COVID-19 Discussion (No Politics)

Then life goes on.


Sounds like one of the long-haul problems may be damage to the pancreas.


That was a bad day…


This is pretty cool. Very graphic representation of when the Delta variant took off in July 2021.


Wow, love this. But it’s over now, right? :wink:

Not if Texas has anything to say about it. They just banned vaccine mandates for any company, including private businesses. SMH

1 Like

Abbott is a Covidiot.


kEeP UR gUbMIt rEgooLAyshUN oUTtA mUH pRiVUt bizNESS!


There is no viable excuse for not getting vaccinated to protect yourself and those around you from a preventable illness. Rationalizing that somehow you will never get the disease, or whatever BS you want to tell yourself is a fool’s errand. At least if you get it and it kills you, it will happen fairly fast, but it didn’t need to happen.

Having both parents die due to an aggressive form of small cell lung cancer that took them from diagnosis to death In roughly 30 days each, for which there was no treatment to prevent the disease or cure it, I had a front row seat to seeing death happen at a speed similar to COVID. The only thing that made their deaths maddening was the fact that had they never smoked, it is likely this cancer never happens; and as the proud recipient of their second-hand smoke for over 20 years, all I get to do is hope whatever triggered their cancer doesn’t show up in me.

This maddening feeling is what your legacy will be with those who were living around your infected self, and who are now at risk of the illness. Hopefully they got vaccinated so they don’t spend time worrying about when it will be their turn getting ill.

If you want a better outcome, get vaccinated.


This discussion in my view can be approached by the concept of negative rights. In essence, negative rights define our freedoms and our right to have something without interference from outside forces, in this example, even the government as in a health mandate.

To define negative rights in the simplest manner, it’s one person’s right not to have another person interfere with their own liberties. These rights entitle a person to certain things in life and merely ask that no one interferes with their right to have and enjoy those things.

If someone has a negative right, it means they have the right to freely do something or obtain something how they choose without any interference from outside forces. They are free from the interference of another person or a group of people.

Generally, in Libertarian values, this involves a person’s individual right to something without interference from the government.

Another way to look at negative human rights is that it’s a person’s right not to be subjected to another action. Negative rights don’t only have to focus on obtaining goods and services, but it also applies to the fact that one person cannot force another person to do something because that would infringe on their liberties.

If we compare positive and negative rights, there becomes a foggy distinction, but one thing that’s clear is that the two often contradict themselves. Many people view positive rights as a violation of negative rights.

The linked in article goes into more detail…yet it contains this line:

In the United States, our negative rights are simply an agreement that we won’t interfere in other people’s private affairs as long as they don’t interfere in ours. It’s as simple as that.

Bolded emphasis added.

The US Supreme Court in 1905 ruled that a state could require vaccination against Small Pox even when a religious objection was raised.

The article above states:

When we define negative rights, we start to see more of these come into play in our daily lives. There is often confusion over freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to have healthcare, property rights, and other inalienable freedoms.

That is to say when a conflict arises between an individual’s negative right and a positive right, say of the state, the positive right trumps all. The posted article gives examples of this conflict.

To me this is an important point about freedom. When an individual’s personal and willful actions pose a threat to more than him or herself, that is, confers a clear danger to others, that is infringe on the rights of others, then I believe government has an obligation to ensure the rights of the innocent are protected.

That is why I have no issues with mask mandates or a concerted drive by government to get people vaccinated. But then again, I see everyone as my neighbor. And I rather like the way I was taught (as in a commandment) to love my neighbor as myself. Read that somewhere in the Good Book. So I will fight to my own death to protect my freedom, yet I’ll always respect how my own freedom impacts those around me.

Some folks don’t see it that way. To them, its all about them.


Dr. Muge Cevik, a virologist at the University of St. Andrews, said. In truth, the share of transmission that has occurred outdoors seems to be below 1 percent and may be below 0.1 percent, multiple epidemiologists told me. The rare outdoor transmission that has happened almost all seems to have involved crowded places or close conversation.
A Misleading C.D.C. Number - The New York Times

When I said no effect I meant statistically no effect. If you are outside you are fine (especially if you are vaccinated and/or already been infected). Come on Dataute let’s follow the data :slight_smile:


I think we should rename this thread “Covidiot Watch,” since that’s pretty much what it is about now.

Haha, fair enough :). With spread of anything (odor, toxin, pollution, disease), the best first course of action is to remove the source (although many will try to cover the effect first, usually with marginal or no success). Then, if you can’t remove it, the next best is to contain it as locally as possible.

So, I think vaccination check/testing to enter (even outdoors) is a good 1st best way to lower the risk of a ‘source’ even being there (and not as many mitigation factors are needed after that point). However, it is logistically challenging, but we never did get widespread systematic testing going very well at all. You would think by now that the benefits of showing negative results from a 15 min rapid test outweigh several other inconveniences, but we are a ‘me now’ society.

