Coronavirus in Massachusetts (home, vs., approval)

[YevTK]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

But it's far worse than that, isn't it? They're not only opposed to mandates, they're blocking and suing entities who want to put them in place per their informed judgment. So regardless of what they may be saying, it's their actions that are speaking louder than their words and forming the sentiment among their backers.

Think of it as almost like preventing people stuck in a burning building from calling 911. An earlier poster referenced "crimes against humanity"...not far off when you consider this analogy.

I was responding to the OPs statement that "But one party has made it their thing to argue that the vaccines don't work and are dangerous.".

You claim it's worse than that, I disagree. Claiming "vaccines don't work and are are dangerous" is obviously worse than being opposed to mandatory masking.

As far as I am aware, in the no-mandate states, anyone can choose to wear a mask if they wish to, they just can't be forced to do so. So, your 911 analogy is false. Anyone can call 911 but they can't be forced to do so.

Personally, I think that the state-wide mask mandate bans are wrong. My opinion is that Governor's should set general guidelines but leave it up to local areas to decide based on their own unique circumstances. I am pleased to see that this is Baker's approach.

[bizcuit]

Originally Posted by msRB311

The article says governor Abbott was fully vaccinated ?

Not only fully vaccinated, but supposedly had even had a third dose.

[brk330]

Originally Posted by BostonMike7

The biggest group of anti-vax folks that I come across aren't really right-wing Trumpers,...

I just saw two guys in Townsend on the common, wish I took a pic. Trump flags, audit the vote signs and, Anti-Vax posters. Did you know 45000 have died from the vaccine? Their poster says it's true!

[BostonMike7]

Originally Posted by lrfox

Frankly, I think the press's coverage of "breakthrough" cases is undermining efforts to reach the chunk of the population who is not currently vaccinated but could potentially be swayed. The hysterical coverage frequently glosses over the fact that the vaccines are extremely effective at preventing serious illness and death. While most articles will reiterate the point, it's buried beneath "RISING BREAKTHROUGH CASES" "DEATHS RISE AMONG FULLY VACCINATED" headlines that most just don't read beyond. I don't care about the "SEE! I told you the vaccines don't work!" crowd, they were never going to get it. But the current coverage could make someone on the fence say, "what's the point?" It's harmful.

I agree fully about the media sometimes hyping things up to the point of hysteria. It goes without saying that doom and gloom and playing into people's fears sells newspapers (or generates website traffic) and keeps the lights on. I don't think mainstream media is entirely innocent here.

Of course, that goes both ways as there are plenty of folks on the opposite side of the argument who are doing the same thing to make money. I've read plenty of fringe websites promoting anti-vax stances while featuring advertisements for books and materials on surviving social unrest and other doomsday scenarios. Reminds me of 2009-2010 where every "credible" article posted by a C-D'er predicting a new Great Depression and collapse of society also wanted to sell me a book and a bunker on the same webpage.

Some of these sources are trying to make a buck, or get recognition/fame by playing an angle and it severely muddies the waters as to what is true and what is not.



EDIT: Spelling

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by brk330

I just saw two guys in Townsend on the common, wish I took a pic. Trump flags, audit the vote signs and, Anti-Vax posters. Did you know 45000 have died from the vaccine? Their poster says it's true!

The VAERS fallacy...and the number is way overinflated besides.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by BostonMike7

I've read plenty of fridge websites promoting anti-vax stances while featuring advertisements for books and materials on surviving social unrest and other doomsday scenarios.

Funny autocorrect.


There's also the people selling miracle cure vitamins & supplements you should take instead of getting vaccinated.

[OutdoorLover]

Originally Posted by NewfieMama

I've also dialed back, but for the opposite reason. I had covid and the mildest of mild symptoms--not even a fever. Seems the point of the vaccine isn't to stop the spread given the breakthrough cases, but to keep people out of the hospital. I'm not at risk of going to the hospital if I get covid again. My risk is really that I get it and spread it, but I could do the same if vaccinated. The only people I know right now who have covid are vaccinated and got it from vaccinated people.

