COVID-19 Megathread 6: Return of the Omicron

[Oakvale]

Another point of comparison - both groups are de facto anti-vaxxers. The former group will express this sentiment by purporting to be extremely pro-vaccine but, as discussed, insisting that they will continue to wear masks indefinitely etc. The latter express this through nonsensical pontificating about how actually anti-vaxxers are all marginalised working class people who simply can't afford to get a free vaccine at any pharmacy in the country. Both will shamelessly moralise about how those of us who want our lives back want to murder the disabled, citing statistics based on the premise that people with repetitive strain injury are at risk of death from Covid.

They will express it in different language, and approach it via a different angle - the liberals might bleat on about the merits of New Zealand whereas the left will do so about China -  but both groups are expressing the same ugly, narcissistic impulse. Neither ever wants this to end.

This is a talking point this forum likes to make and it is completely wrong and highly insulting. Poll after poll shows that vaccinated people are more likely to think COVID-19 is a threat, support mask mandates and social distancing, etc. So people who favor restrictions are anti-vaccine by... disproportionately getting the vaccine? We understand the truth, that the vaccine is an important tool and the best we have, but it doesn't offer anything close to sterilizing immunity, and thus it cannot protect us from COVID-19 and we favor additional mitigation measures, particularly low cost, low effort ones like mask mandates. It's the people who continue to insist that the vaccine is an impenetrable COVID repelling shield that's really undermining the vaccine by telling an obvious lie. Anti-vaccine people are by now almost all Alex Jones style conspiratard numbskulls; I can't even call them Trumpist anymore after Trump tried to set them straight and they turned on him. I refuse to be smeared by being associated with these lowlifes.

They're anti-vaxxers because they don't believe the vaccine works. Seems fairly simple. The vaccines have been effective enough that, coupled with our friend omicron, cases have effectively decoupled from hospitalisations and deaths. The vaccines do not prevent transmission but they make all but a tiny minority of people (who would normally be a bad flu season away from death's door) practically invulnerable to what is now, for virtually all the vaccinated, an irritating cold.

The success of the vaccines has ended the pandemic and we can now return to normal life.

When you include the blinding obvious reality that any and all public health restrictions make absolutely no impact whatsoever on transmission of the virus it's clear that the upper normies who want perma-lockdown don't "trust the science" at all: they just want to immiserate our lives forever more to feel morally smug for their virtuous behaviour. It is utterly repulsive.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

It's not about them not believing vaccines, but this.

: they just want to immiserate our lives forever more to feel morally smug for their virtuous behaviour. It is utterly repulsive.

Never it has been so easy to show off how "good" person you are. If you're "cautious" means that you CAAAAAAAAAAAAARE. Convincingly, you can Karen-moralize the poors, who happens to pay the price for this virtue-singling.

These bastards has even managed to convince a big share of D-lean poors that NOT sending their kids to schools is a very responsible thing to do. Smart, cause now their own kids will have much less competition...

[compucomp]

Another point of comparison - both groups are de facto anti-vaxxers. The former group will express this sentiment by purporting to be extremely pro-vaccine but, as discussed, insisting that they will continue to wear masks indefinitely etc. The latter express this through nonsensical pontificating about how actually anti-vaxxers are all marginalised working class people who simply can't afford to get a free vaccine at any pharmacy in the country. Both will shamelessly moralise about how those of us who want our lives back want to murder the disabled, citing statistics based on the premise that people with repetitive strain injury are at risk of death from Covid.

They will express it in different language, and approach it via a different angle - the liberals might bleat on about the merits of New Zealand whereas the left will do so about China -  but both groups are expressing the same ugly, narcissistic impulse. Neither ever wants this to end.

This is a talking point this forum likes to make and it is completely wrong and highly insulting. Poll after poll shows that vaccinated people are more likely to think COVID-19 is a threat, support mask mandates and social distancing, etc. So people who favor restrictions are anti-vaccine by... disproportionately getting the vaccine? We understand the truth, that the vaccine is an important tool and the best we have, but it doesn't offer anything close to sterilizing immunity, and thus it cannot protect us from COVID-19 and we favor additional mitigation measures, particularly low cost, low effort ones like mask mandates. It's the people who continue to insist that the vaccine is an impenetrable COVID repelling shield that's really undermining the vaccine by telling an obvious lie. Anti-vaccine people are by now almost all Alex Jones style conspiratard numbskulls; I can't even call them Trumpist anymore after Trump tried to set them straight and they turned on him. I refuse to be smeared by being associated with these lowlifes.

They're anti-vaxxers because they don't believe the vaccine works. Seems fairly simple. The vaccines have been effective enough that, coupled with our friend omicron, cases have effectively decoupled from hospitalisations and deaths. The vaccines do not prevent transmission but they make all but a tiny minority of people (who would normally be a bad flu season away from death's door) practically invulnerable to what is now, for virtually all the vaccinated, an irritating cold.

The success of the vaccines has ended the pandemic and we can now return to normal life.

