

Because I strongly believe that it should be a personal choice if someone gets vaccinated or not.

I stand for You! Common sense.

 

[Scaff]

Because I strongly believe that it should be a personal choice if someone gets vaccinated or not.

Cool.

Now if unvaccinated people (who are more likely to ignore other measures as well) are a significantly higher risk to others (and therefore remove those peoples rights) what would you do about them?

 

[Famine]

Because I strongly believe that it should be a personal choice if someone gets vaccinated or not.

That's slightly alarming. Beliefs are what we have when we don't have facts or logic, and that does not bode well for any kind of rational discussion.

Nonetheless... how did you arrive at this belief? What thought processes, reasoning, and logic - if any - guided you towards this position?

 

[Scaff]

I stand for You! Common sense.

Do you support me having a right to punch you in the face randomly with zero consequences?

If not then why are you against one form of endangerment of others and not another?

 

[Greatbee]

I believe that vaxx are poison in long term.
Corrupt governments rule us. They dont want us to be healthy. They want control.

 

[McLaren]

Cool.

Now if unvaccinated people (who are more likely to ignore other measures as well) are a significantly higher risk to others (and therefore remove those peoples rights) what would you do about them?

Imagine Mary Mallon in this day and age.


"Way to go Mary! I believe it's your choice to get vaccinated or not!"

Dies.

 

[Scaff]

I believe that vaxx are poison in long term.

Proven to be untrue, repeatedly. But that's what 'belief' gets you.

Corrupt governments rule us. They dont want us to be healthy. They want control.

Oh dear.

 

[Greatbee]

Do you support me having a right to punch you in the face randomly with zero consequences?

If not then why are you against one form of endangerment of others and not another?

Yess you have ar right to punch me as I have right to defend my self.

 

[TB]

Yess you have ar right to punch me as I have right to defend my self.

By putting up some kind of barrier to stop the unwanted attack? An attack that probably won't, but might, kill you or leave you with other ailments?