Colin Powell Dies Of Covid Complications

[oxmixmudd]

Okay so all someone has to do is day 'yeah I know that not getting vaxxed puts me at slight risk of dying of covid', and you would leave them alone?

No, as I explained, the analogy is reversed. I'm talking about a personal responsibility not to harm others - that is the context of my statement about the moral responsibility to get vaccinated. That can't just be perverted into some obligation to forcefully prevent others from harming themselves.

[Bill the Cat]

A vaccine at this stage would still increase your immunity and thus reduce your chances of catching covid again, and thus reduce the chances of someone else catching covid from you and thus reduce the chances of them dying by catching covid from you.

If a sufficient percentage of the population has sufficiently strong immunity, then covid will die out within the population and stop spreading, and then nobody further would die from it. We can each do our part in contributing to that by getting our own immunity as strong as possible and thus saving lives.

So what you are saying is that my and your current levels of immunity are insufficient... good take

[Starlight]

You are taking liberties with what that quote claims.

To rephrase it:

Evidence suggests the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program has substantially reduced the burden of disease in the United States by preventing serious illness in fully vaccinated people and therefore interrupting chains of transmission.

You are literally rewriting their words to mean something they didn't say, and you accuse me of taking liberties with their quote?

No. Your paraphrase is just false. That's not what they're saying.

reducing the chance that an exposed person will catch covid

Can you cite where this bolded part is stated?

Well the very sentence after the one your quoted from their website is a good start:

...and interrupting chains of transmission. Vaccinated people can still become infected and have the potential to spread the virus to others, although at much lower rates than unvaccinated people.

Alternatively their study here:

CDC COVID-19 Study Shows mRNA Vaccines Reduce Risk of Infection by 91 Percent for Fully Vaccinated People

A new CDC study finds the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the Food and Drug Administration (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) reduce the risk of infection by 91 percent for fully vaccinated people.

...Findings from the extended timeframe of this study add to accumulating evidence that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective and should prevent most infections... and appear to be less likely to spread the virus to others [even in the less-likely event they do get infected]

[Gondwanaland]

False.

Your embarrassing ignorance of basic reality does not make something false.

[oxmixmudd]

IOW, your moral responsibility to act to save the lives of smokers has been justified into inactivity.

You are mixing inxompatable categories and trying to say they are the same. They aren't.


There is more than adequate public information about the dangers of smoking. There is a warning on every pack. And smoking in public places is now illegal, so the issue is not that their smoking is likely to harm others through second hand smoke. In the case of smoking, it really is a personal matter.

Covid is a virus that kills by infecting a host and reproducing in it. It requires corporate actions by the entire population to bring it under control.

This condemnation of yours and SL regarding covid vaccination is selective. You do not have a universal rule to which you follow.

Your mistake is in trying to naively apply the statement I made about moral responsibility to a situation that isn't even comparable to public vaccination in a pandemic.

So, to get back to your smoker analogy, it is not me that is responsible for taking away a smoker's cigarette, it is the smoker who bears the responsibility to stop smoking. Likewise it is the unvaccinated persons responsibility to get vaccinated, not my personal responsibility to tie them down and force them to take the shot. Otoh, it is the governments responsibility to protect others from secondhand smoke, hence smoking bans in indoor public spaces, and it is the government's responsibility to curb spread of the virus, hence vaccine mandates.

[Ronson]

I've bolded the crucial part for you. Read it carefully several times. Ask someone to explain it to you if you still can't understand that those words mean exactly what you claimed they didn't mean in your post.

You are taking liberties with what that quote claims.

To rephrase it:

Evidence suggests the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program has substantially reduced the burden of disease in the United States by preventing serious illness in fully vaccinated people and therefore interrupting chains of transmission.

IOW, people who are not seriously ill are less likely to be sneezing and coughing in public. That is the transmission chain - NOT because the vaccine miraculously prevents contraction or creates transmission roadblocks.

Your misunderstanding really seems to be the part above. The vaccine interrupts chains of transmission by reducing the chance that an exposed person will catch covid

Can you cite where this bolded part is stated?

and as a result reduces the chance of them spreading it to others and as a result of that reduces the chance of those around them dying by catching it from that person.

[Starlight]

No, it would simply increase his antibody levels, and potentially lead to antibody dependence issues.

False.

[Starlight]

You are adding to what the CDC claims:

Does the COVID-19 vaccine prevent transmission?

Evidence suggests the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program has substantially reduced the burden of disease in the United States by preventing serious illness in fully vaccinated people and interrupting chains of transmission.

Evidence "suggests" that serious illness is avoided through vaccination. Nothing about contraction and spread, other than reducing symptoms of serious illness.

I've bolded the crucial part for you. Read it carefully several times. Ask someone to explain it to you if you still can't understand that those words mean exactly what you claimed they didn't mean in your post.

Faulty premise (as stated above). A person who is unvaccinated only risks their own health, just like a person who bungee jumps or shoots heroin is no threat to others because of their activity.

Your misunderstanding really seems to be the part above. The vaccine interrupts chains of transmission by reducing the chance that an exposed person will catch covid and as a result reduces the chance of them spreading it to others and as a result of that reduces the chance of those around them dying by catching it from that person.

[Gondwanaland]

A vaccine at this stage would still increase your immunity and thus reduce your chances of catching covid again, and thus reduce the chances of someone else catching covid from you and thus reduce the chances of them dying by catching covid from you.

If a sufficient percentage of the population has sufficiently strong immunity, then covid will die out within the population and stop spreading, and then nobody further would die from it. We can each do our part in contributing to that by getting our own immunity as strong as possible and thus saving lives.

