Shoot The Breeze

[ATCJoe85]

I can’t wait till the vaccine is fully approved next month. Then will you people shut the fuck up about it being experimental?

the NATCA email doesn’t say anything about the testing/vaccine part. Strange.

Dude how bout you stfu here, I'm just making the case to get us more money, first time I've even pointed out the literal fact that it's an Emergency Authorized drug. Didn't use the "experimental" term that you want to put in my mouth.

 

[jamisjockey]

Fucking ground hog day

 

[32andBelow]

Dude how bout you stfu here, I'm just making the case to get us more money, first time I've even pointed out the literal fact that it's an Emergency Authorized drug. Didn't use the "experimental" term that you want to put in my mouth.

It’s a totally not important thing to add at all. It only has 1 connotation

 

[Homsar]

I agree that we should have to wear them…

Why?

The supermajority of vaccinated people overwhelmingly have few symptoms. If vaccinated people are scared to catch it, they can stay home. They have a choice.

The unvaccinated people have made their choice, and they can live with it. They didn’t want anyone to make choices for them in the first place, so “wearing masks for them” is stupid.

I’m all for just denying icu beds to them at this point but no ones is gonna go for that.

No, because it’s just as stupid as denying hospital care to fat people, smokers, drinkers, etc. Your choice to live an unhealthy/risky lifestyle shouldn’t affect your eligibility for medical care, regardless of the context behind that choice.

So here we are with overcrowded hospitals again. I think the criteria should be linked to hospitalizations tho not cases. Cases mean nothing at this point

I agree there. Cases is a stupid metric. Not surprised NATCA went along with it though.

 

[32andBelow]

Why?

The supermajority of vaccinated people overwhelmingly have few symptoms. If vaccinated people are scared to catch it, they can stay home. They have a choice.

The unvaccinated people have made their choice, and they can live with it. They didn’t want anyone to make choices for them in the first place, so “wearing masks for them” is stupid.





No, because it’s just as stupid as denying hospital care to fat people, smokers, drinkers, etc. Your choice to live an unhealthy/risky lifestyle shouldn’t affect your eligibility for medical care, regardless of the context behind that choice.



I agree there. Cases is a stupid metric. Not surprised NATCA went along with it though.

I meant to say shouldn’t. As I said it a different thread NATCA can’t do shit against an executive brand EO or policy. They have no power

 

[ATCJoe85]

No, because it’s just as stupid as denying hospital care to fat people, smokers, drinkers, etc. Your choice to live an unhealthy/risky lifestyle shouldn’t affect your eligibility for medical care, regardless of the context behind that choice.

Don't think it got to that point, but the concern was that there'd be no more ICU beds to give, and that doctors would have to choose who got them and who did not.

Doubt we'll ever come close to that now that more than half the pop is vaccinated. If we did though, I'd be in favor of giving it to the diabetic over the anti-vaxxer.

 

[32andBelow]

Don't think it got to that point, but the concern was that there'd be no more ICU beds to give, and that doctors would have to choose who got them and who did not.

Doubt we'll ever come close to that now that more than half the pop is vaccinated. If we did though, I'd be in favor of giving it to the diabetic over the anti-vaxxer.

It’s happening right now in Florida. I would hate to get denied care cus some guy couldn’t get the free vaccine

 

[Homsar]

I meant to say shouldn’t. As I said it a different thread NATCA can’t do shit against an executive brand EO or policy. They have no power

They can absolutely state their opposition to it, and say they’re being forced to follow it under protest. Their email sounds like glowing acceptance.

Don't think it got to that point, but the concern was that there'd be no more ICU beds to give, and that doctors would have to choose who got them and who did not.

Doubt we'll ever come close to that now that more than half the pop is vaccinated. If we did though, I'd be in favor of giving it to the diabetic over the anti-vaxxer.

I don’t think moral judgments belong in medical care, triage should take precedent.

 

[jamisjockey]

They can absolutely state their opposition to it, and say they’re being forced to follow it under protest. Their email sounds like glowing acceptance.




I don’t think moral judgments belong in medical care, triage should take precedent.

Because it is done in absolute lockstep with the current administration.

 

[ATCJoe85]

If I thought the vast portion of Reps thought the election was unfair because of state election laws as opposed to rigged/tampered with/completely altered by faceless conspirators who have never formally been named or accused, I'd have less contempt for them.

If I thought the vast portion of Reps were holding off on Vax until full FDA approval, or because of religious beliefs or medical exemptions.... as opposed to that they are microchipped, part of Bill Gates plan to reduce the population, are killing people more than the virus, have absolutely zero effect on anything, or any one of the other 100 completely made up reasons that have shown up on my Facebook account over the last several months, then I'd have less contempt for them.

All I can offer is my personal antecdotes on the subject, and potentially liberally biased polls that validate my antecdotes... all of which seem to suggest that Reps look to conspiracies and falsehoods to strengthen their position, rather than defending their position using the actual merits of it.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

Literally nothing you said invalidated my point. Well done. I’ll say it again: When you have to construct scenarios of your opponents to claim “iT’s NoT tHe SaMe,” you’re making a straw man. It’s not my fault that you can’t

Uh, okay so clearly stating how to things are not at all similar by expounding on how they are different, when that is the claim that was being made is now a straw man argument?

