Would we choose vaccine passports?

You know, a completely different option would just be to have separate flights, kind of like how some flights used to have smoking and non-smoking sections.

 

@FAW if you want an even more detailed explanation of humoral response, see this post of mine:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...e-pentagon-says.585751/page-2#post-1072491711

 

I like you, LangleyMan. You get it. Unlike so many, here.

 

They? The vaccines or the vaccine passports?
The vaccines have a huge value. Even the weaker ones still significantly abate hospitalizations and death.
Vaccine passports, I'm not as sure, like I said. I'm not a big fan. I think there are too many variables, and these passports would create a false sense of security. Might backfire.

 

Sorry for the ambiguity. I was referring to the passports. I can easily see that going off the rails.

 

I agree.

 

My understanding is that mRNA vaccines approved so far are quite effective for older people. Is that true, and if so, why?

 

That is true. Why, is a mystery.

 

Unless we make asking for proof of vaccination illegal, there are people with a financial incentive to ask for one. Cruise lines. Restaurants. Movie theaters. Clubs.

I wouldn't want to be in a university dorm with unvaccinated students. You could find yourself quarantined.

If you won't let a cruise company require vaccination, a lot of vaccinated people won't buy a ticket.

 

Gives you something to do.

Here in British Columbia (5.1m people; 1,595 deaths), covid deaths in older people fell dramatically as vaccination percentages climbed well over 80%.

 

Combine that with low vaccination levels and sustained community transmission, and there will be businesses frantic to get back the many customers who won't patronize their business as long as unvaccinated customers are around.

I think many liberal types believe Trump supporters are doing whatever they can to keep the pandemic going. The country isn't in a good place.

 

"Respected" by whom? Why would you take away the right of a business to require a mask or proof of vaccination because some other businesses that don't require masks or vaccinations "are not similarly respected?"

 

I dont want to take any rights away. A business should have the right to require, accept, ban or not care at all about masks/vaccines on its property. But I'm also rebellious. Push one way and I'll push the other. TBC I'd rather not push at all. But pushing back is in my nature...

 

If you find that stuff interesting.

People are less likely to move to a state with a lot of covid.

 

It has nothing to do with another business requiring vaccinations or masks. You push back by taking away someone else's rights? Hohhhh-Kayyyyy...

 

I think many conservative types believe Biden supporters are doing whatever they can to keep the covid emergency going. They haven’t gotten enough control over other Americans economic choices , individual rights, and religious liberty yet. They can’t let the crisis go to waste without getting a socialist economic reset, the green new deal , and to try to get total political power forever.

 

I have seen the assertions. The question is why folks like the CDC or government then don't treat vaccinated people that way. If, as a vaccinated person, I still have to endure all of the restrictions that still exist, then what good has my being vaccinated produced for me? I still must virtue signal by wearing a mask, I must still distance, blah blah blah. So which is it? Effective, or not?

 

You mentioned a couple of things that actually need citations. Where is the long term study that demonstrates reinfection or infectiousness once vaccinated?

Two, you sound like Fauci here. "Once infection rates come down". A goal post moved yet again. To what? 1000 a day in the country? 5000? none? What is that quantifiable number?

You suggest masks cut transmission. Again, citation? It's an assumption, and likely it's been a dangerous one. Masks don't protect the users. Period. Do they protect anyone else? Debatable.

So, this allows political folks to endlessly interfere in every day life, continue to artificially induce economic chaos, etc. When does it end? Fauci was asked that directly, and he gave the same BS answer you did. How convenient.

 

The ONLY part in your long diatribe that is relevant to the predicate of our discussion is what I have left above. The rest was not relevant. Presumably you put in the rest in order to attempt to build credibility?

At any rate....You are correct, and this corresponds with what I have said all along. The virus in that situation does not stand a chance. The virus does not replicate, and the person does not "catch" Covid. The virus replicating and becoming symptomatic or replicating and showing up as asymptomatic in the Pfizer and Moderna products is somewhere in the neighborhood of a 90%+ reduction in it being evident at least from a clinical standpoint. My position at no time claimed that this protection was indefinite.

Now when you go back to the context to where you and I began conversing, that person had said "the vaccine doesn't protect you from receiving the virus from someone who's infected.it only reduces your symptoms and seriousness of infection" to which I replied "The vaccine reduces your risk of catching the virus by 95%."