When you include the blinding obvious reality that any and all public health restrictions make absolutely no impact whatsoever on transmission of the virus it's clear that the upper normies who want perma-lockdown don't "trust the science" at all: they just want to immiserate our lives forever more to feel morally smug for their virtuous behaviour. It is utterly repulsive.

The first is your minority opinion, in the recent Monmouth poll 62% of people are still very or somewhat concerned about getting severely ill due to COVID. The second is just completely false. Let's take the example of mask mandates. Multiple studies have shown that schools that instituted mask mandates have less COVID transmission then those that don't. Even if you go to general population where the exceptions in mask mandates (restaurants, bars, private gatherings) lower its efficacy at the population level, it still has substantial value. Maybe indoor no-smoking mandates did not cause smoking rates to decline, but they do ensure indoor public spaces are not smoke-filled and thus are more pleasant and safe, which is unambiguously a good thing, and the same principle applies with indoor mask mandates.

[Oakvale]

Another point of comparison - both groups are de facto anti-vaxxers. The former group will express this sentiment by purporting to be extremely pro-vaccine but, as discussed, insisting that they will continue to wear masks indefinitely etc. The latter express this through nonsensical pontificating about how actually anti-vaxxers are all marginalised working class people who simply can't afford to get a free vaccine at any pharmacy in the country. Both will shamelessly moralise about how those of us who want our lives back want to murder the disabled, citing statistics based on the premise that people with repetitive strain injury are at risk of death from Covid.

They will express it in different language, and approach it via a different angle - the liberals might bleat on about the merits of New Zealand whereas the left will do so about China -  but both groups are expressing the same ugly, narcissistic impulse. Neither ever wants this to end.

This is a talking point this forum likes to make and it is completely wrong and highly insulting. Poll after poll shows that vaccinated people are more likely to think COVID-19 is a threat, support mask mandates and social distancing, etc. So people who favor restrictions are anti-vaccine by... disproportionately getting the vaccine? We understand the truth, that the vaccine is an important tool and the best we have, but it doesn't offer anything close to sterilizing immunity, and thus it cannot protect us from COVID-19 and we favor additional mitigation measures, particularly low cost, low effort ones like mask mandates. It's the people who continue to insist that the vaccine is an impenetrable COVID repelling shield that's really undermining the vaccine by telling an obvious lie. Anti-vaccine people are by now almost all Alex Jones style conspiratard numbskulls; I can't even call them Trumpist anymore after Trump tried to set them straight and they turned on him. I refuse to be smeared by being associated with these lowlifes.

They're anti-vaxxers because they don't believe the vaccine works. Seems fairly simple. The vaccines have been effective enough that, coupled with our friend omicron, cases have effectively decoupled from hospitalisations and deaths. The vaccines do not prevent transmission but they make all but a tiny minority of people (who would normally be a bad flu season away from death's door) practically invulnerable to what is now, for virtually all the vaccinated, an irritating cold.

The success of the vaccines has ended the pandemic and we can now return to normal life.

When you include the blinding obvious reality that any and all public health restrictions make absolutely no impact whatsoever on transmission of the virus it's clear that the upper normies who want perma-lockdown don't "trust the science" at all: they just want to immiserate our lives forever more to feel morally smug for their virtuous behaviour. It is utterly repulsive.

The first is your minority opinion, in the recent Monmouth poll 62% of people are still very or somewhat concerned about getting severely ill due to COVID. The second is just completely false. Let's take the example of mask mandates. Multiple studies have shown that schools that instituted mask mandates have less COVID transmission then those that don't. Even if you go to general population where the exceptions in mask mandates (restaurants, bars, private gatherings) lower its efficacy at the population level, it still has substantial value. Maybe indoor no-smoking mandates did not cause smoking rates to decline, but they do ensure indoor public spaces are not smoke-filled and thus are more pleasant and safe, which is unambiguously a good thing, and the same principle applies with indoor mask mandates.

Your premise here is that indoor smoking bans are comparable to mask mandates in that not only do they increase both public safety (smoking bans do not, in fact do this to any meaningful extent, but that's another day's discussion) and comfort, which is obviously nonsense. Even if you want to make the dubious claim that masks have public health benefits it is indisputable that they're a deeply unpleasant imposition. This is evident in the collapse of voluntary mask-wearing any time a mandate is eased.

Mask mandates are bad public policy at this post-pandemic juncture: they achieve nothing but an obnoxious and anti-social signal of non-normality. Even if there was some marginal public health benefit to forced mask wearing I would not consider it a worthwhile trade-off for prolonging the pandemic by implementing such.

Also:



wow what a stunning public health success

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Maybe indoor no-smoking mandates did not cause smoking rates to decline, but they do ensure indoor public spaces are not smoke-filled and thus are more pleasant and safe, which is unambiguously a good thing, and the same principle applies with indoor mask mandates.

Mask mandates make indoor spaces more pleasant??

It’s these sort of statements that really hit home how some people must just fundamentally experience the world differently than I do.

And I literally am a “Warren donating upper income liberal”.