Those who have had covid are bucketed as unvaccinated and I think that's wrong. It feels like we are overlooked based on THE AGENDA. That agenda is to get everybody vaccinated at all costs.

The CDC is still mandating that those who had covid get both doses even though every single medical paper published states that the second shot is virtually usesless to those who've had covid. Those who had covid + get one shot have stronger antibodies than those who were unvaccinated and get 2 shots. But that doesn't matter because to say it's ok to get 1 shot for a group of people would go against the agenda. Even if the science supports it.

If people are concerned about the LACK OF DATA we have for long-term effects of the vaccine, then that's a choice they are making based on science. I don't think the vaccines are unsafe, but I also understand if a person has weighed the risk of getting covid vs. wanting more vaccine data and are making a science-based decision based on those factors.

Wait...

1. We don't have any data on long term (multi-year) hidden toxic effects of Covid-19 vaccines
2. Vaccines as a group aren't known to have hidden long term effects - so it would be highly unusual
3. I don't know of reputable scientists who are predicting long term toxic effects to emerge for Covid-19 vaccines
4. On the other hand, we do know that the virus is causing breathing, neurological, and other complications in a significant number of patients long after they have cleared the infection

So how is it a science-based decision to refuse vaccination on the grounds of concerns about its hidden long-term toxic effects? To me the science would indicate that it's very unlikely - so not reasonable to expect, but we already know that the virus causes persistent pathology. Isn't this a no-brainer?

[mdovell]

Want to make a legitimate argument that organizations like the FDA are in a no-win situation. If you approve a medicine that's going to save people's lives but at the same point might not know all the ramifications then it's going to make you feel bad regardless who dies. But in many respects we have to try to save the highest amount of lives here.

I'm starting a new job and I have orientation next week. The place was remote 100% from last March onward. Many cubicles still have calendars from 2020. We're going to go into a hybrid format of being in the office two days and off for 3 days with Friday's being Sanitation. We all have laptops and we all have access to Shared drives and email. The agreement I just signed lays these terms in until at least the end of the year. They are requiring us to get vaccinated, we have until mid-October. I don't know if we're going to see a huge leap and another shutdown but to be frank I think we're prepared for that since that's the way it's been operated for about 17 months. Personally I think if we are going to have another shutdown it's going to have to happen sometime in October. As schools reopen and as more exposure it's going to take some time for testing to see that.

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by OutdoorLover

So how is it a science-based decision to refuse vaccination on the grounds of concerns about its hidden long-term toxic effects? To me the science would indicate that it's very unlikely - so not reasonable to expect, but we already know that the virus causes persistent pathology. Isn't this a no-brainer?

But listen ... some of us have to make an honest living grifting the latest miracle cure via our thinly-veiled alt-right podcast.

[NewfieMama]

Originally Posted by OutdoorLover

Wait...

1. We don't have any data on long term (multi-year) hidden toxic effects of Covid-19 vaccines
2. Vaccines as a group aren't known to have hidden long term effects - so it would be highly unusual
3. I don't know of reputable scientists who are predicting long term toxic effects to emerge for Covid-19 vaccines
4. On the other hand, we do know that the virus is causing breathing, neurological, and other complications in a significant number of patients long after they have cleared the infection

So how is it a science-based decision to refuse vaccination on the grounds of concerns about its hidden long-term toxic effects? To me the science would indicate that it's very unlikely - so not reasonable to expect, but we already know that the virus causes persistent pathology. Isn't this a no-brainer?

It's science-based to factor the lack of data into your decision. It doesn't mean there still aren't many other data points to consider--e.g. data up to this point would indicate that the vaccine is safe, those who are in the hospital and dying are unvaccinated, states with lower vaccination rates are suffering to a greater degree, etc.--but the lack of long-term data is still a consideration that is based in science. How heavily somebody weighs it in relation to the other data varies from person to person, I expect.