12 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Oh, you edited your post when you realized you refuted your own argument. This is better, but it had some limitations given the time frame they were evaluating (Jan-Feb) where vaccinations were prioritized for the elderly, those with pre-existing conditions, and the immunocompromised. Let's see if this is corroborated by other studies. In any case though, it's clear that the third group in the study (those with prior infection that still got vaccinated) saw benefit to vaccination from even further increased protection.

I copied that link from a friend, and my link didn't copy. That link is just fine and I understand their point. But someone who was already incredibly healthy and has antibodies from a previous infection shouldn't be required to get the vaccine. They're already sufficiently protected to a very large extent. They should be able to make the judgement whether they wish to have more protection, in my opinion 

 

I know of plenty of older people who don't want to get the vaccine. That also makes absolutely no sense to me btw.

This use of OSHA is overreach by the Federal government, and Klain was an idiot to retweet that. My guess is, despite the precedent from the early 20th century, this SCOTUS will overturn this requirement (based in no small part on Klain admitting the intent was to circumvent the law). I'm guessing the administration's bet is that enough people will get vaccinated before it is overturned to make it worth it.

Highly disappointing that Biden won't do what is both legal and effective. He, like most Democrats, remains terrified of allowing people to feel negative consequences -- the entire premise of the current Democratic party is all morons must be protected from feeling negative feedback.

- Insurance: no Medicare/Medicaid/Tricare coverage for those who are eligible to be vaccinated and have not done so. Indemnify private insurers who want to do the same thing, and hospitals that want to prioritize ICU beds for the vaccinated

- Federal Contracts: starting 10/1, only award Federal contracts to companies that have a vaccinate mandate for all employees

- TSA: No vaccine, no pass through the checkpoint

- Transfer Payments: require vaccines to receive welfare, food stamps, etc.

We'd be at 90%+ in a month.

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

This use of OSHA is overreach by the Federal government, and Klain was an idiot to retweet that. My guess is, despite the precedent from the early 20th century, this SCOTUS will overturn this requirement (based in no small part on Klain admitting the intent was to circumvent the law). I'm guessing the administration's bet is that enough people will get vaccinated before it is overturned to make it worth it.

Highly disappointing that Biden won't do what is both legal and effective. He, like most Democrats, remains terrified of allowing people to feel negative consequences -- the entire premise of the current Democratic party is all morons must be protected from feeling negative feedback.

- Insurance: no Medicare/Medicaid/Tricare coverage for those who are eligible to be vaccinated and have not done so. Indemnify private insurers who want to do the same thing, and hospitals that want to prioritize ICU beds for the vaccinated

- Federal Contracts: starting 10/1, only award Federal contracts to companies that have a vaccinate mandate for all employees

- TSA: No vaccine, no pass through the checkpoint

- Transfer Payments: require vaccines to receive welfare, food stamps, etc.

We'd be at 90%+ in a month.

+ forced castration for the unvaccinated

3 minutes ago, mattmcginley7 said:

More kids die from the flu on an average yearly basis than have died from Covid.

Data shows that COVID is more dangerous to children than flu LINK. COVID is more contagious, therefore more children are susceptible to it. You have to remember that  most schools had shut-down last year when COVID was surging, which coincided with most of cold/flu season too. Families were keeping children distant. Therefore, you need to consider that when looking at last year's infection numbers. Very few children died of flu last year too. It is rare for children to die from either virus.

4 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

This use of OSHA is overreach by the Federal government, and Klain was an idiot to retweet that. My guess is, despite the precedent from the early 20th century, this SCOTUS will overturn this requirement (based in no small part on Klain admitting the intent was to circumvent the law). I'm guessing the administration's bet is that enough people will get vaccinated before it is overturned to make it worth it.

Highly disappointing that Biden won't do what is both legal and effective. He, like most Democrats, remains terrified of allowing people to feel negative consequences -- the entire premise of the current Democratic party is all morons must be protected from feeling negative feedback.