[It’s so Joever]

Another point of comparison - both groups are de facto anti-vaxxers. The former group will express this sentiment by purporting to be extremely pro-vaccine but, as discussed, insisting that they will continue to wear masks indefinitely etc. The latter express this through nonsensical pontificating about how actually anti-vaxxers are all marginalised working class people who simply can't afford to get a free vaccine at any pharmacy in the country. Both will shamelessly moralise about how those of us who want our lives back want to murder the disabled, citing statistics based on the premise that people with repetitive strain injury are at risk of death from Covid.

They will express it in different language, and approach it via a different angle - the liberals might bleat on about the merits of New Zealand whereas the left will do so about China -  but both groups are expressing the same ugly, narcissistic impulse. Neither ever wants this to end.

This is a talking point this forum likes to make and it is completely wrong and highly insulting. Poll after poll shows that vaccinated people are more likely to think COVID-19 is a threat, support mask mandates and social distancing, etc. So people who favor restrictions are anti-vaccine by... disproportionately getting the vaccine? We understand the truth, that the vaccine is an important tool and the best we have, but it doesn't offer anything close to sterilizing immunity, and thus it cannot protect us from COVID-19 and we favor additional mitigation measures, particularly low cost, low effort ones like mask mandates. It's the people who continue to insist that the vaccine is an impenetrable COVID repelling shield that's really undermining the vaccine by telling an obvious lie. Anti-vaccine people are by now almost all Alex Jones style conspiratard numbskulls; I can't even call them Trumpist anymore after Trump tried to set them straight and they turned on him. I refuse to be smeared by being associated with these lowlifes.

They're anti-vaxxers because they don't believe the vaccine works. Seems fairly simple. The vaccines have been effective enough that, coupled with our friend omicron, cases have effectively decoupled from hospitalisations and deaths. The vaccines do not prevent transmission but they make all but a tiny minority of people (who would normally be a bad flu season away from death's door) practically invulnerable to what is now, for virtually all the vaccinated, an irritating cold.

The success of the vaccines has ended the pandemic and we can now return to normal life.

When you include the blinding obvious reality that any and all public health restrictions make absolutely no impact whatsoever on transmission of the virus it's clear that the upper normies who want perma-lockdown don't "trust the science" at all: they just want to immiserate our lives forever more to feel morally smug for their virtuous behaviour. It is utterly repulsive.

The first is your minority opinion, in the recent Monmouth poll 62% of people are still very or somewhat concerned about getting severely ill due to COVID. The second is just completely false. Let's take the example of mask mandates. Multiple studies have shown that schools that instituted mask mandates have less COVID transmission then those that don't. Even if you go to general population where the exceptions in mask mandates (restaurants, bars, private gatherings) lower its efficacy at the population level, it still has substantial value. Maybe indoor no-smoking mandates did not cause smoking rates to decline, but they do ensure indoor public spaces are not smoke-filled and thus are more pleasant and safe, which is unambiguously a good thing, and the same principle applies with indoor mask mandates.

No.

[It’s so Joever]

Another point of comparison - both groups are de facto anti-vaxxers. The former group will express this sentiment by purporting to be extremely pro-vaccine but, as discussed, insisting that they will continue to wear masks indefinitely etc. The latter express this through nonsensical pontificating about how actually anti-vaxxers are all marginalised working class people who simply can't afford to get a free vaccine at any pharmacy in the country. Both will shamelessly moralise about how those of us who want our lives back want to murder the disabled, citing statistics based on the premise that people with repetitive strain injury are at risk of death from Covid.

They will express it in different language, and approach it via a different angle - the liberals might bleat on about the merits of New Zealand whereas the left will do so about China -  but both groups are expressing the same ugly, narcissistic impulse. Neither ever wants this to end.

This is a talking point this forum likes to make and it is completely wrong and highly insulting. Poll after poll shows that vaccinated people are more likely to think COVID-19 is a threat, support mask mandates and social distancing, etc. So people who favor restrictions are anti-vaccine by... disproportionately getting the vaccine? We understand the truth, that the vaccine is an important tool and the best we have, but it doesn't offer anything close to sterilizing immunity, and thus it cannot protect us from COVID-19 and we favor additional mitigation measures, particularly low cost, low effort ones like mask mandates. It's the people who continue to insist that the vaccine is an impenetrable COVID repelling shield that's really undermining the vaccine by telling an obvious lie. Anti-vaccine people are by now almost all Alex Jones style conspiratard numbskulls; I can't even call them Trumpist anymore after Trump tried to set them straight and they turned on him. I refuse to be smeared by being associated with these lowlifes.

They're anti-vaxxers because they don't believe the vaccine works. Seems fairly simple. The vaccines have been effective enough that, coupled with our friend omicron, cases have effectively decoupled from hospitalisations and deaths. The vaccines do not prevent transmission but they make all but a tiny minority of people (who would normally be a bad flu season away from death's door) practically invulnerable to what is now, for virtually all the vaccinated, an irritating cold.

The success of the vaccines has ended the pandemic and we can now return to normal life.

