Author Topic: How much will non-vaxxing by GOP reduce the population of voting age republicans  (Read 37652 times)

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3647
  • Location: South Korea
Getting COVID isn't comparable at all to being addicted to a very addicting drug like cigarettes.  In response, my DH suggested to me that the right wing, anti-vaxx, conspiracy theories might in fact be comparable to cigarette addiction.

Also, has a single government official expressed skepticism in the vaccine? If I'm a gullible person with a 10th grade education might I trust that government official? Might they have convinced me the be skeptical of the vaccine? If that is the case, perhaps it is immoral to deny me the medical care I need just because I'm uneducated and gullible.

I think that not actively denouncing antivaxx rhetoric did a lot of damage. And I think those who didnít actively denounce knew that it would result in harm but they didnít care be because vote$

The GOP made denouncing of any COVID medical advice from the professionals their election platform. Those "gullible" people declared themselves competent, voted, and cried out that anyone who weren't them were the gullible ones. Oh, and they believe in personal responsibility over government hand outs. They're not "uneducated and gullible" in a vacuum. Their choices affect other people. Recall that some of them swore on their deathbeds that it wasn't COVID killing them, they're attacking people just for wearing masks in public, they're suing hospitals for not prescribing unproven livestock medication, and the people they elected are leading the charge.

If a choice has to be made to allocate scarce resources between someone who has made every attempt to do right by themselves and their community, and someone who ignores medical advice and defiantly/recklessly/violently gets sick and injured and swears by their personal decisions? No question.

MudPuppy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1417
Quote
Recall that some of them swore on their deathbeds that it wasn't COVID killing them
not to party poop, but I wish I didnít recall these things. I lived them. People who would who verbally abused the entire staff until they literally didnít have the breath to do so. Thatís a fucked up feeling, waiting outside the room until they get bad enough to not fight when you when you bring the intubation box in. And then you have people who shouldnít have died and the moments when you tell the people left behind that they did. Ultimately, I quit the job.

sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2484
Quote
Recall that some of them swore on their deathbeds that it wasn't COVID killing them
not to party poop, but I wish I didnít recall these things. I lived them. People who would who verbally abused the entire staff until they literally didnít have the breath to do so. Thatís a fucked up feeling, waiting outside the room until they get bad enough to not fight when you when you bring the intubation box in. And then you have people who shouldnít have died and the moments when you tell the people left behind that they did. Ultimately, I quit the job.

Oh man, that is a rough burden to carry. Sorry it went that way and you had to deal with it. It really shouldn't have gone that way.

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3340
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Getting COVID isn't comparable at all to being addicted to a very addicting drug like cigarettes.  In response, my DH suggested to me that the right wing, anti-vaxx, conspiracy theories might in fact be comparable to cigarette addiction.

Also, has a single government official expressed skepticism in the vaccine? If I'm a gullible person with a 10th grade education might I trust that government official? Might they have convinced me the be skeptical of the vaccine? If that is the case, perhaps it is immoral to deny me the medical care I need just because I'm uneducated and gullible.

I think that not actively denouncing antivaxx rhetoric did a lot of damage. And I think those who didnít actively denounce knew that it would result in harm but they didnít care be because vote$

The GOP made denouncing of any COVID medical advice from the professionals their election platform. Those "gullible" people declared themselves competent, voted, and cried out that anyone who weren't them were the gullible ones.

That is a factually incorrect statement. There were 331.4M people in the USA in 2020 and only 74.2M voted for the GOP presidential candidate. Most people in the USA do not vote.

sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2484
Getting COVID isn't comparable at all to being addicted to a very addicting drug like cigarettes.  In response, my DH suggested to me that the right wing, anti-vaxx, conspiracy theories might in fact be comparable to cigarette addiction.

Also, has a single government official expressed skepticism in the vaccine? If I'm a gullible person with a 10th grade education might I trust that government official? Might they have convinced me the be skeptical of the vaccine? If that is the case, perhaps it is immoral to deny me the medical care I need just because I'm uneducated and gullible.

