Kansas Crimson

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:42 pm

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:28 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:14 pm

This is such an ignorant double standard. We know for a fact that vaccinated people can still spread covid. The odds of giving someone covid and them dying are really low. With vaccines, slightly lower.

But if I tell you there is a 99 percent chance something isn't going to happen, or i tell you there is a 99.9 percent chance it isn't going to happen, there really isn't much difference.

You should be either for testing or against it. Making different rules for different people is just divisive and stems from your political beliefs, nothing more

You 100% can't be infected with the virus from a person who doesn't have the virus. It's science. Testing is science.

My employer would have to fire a huge amount of employees to afford regular testing. I'll settle for utilizing the options (not requiring us to come in at all if we don't want, work issued laptops for easier WAH, licensing of Zoom, Microsoft Teams and other tools to better collaborate remotely, redesigned workspaces in the office to spread us out) and enjoy still having a job.

Or more realistically your employer could refrain from testing healthy people that don't feel sick

You're hung up on the 1%

In many ways, if you want to be completely pragmatic, what matters more are the 37% who survive but have problems. These people with brain fog, depression, mental issues, malaise, ED, lung damage, heart damage, restless anus syndrom, etc. etc. etc. become less productive, need increased medical attention, increase overall medical costs, miss work, etc. etc. etc. But you choose to completely ignore comorbidities and only bring up this 1% death rate, which is lower than the actual death rate in the unvaccinated.

randylahey wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:40 pm I am well aware 1 pecent comes out to be a big number, but its still a tiny percentage.. its been over said. I think the world is over populated, which is causing a mass extinction of all life on the planet, not just human life. And I really don't give a shit if 1 percent, 2 percent, or .1 percent of people die. Most of us won't. The virus isn't very deadly if it has a 99 percent survival rate. 99 percent is a much much bigger number, 1 percent won't be noticed in the long run. And I dont give a shit that 1 percent of our population is a big number. Its because our population is too damn big for our way of life on this planet. We have a lot bigger issues than covid move on with your life

Is this statement insensitive? Yes.
Will it cause liberal tears? Yes a ton.
Is it realistic? Yes

Sometimes being realistic will get you a lot farther than being sensitive will

It is a tiny percentage but not a tiny number. If it was announced that 600,000 people who went outside tomorrow would be killed in a nationwide meteor shower, some people might find it wise to stay inside for the day.

Unfortunately, we'd still have a group of morons standing outside with their cell phone cameras pointed to the sky screaming "see, I'm fine" only to end up recording their death.

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:47 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:40 pm I am well aware 1 pecent comes out to be a big number, but its still a tiny percentage.. its been over said. I think the world is over populated, which is causing a mass extinction of all life on the planet, not just human life. And I really don't give a shit if 1 percent, 2 percent, or .1 percent of people die. Most of us won't. The virus isn't very deadly if it has a 99 percent survival rate. 99 percent is a much much bigger number, 1 percent won't be noticed in the long run. And I dont give a shit that 1 percent of our population is a big number. Its because our population is too damn big for our way of life on this planet. We have a lot bigger issues than covid move on with your life

Is this statement insensitive? Yes.
Will it cause liberal tears? Yes a ton.
Is it realistic? Yes

Sometimes being realistic will get you a lot farther than being sensitive will

It is a tiny percentage but not a tiny number. If it was announced that 600,000 people who went outside tomorrow would be killed in a nationwide meteor shower, some people might find it wise to stay inside for the day.

Unfortunately, we'd still have a group of morons standing outside with their cell phone cameras pointed to the sky screaming "see, I'm fine" only to end up recording their death.

If they sold a helmet that reduced your chances of dying by 99%, Randy and Illy would be bitching about how the helmet didn't work because 6,000 people still died.

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:42 pm

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:28 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:14 pm

This is such an ignorant double standard. We know for a fact that vaccinated people can still spread covid. The odds of giving someone covid and them dying are really low. With vaccines, slightly lower.

