Who's Been Vaccinated?

roscoe

Well-known member
No, the numbers aren't dropping off due to vaccinations. It's dropping because that's the normal and natural course of events for a viral pandemic.

Sorry, I don't have the time, energy or motivation right now to check your math, but even assuming your 10 times factor is correct, the probability is still so small as to be negligible and reasonably ignored when going about normal, everyday life. As normal, reasonable people do when driving to work or shopping or play or school.

You're still not scaring me and no normal, reasonable person should be scared.
Well, we made substantial changes to car safety since 1970, and auto deaths are down to less than 1/6 of what they were at that time. So, even though the auto death rate was less then than we see under COVID today, society saw fit to make changes. We are doing the same today.

Trying to get people to make rational risk/ benefit calculations should not be about fear, but reason. I am not personally afraid of dying, but I am aware that there is a danger to myself (as a material and psychological resource for my family), but more importantly, others, so I have made the rational decisions necessary to protect my loved ones. Sometimes that means carrying a firearm, sometimes getting a vaccination.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
Anybody have the math on how many people per million legally defend themselves or family member with a firearm annually?

Personally, I know waaaaaay more folks who were killed in a car wreck, fell out of a tree stand, got electrocuted, or died of Covid than people I know who've drawn a gun in a defensive encounter.
I still carry at least one every day.
That is pretty much how I feel. Play the odds.

BTW - those data are not available, for a variety of reasons. In fact, no one is really sure how to collect such data. Since it relies on 'uses', not shots fired, how would you know how many times a person stopped a crime just by putting their hand on the butt of a visible handgun, or drawing to low ready? It would literally require going door to door and asking a huge sample of people, most of whom would have no incentive to answer truthfully. I know my single incident is unreported.
 

Howland937

Active member
That is pretty much how I feel. Play the odds.

BTW - those data are not available, for a variety of reasons. In fact, no one is really sure how to collect such data. Since it relies on 'uses', not shots fired, how would you know how many times a person stopped a crime just by putting their hand on the butt of a visible handgun, or drawing to low ready? It would literally require going door to door and asking a huge sample of people, most of whom would have no incentive to answer truthfully. I know my single incident is unreported.
So you mean there's no way of knowing how many people haven't died or even needed medical attention because they had a firearm for protection? Or maybe needed medical attention but saved their own life or someone else's?
Hmmm
I wonder if such data is available for people who've gotten flu shots?

Any idea how many people haven't died in car wrecks because of updated safety features? Motorcycle helmets? Covid vaccine?

I've carried for years, but have never needed my carry gun. I have no metric that defines how much safer I am.
I think people refer to it as stacking the odds in our favor and I prefer to have every advantage available to me. I have too much shit to do and too many people depending on me, so I don't have time to be sick...or dead.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
....

Trying to get people to make rational risk/ benefit calculations should not be about fear, but reason.....
While I agree with that statement it should also be said that using the same risk/benefit calculations different people will come to different conclusions and rationally take different courses of actions. It cannot be said that one and only one course of action is rational, logical and reasonable. People can take the same risks and benefits and assign them different weights based on their individual circumstances and preferences and so come up with different rational, logical and reasonable decisions.

Therefore a requirement for them to take one certain course of action and no other should be a requirement based on law written and passed by elected legislators, signed into law by the executive, and upheld by judicial if challenged. Motorcycle helmets, mentioned above, might be an example. A requirement based on a unilateral executive mandate is not the way our democratic / co-equal branches / divided powers system works.

Therefore some people may weigh the data and do their risk/benefit calculations and decide to get vaccinated. Some may decide not to. Unless there's a law specifically requiring people to get vaccinated, they should not (nay, they cannot) be mandated to do so.
 
Last edited:

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
What a difference a year makes.

First responders went from heroes to zeroes.

No jab, no job.

When do they start welding us into our houses to enforce their lockdowns? It worked so well in China... .
 

roscoe

Well-known member
So you mean there's no way of knowing how many people haven't died or even needed medical attention because they had a firearm for protection? Or maybe needed medical attention but saved their own life or someone else's?
.
I think people refer to it as stacking the odds in our favor and I prefer to have every advantage available to me. I have too much shit to do and too many people depending on me, so I don't have time to be sick...or dead.
No - supposedly John Lott collected that data, but I think it was henky. When researchers asked to see the original data, he claimed it was lost in a hard drive crash. Um, right. But firearms are more complicated because of the philosophical implications - it is not so easily reduced to a public health issue, even though some folks want to view it that way.