I think that not actively denouncing antivaxx rhetoric did a lot of damage. And I think those who didnít actively denounce knew that it would result in harm but they didnít care be because vote$

The GOP made denouncing of any COVID medical advice from the professionals their election platform. Those "gullible" people declared themselves competent, voted, and cried out that anyone who weren't them were the gullible ones.

That is a factually incorrect statement. There were 331.4M people in the USA in 2020 and only 74.2M voted for the GOP presidential candidate. Most people in the USA do not vote.

I'm missing what you are pointing out is factually untrue.  It looks like you are correcting someone saying something about how many people voted and/or voted for Trump in 2020, but I don't see any claims about that in the above.  What am I missing?

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3340
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Getting COVID isn't comparable at all to being addicted to a very addicting drug like cigarettes.  In response, my DH suggested to me that the right wing, anti-vaxx, conspiracy theories might in fact be comparable to cigarette addiction.

Also, has a single government official expressed skepticism in the vaccine? If I'm a gullible person with a 10th grade education might I trust that government official? Might they have convinced me the be skeptical of the vaccine? If that is the case, perhaps it is immoral to deny me the medical care I need just because I'm uneducated and gullible.

I think that not actively denouncing antivaxx rhetoric did a lot of damage. And I think those who didnít actively denounce knew that it would result in harm but they didnít care be because vote$

The GOP made denouncing of any COVID medical advice from the professionals their election platform. Those "gullible" people declared themselves competent, voted, and cried out that anyone who weren't them were the gullible ones.

That is a factually incorrect statement. There were 331.4M people in the USA in 2020 and only 74.2M voted for the GOP presidential candidate. Most people in the USA do not vote.

I'm missing what you are pointing out is factually untrue.  It looks like you are correcting someone saying something about how many people voted and/or voted for Trump in 2020, but I don't see any claims about that in the above.  What am I missing?

I guess that it depends on who exactly Travis is replying to. If Travis is only in reference to the people who actually voted for anti-vax candidates, then fine. But should we be denying medical care based on who you voted for? Because my original post includes a bunch of people that just didn't vote, because most people don't vote.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2021, 09:50:57 PM by PDXTabs »

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4909
  • Age: 126
  • Location: In the middle somewhere....
  • Here to learn.
The GOP made denouncing of any COVID medical advice from the professionals their election platform. Those "gullible" people declared themselves competent, voted, and cried out that anyone who weren't them were the gullible ones. Oh, and they believe in personal responsibility over government hand outs. They're not "uneducated and gullible" in a vacuum. Their choices affect other people. Recall that some of them swore on their deathbeds that it wasn't COVID killing them, they're attacking people just for wearing masks in public, they're suing hospitals for not prescribing unproven livestock medication, and the people they elected are leading the charge.

If a choice has to be made to allocate scarce resources between someone who has made every attempt to do right by themselves and their community, and someone who ignores medical advice and defiantly/recklessly/violently gets sick and injured and swears by their personal decisions? No question.

Absolutely b/c profits come first. The "Chamber of Commerce" members can't have a bad year. Must keep the restaurants open, the stores open, the schools open (so people can go to work and help their employers continue to make money). Money is more important than lives and the GOP message will be adapted to achieve the profits.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 19001
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Getting COVID isn't comparable at all to being addicted to a very addicting drug like cigarettes.  In response, my DH suggested to me that the right wing, anti-vaxx, conspiracy theories might in fact be comparable to cigarette addiction.

Also, has a single government official expressed skepticism in the vaccine? If I'm a gullible person with a 10th grade education might I trust that government official? Might they have convinced me the be skeptical of the vaccine? If that is the case, perhaps it is immoral to deny me the medical care I need just because I'm uneducated and gullible.

I think that not actively denouncing antivaxx rhetoric did a lot of damage. And I think those who didnít actively denounce knew that it would result in harm but they didnít care be because vote$

The GOP made denouncing of any COVID medical advice from the professionals their election platform. Those "gullible" people declared themselves competent, voted, and cried out that anyone who weren't them were the gullible ones.

