Are people too self-righteous for refusing covid vaccines?

Post Reply New Topic

Did I say it was “normal”?

I can go to the gym. I can go to work in person. I can get a haircut. I can shop at a “nonessential” store.

It’s not “normal.” But it’s not like it was from March to June—when you couldn’t do any of the above.

That's very nice of you.

Most people wouldn't lift a finger if they came across a yellow jacket suffering from anaphylactic shock.

It’s to stab the little devils with.

I admired that guy on Staten Island who tried to say his bar was a sanctuary zone like they did in Seattle earlier this year. Brilliant. But they ultimately shut him down. Regardless, what you said or didn't say is becoming more and more irrelevant. You're all over the board like the people enforcing these laws. Who knows what they'll say next?

To others: I feel there is a balance between public safety and a functional economy. These lockdowns themselves can be hazardous to public safety. I can see it on this very site already. It's easier to say those who question taking the vaccine are "self-righteous," because it's easier to scapegoat them rather than question the very people who have put us in this predicament to begin with. Watch, next they'll say the vaccine isn't strong enough, we need a new one, perpetual lockdown until then...

At some point, you gotta ask yourself who is more detrimental to public safety.

That guy hit a cop with his car—idiot!

He also believes in some Trump-type conspiracy theories.

I don’t like it that restaurants are losing business; I’m not sure of the wisdom of not allowing indoor dining.

And why must you talk to me like that? Why can’t you be civil with me?

I’ve noticed that some people get their jollies by being deliberately antagonistic at all points. Now’s not the time for that BS. It’s useless crap.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 30 Dec 2020, 8:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

I think it's ridiculous to have schools open tbh.

If it was a case of doing it in the 90s, I would say that some schools should be open. Essentially the ones where the parents are likely to be outside doing outside work or to not have studied enough at school to home educate.

But right now? Just get the kids to zoom for classes.

Parents shouldn't be stuck in a position of home education and having to teach their kids. They should be just doing the work of a TA. Making sure the kid doesn't browse games during class. That is actual parenting just extended to other times of the day. It can be achieved by blocking off those sites for certain hours - know what sites your kid uses for fun then put a blocker on them during school hours then get on with your own work.

Teachers can teach from home like they did during first lockdown.

Stuffing loads of kids into school is going to spread the virus & is done for non virus related reasons like avoiding the normalisation of home education.

COVID transmission is very low in schools.

“Virtual” classes have been found to hamper academic achievement. You have to be smart to virtually (the other meaning) teach yourself.

I, myself, would have done okay with virtual classes...I’m a semi-autodidact; but kids with low motivation: forget about it! They need up close and personal attention of the positive type. They need to have confidence instilled in them in person. You can’t teach a kid trade skills virtually.

Well schools were open in the past when kids could get the flu, chickenpox, etc, and people just accept that as normal so will covid get to the point where we all accept it as normal, especially since a large part of the population seems to be anti-vaccine?

I don't say anything to get "jollies," I say it in response to other people's BS and useless crap.

That depends if you want to equate Corona virus with the flu and chickenpox (apt comparisons), or go down the "it's smallpox and polio x10 route, we must all vaccinate."

The problem is even if everyone vaccinates, they can still say "Let's lockdown in perpetuity," and the people who agree with everyone getting vax will subsequently agree with that, too. We (society) have taken a highly contagious but not overtly deadly or debilitating disease and put it in the same camp as the ebola virus. It's very strange. And rather than question the motives of these lockdowns (which themselves will cause long-term health crises), some have taken and will continue to abide by the doom propaganda without question.

But don't people eventually want to go back to work in normal jobs, and go back to normal lives? Why would so many people be in favor of being trapped in a lockdown?

You are so not speaking for me. I believe everyone who can should get a vaccine so we can stop being locked down. The measures the U.S. has taken (with spotty lock-downs, masks, and social distancing) have "flattened the curve" but are starting to fail...they only bought us some time. Despite those measures many hospitals across the U.S. are getting overwhelmed (and more that 300,000 Americans have died). And in the process we've done extensive damage to the economy, destroyed a lot of small businesses, run up the national debt, and created a lot of unemployment...and it looks like we will soon see a lot of evictions.

Well wouldn't people be pressured into getting vaccines to get jobs, if jobs said you had to get one in order to work the job? I just don't get people's attitudes "sure I don't have a job and my kids my suffer as as result, but there's no way I'm putting that in my body!"

Yes, there is a balance between safety from the virus and safety from the disasters caused by this never-ending lockdown. 300,000 out of 320,000,000 have died. The trade-off hasn't been worth it. Longer the lockdowns last, the more risk to public sanity and the economy they pose.

The goal should be to end lock-downs BEFORE everyone is vaccinated. Once enough people are vaccinated, we can in theory keep vaccinating others while still safely ending the lock-downs. The sooner the better. But that doesn't seem to be their plan.

So those who don't want to get vaxed, or those who do but are further down the line, really shouldn't be top priority or used as an excuse. It's not on those people to end the lockdowns, it's up to our overseers. They can indeed safely end the lockdowns well before full inoculation is reached. Yet it seems a lot of people are saying, "Duh, we gotta get everyone vaccinated, then the overseers will says it's okay to go back to normal."

Going back to normal should be based on science, not politics. Currently, it's politics.

Oh I didn't think that everyone needing to get vaccinated before we go back to normal was about politics. I thought it was about science, and that scientifically, if most people would get vaccinated, than that should slow the virus down by a lot, scientifically. I didn't think it was a political thing.

I'm not opposed to vaccination. But I don't think those who refuse should be used as an excuse to continue these very political lock-downs. Reason being, more than enough people want the vaccine to allow inoculation for society to go back to normal. In fact, we could go back to normal even before everyone who wants a vaccination gets one. We'll reach safe numbers and underwhelmed hospitals even before 50% inoculation is reached. But we're using all-or-nothing (a political marker) as the basis.

Suppose all Canadians get a vaccination. You can go back to normal, right? Well, wait...not all Americans have been vaccinated yet, so Canada says they still need to continue the lock-downs, in case some unvaxed Yanks come across the border. Then, let's say all Americans do get vaccinated. Wait, there are 8 billion people on this planet, and it will take a lot of time to vaccinate them all.

YOU: But I've been vaccinated, what do I have to worry about?

THEM: Well, vaccinations aren't 100% effective, so for the greater good, we'll stay locked-down until all of planet earth is vaccinated.