It's hard to accept, but I think most of the confusion is because we simply don't know. There's a huge amount in medicine that we just don't know, and we're barreling through what would normally be decades of research in months right now. You've got scientists who are used to speaking in limited terms and qualifying things that they don't know, and you've got politicians (some of whom used to be scientists) who have specific outcomes they're trying to achieve.

If you are convinced that the best way forward is for everyone to be vaccinated, it weakens your position a lot to say "I don't know if it will help". For every person who actually had covid, there's some number of people who didn't or thought they did and won't get the vaccine because you say that. And that's just one example. This isn't to defend the messaging of our policy makers - it's been crap. But it does explain some of their behavior.

I'd love to live in a world where people could present scientific evidence to the general public and say - here's what we know, here's what we don't, here's our conclusion, you make a decision - and have the general public make good decisions accordingly. Unfortunately I don't think that matches the world we live in. I've seen a shocking amount of both scientific illiteracy resulting in really bad misunderstandings as well as what can only be described as intentional misinformation / disinformation / propaganda being consumed and repeated by people who should honestly know better.

I mean there are people who genuinely believe the vaccines are 99% graphene because of twitter. Or that the CDC's PCR test can't tell the difference between flu and sars cov 2. That is not hypothetical, both of those and other similar things including overt CCP propaganda have been not only posted but repeated on this site... by people with college degrees, who presumably represent above-average intelligence and education. It's not an encouraging picture.

Zobel said:

---

It's hard to accept, but I think most of the confusion is because we simply don't know. There's a huge amount in medicine that we just don't know, and we're barreling through what would normally be decades of research in months right now. You've got scientists who are used to speaking in limited terms and qualifying things that they don't know, and you've got politicians (some of whom used to be scientists) who have specific outcomes they're trying to achieve.

If you are convinced that the best way forward is for everyone to be vaccinated, it weakens your position a lot to say "I don't know if it will help". For every person who actually had covid, there's some number of people who didn't or thought they did and won't get the vaccine because you say that. And that's just one example. This isn't to defend the messaging of our policy makers - it's been crap. But it does explain some of their behavior.

I'd love to live in a world where people could present scientific evidence to the general public and say - here's what we know, here's what we don't, here's our conclusion, you make a decision - and have the general public make good decisions accordingly. Unfortunately I don't think that matches the world we live in. I've seen a shocking amount of both scientific illiteracy resulting in really bad misunderstandings as well as what can only be described as intentional misinformation / disinformation / propaganda being consumed and repeated by people who should honestly know better.

I mean there are people who genuinely believe the vaccines are 99% graphene because of twitter. Or that the CDC's PCR test can't tell the difference between flu and sars cov 2. That is not hypothetical, both of those and other similar things including overt CCP propaganda have been not only posted but repeated on this site... by people with college degrees, who presumably represent above-average intelligence and education. It's not an encouraging picture.

---

Agree. My biggest issue with all of this is I just DO NOT want another mask mandate. At this point, if masking is to protect the unvaccinated, than that's on them, not me. I am fine with those deciding not to vaccinate. But at the same time, I refuse to go back to draconian mandates to "protect others". That's not my problem, especially when there is a freaking vaccine.

74OA said:

---

Despite Delta, UK hospitalizations are plummeting, and there's no mystery why: "This means that so far, more than 88% of UK adults have had a first jab. A total of 37,287,384 people have received both vaccines - a rise of 117,956 - equating to 70.5% of adults." BBC

Fortunately, Delta seems to be concentrating holdout's minds here. US vaccinations are up 21% since last week. "Skepticism is a good thing," she said. "But to be ignorant is a different issue. My only regret is not doing it sooner." SHOTS

---

Further encouraging news. Combined with millions who have been naturally immunized, US inoculation numbers are slowly approaching what is hopefully the tipping point in controlling the virus.

Capitol Ag said:

---

Zobel said:

---

It's hard to accept, but I think most of the confusion is because we simply don't know. There's a huge amount in medicine that we just don't know, and we're barreling through what would normally be decades of research in months right now. You've got scientists who are used to speaking in limited terms and qualifying things that they don't know, and you've got politicians (some of whom used to be scientists) who have specific outcomes they're trying to achieve.

If you are convinced that the best way forward is for everyone to be vaccinated, it weakens your position a lot to say "I don't know if it will help". For every person who actually had covid, there's some number of people who didn't or thought they did and won't get the vaccine because you say that. And that's just one example. This isn't to defend the messaging of our policy makers - it's been crap. But it does explain some of their behavior.