But if I tell you there is a 99 percent chance something isn't going to happen, or i tell you there is a 99.9 percent chance it isn't going to happen, there really isn't much difference.

You should be either for testing or against it. Making different rules for different people is just divisive and stems from your political beliefs, nothing more

You 100% can't be infected with the virus from a person who doesn't have the virus. It's science. Testing is science.

My employer would have to fire a huge amount of employees to afford regular testing. I'll settle for utilizing the options (not requiring us to come in at all if we don't want, work issued laptops for easier WAH, licensing of Zoom, Microsoft Teams and other tools to better collaborate remotely, redesigned workspaces in the office to spread us out) and enjoy still having a job.

Right. Same. But we were talking about an employer who was only testing unvaccinated. That doesn't make any sense if it's truly about making the workplace safe (hint: it's not).

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:49 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:47 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:40 pm I am well aware 1 pecent comes out to be a big number, but its still a tiny percentage.. its been over said. I think the world is over populated, which is causing a mass extinction of all life on the planet, not just human life. And I really don't give a shit if 1 percent, 2 percent, or .1 percent of people die. Most of us won't. The virus isn't very deadly if it has a 99 percent survival rate. 99 percent is a much much bigger number, 1 percent won't be noticed in the long run. And I dont give a shit that 1 percent of our population is a big number. Its because our population is too damn big for our way of life on this planet. We have a lot bigger issues than covid move on with your life

Is this statement insensitive? Yes.
Will it cause liberal tears? Yes a ton.
Is it realistic? Yes

Sometimes being realistic will get you a lot farther than being sensitive will

It is a tiny percentage but not a tiny number. If it was announced that 600,000 people who went outside tomorrow would be killed in a nationwide meteor shower, some people might find it wise to stay inside for the day.

Unfortunately, we'd still have a group of morons standing outside with their cell phone cameras pointed to the sky screaming "see, I'm fine" only to end up recording their death.

If they sold a helmet that reduced your chances of dying by 99%, Randy and Illy would be bitching about how the helmet didn't work because 6,000 people still died.

And then complain when it is mandated to wear helmets because they infringe on their freedum (aka are mildly uncomfortable).

That's not what I am doing or have done at all. Ever. Not anywhere in this thread.

Who knew it was so controversial to think if we are really trying to stop the spread that we should test vaccinated and unvaccinated people....ya know, because people who don't have the virus can't spread the virus.

This isn't about the virus for some of you. It's about punishment for your opposition for non compliance with your beliefs.

You don’t get to be anti mask or anti testing just because you're vaccinated imo. And if you are then you look silly on your high horse shouting down at the unvaccinated.

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 3:17 pm Who knew it was so controversial to think if we are really trying to stop the spread that we should test vaccinated and unvaccinated people....ya know, because people who don't have the virus can't spread the virus.

This isn't about the virus for some of you. It's about punishment for your opposition for non compliance with your beliefs.

You don’t get to he anti mask or anti testing just because you're vaccinated imo. And if you are then you look silly on your high horse shouting down at the unvaccinated.

I think you're mostly fighting a figment of your imagination.

A lot of this has to do with logistics. You can't test everyone every week and get the results back in time for it to matter. If you can test some people, it makes more sense to test those that are at higher risk than those at a lower risk.

Testing is also being used to incentivize getting the vaccine (which is good for everyone) because getting tested weekly is a pain in the ass. Much easier to get two shots than weekly tests. As mentioned what companies want to avoid are things like missed work, increased insurance costs, and all the other added costs that come with the virus. Having your entire group vaccinated reduces your chances of getting sick (as you mention over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, yes, there are breakthrough cases), but if you do have a breakthrough case, your chances of getting severely sick go WAY down, your chances of being hospitalized go WAY down and you have a very low chance of dying.

Most companies can probably handle some small percentage of their employees needing to stay home for 10 days, it becomes harder when that number goes up, and when many of the employees have to take a longer period of time off, or have long covid, or other long term effects. The vaccine reduces all of those numbers.

