As a pro-vaccine shill... Things like this is what makes defending and explaining the good of vaccine sooooo much more difficult, and undo all the progress we made against antivaxxers.
Thank you retards, for making my job that much harder with retarded bullshit like this(dancing videos, virtue signaling photos of getting the vaccine, free donuts et al)
Technically, they are still vaccines, like the fly vaccine.
And, despite some death, based on the amount of people being vaccinated and being alright, it is still safe. Of course they are not perfect, and no vaccine is ever 100% effective. Sadly, explaining this is now going to be moot, thanks to the absolute fart sniffing retards who go dancing around and tattooing a bandaid where they got the jab. These morons are a bunch of retards, and is driving people away from vaccines.
Why does this have to be "pro-vaccine" and "anti-vaccine"? And why bring the antivaxx slur into the discussion?
A vaccine is a risk mitigation. If a person isn't at significant risk of a particular hazard the vaccine is attempting to mitigate against, why should they be made to feel guilty for not utilizing that mitigation?
It's like claiming to be "pro-seatbelt" and complaining that your neighbor isn't wearing a seatbelt on their lawnmower. Sure maybe you could crash into a fence or fall into a ditch when you're out mowing the lawn, but does anyone honestly worry about this?
A vaccine is a risk mitigation. If a person isn't at significant risk of a particular hazard the vaccine is attempting to mitigate against, why should they be made to feel guilty for not utilizing that mitigation?
I don't believe in forcing people to take the vaccine, but the answer to this would be herd immunity. If a substantial portion remains unvaccinated and so far uninfected, that is a threat for people for whom the vaccine is not effective.
It's like claiming to be "pro-seatbelt" and complaining that your neighbor isn't wearing a seatbelt on their lawnmower. Sure maybe you could crash into a fence or fall into a ditch when you're out mowing the lawn, but does anyone honestly worry about this?
Because of moral hazard, that works the other way around. People drive more recklessly when they do have a seatbelt.
If a substantial portion remains unvaccinated and so far uninfected, that is a threat for people for whom the vaccine is not effective
Another solution to the "herd immunity" problem would be to deliberately infect those at low risk of severe illness or death, like we used to do (and in some regions still do) with chickenpox. Or just let people in low-risk populations get it and spread it through normal activity as tends to happen every cold and flu season, while vaccinating people in high-risk populations,
Ultimately a vaccine is useful when the risk of severe illness or death is high, because building up natural herd immunity via infection and recovery presents an unacceptably high risk of injury or death. If the risk is low then the vaccine's usefulness over natural immunity is questionable.
People drive more recklessly when they do have a seatbelt
Perhaps, though then it is a question of whether the decrease in severity of harm due to wearing a seatbelt in an accident makes up for the increased probability of occurrence of getting in an accident. Or whether the severity increased due to increased risk-taking and worse accidents. I don't know the answers to these questions because it's outside the area of my expertise.
As a pro-vaccine shill... Things like this is what makes defending and explaining the good of vaccine sooooo much more difficult, and undo all the progress we made against antivaxxers.
Thank you retards, for making my job that much harder with retarded bullshit like this(dancing videos, virtue signaling photos of getting the vaccine, free donuts et al)
Real vaccines, or these Covid "vaccines"?
Technically, they are still vaccines, like the fly vaccine.
And, despite some death, based on the amount of people being vaccinated and being alright, it is still safe. Of course they are not perfect, and no vaccine is ever 100% effective. Sadly, explaining this is now going to be moot, thanks to the absolute fart sniffing retards who go dancing around and tattooing a bandaid where they got the jab. These morons are a bunch of retards, and is driving people away from vaccines.
Explain.
Well the Covid vaccines don't prevent you from being infected by the virus or from spreading the virus.
They don't?
Why does this have to be "pro-vaccine" and "anti-vaccine"? And why bring the antivaxx slur into the discussion?
A vaccine is a risk mitigation. If a person isn't at significant risk of a particular hazard the vaccine is attempting to mitigate against, why should they be made to feel guilty for not utilizing that mitigation?
It's like claiming to be "pro-seatbelt" and complaining that your neighbor isn't wearing a seatbelt on their lawnmower. Sure maybe you could crash into a fence or fall into a ditch when you're out mowing the lawn, but does anyone honestly worry about this?
I don't believe in forcing people to take the vaccine, but the answer to this would be herd immunity. If a substantial portion remains unvaccinated and so far uninfected, that is a threat for people for whom the vaccine is not effective.
Because of moral hazard, that works the other way around. People drive more recklessly when they do have a seatbelt.
Another solution to the "herd immunity" problem would be to deliberately infect those at low risk of severe illness or death, like we used to do (and in some regions still do) with chickenpox. Or just let people in low-risk populations get it and spread it through normal activity as tends to happen every cold and flu season, while vaccinating people in high-risk populations,
Ultimately a vaccine is useful when the risk of severe illness or death is high, because building up natural herd immunity via infection and recovery presents an unacceptably high risk of injury or death. If the risk is low then the vaccine's usefulness over natural immunity is questionable.
Perhaps, though then it is a question of whether the decrease in severity of harm due to wearing a seatbelt in an accident makes up for the increased probability of occurrence of getting in an accident. Or whether the severity increased due to increased risk-taking and worse accidents. I don't know the answers to these questions because it's outside the area of my expertise.
I've commented elsewhere a lot. Usually against some imbecile antisemite.
It just depends if I have the attention span on commenting on something or not.