I'd love to live in a world where people could present scientific evidence to the general public and say - here's what we know, here's what we don't, here's our conclusion, you make a decision - and have the general public make good decisions accordingly. Unfortunately I don't think that matches the world we live in. I've seen a shocking amount of both scientific illiteracy resulting in really bad misunderstandings as well as what can only be described as intentional misinformation / disinformation / propaganda being consumed and repeated by people who should honestly know better.

I mean there are people who genuinely believe the vaccines are 99% graphene because of twitter. Or that the CDC's PCR test can't tell the difference between flu and sars cov 2. That is not hypothetical, both of those and other similar things including overt CCP propaganda have been not only posted but repeated on this site... by people with college degrees, who presumably represent above-average intelligence and education. It's not an encouraging picture.

---

Agree. My biggest issue with all of this is I just DO NOT want another mask mandate. At this point, if masking is to protect the unvaccinated, than that's on them, not me. I am fine with those deciding not to vaccinate. But at the same time, I refuse to go back to draconian mandates to "protect others". That's not my problem, especially when there is a freaking vaccine.

---

I'm in your camp, but am still willing to endure masks a little longer to protect those with underlying vulnerabilities who only need a trivial exposure to Delta to be in trouble, and to keep the virus from going home to young kids who are not yet eligible for vaccine, but who are increasingly being hurt by Delta.

But, quite soon, I'd go so far as to allow insurance companies not to cover covid-related hospitalization costs for those who have chosen not to protect themselves. Those extremely high ICU costs are passed on to all the rest of us via increasing insurance rates, and with a free, safe, effective vaccine available, that's unacceptable. Your body, your choice--now fully own the consequences.

Quote:

---

But, quite soon, I'd go so far as to allow insurance companies not to cover covid-related hospitalization costs for those who have chosen not to protect themselves. Those extremely high ICU costs are passed on to all the rest of us by increasing insurance rates, and with a free, safe, effective vaccine available, that's unacceptable.

---

We pay out the ass for illegals and uninsured Americans to get emergency treatment every day.

Obese individuals choose to eat poorly, not exercise and end up with all sorts of diseases, cancers and illnesses. Popping 20 pills a day to combat all the side effects.

If anyone were to suggest holding these people accountable by not giving them coverage, it would immediately be called racist, xenophobic and fat shaming.

But if someone is skeptical of a novel mRNA gene therapy for a virus with a 99.99% survival rate for their demographic, then it's off to the gulag for you.

Lol we are in clown world.

Skillet Shot said:

---

We pay out the ass for illegals and uninsured Americans to get emergency treatment every day.

Obese individuals choose to eat poorly, not exercise and end up with all sorts of diseases, cancers and illnesses. Popping 20 pills a day to combat all the side effects.

If anyone were to suggest holding these people accountable by not giving them coverage, it would immediately be called racist, xenophobic and fat shaming.

But if someone is skeptical of a novel mRNA gene therapy for a virus with a 99.99% survival rate for their demographic, then it's off to the gulag for you. Lol we are in clown world.

---

False equivalence. If you contract covid without inoculation and the survival percentage you put such faith in keeps you out of the hospital, then the insurance issue is moot anyway. No hospitalization, no insurance bill.

But if you contract covid and need hospitalization in order to survive because you chose not to take the vaccine--despite all the evidence from hundreds of millions of safe, effective inoculations around the globe--then you should own the financial consequences of your choice.

This isn't a shot at you, but when did we go from "it's your job to protect yourself" to "it's everyone's job to protect those with compromised immune systems?"

I feel like if you have immune issues, it should be up to you to try and limit your chances of catching COVID. Somehow in the last year and a half, we have completely forgotten how to assess and deal with risk.

Skillet Shot said:

---

Should all the vaccinated that have had a multitude of vax induced health complications be stripped of their insurance benefits as well?

Obese people become obese by eating unhealthy and not exercising properly over a span of decades. Everyone knows this and knows that obesity makes all other disease worse.

They have the option to lose weight. They refused to act on it. Does that mean they deserve to not get medical treatment or insurance coverage? Obviously not

I'm okay in general with more accountability in healthcare and rethinking insurance to make individual actions more accountable. But limiting it to young healthy people who don't want the novel gene therapy is too narrow of a scope.

---

We're talking about the consequences of not getting inoculated against covid, not the health state of the general population.

If eligible young adults want to gamble with the percentages and not take the safe, free, effective vaccine--that's their choice--but at some point the rest of us shouldn't have to pay more into the insurance pool to cover their hospitalization costs if their gamble fails.

I did not say deny treatment. I said let them own the financial consequences of their choice.