You don't have to be Qusdahl to know that a big company views these things as numbers.

Also, tests aren't perfect either, there are both false positives and false negatives.

Everyone should be vaccinated stop making arguments that discourage it.

And before you respond, yes you do make those arguments. all the time.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 3:27 pm
I think you're mostly fighting a figment of your imagination.

As are you with me if you think I am on the opposite side of you.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 3:28 pm And before you respond, yes you do make those arguments. all the time.

No I absolutely do not. I don't discourage people getting vaccinated at all. Never. Not once.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:45 pm You're hung up on the 1%

In many ways, if you want to be completely pragmatic, what matters more are the 37% who survive but have problems. These people with brain fog, depression, mental issues, malaise, ED, lung damage, heart damage, restless anus syndrom, etc. etc. etc. become less productive, need increased medical attention, increase overall medical costs, miss work, etc. etc. etc. But you choose to completely ignore comorbidities and only bring up this 1% death rate, which is lower than the actual death rate in the unvaccinated.

Minor health issues can be caused by just about anything. Who honestly cares

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 3:50 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 3:28 pm And before you respond, yes you do make those arguments. all the time.

No I absolutely do not. I don't discourage people getting vaccinated at all. Never. Not once.

He accuses people of inaccurate shit all the time.

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 3:17 pm Who knew it was so controversial to think if we are really trying to stop the spread that we should test vaccinated and unvaccinated people....ya know, because people who don't have the virus can't spread the virus.

This isn't about the virus for some of you. It's about punishment for your opposition for non compliance with your beliefs.

You don’t get to be anti mask or anti testing just because you're vaccinated imo. And if you are then you look silly on your high horse shouting down at the unvaccinated.

This guy gets it. The vaccine is imperfect. If you truly care about people/risk of covid, you should be for testing and for masking in all situations, regardless of vaccine status. If it reduces risk for the unvaccinated it does for the vaccinated too

(I personally am against imposed testing or masking of everyone at this point, because I feel the risk is so low for everyone at this point and always has been so its all pointless, but I understand if you disagree and support different tactics against what I consider a low risk)

But to set one set of rules for vaccinated vs unvaccinated is wrong. Its a double standard. There is some risk (barely any imo) for both groups. Its divisive and petty and is basically a way of wanting to punish people who think differently. Regardless of the subject there are always going to be people that think differently

randylahey wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 4:13 pm

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 3:50 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 3:28 pm And before you respond, yes you do make those arguments. all the time.

No I absolutely do not. I don't discourage people getting vaccinated at all. Never. Not once.

He accuses people of inaccurate shit all the time.

Especially when they're inaccurate.

And I hate phds "vaccine decreases your chance of dying by 99 percent argument/analogy he just posted ." Its skewed reporting and isn't accurate. That implies you have about a 99 percent chance of dying from covid and the vaccine decreases your chance of dying to about 0.

Reality is you have about a 1 percent chance of dying from covid. And the vaccine decreases that closer to zero. Vaccines are saving some people its a good thing.

But realistically the vaccine only decreases your chance of dying from covid by less than 1 percent. Because you already have like a 99 percent chance of surviving without vaccines

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 4:22 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 4:13 pm

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 3:50 pm

No I absolutely do not. I don't discourage people getting vaccinated at all. Never. Not once.

He accuses people of inaccurate shit all the time.

Especially when they're inaccurate.

Youre misreading the point. He accuses people of saying shit they didn't say all the time. And meaning shit they didn't mean. Has nothing to do with whether they or "right/wrong"

He just goes into sensitive rage mode and argues without really reading or understanding what posters are trying to say if he thinks they disagree with him in any way shape or form. Its like conversing with a guy at the bar thats been drunk for hours

So the accurate statement is the vaccine increases your chance of surviving by about 1 percent

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:26 pm

sdoyel wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 1:57 pm

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 1:55 pm

like i said......

Yeah, so eat shit.

But you're okay if your kids get infected by a vaxxed person?

The odds are minuscule, so yeah. I guess? *shrug*