When you include the blinding obvious reality that any and all public health restrictions make absolutely no impact whatsoever on transmission of the virus it's clear that the upper normies who want perma-lockdown don't "trust the science" at all: they just want to immiserate our lives forever more to feel morally smug for their virtuous behaviour. It is utterly repulsive.

The first is your minority opinion, in the recent Monmouth poll 62% of people are still very or somewhat concerned about getting severely ill due to COVID. The second is just completely false. Let's take the example of mask mandates. Multiple studies have shown that schools that instituted mask mandates have less COVID transmission then those that don't. Even if you go to general population where the exceptions in mask mandates (restaurants, bars, private gatherings) lower its efficacy at the population level, it still has substantial value. Maybe indoor no-smoking mandates did not cause smoking rates to decline, but they do ensure indoor public spaces are not smoke-filled and thus are more pleasant and safe, which is unambiguously a good thing, and the same principle applies with indoor mask mandates.

Your premise here is that indoor smoking bans are comparable to mask mandates in that not only do they increase both public safety (smoking bans do not, in fact do this to any meaningful extent, but that's another day's discussion) and comfort, which is obviously nonsense. Even if you want to make the dubious claim that masks have public health benefits it is indisputable that they're a deeply unpleasant imposition. This is evident in the collapse of voluntary mask-wearing any time a mandate is eased.

Mask mandates are bad public policy at this post-pandemic juncture: they achieve nothing but an obnoxious and anti-social signal of non-normality. Even if there was some marginal public health benefit to forced mask wearing I would not consider it a worthwhile trade-off for prolonging the pandemic by implementing such.

Also:



wow what a stunning public health success

What an intellectually dishonest graph. I should not have to explain to you why just comparing very different states with different population densities, different wave patterns, and different climates to other very different states based on one variable is ludicrous and the most dumb**s s**t imaginable.
While there is no perfect way to control for things, closest you can do is compare rate changes within a state as mask guidelines change (yes I’m very aware that’s also flawed)

[It’s so Joever]

Anyways if deaths don’t dramatically rise in the next few weeks, I fully support announcing a back to normal for anyone vaccinated so long as hospitals are able to handle it. Also Biden should scapegoat antivaxxers, they are unpopular and mocking them routinely/targeting them from here on out is just good politics.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Anyways if deaths don’t dramatically rise in the next few weeks, I fully support announcing a back to normal for anyone vaccinated so long as hospitals are able to handle it. Also Biden should scapegoat antivaxxers, they are unpopular and mocking them routinely/targeting them from here on out is just good politics.

LOL I hope he does, but I don't believe Biden/Dems are this "bright". They know that a lot of these people are minorities/young.

Will Biden win any vaxxed presumably suburban/urban Reps by alienating vaxx-hesitante people? Unlikely imo.
Will Biden lose* vaxx hesitant Blacks/Latinos/young by mocking them? IMO, Absof***inglutely.

lose* - doesn't need to be, that these people necessarily vote GOP, they just wont turn out for D. On the contrary, the (R) people you humiliate will absolutely turn out and wipe you out  

Idk, probably, this damage is already done.

[Calthrina950]

Another point of comparison - both groups are de facto anti-vaxxers. The former group will express this sentiment by purporting to be extremely pro-vaccine but, as discussed, insisting that they will continue to wear masks indefinitely etc. The latter express this through nonsensical pontificating about how actually anti-vaxxers are all marginalised working class people who simply can't afford to get a free vaccine at any pharmacy in the country. Both will shamelessly moralise about how those of us who want our lives back want to murder the disabled, citing statistics based on the premise that people with repetitive strain injury are at risk of death from Covid.

They will express it in different language, and approach it via a different angle - the liberals might bleat on about the merits of New Zealand whereas the left will do so about China -  but both groups are expressing the same ugly, narcissistic impulse. Neither ever wants this to end.

This is a talking point this forum likes to make and it is completely wrong and highly insulting. Poll after poll shows that vaccinated people are more likely to think COVID-19 is a threat, support mask mandates and social distancing, etc. So people who favor restrictions are anti-vaccine by... disproportionately getting the vaccine? We understand the truth, that the vaccine is an important tool and the best we have, but it doesn't offer anything close to sterilizing immunity, and thus it cannot protect us from COVID-19 and we favor additional mitigation measures, particularly low cost, low effort ones like mask mandates. It's the people who continue to insist that the vaccine is an impenetrable COVID repelling shield that's really undermining the vaccine by telling an obvious lie. Anti-vaccine people are by now almost all Alex Jones style conspiratard numbskulls; I can't even call them Trumpist anymore after Trump tried to set them straight and they turned on him. I refuse to be smeared by being associated with these lowlifes.

They're anti-vaxxers because they don't believe the vaccine works. Seems fairly simple. The vaccines have been effective enough that, coupled with our friend omicron, cases have effectively decoupled from hospitalisations and deaths. The vaccines do not prevent transmission but they make all but a tiny minority of people (who would normally be a bad flu season away from death's door) practically invulnerable to what is now, for virtually all the vaccinated, an irritating cold.