ExpressAg11 said:

---

This isn't a shot at you, but when did we go from "it's your job to protect yourself" to "it's everyone's job to protect those with compromised immune systems?"

I feel like if you have immune issues, it should be up to you to try and limit your chances of catching COVID. Somehow in the last year and a half, we have completely forgotten how to assess and deal with risk.

---

I don't disagree, but the health/science community is still coming to grips with Delta and is still working to find treatments to help those with immune issues to be more virus-resistant. Few can simply go into hiding and stop working/shopping/living in the meantime.

And it's not just the immune-compromised. Delta is also hurting far more school-kids than earlier variants and the vaccine isn't approved for the youngest yet--I wouldn't want to send the virus home to them.

Anyway, I'm simply willing to wear a mask for a little longer in close quarters while they work on it.

74OA said:

---

Skillet Shot said:

---

Should all the vaccinated that have had a multitude of vax induced health complications be stripped of their insurance benefits as well?

Obese people become obese by eating unhealthy and not exercising properly over a span of decades. Everyone knows this and knows that obesity makes all other disease worse.

They have the option to lose weight. They refused to act on it. Does that mean they deserve to not get medical treatment or insurance coverage? Obviously not

I'm okay in general with more accountability in healthcare and rethinking insurance to make individual actions more accountable. But limiting it to young healthy people who don't want the novel gene therapy is too narrow of a scope.

---

We're talking about the consequences of not getting inoculated against covid, not the health state of the general population.

If eligible young adults want to gamble with the percentages and not take the safe, free, effective vaccine--that's their choice--but at some point the rest of us shouldn't have to pay more into the insurance pool to subsidize their hospitalization costs if their gamble fails.

---

I don't like this mindset to punish people who don't align with your view of the vaccination, and I myself am vaccinated.

The cost of someone hospitalized due to COVID is miniscule in comparison to the cost of obesity and the elderly when it comes to insurance. I doubt what you would even pay into the insurance pool would significantly increase due to COVID hospitalizations.

74OA said:

---

ExpressAg11 said:

---

This isn't a shot at you, but when did we go from "it's your job to protect yourself" to "it's everyone's job to protect those with compromised immune systems?"

I feel like if you have immune issues, it should be up to you to try and limit your chances of catching COVID. Somehow in the last year and a half, we have completely forgotten how to assess and deal with risk.

---

I don't disagree, but the health/science community is still coming to grips with Delta and is still working to find treatments to help those with immune issues to be more virus-resistant. Few can simply go into hiding and stop working/shopping/living in the meantime.

And it's not just the immune-compromised. Delta is also hurting far more school-kids than earlier variants and the vaccine isn't approved for the youngest yet--I wouldn't want to send the virus home to them.

Anyway, I'm simply willing to wear a mask for a little longer in close quarters while they work on it.

---

I'd love to see your source for this information... like a lot of stuff posted on here, this seems like anecdotal BS.

Quite a few posters on this board possess the same BS attitude and it makes it very difficult to get through some of the good posts on here, when you have to wade through 50 ft of self-aggrandizing crap.

Beat40 said:

---

74OA said:

---

Skillet Shot said:

---

Should all the vaccinated that have had a multitude of vax induced health complications be stripped of their insurance benefits as well?

Obese people become obese by eating unhealthy and not exercising properly over a span of decades. Everyone knows this and knows that obesity makes all other disease worse.

They have the option to lose weight. They refused to act on it. Does that mean they deserve to not get medical treatment or insurance coverage? Obviously not

I'm okay in general with more accountability in healthcare and rethinking insurance to make individual actions more accountable. But limiting it to young healthy people who don't want the novel gene therapy is too narrow of a scope.

---

We're talking about the consequences of not getting inoculated against covid, not the health state of the general population.

If eligible young adults want to gamble with the percentages and not take the safe, free, effective vaccine--that's their choice--but at some point the rest of us shouldn't have to pay more into the insurance pool to subsidize their hospitalization costs if their gamble fails.

---

Seems this a pretty holier-than-thou attitude to punish people who don't align with your view of the vaccination, and I myself am vaccinated.

The cost of someone hospitalized due to COVID is miniscule in comparison to the cost of obesity and the elderly when it comes to insurance. I doubt what you would even pay into the insurance pool would significantly increase due to COVID hospitalizations.

---

One has zero to do with the other. Unlike obesity, covid is infectious and we can immediately protect our communities from widespread hospitalization via vaccination. Refusing to hold those who refuse to protect themselves against the virus financially responsible because of fat people is nonsensical.

Except for the fact that Delta is spreading among the immunized groups in large numbers too. Are they not "thinking of the community" when they contract covid? Should we all just put on our useless masks again because that would make us "better" people?

I genuinely hope you don't live in as much fear as your posts make it sound like...

I might be putting words in your mouth (I bet not), but I imagine you'd say dying from covid is a risk accepted by the unvaccinated individual. So dying is something they can accept, but paying medical bills is not? After all, as so many like to argue, it's such a small chance that they'd be hospitalized. Why not accept the financial risk too?

Maybe people should put their money where their mouth is.

tomtomdrumdrum said:

---

I might be putting words in your mouth (I bet not), but I imagine you'd say dying from covid is a risk accepted by the unvaccinated individual. So dying is something they can accept, but paying medical bills is not? After all, as so many like to argue, it's such a small chance that they'd be hospitalized. Why not accept the financial risk too?

Maybe people should put their money where their mouth is.

---

Because we do this with no other vaccine. Even if you're not going to openly admit it, making people "accept the financial risk" because they chose not to get the vaccine is borderline coercion to get someone to do something you want them to do even though you've said you're ok with their choice.

When you're advocating for making people "put their money where their mouth is," you're also tacitly admitting you're ok with the most likely probability of bankrupting someone and their family.

It seems all reasonableness has practically gone out the window with this vaccine. Again, I am vaccinated, but I do not believe in forcing people to take something they do not feel comfortable with.

We've gotten so far that we can't accept people's choices, treat them like humans, and show some grace.

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

Except for the fact that Delta is spreading among the immunized groups in large numbers too. Are they not "thinking of the community" when they contract covid? Should we all just put on our useless masks again because that would make us "better" people?

I genuinely hope you don't live in as much fear as your posts make it sound like...

---

The immunized community is overwhelmingly not being hospitalized when contracting a breakthrough infection and therefore not contributing to submerging the medical system.

The same cannot be said for the non-vaccinated community which comprises almost 100% of current hospitalizations.

But they're still able to spread it to those that cannot or choose not to get the vaccine, no? And those people may end up in the hospital and have to deal with their choices

We will see how long the immunized community remains protected, but it appears that everyone is likely going to deal with Covid at some point. Fortunately, and as you pointed out in your post, those that are vaccinated are experiencing much milder cases.

Additionally, a substantial number of people, myself included, have already had it and will very likely (statistically speaking) not have to deal with it again anytime soon.

So get your vaccine or don't but don't paint everyone that refuses to get the vaccine as some unworthy citizen that should be deprived of their health insurance or acceptance in society.

Beat40 said:

---

tomtomdrumdrum said:

---

I might be putting words in your mouth (I bet not), but I imagine you'd say dying from covid is a risk accepted by the unvaccinated individual. So dying is something they can accept, but paying medical bills is not? After all, as so many like to argue, it's such a small chance that they'd be hospitalized. Why not accept the financial risk too?

Maybe people should put their money where their mouth is.

---

Because we do this with no other vaccine. Even if you're not going to openly admit it, making people "accept the financial risk" because they chose not to get the vaccine is borderline coercion to get someone to do something you want them to do even though you've said you're ok with their choice.

When you're advocating for making people "put their money where their mouth is," you're also tacitly admitting you're ok with the most likely probability of bankrupting someone and their family.

It seems all reasonableness has practically gone out the window with this vaccine. Again, I am vaccinated, but I do not believe in forcing people to take something they do not feel comfortable with.

We've gotten so far that we can't accept people's choices, treat them like humans, and show some grace.

---

They won't feel coerced if they really believe they'll never get sick. Not sure why you're more upset with the idea of a family being financially ruined than a family losing someone to covid.

I'm not actually advocating for the idea - I just think it's a pretty convenient way to point out the hypocrisy of the those that subscribe to idea that we should accept those unvaccinated dying from covid because they chose to take that risk.

74OA said:

---

ExpressAg11 said:

---

This isn't a shot at you, but when did we go from "it's your job to protect yourself" to "it's everyone's job to protect those with compromised immune systems?"

I feel like if you have immune issues, it should be up to you to try and limit your chances of catching COVID. Somehow in the last year and a half, we have completely forgotten how to assess and deal with risk.

---

I don't disagree, but the health/science community is still coming to grips with Delta and is still working to find treatments to help those with immune issues to be more virus-resistant. Few can simply go into hiding and stop working/shopping/living in the meantime.

And it's not just the immune-compromised. Delta is also hurting far more school-kids than earlier variants and the vaccine isn't approved for the youngest yet--I wouldn't want to send the virus home to them.