That is a factually incorrect statement. There were 331.4M people in the USA in 2020 and only 74.2M voted for the GOP presidential candidate. Most people in the USA do not vote.

I'm missing what you are pointing out is factually untrue.  It looks like you are correcting someone saying something about how many people voted and/or voted for Trump in 2020, but I don't see any claims about that in the above.  What am I missing?

I guess that it depends on who exactly Travis is replying to. If Travis is only in reference to the people who actually voted for anti-vax candidates, then fine. But should we be denying medical care based on who you voted for? Because my original post includes a bunch of people that just didn't vote, because most people don't vote.

Nobody should be denied medical care for their beliefs - religious, political, or scientific.  Even if those beliefs are patently stupid and harmful.  It's a dangerous path to even contemplate going down.

Look at those who follow homeopathy and homeopathic cures.  They're 100% reality denying bullshit.  Diluting something with water (sometimes alcohol) does not make it a powerful cure.  Yet when the bullshit fails and the person needs real medical care, are they refused because they were dumb enough to buy into the lie?  Last survey I read, a quarter of Americans believe that homeopathy is legit.

If you're going to hold off on giving vaccine denying Republicans care, then you're also going to need to deny 'alternative medicine' folks care too.  The damage and denialism is real in both cases. 

But why stop there?  Why not deny people who do risky things medical care?  Nobody needs to go downhill skiing.  It's a risky sport.  Shouldn't we be prioritizing people who don't risk their health?

This is a bad path to set down.

sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2484
Getting COVID isn't comparable at all to being addicted to a very addicting drug like cigarettes.  In response, my DH suggested to me that the right wing, anti-vaxx, conspiracy theories might in fact be comparable to cigarette addiction.

Also, has a single government official expressed skepticism in the vaccine? If I'm a gullible person with a 10th grade education might I trust that government official? Might they have convinced me the be skeptical of the vaccine? If that is the case, perhaps it is immoral to deny me the medical care I need just because I'm uneducated and gullible.

I think that not actively denouncing antivaxx rhetoric did a lot of damage. And I think those who didnít actively denounce knew that it would result in harm but they didnít care be because vote$

The GOP made denouncing of any COVID medical advice from the professionals their election platform. Those "gullible" people declared themselves competent, voted, and cried out that anyone who weren't them were the gullible ones.

That is a factually incorrect statement. There were 331.4M people in the USA in 2020 and only 74.2M voted for the GOP presidential candidate. Most people in the USA do not vote.

I'm missing what you are pointing out is factually untrue.  It looks like you are correcting someone saying something about how many people voted and/or voted for Trump in 2020, but I don't see any claims about that in the above.  What am I missing?

I guess that it depends on who exactly Travis is replying to. If Travis is only in reference to the people who actually voted for anti-vax candidates, then fine. But should we be denying medical care based on who you voted for? Because my original post includes a bunch of people that just didn't vote, because most people don't vote.

Nobody should be denied medical care for their beliefs - religious, political, or scientific.  Even if those beliefs are patently stupid and harmful.  It's a dangerous path to even contemplate going down.

Look at those who follow homeopathy and homeopathic cures.  They're 100% reality denying bullshit.  Diluting something with water (sometimes alcohol) does not make it a powerful cure.  Yet when the bullshit fails and the person needs real medical care, are they refused because they were dumb enough to buy into the lie?  Last survey I read, a quarter of Americans believe that homeopathy is legit.

If you're going to hold off on giving vaccine denying Republicans care, then you're also going to need to deny 'alternative medicine' folks care too.  The damage and denialism is real in both cases. 

But why stop there?  Why not deny people who do risky things medical care?  Nobody needs to go downhill skiing.  It's a risky sport.  Shouldn't we be prioritizing people who don't risk their health?

This is a bad path to set down.

While I would generally agree, I think there is a time where it is not only appropriate but important to do this as a public health measure, and that is when these beliefs are causing people to consume so much medical care that other people cannot get medical care.