The success of the vaccines has ended the pandemic and we can now return to normal life.

When you include the blinding obvious reality that any and all public health restrictions make absolutely no impact whatsoever on transmission of the virus it's clear that the upper normies who want perma-lockdown don't "trust the science" at all: they just want to immiserate our lives forever more to feel morally smug for their virtuous behaviour. It is utterly repulsive.

The first is your minority opinion, in the recent Monmouth poll 62% of people are still very or somewhat concerned about getting severely ill due to COVID. The second is just completely false. Let's take the example of mask mandates. Multiple studies have shown that schools that instituted mask mandates have less COVID transmission then those that don't. Even if you go to general population where the exceptions in mask mandates (restaurants, bars, private gatherings) lower its efficacy at the population level, it still has substantial value. Maybe indoor no-smoking mandates did not cause smoking rates to decline, but they do ensure indoor public spaces are not smoke-filled and thus are more pleasant and safe, which is unambiguously a good thing, and the same principle applies with indoor mask mandates.

Your premise here is that indoor smoking bans are comparable to mask mandates in that not only do they increase both public safety (smoking bans do not, in fact do this to any meaningful extent, but that's another day's discussion) and comfort, which is obviously nonsense. Even if you want to make the dubious claim that masks have public health benefits it is indisputable that they're a deeply unpleasant imposition. This is evident in the collapse of voluntary mask-wearing any time a mandate is eased.

Mask mandates are bad public policy at this post-pandemic juncture: they achieve nothing but an obnoxious and anti-social signal of non-normality. Even if there was some marginal public health benefit to forced mask wearing I would not consider it a worthwhile trade-off for prolonging the pandemic by implementing such.

Also:



wow what a stunning public health success

What an intellectually dishonest graph. I should not have to explain to you why just comparing very different states with different population densities, different wave patterns, and different climates to other very different states based on one variable is ludicrous and the most dumb**s s**t imaginable.
While there is no perfect way to control for things, closest you can do is compare rate changes within a state as mask guidelines change (yes I’m very aware that’s also flawed)

Are you arguing that mask mandates are effective? Do you think they should be maintained in perpetuity?

[compucomp]

Maybe indoor no-smoking mandates did not cause smoking rates to decline, but they do ensure indoor public spaces are not smoke-filled and thus are more pleasant and safe, which is unambiguously a good thing, and the same principle applies with indoor mask mandates.

Mask mandates make indoor spaces more pleasant??

It’s these sort of statements that really hit home how some people must just fundamentally experience the world differently than I do.

And I literally am a “Warren donating upper income liberal”.

Absolutely. COVID fumes are arguably more noxious than cigarette smoke, if you breathe it in, you could catch COVID. Obviously, one can't smell it, but given we're familiar with how cigarette smoke propagates indoors there is the knowledge that the COVID particles are probably in the air if there are unmasked people. One could argue that the uncertainty makes the environment even more unpleasant than the certainty of smelling cigarette smoke. I've learned to tolerate unmasked people in public indoor spaces but that doesn't mean I like it. I'm very glad that where I live 80% of people wear masks indoors even though there is no mandate.

[emailking]

I have no problem with the administration not telling specific areas of the country to ignore Covid while Covid is still raging across the rest of the country. We're all in this together.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

I have no problem with the administration not telling specific areas of the country to ignore Covid while Covid is still raging across the rest of the country. We're all in this together.

The cases/hospitalizations failing in virtually every state, in many by a lot https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html

Moreover, Red states are relaxed anyway.

Moreover, at worst, you can say: we recommend to remove all the restrictions in X weeks, when hospitalization or Y is under Z.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Maybe indoor no-smoking mandates did not cause smoking rates to decline, but they do ensure indoor public spaces are not smoke-filled and thus are more pleasant and safe, which is unambiguously a good thing, and the same principle applies with indoor mask mandates.

Mask mandates make indoor spaces more pleasant??

It’s these sort of statements that really hit home how some people must just fundamentally experience the world differently than I do.

And I literally am a “Warren donating upper income liberal”.

Absolutely. COVID fumes are arguably more noxious than cigarette smoke, if you breathe it in, you could catch COVID. Obviously, one can't smell it, but given we're familiar with how cigarette smoke propagates indoors there is the knowledge that the COVID particles are probably in the air if there are unmasked people. One could argue that the uncertainty makes the environment even more unpleasant than the certainty of smelling cigarette smoke. I've learned to tolerate unmasked people in public indoor spaces but that doesn't mean I like it. I'm very glad that where I live 80% of people wear masks indoors even though there is no mandate.

     I find it fascinating how you didn't even touch on the issue of not being able to see human faces as you look around, something that is psychologically comforting at a basic level for most people. As NickG said, it seems some people experience the world quite differently.