I wanna know what kind of clown college ass school your high school english teacher got his degree at, there has to be some sort of class action lawsuit going on where he can get his money back.

Try again, maybe with some claims as to why I'm wrong instead of arguing from fallacy again and again. Hopefully they taught that one right at clown college.

 

[ATCJoe85]

I don’t think moral judgments belong in medical care, triage should take precedent.

True dat.

Last year was spent criticizing the dems for being "afraid" of a virus that has killed .6% of those infected with it.
This year maybe we can criticize the reps for being "afraid" of a vaccine that is possibly responsible for .01% of the people who received it dying afterwards, while also reducing Covid deaths by a factor greater than 50.

 

[32andBelow]

Last year was spent criticizing the dems for being "afraid" of a virus that has killed .6% of those infected with it.
This year maybe we can criticize the reps for being "afraid" of a vaccine that is possibly responsible for .01% of the people who received it dying afterwards, while also reducing Covid deaths by a factor greater than 50.

The vaccine def doesn’t kill anywhere close to .01% if the people that take it

 

[ATCJoe85]

The vaccine def doesn’t kill anywhere close to .01% if the people that take it

There have been around 12,000 VAERs reported deaths (for easy math I called it 15K). Now obviously that doesn't mean the vaccine caused it, but just to give the benefit of the doubt here. Out of 150 million people, that would be .01%

 

[32andBelow]

There have been around 12,000 VAERs reported deaths (for easy math I called it 15K). Now obviously that doesn't mean the vaccine caused it, but just to give the benefit of the doubt here. Out of 150 million people, that would be .01%

VAERs reports are fucking bullshit tho and 12,000 out of 150M is .00008

 

[Homsar]

If I thought the vast portion of Reps thought the election was unfair because of state election laws as opposed to rigged/tampered with/completely altered by faceless conspirators who have never formally been named or accused, I'd have less contempt for them.

If I thought the vast portion of Reps were holding off on Vax until full FDA approval, or because of religious beliefs or medical exemptions.... as opposed to that they are microchipped, part of Bill Gates plan to reduce the population, are killing people more than the virus, have absolutely zero effect on anything, or any one of the other 100 completely made up reasons that have shown up on my Facebook account over the last several months, then I'd have less contempt for them.

All I can offer is my personal antecdotes on the subject, and potentially liberally biased polls that validate my antecdotes... all of which seem to suggest that Reps look to conspiracies and falsehoods to strengthen their position, rather than defending their position using the actual merits of it.

I just haven’t seen any evidence that a “vast portion of Reps” are believing in those conspiracy theories, just that many believe the election results were interfered with and thus it wasn’t a fair election, and resulted in an illegitimate president. That’s the exact same reasoning the Left had in 2016 (and what poor Peter here can’t comprehend as he struggles to create straw men).

Anecdotal presentation of sourced beliefs is a good point, because it shapes so much of what we see now, and is a huge part of our polarization.

Last year was spent criticizing the dems for being "afraid" of a virus that has killed .6% of those infected with it.
This year maybe we can criticize the reps for being "afraid" of a vaccine that is possibly responsible for .01% of the people who received it dying afterwards, while also reducing Covid deaths by a factor greater than 50.

The problem is that Dems are still afraid of it to this day, and Reps still can cling to the point of it not being FDA approved. When the approval comes, that would be a good comparison.

 

[ramfan402402]

EA! EA! EA!

 

[ATCJoe85]

"resulted in an illegitimate president. That’s the exact same reasoning the Left had in 2016"

For my part, I never viewed the overall Dem's claims as Trump being "illegitimate". Rather I always understood the "not my President" chant to be a sentiment coming from the people who were disgusted by personal actions of his.

 

[AB19]

I just haven’t seen any evidence that a “vast portion of Reps” are believing in those conspiracy theories, just that many believe the election results were interfered with and thus it wasn’t a fair election, and resulted in an illegitimate president. That’s the exact same reasoning the Left had in 2016 (and what poor Peter here can’t comprehend as he struggles to create straw men).

Anecdotal presentation of sourced beliefs is a good point, because it shapes so much of what we see now, and is a huge part of our polarization.



The problem is that Dems are still afraid of it to this day, and Reps still can cling to the point of it not being FDA approved. When the approval comes, that would be a good comparison.

Here you go

 

[32andBelow]

I just haven’t seen any evidence that a “vast portion of Reps” are believing in those conspiracy theories, just that many believe the election results were interfered with and thus it wasn’t a fair election, and resulted in an illegitimate president. That’s the exact same reasoning the Left had in 2016 (and what poor Peter here can’t comprehend as he struggles to create straw men).

Anecdotal presentation of sourced beliefs is a good point, because it shapes so much of what we see now, and is a huge part of our polarization.



The problem is that Dems are still afraid of it to this day, and Reps still can cling to the point of it not being FDA approved. When the approval comes, that would be a good comparison.

You got literal republicans in the house posting conspiracies