For the many places that don’t have source control (or are taking them away), then you obviously have a higher probability of have a source(s) present so the next step is containing it locally. Masks is one of the few simple strategies. Then come the strategies to deal with it once away from the source: high ventilation (includes outdoors) and spacing have been used with varying degrees of effect. We end up doing a lot of all of these but don’t enforce it well (nearly impossible) and so there are holes in each level of protection.

There’s a saying about pollutants that applies here as well - “the solution to pollution is dilution” - true, although lowering/eliminating the source in the first place is always better :slight_smile:

I think LSU had it close to right and caved. Many venues are taking the approach though, usually due to artists requiring it if they are to come and perform. Definitely much much more valid for indoor spaces.

Negative vs. positive rights, as discussed above :wink:


It’s amazing to me that people can still look at this sort of data and respond with “it’s just the flu”.


Consider where they get their “data analysis” from…


I’m deciding to turn down my angry rhetoric after two conversations and some data I supposed and LA later presented was indeed true. Basically I had said that we needed to stop attacking the 8-10% of the unvaccinated, who are anti-vaxxers in their various forms, and focus instead on the 10-25% of the unvaccinated who haven’t gotten it for various reasons that aren’t political. In other words, focus on the teachable.

But I remained upset at the many people clogging the hospitals and threatening a loved one’s life just because his surgery was considered ‘non-urgent’. (Quick update, after losing 20lbs from August when his surgery was first supposed to happen to now, 20lbs he didn’t have to lose, they’ve decided to schedule it for early November).

Now with these experiences, you can see the foolishness in their beliefs, but not in their intent. Nor is there any defiance or malice that is driving their decision making. I would say they were ignorant and misguided on their approach and their actual risks.

The first is a single mom in our neighborhood. She has 3 kids, works like crazy and is barely making it by. She opted not to get the vaccine when her parents and siblings got it and had pretty strong reactions, in the sense that it took them out of work for a day or two. Further, her ex-husband and some other people she knew got Covid and basically didn’t know they had it. So that was her view and her experience respective to the two. Being faced with missing work - which she couldn’t afford - the thing that looked like a sure bet (getting taken out for a day from the vaccine) versus a chance she wouldn’t have any symptoms and not miss work at all… she gambled on not getting it. Or if she did it wouldn’t be a big deal. Interestingly I think she was careful in other ways, like wearing masks etc. But she got it, it knocked her out in a big way and she hasn’t been able to work, quarantined for 10 days now.

But do you get what I’m seeing there? She wasn’t doing this because of any news source or political agenda, she was doing it because of quite the opposite. She didn’t have time to watch either good or bad news and so went solely off of direct experience. I can be frustrated with that, but not mad at her from my viewpoint.

Another is a person with just general distrust of the medical field, and somewhat legitimately so. She’s had a couple of tragedies in her life, losing a mother and a child in what were supposed to be fairly routine procedures that went badly (separate instances that happened within months of each other). She also had a father who was hobbled most of his life because of a botched procedure. This all happened in small town Utah.

She is skeptical of everything after that and maybe a bit fatalistic too. But her POV is basically ‘why should I trust anybody’. She doesn’t fault anyone for getting the vaccine themselves, she just can’t get the courage to do it and likely most any other medical intervention.

Again, foolish and misguided in my opinion, but I also have some compassion for her position. As I was talking to her I mentioned now how over 3B vaccines had been successfully administered around the world safely and with minor side effects and it left with, “Well, maybe I’ll get it.”

The truth is, sometimes it is hard to be rational about things when faced with other choices, data and facts that are more personal. I equate it to my friend in high school when we went to Lake Powell together. We found a spot to do a little cliff jumping - nothing extreme - and he was terrified by it, certain there was something underneath the water that could hurt him. He did get the courage to go up to the top of the wall and watched 10 of us jump off of it repeatedly. He never did bring himself to do it, despite all the direct evidence that it could be done safely a number of times. Some of you might argue he was more rational than us, and we were just lucky and that is a fair argument too.

But I’m going to stop going after the unteachable and focus on the teachable. In their minds there are legitimate reasons to not get vaccinated but they can be persuaded to do what is right. The other 8-10% will always be there, have always been there and aren’t going away. Let natural selection work the rest out with them.


All of this reminds me…I need to go in and get my boosters so I can go overseas next summer. Though the places I will be going do not require the shots, there are going to be more than a few visitors from other places in the area where some of these diseases are still in business.

Better safe than sorry.

1 Like

Thanks for that perspective, Rocker. Most of the anti-vaxxers in my orbit fall in the belligerent 8-10% group, but I am working to try and understand and reach out the others instead of passing immediate judgement.

As Jules Winfield said, “But I’m trying Ringo. I’m trying real hard…” :slight_smile:


Educating people is important, but mandate from private business is starting to look like the most successful strategy.

I found out my brother who caught the 'vid last year actually got the shots despite his lack of interest in the spring. Why? Because he wanted to go to some concerts. :slight_smile: