Shanghai Disneyland will close in effort to contain coronavirus

Here's a good summary about the risk of any given unvaccinated individual for breakthrough infections. It makes the same point that I did, that your odds of infection grow if you encounter more people who are unvaccinated. This shouldn't be all that surprising, because the idea of exponential growth still applies, it's just significantly mitigated when the vaccine prevents infection. But if you encounter 1 infected person and your odds of infection are 1 in 100 (for example), no big deal. Have that encounter a hundred times, and your net odds of infection increase.

Two positive trends: Vaccinations rates are up many multiples in some places where it's bad. Also, the law has largely come down on the side of employers and businesses to require vaccinations. The Norwegian Cruise Line case in particular paints a strong picture for businesses to decide if they want to require vaccination.

So, I’m not sure what I think of the law siding with businesses. I’m not surprised, but it is the businesses who run the country, it is the business who fund the politicians, and it is the business who ultimately govern the people.

Maybe that is one bucket you can put some of these vaccine hesitant people into, you have business selling the vaccine, and business forcing the use, and I’m not stating that some back door deal was done, but the whole thing just feels a bit WALL·E to me. Remember the red and blue shirts?

No surprise, the more you are exposed the more likely you are to get infected. Vaccine or not that is always going to hold true.

I think Jeff's point was that the law siding with businesses is good because that means more may be willing to require it, which is a powerful tool to use to increase the vax rate, which is good for everyone.

I know I've watched WALL-E, but completely forget that part.

It's not siding with business, it's siding with the Constitution. This article on Ars Technica goes somewhat deep on the cruise line case. Short version is FL is conflicting with the First Amendment and the interstate commerce clause. In the case of hospital workers refusing vaccination, their case was so ridiculous they couldn't even get a hearing.

I had someone ask for documentation for a religious exemption. Our faith says nothing on the matter. If anything, it says science is good and caring for other people is good, so get the vaccine. Not to mention 99% (possibly 100%) of our regular attendees have gotten vaccinated. Needless to say, I did not provide the documentation. It was a very strange conversation, though.

I can't think of any religions that specifically forbid vaccination other than the Christian Scientists and Dutch Reformed Church. Outside of those it seems most religions specifically encourage vaccination. In fact one of the Metropolitans in Russia has stated that not being vaccinated is a sin for essentially putting yourself before others.

Being a recovering Catholic, I’m sure the altar boys are used to being poked...

If Covid-19 is as dangerous as advertised, then why is there an endless list of people who are elected officials or formerly elected officials living as if it isn't?

Is there an issue you couldn't ask that about? "If [climate change/nuclear war/lead poisoning/etc] is as dangerous as advertised, then why is there an endless list of people who are elected officials or formerly elected officials living as if it isn't?

In the words of Upton Sinclair, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Only in America would we question the danger of something that killed 618,000+ people. Yet, when other human beings not even associated with a specific state kill 2,996 people in a terrorist attack, we respond by doubling the military budget in eight years to fight no one specifically, without question. We're completely illogical.

Another case (two actually) siding with local rule, this time against the Texas governor.

hambone said:

In the words of Upton Sinclair, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

It is something I often wondered. All of these politicians, what is the benchmark for success? Why not set concrete measurable goals and tie 100% of their salary to completion of those goals. If their income was on the line based on public ratings and completion metrics there would be a lot more getting done.

sws said:

Being a recovering Catholic, I’m sure the altar boys are used to being poked...

Ok, I have to say something here, and sws please don’t take this as a direct criticism of you. I know you were just joking, and I generally believe that there isn’t anything you can’t joke about, if the joke is done properly.

But…

I defy anyone to name a subject that has a wider gulf between the absolute horror of the scandal and the casual nature by which we talk about it, joke about it, etc. I mean, it’s child rape for f***’s sake. And yet so many people have no qualms about making breezy references to it. Oh, those silly priests, sexually abusing vulnerable children. BWAHAHA!

I really don’t get it. And in today’s climate, where people routinely get excoriated for joking about all kinds of topics, being flippant about child sexual assault within the Catholic Church remains oddly acceptable and pervasive.

Here in Ohio we honor sexual abusers by electing them to public office.
No joke…

extremecoasterdad said:

If Covid-19 is as dangerous as advertised

This is the statement I see from every "free-thinking" denier. The numbers are the numbers. My friend was just re-deployed to Arkansas to assist the VA with the incredible influx of new patients. But ok, Covid-19 is not dangerous.

extremecoasterdad said:

If Covid-19 is as dangerous as advertised, then why is there an endless list of people who are elected officials or formerly elected officials living as if it isn't?

Well, part of it is also strawman arguments. As Gonch is quick to point out, the individual danger to any specific person under 65, even unvaccinated, is still pretty low. If all I care about is me, Covid is not that big a threat. But if I care about other people (something that apparently is up for debate) then even if my individual risk is low, my impact on other people could be exponentially greater.

So basically, as long as you can sell “don’t care about other people” or “don’t think about exponential growth,” you can sell “covid is not dangerous.”

Not to mention we have elected officials who think the Earth is flat, so maybe leave the science to scientists.

Jeff said:

Another case (two actually) siding with local rule, this time against the Texas governor.

The larger city school districts all fell into line pretty quick before and after those rulings to require masks: Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Fort Worth. The problem is going to be with the suburban school districts that largely lean more conservative drawing a hard line in the sand with regard to any COVID mitigation, much less masks.

ApolloAndy said:

So basically, as long as you can sell “don’t care about other people” or “don’t think about exponential growth,” you can sell “covid is not dangerous.”

a not insignificant part of this country has made a living off not caring about other people. This should really be no surprise at this point.

What does that even mean though? That we should just throw our hands up, say **** it, and accept mediocrity?

I think that we are already doing that each day. Not just regarding a virus, but with many other issues as well. If it isn't personally affecting us, then yes, most are just throwing their hands up.

Also, this, I think we may have discussed many moons ago, but prelim info shows that depending on the vaccine you received you could be at very different risk levels for infection. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v1