Anyway, I'm simply willing to wear a mask for a little longer in close quarters while they work on it.

---

This isn't backed by published data.

tomtomdrumdrum said:

---

I might be putting words in your mouth (I bet not), but I imagine you'd say dying from covid is a risk accepted by the unvaccinated individual. So dying is something they can accept, but paying medical bills is not? After all, as so many like to argue, it's such a small chance that they'd be hospitalized. Why not accept the financial risk too?

Maybe people should put their money where their mouth is.

---

Sure sounds like communism.

74OA said:

---

Capitol Ag said:

---

Zobel said:

---

It's hard to accept, but I think most of the confusion is because we simply don't know. There's a huge amount in medicine that we just don't know, and we're barreling through what would normally be decades of research in months right now. You've got scientists who are used to speaking in limited terms and qualifying things that they don't know, and you've got politicians (some of whom used to be scientists) who have specific outcomes they're trying to achieve.

If you are convinced that the best way forward is for everyone to be vaccinated, it weakens your position a lot to say "I don't know if it will help". For every person who actually had covid, there's some number of people who didn't or thought they did and won't get the vaccine because you say that. And that's just one example. This isn't to defend the messaging of our policy makers - it's been crap. But it does explain some of their behavior.

I'd love to live in a world where people could present scientific evidence to the general public and say - here's what we know, here's what we don't, here's our conclusion, you make a decision - and have the general public make good decisions accordingly. Unfortunately I don't think that matches the world we live in. I've seen a shocking amount of both scientific illiteracy resulting in really bad misunderstandings as well as what can only be described as intentional misinformation / disinformation / propaganda being consumed and repeated by people who should honestly know better.

I mean there are people who genuinely believe the vaccines are 99% graphene because of twitter. Or that the CDC's PCR test can't tell the difference between flu and sars cov 2. That is not hypothetical, both of those and other similar things including overt CCP propaganda have been not only posted but repeated on this site... by people with college degrees, who presumably represent above-average intelligence and education. It's not an encouraging picture.

---

Agree. My biggest issue with all of this is I just DO NOT want another mask mandate. At this point, if masking is to protect the unvaccinated, than that's on them, not me. I am fine with those deciding not to vaccinate. But at the same time, I refuse to go back to draconian mandates to "protect others". That's not my problem, especially when there is a freaking vaccine.

---

I'm in your camp, but am still willing to endure masks a little longer to protect those with underlying vulnerabilities who only need a trivial exposure to Delta to be in trouble, and to keep the virus from going home to young kids who are not yet eligible for vaccine, but who are increasingly being hurt by Delta.

But, quite soon, I'd go so far as to allow insurance companies not to cover covid-related hospitalization costs for those who have chosen not to protect themselves. Those extremely high ICU costs are passed on to all the rest of us via increasing insurance rates, and with a free, safe, effective vaccine available, that's unacceptable. Your body, your choice--now fully own the consequences.

---

Then insurance companies shouldn't pay the hospital bills for obese people either. Their unhealthy habits cause a miriad of health problems and they are choosing to put their health at risk. So no health insurance claims for them either then.

From the linked study:

Quote:

---

Among the 469 cases in Massachusetts residents, 346 (74%) occurred in persons who were fully vaccinated; of these, 301 (87%) were male, with a median age of 42 years. Vaccine products received by persons experiencing breakthrough infections were Pfizer-BioNTech (159; 46%), Moderna (131; 38%), and Janssen (56; 16%); among fully vaccinated persons in the Massachusetts general population, 56% had received Pfizer-BioNTech, 38% had received Moderna, and 7% had received Janssen vaccine products. Among persons with breakthrough infection, 274 (79%) reported signs or symptoms, with the most common being cough, headache, sore throat, myalgia, and fever. Among fully vaccinated symptomatic persons, the median interval from completion of 14 days after the final vaccine dose to symptom onset was 86 days (range = 6178 days). Among persons with breakthrough infection, four (1.2%) were hospitalized, and no deaths were reported. Real-time RT-PCR Ct values in specimens from 127 fully vaccinated patients (median = 22.77) were similar to those among 84 patients who were unvaccinated, not fully vaccinated, or whose vaccination status was unknown (median = 21.54) (Figure 2).

---

I added the bold for emphasis. This is new data, you are quoting data prior to the spread of the Delta variant which the vaccines don't seem to help as far as mild infection and community spread. They do seem to be very effective at preventing death and hospitalization even with delta.

85% of the sample size was male because of Bear Week. The authors of the study specifically say this isn't a good benchmark to determine vaccine efficacy vs variants.