The Scapegoat

[linebaugh]

really? maybe I'm way out of the loop but I've never heard that from anyone, or read about it. are you sure it's not just a few twitter nutjobs?

My partner and other good friend are in food service and regularly face hostility from vaxxed people indignant about still wearing a mask. Anecdotal but just today someone told her that unvaxxed people 'deserve to die'. When she responded that her grandma died from it he doubled down on the sentiment.

 

[Leo]

yikes, that's ridiculous.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

what does that have to do with what I said? also, unvaxxed people spread it about a million times more frequently than vaxxed folks, so kind of moot.

We were told the vaxxed were half as likely to spread it but now there are reports of equal viral loads in the vaxxed so watch this space.

Furthermore, over a certain % of population vaxxed, spread becomes predominantly a vaxxed issue by weight of numbers.

 

[Leo]

We were told the vaxxed were half as likely to spread it but now there are reports of equal viral loads in the vaxxed so watch this space.

Furthermore, over a certain % of population vaxxed, spread becomes predominantly a vaxxed issue by weight of numbers.

translation: neither one of these things has actually happened.

 

[WashYourHands]

watch this space.

there she blows

 

[Mr. Tea]

Furthermore, over a certain % of population vaxxed, spread becomes predominantly a vaxxed issue by weight of numbers.

So? In a country where nearly all car drivers and passengers wear seatbelts, of course most people who die in car accidents will have been wearing a seatbelt. Do you therefore conclude that seatbelts are worthless?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Anecdotal but just today someone told her that unvaxxed people 'deserve to die'.

Well they're certainly making themselves - and others - more likely to die, so there's that.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

So? In a country where nearly all car drivers and passengers wear seatbelts, of course most people who die in car accidents will have been wearing a seatbelt. Do you therefore conclude that seatbelts are worthless?

The vax success criteria were symptom attenuation so any transmission reduction is an unsought-for bonus; one can't say the unvaxxed are keeping the pandemic going as the vaxxed transmit too and there are more of them, many of whom believe they have ascended straight to heaven on a cloud of glib moral rectitude and are acting as if they no longer present a danger

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Well they're certainly making themselves - and others - more likely to die, so there's that.

Not necessarily as the unvaxxed are being led to believe they can't be contagious and will be less careful

 

[Mr. Tea]

The vax success criteria were symptom attenuation so any transmission reduction is an unsought-for bonus; one can't say the unvaxxed are keeping the pandemic going as the vaxxed transmit too and there are more of them, many of whom believe they have ascended straight to heaven on a cloud of glib moral rectitude and are acting as if they no longer present a danger

Clearly they present less of a danger than the unvaccinated, which would obviously be everyone if you got your way.

The moral high ground you're attempting to take here is like someone saying "Sober people cause fatal car crashes every day!", while getting behind the wheel after drinking two bottles of wine.

 

[Leo]

the unvaxxed are being led to believe they can't be contagious

I've seen no evidence of this.

 

[version]

There are quite a lot of people who seem to believe the virus would be eradicated and we'd be back to normal if everyone were vaccinated, plus there are publications pumping out headlines like this,

"It's OK to blame the unvaccinated — they are robbing the rest of us of our freedoms"

 

[Leo]

There are quite a lot of people who seem to believe the virus would be eradicated and we'd be back to normal if everyone were vaccinated

nothing gets eradicated 100%, but doesn't that seem to make sense?

 

[Mr. Tea]

I've seen no evidence of this.

Exactly. There's been tons of coverage in the *spits* mainstream media about how the vaccines don't offer 100% protection at an individual level. What it does is make an individual less likely to catch it; greatly reduces the severity of the disease if you do catch it; and, potentially, offer full protection to a community once a critical percentage of people are vaccinated. That threshold can be as low as 60% for some diseases, but is estimated to be around 90% for delta-variant covid-19. Of course it may never be reached if the mixed biscuits of this world succeed in their programme of flooding the zone with shit.

 

[version]

nothing gets eradicated 100%, but doesn't that seem to make sense?

Yeah, it does make sense, but I think that's part of the problem. None of us really have a clue and lots of people are going on "seems to make sense" as justification for all sorts of things.

If the reports of vaccination not preventing the spread turn out to be true then it blows a pretty big hole in the case for mandates.

 

[Mr. Tea]

There are quite a lot of people who seem to believe the virus would be eradicated and we'd be back to normal if everyone were vaccinated

Well this happened with polio, smallpox, cholera, diphtheria etc., didn't it?

plus there are publications pumping out headlines like this,

"It's OK to blame the unvaccinated — they are robbing the rest of us of our freedoms"

It's crude, but it's not entirely wrong. Although I think there's a distinction to be made between the majority who are merely misinformed - the "sheeple", as it were - and the minority who are acting in an actively malicious and dishonest way to propagate the superstition.

 

[Mr. Tea]

If the reports of vaccination not preventing the spread turn out to be true then it blows a pretty big hole in the case for mandates.

A reduction in something bad is still a good thing, and to be welcome, even if it falls short of an eradication, isn't it? To strain my car crash analogy further, drink-driving laws clearly wouldn't eradicate all car accidents even if everyone adhered to them at all times, but you're still far less likely to have an accident if you're sober vs. if you're wasted.

And a complete prevention of the transmission of a highly infectious variant would not be expected when only 60% of the population has been vaccinated, so saying "people are still catching it, therefore the vaccine is bunk" is a strawman argument.

 

[version]

Well this happened with polio, smallpox, cholera, diphtheria etc., didn't it?

But not flu.

The "Zero Covid" thing's of a piece with something I read earlier about the inability or refusal to acknowledge the prospect of failure or negative outcomes. The same thing happened with Brexit. It became an article of faith.

Surely there comes a point where we have to concede there's a chance no measures we can take will completely eradicate the virus and pursuing said goal does more harm than good?

 

[Mr. Tea]

I'm not qualified to say whether "zero covid" is a feasible outcome (and I'm not qualified to say who is qualified to say that - possibly no-one is). But "much less covid" is unarguably a better situation than "fucktons of covid, everywhere, all the time", and I can't see how that's going to be achieved without a good take-up of vaccination.

 

[version]

A reduction in something bad is still a good thing, and to be welcome, even if it falls short of an eradication, isn't it? To strain my car crash analogy further, drink-driving laws clearly wouldn't eradicate all car accidents even if everyone adhered to them at all times, but you're still far less likely to have an accident if you're sober vs. if you're wasted.

And a complete prevention of the transmission of a highly infectious variant would not be expected when only 60% of the population has been vaccinated, so saying "people are still catching it, therefore the vaccine is bunk" is a strawman argument.

It is, but I'm saying there are people still labouring under the assumption it can be eradicated when we don't really know that.

Also, I'm not arguing the vaccine's bunk because people may still be catching the virus. You've created a strawman to point to as a strawman. I'm arguing that if vaccinated people are still spreading the virus then it weakens the argument in favour of vaccine mandates because it's partly based on the assumption that vaccination prevents the spread.