They do have highway data, however, that clearly demonstrates that things like seatbelts, airbags, safety guardrails, etc. have improved road safety. They can calculate things like deaths and injuries per million miles traveled, because public roads are monitored so closely.

They are working on the COVID data as we speak, and I am sure all this will keep epidemiological data scientists busy for decades. Right now, they estimate 140,000 American deaths have been prevented because of the vaccines, but I am sure that number will increase over time.

As with you, I have too many people depending on me to fool around with taking a philosophical stand on something like a vaccine. I read the science, assess my risk, and make my decisions accordingly.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
Therefore a requirement for them to take one certain course of action and no other should be a requirement based on law written and passed by elected legislators, signed into law by the executive, and upheld by judicial if challenged. Motorcycle helmets, mentioned above, might be an example. A requirement based on a unilateral executive mandate is not the way our democratic / co-equal branches / divided powers system works.
The motorcycle helmet example is worth examining (although it was passed by legislatures, it is considered an invasion of privacy by some). I agree that folks shouldn't be forced to wear helmets, philosophically. However, the problem is that if someone gets a brain injury because they wanted to feel the breeze in their hair, it doesn't just end with them facing the consequences. In our society, anyone who is involved in a accident automatically gets very expensive medical care paid for by the taxpayers, not to mention the emergency services crew who flies them in a helicopter to the hospital. Plus, they tie up the medical staff who might be helping others. So their freedom imposes a considerable financial burden on the rest of society.

This is the general problem with libertarian fundamentalism. If you lived in a vacuum, libertarianism would be fine. But we don't - we live in a society. Everything you do has an impact on someone else, unless you truly live in the woods. If you choose not to vaccinate, it is not just you who might be impacted. You might transmit the disease (for which you would bear the moral burden), plus you may have dependents who will have to shoulder the personal and economic burden of your illness or death.
 
Last edited:

wiscoaster

Well-known member
While what you say is philosophically reasonable and logical, it is not the law. And until the people change the law, through their elected officials and proper democratic processes, or until they amend their Constitution through proper convention and state ratification, then, by golly, I'm going with I shall not comply with authoritarian, unlawful, unconstitutional and ultimately tyrannical executive decrees.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
While what you say is philosophically reasonable and logical, it is not the law. And until the people change the law, through their elected officials and proper democratic processes, or until they amend their Constitution through proper convention and state ratification, then, by golly, I'm going with I shall not comply with authoritarian, unlawful, unconstitutional and ultimately tyrannical executive decrees.
Well, if the law delegates certain authorities to an executive branch, it is still the law. If a president declares a certain area of land as a Wildlife Refuge, and you shoot a wolf on the refuge, you have surely broken the law. And you would be charged. The constitutionality of this is not really in question.

Sometimes the president does overreach his authority - if you ban immigrants from Muslim countries by executive order, you might over-reach and be struck down by the courts.
 
Last edited:

Gridley

Member
Anybody have the math on how many people per million legally defend themselves or family member with a firearm annually?

Personally, I know waaaaaay more folks who were killed in a car wreck, fell out of a tree stand, got electrocuted, or died of Covid than people I know who've drawn a gun in a defensive encounter.
I still carry at least one every day.
I respectfully suggest it isn't about risk, it is a three way tradeoff: risk vs. cost vs. reward.

I will cheerfully grant that the odds of me needing a firearm to defend myself are very, very low. Furthermore the cost (the pistol itself, holster, training, ammo...) is non-trivial... but I enjoy shooting, and adding concealed carry to a regular shooting hobby is a minor cost increase. However the reward could easily be a life saved. So very low risk, notable cost (but heavily mitigated as I'd spend most of it anyway), but high reward. I've decided it is worth it; others have to make their own assessment.

Take another example: I wear my seatbelt (and except for the years I spent riding in the backs of ambulances, always have). The cost is negligible, the risk moderate (serious car crashes are fairly common), and the reward is again significant (a seatbelt can often prevent serious injury or death).

I don't, however, bother to eat particularly healthy. Yes, the risk is significant (heart disease remains the #1 killer in the US), and the reward would be significant as well (a heart attack can easily kill you), but the cost would be significant; I'd have to change my lifestyle and give up a number of things I enjoy. I've decided that's not worth it.