- Insurance: no Medicare/Medicaid/Tricare coverage for those who are eligible to be vaccinated and have not done so. Indemnify private insurers who want to do the same thing, and hospitals that want to prioritize ICU beds for the vaccinated

- Federal Contracts: starting 10/1, only award Federal contracts to companies that have a vaccinate mandate for all employees

- TSA: No vaccine, no pass through the checkpoint

- Transfer Payments: require vaccines to receive welfare, food stamps, etc.

We'd be at 90%+ in a month.

I agree.  Let the fed do what they choose with their programs to try and force vaccines.  Let the private sector sort itself out.  Insurance companies should rate employers group/individual health insurance plans based on whether or not there's a vaccine mandate or whether the individual is vaccinated.  If they are fine paying an increased premium so be it.  I see the OSHA thing as major overreach.  It will also start a domino effect of future overreaches by future administrations.  I'm not really for giving the fed any more power than they already have.

6 minutes ago, mattmcginley7 said:

I copied that link from a friend, and my link didn't copy. That link is just fine and I understand their point. But someone who was already incredibly healthy and has antibodies from a previous infection shouldn't be required to get the vaccine. They're already sufficiently protected to a very large extent. They should be able to make the judgement whether they wish to have more protection, in my opinion 

 

I know of plenty of older people who don't want to get the vaccine. That also makes absolutely no sense to me btw.

They're not required to get the vaccine unless they work for the government. Otherwise they can be tested weekly. Seems like a reasonable compromise. If your issue is that the federal government shouldn't be dictating this to private companies, that's one thing. But you seem to be arguing that a company shouldn't be doing this at all, despite the fact that the benefit far outweighs the risk even for those with natural immunity. Vaccines work and are safe. We should be encouraging their use both in the interests of public health and also for personal protection.

1 minute ago, toolg said:

Data shows that COVID is more dangerous to children than flu LINK. COVID is more contagious, therefore more children are susceptible to it. You have to remember that  most schools had shut-down last year when COVID was surging, which coincided with most of cold/flu season too. Families were keeping children distant. Therefore, you need to consider that when looking at last year's infection numbers. Very few children died of flu last year too. It is rare for children to die from either virus.

I agree it's more dangerous, it seems pretty clear the chance of developing health issues is higher. But it's also still incredibly low

Because of that, it seems like the opportunity cost of getting vaccinated even for children is worth it, but I can't say it's so great and obvious that it is absolutely necessary

17 minutes ago, mattmcginley7 said:

More kids die from the flu on an average yearly basis than have died from Covid. Before the Delta variant was the dominant variant, literally 0 children died from alpha that didn't already have a significant health problem.

Maybe delta is worse, and the probability of developing myocarditis is higher compared to getting covid, but between natural immunity from a previous infection and their significantly low risk of any problems, it's not as obvious as some people attempt to make it out to be

I think it's pretty clear vaccines are incredibly helpful for high risk and still helpful, albeit much less for healthy and young people. But if parents are so hellbent on not getting their kids vaccinated, the results show it's not much of a problem

 

 

We've already been over this. Death isn't the only metric and kids can get vaccinated for the flu. Stop with this nonsense. 

1 minute ago, mattmcginley7 said:

I agree it's more dangerous, it seems pretty clear the chance of developing health issues is higher. But it's also still incredibly low

Because of that, it seems like the opportunity cost of getting vaccinated even for children is worth it, but I can't say it's so great and obvious that it is absolutely necessary

It is, for my kids at least. Don't vaccinate yours if you like to gamble with their health.

3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

They're not required to get the vaccine unless they work for the government. Otherwise they can be tested weekly. Seems like a reasonable compromise. If your issue is that the federal government shouldn't be dictating this to private companies, that's one thing. But you seem to be arguing that a company shouldn't be doing this at all, despite the fact that the benefit far outweighs the risk even for those with natural immunity. Vaccines work and are safe. We should be encouraging their use both in the interests of public health and also for personal protection.

A friend of mine plays in a popular metal band. Their guitarist has antibodies from a previous infection and wants to wait still to get the vaccine. They had to leave him off tour

He should have probably just gotten the vaccine, but he's sufficiently protected. 

