There’s no “come together” with people that think that way. The “Right”/everyone other than those people need to get over the idea that’s possible. Hell, 22% of Republicans would not “Strongly Oppose putting the unvaccinated in ‘designated facilities.’”
Yes there is. The NHS’s and Public Health England’s guidance. My honest opinion is simple. These people that have been tasked to look after our health. Which is our greatest asset. And all they ask really is we keep our selves “heathyish”. And at the moment get vaccinated. Now I’m aware in the states there is an inherent distrust in authorities. And I appreciate that. But all truth be told I trusted the NHS with my kids life more than once. And will carry on doing so.
And I’m not suggesting that un-vaccinated people are refused healthcare. Only that their ability to catch the virus and overwhelm the health system is limited. And if that means some social hardships for them - then that is their choice.
No telling. But the fact is the survey takers run the replies through a weighing program. This is meant to give more accurate numbers. Based on the demographics of the people that took the survey compared to the whole demographic of the nation. But these programmes have (in the last 20 years) be come less and less accurate. In the UK they have not been close to right since at least 2010 election. In the USA since 2012. The same with the rest of the world.
Not arguing against “this poll” at all. Only that all polls are inherently misleading. For example the 2012, 2016 and 2020 polls for the US election were all way out. If polling companies can’t get the presidential elections correct then nuanced positions like this are way out of scope.
Some what familiar. But unless you can magic beds out of think air they are still a finite resource.
Yeah I did. But I’ll be fair my points where not aimed at this poll overly. But at the idea of putting any stock in polls. They are inaccurate. The best thing to do is fine some democrats and ask them the same question and see what responses. And stop relying on some dude to tell you what other people think.
Of course you can. How else to you look at multiple staged events or out comes or challenge assumptions? What ifs are key.
I did. The following days that vaccines are not effective
The expert group, which is assessing the performance of covid-19 vaccines, said that to deal with emerging variants such as omicron, new vaccines needed to be developed that not only protect people against serious illness but against infection. “Covid-19 vaccines that have high impact on prevention of infection and transmission, in addition to the prevention of severe disease and death, are needed and should be developed,” the group said.
Vaccines also need to be more effective at protection against infection, “thus lowering community transmission and the need for stringent and broad reaching public health and social measures,” the group said.
New vaccines should “elicit immune responses that are broad, strong, and long lasting in order to reduce the need for successive booster doses,” it added.
Repugs are half the problem themselves. Constantly on the side of “small government” yet somehow always vote to make the govt bigger. They’re neoliberals in republican clothing.
Regardless of that, your stance on this is arguing that civil war is the resolution, and I fundamentally disagree.
No. It’s that separating is the resolution. But if those folks won’t permit that, then war(not a civil war! I have no desire to govern them) is the only solution. THEY APPROVE OF PUTTING PEOPLE INTO CAMPS FOR REFUSING VACCINATIONS. What’s your middle ground solution? Camps for 50%?
Just to stir the pot
Lol I’m not following trump or his trumpites. I’m in favor of any conservative candidate, preferably one that knows when to shut up.
1 Like
That’s not a limiting principle. At all. Perhaps you feel it is in the UK. I don’t know enough about policy specifics there to say it isn’t, but none of this is being done under the authority of a similar governing body in the USA.
The federal contractor mandate is the executive branch mining US Codes for vague language that can be broadly interpreted as requiring medical treatments for anyone agreeing to a federal contract. This authority was discovered under the procurement powers given to the executive branch, where nobody knew it previously existed.
Nobody voted to give the executive branch that kind of power, and I don’t believe it has it. It’s currently being decided in the court system.
This all resulted in a decrepit old ghoul unilaterally setting ridiculous rules for how we have to work everyday, all without knowing anything about our business or anyone from the administration ever setting foot in our building. This resulted in vaccine ultimatums and people being let go before the injunction was filed.
That is not, in my opinion, good governance that inspires confidence. There’s not a limiting principle in sight. If they’ll do this for the threat profile of COVID, what other scourges can be addressed with similar measures? I don’t want to find out.
When you consider the massive policy failures unfolding in real-time, the need for draconian measures seems more likely to me. Things like censorship, lockdowns, show me your papers, comply or be fired, or come quietly to the camp are not only being discussed, but implemented, all without any hard data to back any of it up. Only unbridled emotion and fear-mongering, with no improved outcomes in-hand over jurisdictions that opted against that kind of power grab.
So you’re saying it’s quite possible that these percentages are under-reported and that more Democrats than the survey reported actually hold these reprehensible views?
The opposite is also possible.
I think this misses the situational circumstances. Historically, fat people haven’t overwhelmed the hospital system preventing others from getting treatment. Covid has.
I think we should treat unvaxxinated people, but Covid is different than the things you listed because it actually has overwhelmed the hospital system, and the things you listed have not.
1 Like
Could you explain your thoughts on this a bit more?
What kind of results would you expect to come of separation? Or, what would your ideal be?