Now take the so-called "vaccines". Setting aside mandates and job losses, the risk for most of the population is very low - as noted the CFR in the prime population is quite low for a virgin-field pandemic. The cost is something to consider carefully (even the crippled VAERS has reported enough fatalities to give one pause, especially if you crunch the numbers on the usual reporting rates). The reward is... well, looking at all the breakthrough cases, it isn't that high. So low risk, uncertain but real cost, and uncertain but probably low reward. Not a good trade for me; again, others should make their own choice.

The government doesn't mandate that I carry - in fact both the Fed and my state actively discourage it. The state does require I wear my seatbelt, but at least the cost there is negligible and I'd do it anyway. It annoys me that there's a mandate but the negative impact is very low.

The .gov has decided to mandate the "vaccines".

How long before they mandate my eating choices too?
 

Gridley

Member
What a difference a year makes.

First responders went from heroes to zeroes.

No jab, no job.
Around here the first responders were never widely talked about as heroes. The grocery workers got all the credit (and the proposals for state-boosted wages). I actually got yelled at by one of the Woke for proposing that first responders deserved more credit than grocery workers. Hopefully my state/area (which is extremely "blue") was rare in that regard.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
I respectfully suggest it isn't about risk, it is a three way tradeoff: risk vs. cost vs. reward.

The .gov has decided to mandate the "vaccines".

The thing about the vaccine is that the COVID is far more communicable among the unvaccinated. Currently, the estimate is that 140,000 Americans have been saved because of the vaccine. That is not even counting the decrease in communication of the disease because of the vaccine. Currently, about 58% of Americans are fully vaccinated (191 million), so the delta variant surge has disappeared and the infection rates are dropping. Those numbers weighs heavily on governmental decision-makers.

If you go to work vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, it is not about your risk, but the risk to others. And if you are an employer, and you let unvaccinated people spread the disease in your workplace, to some extent, you bear moral responsibility. That is why personal risk/reward assessments might not be enough, unlike with bungee jumping, or eating a lot of cheeseburgers.

Keep in mind - they are not forcing people to get the vaccine; they are just saying that if you are in a workplace of over 100 and want to come into contact with your co-workers, you must be vaccinated (or be tested weekly). Those are different things. If you live on a farm, and are not a workplace employee, or telecommute, or are a mountain fur trapper, the government won't care if you are not vaccinated.
 
Last edited:

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
As I told folks back when they were first debating Obamacare, once the government owns your health, they own your body.
Once they make you responsible to the government for your health, they own your lifestyle.
Now that the government is making us responsible for the health of others (or we;ll kill Grandma) then they own us outright.
The Dems are bringing back slavery... .
 

Howland937

Active member
I respectfully suggest it isn't about risk, it is a three way tradeoff: risk vs. cost vs. reward.

I will cheerfully grant that the odds of me needing a firearm to defend myself are very, very low. Furthermore the cost (the pistol itself, holster, training, ammo...) is non-trivial... but I enjoy shooting, and adding concealed carry to a regular shooting hobby is a minor cost increase. However the reward could easily be a life saved. So very low risk, notable cost (but heavily mitigated as I'd spend most of it anyway), but high reward. I've decided it is worth it; others have to make their own assessment.

Take another example: I wear my seatbelt (and except for the years I spent riding in the backs of ambulances, always have). The cost is negligible, the risk moderate (serious car crashes are fairly common), and the reward is again significant (a seatbelt can often prevent serious injury or death).

I don't, however, bother to eat particularly healthy. Yes, the risk is significant (heart disease remains the #1 killer in the US), and the reward would be significant as well (a heart attack can easily kill you), but the cost would be significant; I'd have to change my lifestyle and give up a number of things I enjoy. I've decided that's not worth it.

Now take the so-called "vaccines". Setting aside mandates and job losses, the risk for most of the population is very low - as noted the CFR in the prime population is quite low for a virgin-field pandemic. The cost is something to consider carefully (even the crippled VAERS has reported enough fatalities to give one pause, especially if you crunch the numbers on the usual reporting rates). The reward is... well, looking at all the breakthrough cases, it isn't that high. So low risk, uncertain but real cost, and uncertain but probably low reward. Not a good trade for me; again, others should make their own choice.

The government doesn't mandate that I carry - in fact both the Fed and my state actively discourage it. The state does require I wear my seatbelt, but at least the cost there is negligible and I'd do it anyway. It annoys me that there's a mandate but the negative impact is very low.

The .gov has decided to mandate the "vaccines".