No, it would simply increase his antibody levels, and potentially lead to antibody dependence issues.

[Starlight]

This condemnation of yours and SL regarding covid vaccination is selective. You do not have a universal rule to which you follow.

Not true at all. I support strong government action to reduce smoking just as I support strong government action to get people vaccinated against covid, in both instances to save lives and reduce preventable deaths.

The two situations are different because covid is contagious. If a smoker dies from smoking or an unvaccinated person dies from covid, that is, to some extent themselves reaping the consequences of their own foolish choices and to an extent their individual freedom justifies this. However with covid, unlike smoking, other people can die from it due to catching covid from them so their choice to not be vaccinated increases the risk to others, not just to them. It like letting drunk people drive - it's not just their lives that they're risking it's the lives of the others on the road.

You could say "second hand smoke represents a risk to others so that part is similar", and I would say yes, that's why in my country we have strong laws meaning anyone who smokes in public has to do it outside and nowhere near others to prevent anyone being negatively affected by their poor life choices. The government here also puts massive taxes on cigarettes to discourage their use, making them about 4x the price they are in the US.

The important difference though is the contagious nature of covid. You are not risking your own life by having lower immunity to it, you're risking everyone you come into contact with because if you catch it you become a vector for passing it on to them. The ideal situation would be where everyone does their part to increase their immunity sufficiently such that the R-effective value of covid spread in the population drops below 1 and the disease then disappears from the country. However, because there are a sufficiently large number of selfish people who refuse to be vaccinated, the disease will just keep spreading among them, and even vaccinated people or those who have had it previously could catch it from these people.

[Ronson]

Why can't you guys understand basic logic? The vaccine significantly reduces the probability of getting and spreading covid, and therefore significantly reduces the probability of others dying due to catching covid from you. If you fail to take a basic action to protect others, and they die as a result of that choice, you are morally responsible for their deaths. It's not complicated but you guys seem to refuse to understand this basic logic.

You are adding to what the CDC claims:

Does the COVID-19 vaccine prevent transmission?

Evidence suggests the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program has substantially reduced the burden of disease in the United States by preventing serious illness in fully vaccinated people and interrupting chains of transmission.

Evidence "suggests" that serious illness is avoided through vaccination. Nothing about contraction and spread, other than reducing symptoms of serious illness.

So you would be fine with your actions resulting in the deaths of "relatively few" people, when you could take a simple step to significantly reduce that risk?

Faulty premise (as stated above). A person who is unvaccinated only risks their own health, just like a person who bungee jumps or shoots heroin is no threat to others because of their activity.

That's good to hear you've been vaccinated, so you've taken the simple step available to reduce the risk of you catching covid and passing it to others and them dying as a result. Well done. It's good to know that in practice you do the morally right thing even if you defend the idea of not doing so.

Because what I choose to do with my body is my business, just as people who choose not to be vaccinated exercise their own personal freedom.

[Starlight]

I refuse the vaccine as someone who already recovered. My immunity is just as good as, if not better than, a vaccinated person's. I am not catching or passing it off.

A vaccine at this stage would still increase your immunity and thus reduce your chances of catching covid again, and thus reduce the chances of someone else catching covid from you and thus reduce the chances of them dying by catching covid from you.

If a sufficient percentage of the population has sufficiently strong immunity, then covid will die out within the population and stop spreading, and then nobody further would die from it. We can each do our part in contributing to that by getting our own immunity as strong as possible and thus saving lives.

[Starlight]

1) People who have had covid have natural immunity. It is perfectly reasonable for them to refuse to have something injected into their bodies that isn't necessary - and only because the Nanny Brigade is demanding it.

I don't have much of an issue with people who have had the virus not getting the vaccine. Their immunity seems to be comparable to those who have had the vaccine. It still makes logical sense for them to get the vaccine since they would have greater immunity against reinfection as a result.

2) People who have been vaccinated can still carry and spread covid. So the SL statement doesn't make sense in any regard.

Why can't you guys understand basic logic? The vaccine significantly reduces the probability of getting and spreading covid, and therefore significantly reduces the probability of others dying due to catching covid from you. If you fail to take a basic action to protect others, and they die as a result of that choice, you are morally responsible for their deaths. It's not complicated but you guys seem to refuse to understand this basic logic.

3) Relatively few people under 65 have been "killed" by covid, as well as people without comordities.

So you would be fine with your actions resulting in the deaths of "relatively few" people, when you could take a simple step to significantly reduce that risk?

I've had covid - and I have been vaccinated too.

That's good to hear you've been vaccinated, so you've taken the simple step available to reduce the risk of you catching covid and passing it to others and them dying as a result. Well done. It's good to know that in practice you do the morally right thing even if you defend the idea of not doing so.

[Ronson]

Okay so all someone has to do is day 'yeah I know that not getting vaxxed puts me at slight risk of dying of covid', and you would leave them alone?

I don't believe you'd even need to get that far.

My interpretation is that no action is necessary if any resistance might be anticipated. Then, I guess, the "moral responsibility" is somehow waived.

[Gondwanaland]

Usually a less violent mechanism, but yes, if I was in a situation where I could interact with a smoker in a positive way, I would almost always gently ask why they did that given the likelihood they might well die of lung cancer or heart disease. And they would usually say 'yeah I know that, but it's really hard to quit'. And of course, the fact they were addicted to the things and most likely could not quit would override the urge to take it any further.

Okay so all someone has to do is day 'yeah I know that not getting vaxxed puts me at slight risk of dying of covid', and you would leave them alone?