The person to whom I was speaking was distinctly incorrect in claiming that it ONLY reduces your symptoms and seriousness of infection. You decided to jump into a conversation and for some strange reason want to discuss a wholly irrelevant to the predicate technicality as to what constitutes "catching" a virus, particularly when your position is taking up for the party that was undeniably incorrect in claiming that it ONLY reduces the symptoms. In your long diatribe, at no point did you demonstrate that from some bizarre technical standpoint that an infection does occur even when the virus does not replicate, but you made the claim nonetheless. I suppose if you are truly wanting to prove your ridiculously pedantic point, you would need to provide evidence that in the virology world that to call label something as being infected it does not require replication and only the slightest exposure thus presence of a virus. You have provided no such thing.

When I go to look it up, I see it being defined as "the invasion AND growth of germs in the body".
https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/infection

By that definition, I am 100% correct. In order to call it an infection, it requires growth(replication). Despite your superficially impressive diatribe, you failed to actually substantiate your claim that it only requires only the most transient presence of the virus and by extension that it does not require virus replication. Rather than providing proof, you simply said it is so. For all of that writing, you would have been better off simply providing a link to the claim that in order to call it an infection you do not need replication and instead only need the most transient presence. The rest is simply window dressing.

Now whether or not you can find such a link truly does not matter to me. All that you would have then is your credibly linked definition in contrast to my credibly linked definition and there would/will be a stalemate as to whose definition prevails and it remains a silly, futile exercise in pedantic verbal vomit The question that remains is WHY? Why was this silly pedantic exercise necessary? Did it push forward the conversation that you jumped into even remotely?....absolutely not.

Get it now?

 

I do not see where your referenced abstract supports your position that they should not wait for more than a month or that there is not any evidence that people previously infected with the natural virus are at a greater risk for more side effects. The only thing that even remotely addressed that issue was where it said...

"The results show that naturally-exposed individuals mount a stronger anti-spike response upon vaccination than individuals that were not previously exposed."

While I am not pretending that this is my issue and I was only relating what several physicians have related to me, it seems to me that a stronger anti spike response would tend to potentiate a more robust side effect profile.

As a matter of course, I am not so sure that I would tend to believe the words of a virologist over the words of a frontline physician when it comes to patient reaction to various treatments. One thing is for certain, which is that if you and your PHD cohorts are as superior in knowledge to a frontline clinician as you claim, you must not be very good at getting your point across because if you were actually convincing, your words would be adopted more universally into their treatment paradigm.

It is funny, when you go into a business and look at the engineering, manufacturing, finance, accounting, sales etc. departments....ALL of them think that their discipline is what makes the company tick and all of them have a plausible argument. Obviously, not all of them can be correct. I see that you are putting in one vote for the virologists/PHD's. Duly noted.

 

Do you have evidence about long-term health impact or should we rely on your opinion?

I see. There are some 20-somethings with mild covid infections who experience lung damage that may or not be endure. Do vaccines impact the incidence and severity of such damage? How much?

I may die of nausea from reading arrogant BS from self-important types, but I'm tough and will likely endure. No vaccine required.

 

How many liberals? Are you seeing too much ginned up conflict on TV?

 

Okay. I wouldn't take Biden's word alone that a vaccine was safe, either.

The FDA already authorized them for emergency use. Slowing down rollout makes no sense once the authorization is done.

As a reminder, the issue here is your original claim, in relation to vaccine hesitancy:

But, in fact, most libs were simply saying they wouldn't trust Trump alone on the safety of the vaccine. I do agree that libs probably would be way less critical of Biden, and conservatives more critical, if he had been president at the time. But the vaccine has been determined to be safe by actual scientists and doctors. There's no reason to skip it at this point unless your doctor tells you not to take it.

 

Life is a series of calculated risks. Nothing in this world is 100% safe. There is a risk when a waiter gets in his car to drive to work. A 20 something, presumably healthy waiter that is vaccinated has a lot going for them in the Covid risk category. Can you imagine and perhaps even find a scenario where that person may have lets say serious permanent lung damage as a result of a vaccine breakthrough infection? Absolutely. I can also imagine and produce a scenario where a similar person could be exposed to a flesh eating bacteria and need their arm amputated or get struck by lightning and die on the spot, but I am not so sure that I would have my life revolve around exposure to such. Under no circumstances would I suggest that a waiter not report to work because there is a thunderstorm outside.

Life is a series of calculated risks. I have a 21 year old son that is in college that is also vaccinated. In the list of things that I worry about for him, a vaccine breakthrough infection that causes serious long term damage is so far down the list of my legitimate worries for him, that it does not make the first 50 pages. Pointing out possibilities is one thing, unnecessary fear mongering is a different matter altogether.

See above.

You may perhaps be well advised to step away from that mirror.

 

One long personal attack...
You failed to realize the second option, that neutralizing antibodies are not present and the body needs to launch a secondary immune response, which takes days, within which, there is replication. And no, my credibility is not at stake. Ask around.