No one was ever turned away from 5 hospitals and had to be life-flighted 3 states away for their urgent cardiac care because the homeopathy crowd is using up all the ICU beds. In fact, this hasn't been the situation for any bad decisions ever. Until COVID.

This is a unique case and is an easy way to distinguish when these measures should and should not be implemented.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 19001
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Getting COVID isn't comparable at all to being addicted to a very addicting drug like cigarettes.  In response, my DH suggested to me that the right wing, anti-vaxx, conspiracy theories might in fact be comparable to cigarette addiction.

Also, has a single government official expressed skepticism in the vaccine? If I'm a gullible person with a 10th grade education might I trust that government official? Might they have convinced me the be skeptical of the vaccine? If that is the case, perhaps it is immoral to deny me the medical care I need just because I'm uneducated and gullible.

I think that not actively denouncing antivaxx rhetoric did a lot of damage. And I think those who didnít actively denounce knew that it would result in harm but they didnít care be because vote$

The GOP made denouncing of any COVID medical advice from the professionals their election platform. Those "gullible" people declared themselves competent, voted, and cried out that anyone who weren't them were the gullible ones.

That is a factually incorrect statement. There were 331.4M people in the USA in 2020 and only 74.2M voted for the GOP presidential candidate. Most people in the USA do not vote.

I'm missing what you are pointing out is factually untrue.  It looks like you are correcting someone saying something about how many people voted and/or voted for Trump in 2020, but I don't see any claims about that in the above.  What am I missing?

I guess that it depends on who exactly Travis is replying to. If Travis is only in reference to the people who actually voted for anti-vax candidates, then fine. But should we be denying medical care based on who you voted for? Because my original post includes a bunch of people that just didn't vote, because most people don't vote.

Nobody should be denied medical care for their beliefs - religious, political, or scientific.  Even if those beliefs are patently stupid and harmful.  It's a dangerous path to even contemplate going down.

Look at those who follow homeopathy and homeopathic cures.  They're 100% reality denying bullshit.  Diluting something with water (sometimes alcohol) does not make it a powerful cure.  Yet when the bullshit fails and the person needs real medical care, are they refused because they were dumb enough to buy into the lie?  Last survey I read, a quarter of Americans believe that homeopathy is legit.

If you're going to hold off on giving vaccine denying Republicans care, then you're also going to need to deny 'alternative medicine' folks care too.  The damage and denialism is real in both cases. 

But why stop there?  Why not deny people who do risky things medical care?  Nobody needs to go downhill skiing.  It's a risky sport.  Shouldn't we be prioritizing people who don't risk their health?

This is a bad path to set down.

While I would generally agree, I think there is a time where it is not only appropriate but important to do this as a public health measure, and that is when these beliefs are causing people to consume so much medical care that other people cannot get medical care.

No one was ever turned away from 5 hospitals and had to be life-flighted 3 states away for their urgent cardiac care because the homeopathy crowd is using up all the ICU beds. In fact, this hasn't been the situation for any bad decisions ever. Until COVID.

This is a unique case and is an easy way to distinguish when these measures should and should not be implemented.

Covid anti-vaccine folks are an easy group to point fingers at because they are simple to track.

I don't think we really keep stats on the damage that followers of homeopathy cause, but (given that they're drinking small vials of water and taking sugar pills rather than follow proper medicine) would expect that they also increase the load on hospitals during stressful times like this pandemic.

LaineyAZ

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
Reminds me of the public debate here in the 2000s in the U.S. about whether health care is a "right" or a "privilege."

Of course, Republican legislators were in the "it's a privilege" camp, and were anti the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare due to their knee-jerk anti-anything the Democrats were proposing.  They were all fine with defining health care as a privilege because their thought process was that you just had to go get a job that offered health insurance as a benefit.  And if you were unlucky enough to not get such a job, then oh well ...
So they all voted against it but fortunately, due to the razor-thin majority the Democrats had at the time, the ACA passed in 2010.