How long before they mandate my eating choices too?
Attempts have been made on a local level in some areas to impose mandates on an individual's diet. Remember the push by the former mayor of NYC to ban XL sodas?

As for the vaccines, I look at in in much the same way as I've looked at the whole mess. I'm mid-40's, relatively active, no underlying conditions and generally healthy. I'm among the lower end of the at-risk types. But I've never made it about me. Not the vaccines or masks or social distancing.

But people that mean a lot to me are at the other end of the risk spectrum. Do I know for a fact that anything I've done has kept them safe? Nope.
I can comfortably say I've done everything that's been asked of me to try to minimize the risk for them, though. Maybe it's helped. Maybe it's helped someone I've never met. I'll probably never know for certain, but one thing I do know for certain is that none of it's hurt me any.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
The thing about the vaccine is that the COVID is far more communicable among the unvaccinated.
That's debatable. The vaccinated still get infected, with less severe symptoms, so more likely to go out and about and spread their infection. Further the vaccinated are more likely to enable the virus to mutate and produce more contagious and virulent variants that the vaccines are less effective against. The only sure defense against Covid infection is natural immunity, which the mRNA vaccines don't provide. I think these mRNA vaccines are actually prolonging the epidemic, not ending it.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
As I told folks back when they were first debating Obamacare, once the government owns your health, they own your body.
Once they make you responsible to the government for your health, they own your lifestyle.
Now that the government is making us responsible for the health of others (or we;ll kill Grandma) then they own us outright.
The Dems are bringing back slavery... .
Well, since you live in a society in which we all, to some extent or another, are responsible for the well-being of each other, that is correct. If you are in a car accident and don't have insurance, don't worry, we will still fix you up. Even if you are broke. That was the case before Obamacare, and is the case now. If you get robbed, don't worry, our taxes pay for policeman to find the robber. That is pretty much how modern societies work.

Nowadays, insurance companies incentivize healthy behavior, because people who eat too many cheeseburgers, or smoke, cost the society a lot more than people who take care of themselves. I am not sure why incentivizing good behavior is a bad thing. But it certainly isn't because of Obamacare. Obamacare just makes sure insurance companies can't reject you because of a pre-existing condition, like inherited genetic disorders. Previously, they could cherry-pick their customers to reduce risk and maximize profits.

As to your comments about killing grandma and bringing back slavery, well, I assume you are being hyperbolic.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
But people that mean a lot to me are at the other end of the risk spectrum. Do I know for a fact that anything I've done has kept them safe? Nope.
I can comfortably say I've done everything that's been asked of me to try to minimize the risk for them, though. Maybe it's helped. Maybe it's helped someone I've never met. I'll probably never know for certain, but one thing I do know for certain is that none of it's hurt me any.
This is the mature attitude.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Here's just one good one of many concurring with the hypothesis:

It is only a danger if a vaccine-resistant strain develops. Which hasn't happened as far as we know. Mutations happen all the time, and one way to get a lot of mutations is to have a lot of people exposed without protection (the delta variant evolved in a highly-dense unvaccinated population in India).

The whole thing is a biological arms race. If you ignore the disease, you get hundreds of thousands dead, but a resistant population. In the US, we already have more than 3/4 of a million dead from COVID. With no mitigation measures, that number could only go up.

Currently, nearly all the deaths are from the unvaccinated, so we know the vaccines are having a beneficial effect. Without the vaccines, we are surely looking at well over a million. So, you might have a generally immune population, but at a very high cost. This is what smallpox did to the Native American populations after contact with Europeans, with some estimated 40 million dead.

So far, vaccines have been the most successful strategy against a variety of diseases. So, for example, vaccination has not led to vaccine-resistant strains of smallpox, polio, diphtheria, measles, or the other deadly disease of past centuries.

So there might be a theoretical danger for vaccinations generally, there is no reason to think this particular instance is any different from previous diseases. Notably, his point about only activating a small part of the immune system does not apply to the J&J vaccine, which is a traditional dead-virus DNA vaccine, but might not be accurate about RNA viruses anyway - it is speculative for him to say that.

Interestingly, and unfortunately, the current mathematical models show the greatest danger comes, not from a fully vaccinated population, but when a majority of the population is vaccinated but a significant proportion is not. That unvaccinated population serves as a reservoir of viral mutant strains in which a vaccine-resistant strain might evolve, endangering the broader population.
 
Last edited:
Top