14 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

This use of OSHA is overreach by the Federal government, and Klain was an idiot to retweet that. My guess is, despite the precedent from the early 20th century, this SCOTUS will overturn this requirement (based in no small part on Klain admitting the intent was to circumvent the law). I'm guessing the administration's bet is that enough people will get vaccinated before it is overturned to make it worth it.

Highly disappointing that Biden won't do what is both legal and effective. He, like most Democrats, remains terrified of allowing people to feel negative consequences -- the entire premise of the current Democratic party is all morons must be protected from feeling negative feedback.

- Insurance: no Medicare/Medicaid/Tricare coverage for those who are eligible to be vaccinated and have not done so. Indemnify private insurers who want to do the same thing, and hospitals that want to prioritize ICU beds for the vaccinated

- Federal Contracts: starting 10/1, only award Federal contracts to companies that have a vaccinate mandate for all employees

- TSA: No vaccine, no pass through the checkpoint

- Transfer Payments: require vaccines to receive welfare, food stamps, etc.

We'd be at 90%+ in a month.

Which requirement? Vaccines are not required if you submit to weekly testing. As far as OSHA is concerned, they merely need to prove that weekly testing is needed to protect occupational health (which during an ongoing pandemic, should be easy I'd think.)

2 minutes ago, mattmcginley7 said:

A friend of mine plays in a popular metal band. Their guitarist has antibodies from a previous infection and wants to wait still to get the vaccine. They had to leave him off tour

He should have probably just gotten the vaccine, but he's sufficiently protected. 

Sounds like he's not that smart.

2 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

We've already been over this. Death isn't the only metric and kids can get vaccinated for the flu. Stop with this nonsense. 

It is, for my kids at least. Don't vaccinate yours if you like to gamble with their health.

Where have I said that if I have kids that I wouldn't vaccinate them? Lmao. Where have I said that's not the only metric? And what is the long covid probability for healthy young kids? 

It's always ironic when I get a lecture from people on health.

I'd just like some honesty from both sides for a change. One side says everyone needs to get vaccinated or you'll die and the world will end. The other wouldn't vaccinate their 90 year old grandmother who has respiratory issues 

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Sounds like he's not that smart.

Nah, he's fine. If the goal is to reasonably protect people, he's not a problem to himself or the people around him.

1 minute ago, mattmcginley7 said:

I agree it's more dangerous, it seems pretty clear the chance of developing health issues is higher. But it's also still incredibly low

Because of that, it seems like the opportunity cost of getting vaccinated even for children is worth it, but I can't say it's so great and obvious that it is absolutely necessary

I think there is danger that children can circulate the virus in schools, then transmit to teachers and other adult staff, and out to the community; infecting people who have a higher chance of developing serious issues.

What is the value of vaccinating children vs. letting the virus run its course? Personally I would like to see children vaccinated and have some level of protection. But I do think have to see more data, whether vaccination is all that effective in that age group, before we can mandate it in schools. No vaccines are approved for children under 12 as of yet.

1 minute ago, mattmcginley7 said:

Where have I said that if I have kids that I wouldn't vaccinate them? Lmao. Where have I said that's not the only metric? And what is the long covid probability for healthy young kids? 

It's always ironic when I get a lecture from people on health.

I'd just like some honesty from both sides for a change. One side says everyone needs to get vaccinated or you'll die and the world will end. The other wouldn't vaccinate their 90 year old grandmother who has respiratory issues 

You said vaccines for kids was not necessary. Elaborate on what you meant because on the surface it's perfectly reasonable to assume you meant that either the FDA shouldn't give an EUA for the 5-11 age group, or that if they did, you wouldn't vaccinate your own kids for something you don't think is needed.

2 minutes ago, mattmcginley7 said:

Nah, he's fine. If the goal is to reasonably protect people, he's not a problem to himself or the people around him.

Giving up money because you're scared of a needle seems pretty dumb to me.

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

You said vaccines for kids was not necessary. Elaborate on what you meant because on the surface it's perfectly reasonable to assume you meant that either the FDA shouldn't give an EUA for the 5-11 age group, or that if they did, you wouldn't vaccinate your own kids for something you don't think is needed.