[Mr. Illini]

Another point of comparison - both groups are de facto anti-vaxxers. The former group will express this sentiment by purporting to be extremely pro-vaccine but, as discussed, insisting that they will continue to wear masks indefinitely etc. The latter express this through nonsensical pontificating about how actually anti-vaxxers are all marginalised working class people who simply can't afford to get a free vaccine at any pharmacy in the country. Both will shamelessly moralise about how those of us who want our lives back want to murder the disabled, citing statistics based on the premise that people with repetitive strain injury are at risk of death from Covid.

They will express it in different language, and approach it via a different angle - the liberals might bleat on about the merits of New Zealand whereas the left will do so about China -  but both groups are expressing the same ugly, narcissistic impulse. Neither ever wants this to end.

This is a talking point this forum likes to make and it is completely wrong and highly insulting. Poll after poll shows that vaccinated people are more likely to think COVID-19 is a threat, support mask mandates and social distancing, etc. So people who favor restrictions are anti-vaccine by... disproportionately getting the vaccine? We understand the truth, that the vaccine is an important tool and the best we have, but it doesn't offer anything close to sterilizing immunity, and thus it cannot protect us from COVID-19 and we favor additional mitigation measures, particularly low cost, low effort ones like mask mandates. It's the people who continue to insist that the vaccine is an impenetrable COVID repelling shield that's really undermining the vaccine by telling an obvious lie. Anti-vaccine people are by now almost all Alex Jones style conspiratard numbskulls; I can't even call them Trumpist anymore after Trump tried to set them straight and they turned on him. I refuse to be smeared by being associated with these lowlifes.

Interesting that the two groups that make heavy use of the term "sterilizing immunity" are the vaccine-hesitant as well as the forever-Coviders. They employ it for the same purpose as well - to cast doubt on the effectiveness of the vaccine.

Two sides of the same coin, really.

[compucomp]

Maybe indoor no-smoking mandates did not cause smoking rates to decline, but they do ensure indoor public spaces are not smoke-filled and thus are more pleasant and safe, which is unambiguously a good thing, and the same principle applies with indoor mask mandates.

Mask mandates make indoor spaces more pleasant??

It’s these sort of statements that really hit home how some people must just fundamentally experience the world differently than I do.

And I literally am a “Warren donating upper income liberal”.

Absolutely. COVID fumes are arguably more noxious than cigarette smoke, if you breathe it in, you could catch COVID. Obviously, one can't smell it, but given we're familiar with how cigarette smoke propagates indoors there is the knowledge that the COVID particles are probably in the air if there are unmasked people. One could argue that the uncertainty makes the environment even more unpleasant than the certainty of smelling cigarette smoke. I've learned to tolerate unmasked people in public indoor spaces but that doesn't mean I like it. I'm very glad that where I live 80% of people wear masks indoors even though there is no mandate.

     I find it fascinating how you didn't even touch on the issue of not being able to see human faces as you look around, something that is psychologically comforting at a basic level for most people. As NickG said, it seems some people experience the world quite differently.

It's entirely natural and reasonable to prioritize physical health before mental health, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs puts physiological and safety needs at the bottom of the pyramid.

Interesting that the two groups that make heavy use of the term "sterilizing immunity" are the vaccine-hesitant as well as the forever-Coviders. They employ it for the same purpose as well - to cast doubt on the effectiveness of the vaccine.

Two sides of the same coin, really.

Are you still insisting that the vaccine makes us safe from COVID and is an impenetrable virus repelling shield? How can you stick to that position, especially after this Omicron wave, where it seemed like everyone you know, their parents, their cats, and their dogs all caught Omicron, when all of them were vaccinated? I wish the vaccine conferred sterilizing immunity but it's just not true. So the public must know that if they want to protect themselves from COVID, they need to take additional measures beyond getting the vaccine. This information cannot be suppressed because it is the plain and obvious truth. If some idiots use this to justify not getting the vaccine, then that's their fault for making a grave error in judgement.

[Roll Roons]

Interesting that the two groups that make heavy use of the term "sterilizing immunity" are the vaccine-hesitant as well as the forever-Coviders. They employ it for the same purpose as well - to cast doubt on the effectiveness of the vaccine.

Two sides of the same coin, really.

Are you still insisting that the vaccine makes us safe from COVID and is an impenetrable virus repelling shield? How can you stick to that position, especially after this Omicron wave, where it seemed like everyone you know, their parents, their cats, and their dogs all caught Omicron, when all of them were vaccinated? I wish the vaccine conferred sterilizing immunity but it's just not true. So the public must know that if they want to protect themselves from COVID, they need to take additional measures beyond getting the vaccine. This information cannot be suppressed because it is the plain and obvious truth. If some idiots use this to justify not getting the vaccine, then that's their fault for making a grave error in judgement.

Lots of vaccinated people may have caught it, but their symptoms were either very mild (cough, sore throat, sniffles) or nonexistent. Yes, vaccines overwhelmingly do still keep us safe. Stop spreading lies.

[compucomp]

Interesting that the two groups that make heavy use of the term "sterilizing immunity" are the vaccine-hesitant as well as the forever-Coviders. They employ it for the same purpose as well - to cast doubt on the effectiveness of the vaccine.