I’m not trying to be antagonizing, genuinely curious. It’s something I think we’ve all thought of before but you seem more serious about it than most folks I’ve heard entertain the idea.
It’s all cumulative though, isn’t it? One optional decision after another putting people into the hospitals, taking up valuable resources. Why is being unvaccinated cruel to others but riding a motorcycle is not? Have you seen what kind of care a new paraplegic requires? All so they could get their selfish thrills on their death machine, or so the new-found logic goes.
COVID hasn’t overwhelmed our local hospital system, but it is still under stress because of our reaction to COVID. My local hospital now allows COVID-positive employees back at work even if they have symptoms.
This is after firing all of the unvaccinated help. We’re in the upside down world here. RSU 4 cancelled school today because they’re short-staffed too. Oh well, at least noboby’s getting the sniffles this winter…
Except everyone is still getting the Omicron sniffles.
I’m not worried about the virus at all at this point. The threat is from human reactions to the virus and the cynical exploitation of fear by power-hungry politicians.
1 Like
Honestly - yes. I have the same level of distrust in the Government as you do. Because while the NHS is Government funded, the NHS is not the government. In fact many times the NHS is the worst enemy of the Government.
However this is one of the many cultural differences between the USA and UK. Where you see a power grab - I see authorities doing what you task them to do. And that is protect you.
100% yes. Which brings me to the point. Do you think this is correct? Also think about how that data made you feel and then think “who wants me to feel that way?”.
That survey cost money to do. Someone commissioned it. If it had shown something unremarkable do you think it would have seen the light of day? Or do you think the survey company would have been tasked with finding the right data and the right way to frame it?
These surveys are not fair or impartial. The weighting programmes mean you can adjust things to look a certain way.
Yes.
Both/all parties enjoy autonomy.
Both/all parties enjoy autonomy.
If you want more, I believe both/all parties would quickly see that they have a great amount in common and could still work together; they just don’t need to dictate every facet of the lives of the other side/s. I think this country had it pretty much right to start: basically, a military/defense alliance between numerous States.
1 Like
Generally speaking, that’s not what we elect politicians to do here in the USA, aside from maintaining functioning military, police and regulatory agencies.
No politician has ever ran on the policy of protecting the public by putting people out of work who decline a medical treatment.
No politician has ever ran on the policy of protecting the public by telling small businesses and churches to close but making sure Wal-Mart and other large businesses can operate unimpeded.
No politician has ever ran on the policy of protecting the public by not allowing people to leave their homes.
No politician has ever ran on the policy of protecting the public by censoring their political opponents.
No politician has ever ran on the policy of putting people in camps.
Many, many authoritarians throughout history have used the pretense of public health and safety to do all of those things, none of which has ever gone well.
The poll itself? I think it’s probably in the ballpark, yes. This is unsurprising to me when I look around at the situation where I live. I’m so glad my kid graduated high school right before the omniscient moral busybodies became fully empowered to impose their psychotic rules on children.
All to protect us, of course.
In some cases, we have decided to punish people for health decisions they make. At my previous employer, smoking landed one with an additional $600 in health insurance premiums.
So far we aren’t refusing health care to the unvaxxinated. All that is happening is that they are seen as selfish by some. It is selfish. Other activities are selfish too (as you pointed out), but we deem them okay. We should be more consistent, but one selfish act being accepted doesn’t change another socially non accepted act from being selfish.
This is where you and I fundamentally disagree, and it speaks to why liberals and conservatives often have fundamental disagreements.
The liberal tendency is to look at any given outcome and compare it to an idealized outcome. In this case, you don’t leave room for expected human behavior. You call it selfish and seem to agree that the other examples I listed are selfish.
Perhaps they are on some level, but each and every one of us is selfish if that’s the measure for selfishness. This is the great danger with this line of thought and the lack of limiting principle.
Today the blame group is unvaccinated people. Democrat policies are not going to suddenly start delivering good outcomes, so who will be to blame when the policies continue to fail and the situation continues to deteriorate?
This is a recent quote that explains where this sort of stuff can lead.
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
-Martin Niemöller
For a socialist example, watch the video in the thread pat made where a KGB defector is interviewed. Or just read some of the many books about how the useful idiots, who were early enthusiastic supporters of these insane leftist policies, were just a little further down the line until it was their turn to get up against the wall.
Sure, I don’t disagree with that premise. I’d imagine if we separated into regions or individual states, we’d end up with smaller scale versions of our current system though, and who’s to say how that would turn out. The possibility exists that it’s a favorable outcome, but I think there are more numerous and more probable negative outcomes.
that’s pretty wild, and surprising. I don’t know even know many private businesses around here that would do that. Hell, I sent someone home the other day just because he had exposure over the weekend and mild symptoms, no positive test. Just out of an abundance of caution. I have an employee who missed the last 4+ months of work because of covid (he was in the ICU at one point), and I can’t risk him getting any unnecessary exposure right now, his system couldn’t handle getting it again.