I said it appears like the opportunity cost is worth it for kids at this point to be vaccinated. Did you miss that part?

I also said they're so low risk to begin with that if OTHER people don't wish to vaccinate their kids, I'm not exactly irked about it either.

2 minutes ago, mattmcginley7 said:

I said it appears like the opportunity cost is worth it for kids at this point to be vaccinated. Did you miss that part?

I also said they're so low risk to begin with that if OTHER people don't wish to vaccinate their kids, I'm not exactly irked about it either.

So assuming the forthcoming trial data is promising, do you think the FDA should give an EUA for the 5-11 group? 

And if they did, would you give your kid the vaccine if they were in that group?

29 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

This use of OSHA is overreach by the Federal government, and Klain was an idiot to retweet that. My guess is, despite the precedent from the early 20th century, this SCOTUS will overturn this requirement (based in no small part on Klain admitting the intent was to circumvent the law). I'm guessing the administration's bet is that enough people will get vaccinated before it is overturned to make it worth it.

Highly disappointing that Biden won't do what is both legal and effective. He, like most Democrats, remains terrified of allowing people to feel negative consequences -- the entire premise of the current Democratic party is all morons must be protected from feeling negative feedback.

- Insurance: no Medicare/Medicaid/Tricare coverage for those who are eligible to be vaccinated and have not done so. Indemnify private insurers who want to do the same thing, and hospitals that want to prioritize ICU beds for the vaccinated

- Federal Contracts: starting 10/1, only award Federal contracts to companies that have a vaccinate mandate for all employees

- TSA: No vaccine, no pass through the checkpoint

- Transfer Payments: require vaccines to receive welfare, food stamps, etc.

We'd be at 90%+ in a month.

It wouldn’t be effective because it would cause a complete and total sh** storm. It would also destroy any chance of single payer healthcare for a generation, which is the Democrats holy grail.

We're so serious about defeating the Coronavirus through vaccinations, that we're going to demonstrate our commitment by forcing all federal employees to get vaccinated.  Well, except for the half a million postal service employees, because they gave a lot of money to Pop Pop.  Which will sit well with the other millions of federal employees, many of whom probably also gave money to Pop Pop.  So many of them will probably also soon be exempt.  But we'll force the private sector to mandate vaccinations.  Because they won't have a problem with it when the see Pop Pop carving out exemptions for the feds.  This is going to go about as well as the retreat from Afghanistan did.

15 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

2 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

We're so serious about defeating the Coronavirus through vaccinations, that we're going to demonstrate our commitment by forcing all federal employees to get vaccinated.  Well, except for the half a million postal service employees, because they gave a lot of money to Pop Pop.  Which will sit well with the other millions of federal employees, many of whom probably also gave money to Pop Pop.  So many of them will probably also soon be exempt.  But we'll force the private sector to mandate vaccinations.  Because they won't have a problem with it when the see Pop Pop carving out exemptions for the feds.  This is going to go about as well as the retreat from Afghanistan did.

Didn’t Pop Pop say that you could either get vaccinated OR get tested every week?

4 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

We're so serious about defeating the Coronavirus through vaccinations, that we're going to demonstrate our commitment by forcing all federal employees to get vaccinated.  Well, except for the half a million postal service employees, because they gave a lot of money to Pop Pop.  Which will sit well with the other millions of federal employees, many of whom probably also gave money to Pop Pop.  So many of them will probably also soon be exempt.  But we'll force the private sector to mandate vaccinations.  Because they won't have a problem with it when the see Pop Pop carving out exemptions for the feds.  This is going to go about as well as the retreat from Afghanistan did.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-reporter-postal-service-exemption-biden-vaccine-mandate

 

5 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

We're so serious about defeating the Coronavirus through vaccinations, that we're going to demonstrate our commitment by forcing all federal employees to get vaccinated.  Well, except for the half a million postal service employees, because they gave a lot of money to Pop Pop.  

Wait, USPS is exempt? How so? And where are they getting all this money from? Sounds like fake news to me.