Two sides of the same coin, really.

Are you still insisting that the vaccine makes us safe from COVID and is an impenetrable virus repelling shield? How can you stick to that position, especially after this Omicron wave, where it seemed like everyone you know, their parents, their cats, and their dogs all caught Omicron, when all of them were vaccinated? I wish the vaccine conferred sterilizing immunity but it's just not true. So the public must know that if they want to protect themselves from COVID, they need to take additional measures beyond getting the vaccine. This information cannot be suppressed because it is the plain and obvious truth. If some idiots use this to justify not getting the vaccine, then that's their fault for making a grave error in judgement.

Lots of vaccinated people may have caught it, but their symptoms were either very mild (cough, sore throat, sniffles) or nonexistent. Yes, vaccines overwhelmingly do still keep us safe. Stop spreading lies.

Catching COVID despite being vaccinated means one was not safe from COVID. The vaccine may have kept the disease manageable but given that breakthrough infections are now commonplace it is simply false to claim that the vaccine makes one safe from COVID.
Stop trying to change the plain meaning of English words to justify your lie.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Maybe indoor no-smoking mandates did not cause smoking rates to decline, but they do ensure indoor public spaces are not smoke-filled and thus are more pleasant and safe, which is unambiguously a good thing, and the same principle applies with indoor mask mandates.

Mask mandates make indoor spaces more pleasant??

It’s these sort of statements that really hit home how some people must just fundamentally experience the world differently than I do.

And I literally am a “Warren donating upper income liberal”.

Absolutely. COVID fumes are arguably more noxious than cigarette smoke, if you breathe it in, you could catch COVID. Obviously, one can't smell it, but given we're familiar with how cigarette smoke propagates indoors there is the knowledge that the COVID particles are probably in the air if there are unmasked people. One could argue that the uncertainty makes the environment even more unpleasant than the certainty of smelling cigarette smoke. I've learned to tolerate unmasked people in public indoor spaces but that doesn't mean I like it. I'm very glad that where I live 80% of people wear masks indoors even though there is no mandate.

     I find it fascinating how you didn't even touch on the issue of not being able to see human faces as you look around, something that is psychologically comforting at a basic level for most people. As NickG said, it seems some people experience the world quite differently.

It's entirely natural and reasonable to prioritize physical health before mental health, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs puts physiological and safety needs at the bottom of the pyramid.

     Maslow's Hierarchy is heavily controversial among scholars of psychology, and part of the issue is that it frequently generates wrong predictions. The one I learned about when I took a psychology course in college was that it cannot adequately explain the occurrence of white-collar crime, but the idea that people will generally just accept public health restrictions at severe psychological cost to themselves could easily be added to the canon of why Maslow was wrong.

[soundchaser]

Interesting that the two groups that make heavy use of the term "sterilizing immunity" are the vaccine-hesitant as well as the forever-Coviders. They employ it for the same purpose as well - to cast doubt on the effectiveness of the vaccine.

Two sides of the same coin, really.

Are you still insisting that the vaccine makes us safe from COVID and is an impenetrable virus repelling shield? How can you stick to that position, especially after this Omicron wave, where it seemed like everyone you know, their parents, their cats, and their dogs all caught Omicron, when all of them were vaccinated? I wish the vaccine conferred sterilizing immunity but it's just not true. So the public must know that if they want to protect themselves from COVID, they need to take additional measures beyond getting the vaccine. This information cannot be suppressed because it is the plain and obvious truth. If some idiots use this to justify not getting the vaccine, then that's their fault for making a grave error in judgement.

Lots of vaccinated people may have caught it, but their symptoms were either very mild (cough, sore throat, sniffles) or nonexistent. Yes, vaccines overwhelmingly do still keep us safe. Stop spreading lies.

Catching COVID despite being vaccinated means one was not safe from COVID. The vaccine may have kept the disease manageable but given that breakthrough infections are now commonplace it is simply false to claim that the vaccine makes one safe from COVID.
Stop trying to change the plain meaning of English words to justify your lie.

"Safe" means "protected from danger or risk" - if vaccinated people catch it without serious symptoms (which, by and large, they do), then the definition still holds.

[Mr. Illini]

Interesting that the two groups that make heavy use of the term "sterilizing immunity" are the vaccine-hesitant as well as the forever-Coviders. They employ it for the same purpose as well - to cast doubt on the effectiveness of the vaccine.

Two sides of the same coin, really.

Are you still insisting that the vaccine makes us safe from COVID and is an impenetrable virus repelling shield? How can you stick to that position, especially after this Omicron wave, where it seemed like everyone you know, their parents, their cats, and their dogs all caught Omicron, when all of them were vaccinated? I wish the vaccine conferred sterilizing immunity but it's just not true. So the public must know that if they want to protect themselves from COVID, they need to take additional measures beyond getting the vaccine. This information cannot be suppressed because it is the plain and obvious truth. If some idiots use this to justify not getting the vaccine, then that's their fault for making a grave error in judgement.

