I try to keep my tribal sensibilities in check by reframing everyone I am considering as a part of my own tribe. Obviously, there are exceptions for violent criminality which I apply a strategic empathy for (understand as fully as possible while still condemning the actions). The boundary of who gets what treatment is fuzzy if I really thought about it, but pragmatically this model serves me well. But that's my own personal stance fueled from experiences and research.
My friends draw their tribal circles more narrowly, which is their prerogative. I like to listen to how they engage with the world because it helps me understand how they think and what their influences are. They are more willing to allow state hostility/violence against people who are the other (the 'worthy victim' under the propaganda model). I sometimes point out that what powers you give the state will be wielded by the other party as well.
The fact that my friends are saying who cares, let's just go back to normal is an interesting signal IMO. While the narrative is still 'make things uncomfortable (by disregarding constitutional rights and social norms)' they are seemingly okay with 'it's your life and your choice.'
My friend group is not a representation of society as a whole. They do make up a large part of my social reality. This is an important data point for me but it's much less so for everyone else. Still, I felt compelled to share!
The tribes are essentially people refusing free vaccines for no reason vs people who are vaccinated to protect themselves/others
This is one of the easiest cut and dry examples I could think of to justify in-group/out-group behaviour, you shouldn't be forced to tolerate or associate with people making deliberately bad decisions
You could extend this argument to drunk drivers and I think it would hold just as little weight
It was not a choice many people took to get the virus prior to vaccine availability, and these people would be taking extra risk to get vaccinated (excluded from trials) so you are spewing rage at them for what? Because of an error of incorrect application of priors?
If you have access and you deliberately turn it down over nothing AFTER the trial phase, that's who I'm raging at
Not as an argument against the vaccine, but maybe to help enlighten why many have chosen not to get vaccinated; keep in mind that the FDA approval letter for the Pfizer vaccine indicates that long term testing is not projected to be complete until June 2025. https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download
Either way, you're risking long-term side effects, I'd rather go with the tried and tested technology we have here
I'm not going to sit here and guess
You have the information to work this one out yourself if you like and none of these comments make any sense mate
Except we know this isn't the case at all lmao
Elsewhere in the thread it's stated in AUS that 50% of COVID admissions are from the 8% unvaccinated population, that's about enough to prove the point here and I don't need to go any further
You're also seeing more and more cases like this crop up - https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/frighten...
Vaccines work. They reduce severity, transmission and the chance of death.
It's on you to prove your point with some actual facts now, instead of more questions missing the point entirely.
I guess you are in Australia? Australia may well have successfully suppressed natural immunity. In my own country we have large swaths pre-omicron who have natural antibodies: https://covid19serohub.nih.gov/
Now you seem to be expecting these folks to be vaccinated with a drug that has specifically excluded them from the trials. Drug recommendations ought to be coupled with safety testing on the impacted group.
If you can find me Pfizer/Moderna trial studies which show specific impact on recovered individuals I will never post again.
Nope
> In my own country we have large swaths pre-omicron who have natural antibodies
It's funny this one, as that's not what this should tell you, the page uses antibodies to measure how many people have potentially been infected, it doesn't demonstrate effective herd immunity or that the population would be naturally immune or protected
We know that COVID is a disease where more exposure leads to more damage, so having antibodies doesn't mean anything
Here's an article for that site telling you about the benefits of a universal vaccine - https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-scientists...
It's also worth reading through their other studies about vaccines, as well as how they're looking to tackle the issues with vaccines themselves - https://search.nih.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&affiliate=nih&q...
> Now you seem to be expecting these folks to be vaccinated with a drug that has specifically excluded them from the trials. Drug recommendations ought to be coupled with safety testing on the impacted group.
I haven't suggested anything of the sort and I'm pretty sure this doesn't work how you think it does
> If you can find me Pfizer/Moderna trial studies which show specific impact on recovered individuals I will never post again.
You know for a fact this doesn't exist because people aren't trying to measure the healthy
What we do have are studies that show the delta goes down as vaccines are introduced, along with the infection rate
I really wish you would stop commenting because this a great demonstrating of not understanding the data at all.
EDIT: someone turned off replies lol
I have addressed them, there's just clearly an understanding gap here
Antibodies are also created by vaccines, if that's your measure here you shouldn't be arguing against them, that's why it's meaningless
Any interaction with disease creates them, so having them present doesn't guarantee that there's enough being produced (or even effectively) to counteract the effects
Not sure how to address this, of course it means a great deal. As a proxy for exposure and coupled with studies that show impact of known exposure towards immunity, its great evidence. Whether someone was harmed by their infection is a moot point for those who've gone through it.
In a place like Australia with only a small fraction of the population having exposure its no wonder the statistics of their hospitalizations look as they do. In my own state hospitalizations have started decouple from vaccine status due to the high degree of natural immunity and that was before Omicron.
If the delta of whatever you are measuring is 90%+ dependent on a single age group then perhaps the guidance should reflect that. Frankly you aren't attempting to honestly address my points.
Interesting, maybe, but definitely correct. The unvaccinated are routinely dehumanised and you even do so in your own comment.
They can quite easily change this one by getting vaccinated, people can't with their skin colour
They're people, just very stupid people who have made their own bed and now need to lie in it
I'm not advocating executing them but I just don't give a fuck about them any more and there is a BIG difference
I forgot to finish that point - TL;DR false equivalency, reap the consequences etc.
Thank you very much! Upvoted. That's exactly what we've been asking for. Some of us may have a chance to see the light of another day now. See [0] for obligatory C.S.Lewis quote. I'm really, really happy that you're not willing to push through to an actual extermination stage! I may get my brain un-freeze, my thinking ability back, my psychotic attacks subside, and who knows, I may find the reason to get a jab.
Yes, if your religion caused you to harm people by just being near them because it is optional
Again, it's more false equivalency
Some religions require you to not even look at a woman that isn't covered, they need to go and live in an area where that's supported rather than expecting wider society to support that stupid standard
I’m sympathetic to the idea of not hating others, but it seems like you are beating around the bush here a bit.
What I'm saying is quite simple: Unvaccinated people are being dehumanised all the time. I'm not beating around the bush, I clearly stated this in my first message.
Freedom fighters I think
I don't hate them, I find them stupid and irresponsible
It's interesting that you're pulling the moral outrage card after you've asked about this and found my beliefs consistent
If there's a choice presented to you of "do X thing and don't harm others, or don't and risk harming others" and you pick the 2nd, you're the one in the wrong, plain and simple
I find it interesting you use the word 'other' here, as usually this is said when trying to frame a dehumanisation argument, where the 'other' is a suppressed minority of sorts
As someone that holds this opinion (sod the unvaccinated) and has done since the start of people doing this, I'm not surprised other people are now starting to go 'you made your bed' with this one
The thing is, being unvaccinated is a choice and if you want to make that choice then go for it
However, that choice has contributed to the deaths of people I know and extending the general disruption of the world for months on end for no other reason that unsubstantiated scepticism
You can make that choice but as the article says, do NOT expect the rest of the world to respect it when it's blindingly obvious it's a really dumb choice to make for absolutely no gain to you or anyone around you
When you see your mates grandmas dying and people are actively refusing the vaccine, I quite frankly do not care what happens to them, as they didn't care what happened to the people I know who have died