That's why many of us find it ironic that these same Republican voters are the majority of anti-vaxxers.  Even with a vaccine offered for free for everyone, they would rather die. 

sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2484
Getting COVID isn't comparable at all to being addicted to a very addicting drug like cigarettes.  In response, my DH suggested to me that the right wing, anti-vaxx, conspiracy theories might in fact be comparable to cigarette addiction.

Also, has a single government official expressed skepticism in the vaccine? If I'm a gullible person with a 10th grade education might I trust that government official? Might they have convinced me the be skeptical of the vaccine? If that is the case, perhaps it is immoral to deny me the medical care I need just because I'm uneducated and gullible.

I think that not actively denouncing antivaxx rhetoric did a lot of damage. And I think those who didnít actively denounce knew that it would result in harm but they didnít care be because vote$

The GOP made denouncing of any COVID medical advice from the professionals their election platform. Those "gullible" people declared themselves competent, voted, and cried out that anyone who weren't them were the gullible ones.

That is a factually incorrect statement. There were 331.4M people in the USA in 2020 and only 74.2M voted for the GOP presidential candidate. Most people in the USA do not vote.

I'm missing what you are pointing out is factually untrue.  It looks like you are correcting someone saying something about how many people voted and/or voted for Trump in 2020, but I don't see any claims about that in the above.  What am I missing?

I guess that it depends on who exactly Travis is replying to. If Travis is only in reference to the people who actually voted for anti-vax candidates, then fine. But should we be denying medical care based on who you voted for? Because my original post includes a bunch of people that just didn't vote, because most people don't vote.

Nobody should be denied medical care for their beliefs - religious, political, or scientific.  Even if those beliefs are patently stupid and harmful.  It's a dangerous path to even contemplate going down.

Look at those who follow homeopathy and homeopathic cures.  They're 100% reality denying bullshit.  Diluting something with water (sometimes alcohol) does not make it a powerful cure.  Yet when the bullshit fails and the person needs real medical care, are they refused because they were dumb enough to buy into the lie?  Last survey I read, a quarter of Americans believe that homeopathy is legit.

If you're going to hold off on giving vaccine denying Republicans care, then you're also going to need to deny 'alternative medicine' folks care too.  The damage and denialism is real in both cases. 

But why stop there?  Why not deny people who do risky things medical care?  Nobody needs to go downhill skiing.  It's a risky sport.  Shouldn't we be prioritizing people who don't risk their health?

This is a bad path to set down.

While I would generally agree, I think there is a time where it is not only appropriate but important to do this as a public health measure, and that is when these beliefs are causing people to consume so much medical care that other people cannot get medical care.

No one was ever turned away from 5 hospitals and had to be life-flighted 3 states away for their urgent cardiac care because the homeopathy crowd is using up all the ICU beds. In fact, this hasn't been the situation for any bad decisions ever. Until COVID.

This is a unique case and is an easy way to distinguish when these measures should and should not be implemented.

Covid anti-vaccine folks are an easy group to point fingers at because they are simple to track.

I don't think we really keep stats on the damage that followers of homeopathy cause, but (given that they're drinking small vials of water and taking sugar pills rather than follow proper medicine) would expect that they also increase the load on hospitals during stressful times like this pandemic.

But that's exactly it. The anti-vaxxers are the but-for cause of the "stressful times" in the hospitals in the first place. Without them, I'm not sure that ANY hospital would be overextended. You can't say that about the homeopathy crowd. You probably can't say that about the homeopathy crowd plus the "crowds" created by 10 other stupid health decisions people are making. It's the anti-vaxxers that are preventing others from receiving timely health care (to the extent it is happening...I don't want to pretend this is happening to everyone everywhere everyday) and that is the unique thing that is incredibly damaging in a way no other situation is or has been. It's much more urgent to address this.

LaineyAZ

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
Double-posting, but I agree with sui generis and others.

The notion of implementing some requirements where those who deliberately refuse to get the Covid vaccine would go to the back of the line is very antithetical to modern medicine's mandate to care for all equally.