Another common thread among the vaccine-hesitant and the forever-Coviders is the complete lack of any nuance ever.

Would I insist that the vaccine makes us "safe" from Covid? Yes, I do. The real-world data shows that vaccinated Americans are overwhelmingly less likely to be hospitalized or die from Covid. The folks currently dying from Covid are overwhelmingly those who have unfortunately not chosen to take the vaccine. Do you deny any of this?

Would I insist that the vaccine is an "impenetrable virus repelling shield"? No, those are your words. Something doesn't have to be "impenetrable" to "make us safe."

If you are vaccinated against Covid, you are well-protected from the virus. If you are not, you should get vaccinated to protect yourself. This is the only messaging that is sustainable in the long term. We will not have intermittent restrictions that flow with the peaks and valleys of the viral spread forever.

[compucomp]

Interesting that the two groups that make heavy use of the term "sterilizing immunity" are the vaccine-hesitant as well as the forever-Coviders. They employ it for the same purpose as well - to cast doubt on the effectiveness of the vaccine.

Two sides of the same coin, really.

Are you still insisting that the vaccine makes us safe from COVID and is an impenetrable virus repelling shield? How can you stick to that position, especially after this Omicron wave, where it seemed like everyone you know, their parents, their cats, and their dogs all caught Omicron, when all of them were vaccinated? I wish the vaccine conferred sterilizing immunity but it's just not true. So the public must know that if they want to protect themselves from COVID, they need to take additional measures beyond getting the vaccine. This information cannot be suppressed because it is the plain and obvious truth. If some idiots use this to justify not getting the vaccine, then that's their fault for making a grave error in judgement.

Lots of vaccinated people may have caught it, but their symptoms were either very mild (cough, sore throat, sniffles) or nonexistent. Yes, vaccines overwhelmingly do still keep us safe. Stop spreading lies.

Catching COVID despite being vaccinated means one was not safe from COVID. The vaccine may have kept the disease manageable but given that breakthrough infections are now commonplace it is simply false to claim that the vaccine makes one safe from COVID.
Stop trying to change the plain meaning of English words to justify your lie.

"Safe" means "protected from danger or risk" - if vaccinated people catch it without serious symptoms (which, by and large, they do), then the definition still holds.

I don't know about you, but I consider being bedridden with high fever, chills, and body ache and then suffering decreased lung function, brain fog, loss of smell and taste for months or years afterwards "serious symptoms". However this is considered "mild" case of COVID-19 because it didn't involve hospitalization because there was no shortness of breath or low blood oxygen. This is a common breakthrough case of Delta, there was a study done that vaccination was only 50% protective against long COVID symptoms. Omicron changed this prognosis and breakthrough cases are probably milder now, and more study is needed especially over time, but I don't think it has been reduced to the level of the common cold. In short it's wrong to say that there is no risk or danger from a breakthrough infection, and Omicron made it so that breakthrough infections are common events. The public needs to be informed of what the risk and dangers are, not have the information suppressed to exaggerate the vaccine's efficacy.

[compucomp]

The dumbest thing of all of this is that there is all this rage and hatred towards mask mandates, the mitigation measure that is low cost, low effort, and doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything. You'd think we were talking about business closures or something that actually hurt the economy and peoples' livelihoods with this kind of rancor.

[soundchaser]

"Safe" means "protected from danger or risk" - if vaccinated people catch it without serious symptoms (which, by and large, they do), then the definition still holds.

I don't know about you, but I consider being bedridden with high fever, chills, and body ache and then suffering decreased lung function, brain fog, loss of smell and taste for months or years afterwards "serious symptoms". However this is considered "mild" case of COVID-19 because it didn't involve hospitalization because there was no shortness of breath or low blood oxygen. This is a common breakthrough case of Delta, there was a study done that vaccination was only 50% protective against long COVID symptoms. Omicron changed this prognosis and breakthrough cases are probably milder now, and more study is needed especially over time, but I don't think it has been reduced to the level of the common cold. In short it's wrong to say that there is no risk or danger from a breakthrough infection, and Omicron made it so that breakthrough infections are common events. The public needs to be informed of what the risk and dangers are, not have the information suppressed to exaggerate the vaccine's efficacy.

You're contradicting yourself, though - if, as you say, everyone and their brother, sister, cat, etc. have caught COVID via breakthrough infection, and the vast majority of them are fine, with none of the long-term (or even short-term) effects you list above...then what "information" do you think is being suppressed?

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

The dumbest thing of all of this is that there is all this rage and hatred towards mask mandates, the mitigation measure that is low cost, low effort, and doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything. You'd think we were talking about business closures or something that actually hurt the economy and peoples' livelihoods with this kind of rancor.

The only thing masks don't prevent, is spreading Omicron. They are extremely high cost, high effort and extremely if any low efficacy. Probably high efficacy on polluting Earth, though 

There is, though, a thing extremely low cost, zero effort and extremely high efficacy. It spells:
V-A-C-C-I-N-E.

Taking the focus from vaccines to masks is dangerous.