However, as we found during this pandemic, resources are not infinite.  We have to acknowledge that fact. 

And the fact that our society has already been allowing some patients to be prioritized based on whether they can pay, e.g., mental health care, dental, vision, hearing, care for disabled, etc.  The U.S. can't seem to pass the Medicare for All legislation despite being the only developed country that doesn't offer it and despite the majority of the country in favor of it. 
So we continue to muddle along watching one after another suffer and die too early.   

Villanelle

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4435
Maybe it has been covered, but I'm not sure how down-prioritizing someone who won't get a Covid vax is different than down-listing someone who needs an organ transplant but is an alcoholic.  Their choices mean their outcome is less likely to be good, so the limited resource goes to someone more likely to have a better outcome.

Maybe this depends on whether we are talking about not treating (in the face of immediately limited resources) someone who *had* refused to get vaccinated vs. someone who had previously refused but now swears in their life...almost literally... that they will get vaccinated as soon as they are medically cleared to do so, so please treat them now.  Just like a new liver might go to an alcoholic who swears they are done drinking and convinces a doctor they mean it, but not to someone who says they will have a beer after surgery.

theoverlook

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 448
Ok, timeīs up.
[..]
A high level of immunity of vaccination after post-COVID-19, as well as of a third shot after initial vaccination can be expected within 7-10 days - just in time for the arrival of Omicron.


Thanks for the reminder, I managed to get an appointment for a booster shot same-day and just came back from getting it, partially due to your post reminding me. So don't feel like your posts are shouting into the void.

PeteD01

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 530
Ok, timeīs up.
[..]
A high level of immunity of vaccination after post-COVID-19, as well as of a third shot after initial vaccination can be expected within 7-10 days - just in time for the arrival of Omicron.


Thanks for the reminder, I managed to get an appointment for a booster shot same-day and just came back from getting it, partially due to your post reminding me. So don't feel like your posts are shouting into the void.

Thank you for the feedback - appreciate it!

I also would like to point out that the CDC changed its guidance, 48 hours after my post, to more strongly recommending third dose vaccinations in all over 18 years old 6 months after initial vaccinations.
There is agreement among experts on what to do in respect to vaccinations at this point in time.
Of course, we cannot help those who wish to be confused for whatever reason and who loudly complain whenever guidance changes, and who will inevitably come out of the woodwork with the updated CDC guidance released yesterday - they can safely be ignored.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/29/health/cdc-booster-guidance-omicron/index.html
« Last Edit: Today at 06:32:05 AM by PeteD01 »

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2574
  • Location: Germany
For me it's still 2 month until booster. Maybe I even get the omicran adapted Moderna/Bointech then. They could make it just in time.

Yesterday I read an article about the first vaccination in Germany/Bavaria. Smallpox. (btw. the Wikipedia article should have a trigger warning) At least 10 times as deadly as corona and assorted bad effects. At that time, everyone knew at least one who had died from it.
 
Still a vast part of the people didn't wanted the vaccine - for the fucking same reasons as today (well, and that children start to sound like a cow because the vaccine was made from cow pox, that's not used in case of Corona but only because cows don't play a role).
It was not until the king put a heavy fine on not being vaccinated until the situation got better.

Those who don't learn from history...

ChpBstrd

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3578
For me it's still 2 month until booster. Maybe I even get the omicran adapted Moderna/Bointech then. They could make it just in time.

Yesterday I read an article about the first vaccination in Germany/Bavaria. Smallpox. (btw. the Wikipedia article should have a trigger warning) At least 10 times as deadly as corona and assorted bad effects. At that time, everyone knew at least one who had died from it.
 
Still a vast part of the people didn't wanted the vaccine - for the fucking same reasons as today (well, and that children start to sound like a cow because the vaccine was made from cow pox, that's not used in case of Corona but only because cows don't play a role).
It was not until the king put a heavy fine on not being vaccinated until the situation got better.

Those who don't learn from history...

The anti-vaxxers are always with us...

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/11/polio-vaccine-antivaxxer-history-duon-miller.html