What's new
  • This thread contains opinions and information that likely IS NOT ACCURATE. Do your own research on such an important topic on a site other than JazzFanz.com, please.

Proof of vaccination or negative COVID test required to attend games


gandalfe

Well-Known Member
This is the real reason why many liberals or people who vote Democrat want vaccination laws. They think that most unvaccinated people are Republicans/conservatives (which is probably true in most regions) and thus want to do anything they can to punish them and strip them of their freedoms. But they will usually argue for this under the guise of safety or some other form of virtue signaling and not outwardly admit it like was done here.
Or maybe, just maybe, WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO DIE.

This shouldn't be a political issue. Dolts like yourself who make it into one infuriate me. Just because you and yours we me and mine the worst, don't assume the reverse is true. Trump and his ilk are known for projection. Is this true for you, personally, as well?

And the fact that you think that public safety is "virtue signalling" is revolting.
 


magic

Well-Known Member
Or maybe, just maybe, WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO DIE.

This shouldn't be a political issue. Dolts like yourself who make it into one infuriate me. Just because you and yours we me and mine the worst, don't assume the reverse is true. Trump and his ilk are known for projection. Is this true for you, personally, as well?

And the fact that you think that public safety is "virtue signalling" is revolting.
Dear virtue signaler,
If you sincerely don't want people to die, then at minimum you would want ALL people to get negative covid tests before attending a game.
But that's not case. You are clearly fine with only unvaccinated people having to do that. Vaccinated people can waltz right in, even if they have covid.

Now go bother other people with your fake ***, moral high ground attitude as you continue to attempt to divide people and discriminate against the group you don't see eye to eye with.
 

gandalfe

Well-Known Member
Dear virtue signaler,
If you sincerely don't want people to die, then at minimum you would want ALL people to get negative covid tests before attending a game.
But that's not case. You are clearly fine with only unvaccinated people having to do that. Vaccinated people can waltz right in, even if they have covid.

Now go bother other people with your fake ***, moral high ground attitude as you continue to attempt to divide people and discriminate against the group you don't see eye to eye with.
You can't really be this stupid can you? The chances of someone who is vaccinated having covid is much lower than someone who isn't, as I said above.

But, look, I agree with you. To achieve perfect safety, everyone should have to be tested. Even those who have a 95% lower chance, sure, test 'em all. But then, what about false negatives? I mean, those still happen, or people who simply don't have enough detectable viral load yet. So, really, we should have just kept everything closed. No sports, no dining out, no parties, no conferences (well, OK, that one wouldn't be so bad).

See, the deal was, we'd reopen things when we had a good vaccine, and in exchange PEOPLE WOULD GET THE VACCINE. But some people haven't upheld their end of the bargain.
 

TheGoldStandard

Well-Known Member
Said lots of dead people.
Check it: https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com/
Lots of dead folks on that website who were healthy adults who thought their immune system could eliminate the virus quickly with minimal (if any) symptoms.
I sincerely hope you don't die though.
Kinda reminds me of the phrase, "Hey, watch this!", something idjits do before they get killed or maimed. The difference, is their stupidity can negatively affect others, so it is much more selfish.

I will say this to anyone that is unvaccinated: Doctors are tired and pissed off at people for not getting vaccinated (90% of current Covid cases in hospital) putting medical workers at extra risk due to the large number of exposures, having pissed off patients in pain that can't get "elective" surgeries and generally causing burn out and turnover by medical providers. Doctors vent about this stuff in break rooms, and your medical chart will show if you are vaccinated or not.

And while protocols state to treat all patients the same, just remember Doctors are human too, with emotions that have run thin.

If my life is on the line, I don't want to be treated by someone that is pissed off at me on top of being overtired and burned out for what they feel at worst is caused by idiots putting the Dr's. health at risk, and at the least of making their job more stressful.

So just remember, if you choose to not get vaccinated and exercise your right to choose (yet not choose to exercise your brain), just remember that all choices have consequences, and someone you may rely to help you is a fallable human. Same reason you should be nice to a waiter: 1)because it is the right and courteous thing to do and 2) no one wants spit in their food.

And like @fishonjazz, I don't want an antivaxxer to die, but I also don't want extra unnecessary exposure risk to my kids under 12 that can't get vaccinated. While Covid can breakthrough to vaccinated, it is less likely to do so, which protects everyone. If one of mine got very sick which could have been prevented by a number of eligible people getting vaccinated, I'd want them suffer the same thing my loved one was going through due to their selfishness/stupidness, and worse. Can't imagine a 1 year old on a ventilator.
 

magic

Well-Known Member
You can't really be this stupid can you? The chances of someone who is vaccinated having covid is much lower than someone who isn't, as I said above.
The chances of having covid as an unvaccinated person who already had covid is much lower than a vaccinated person who hasn't had covid. But you're not defending that group.

But, look, I agree with you. To achieve perfect safety, everyone should have to be tested. Even those who have a 95% lower chance, sure, test 'em all. But then, what about false negatives? I mean, those still happen, or people who simply don't have enough detectable viral load yet. So, really, we should have just kept everything closed. No sports, no dining out, no parties, no conferences (well, OK, that one wouldn't be so bad).

See, the deal was, we'd reopen things when we had a good vaccine, and in exchange PEOPLE WOULD GET THE VACCINE. But some people haven't upheld their end of the bargain.
The initial deal was to "flatten the curve" but even after that was accomplished, most things continued to be politically charged.

There was never a deal that 100% of people had to get the vaccine in order for things to reopen as you are implying. In fact, there was no cut and dry deal that people agreed to once vaccines became available. It can be argued, though, that the goal is to gain herd immunity via vaccination.

So now it comes down to subjective opinions of what is a tolerable risk regarding covid. Given that the chances of experiencing serious symptoms or death after being vaccinated is incredibly low regardless of what others do, many rational people would think that it is fine to continue living life without having to divide and discriminate against the unvaccinated.

Now I would be ok if they screen checked everyone by taking their temperature and checking for symptoms of illness (not just covid but also for colds and flus) because some people knowingly show up sick to games and that **** is annoying and actually inconsiderate.
 

gandalfe

Well-Known Member
BTW, the idea was floated above that "natural" immunity from having caught covid is better than getting vaccinated. The CDC would like a word with you about that...

 

magic

Well-Known Member
BTW, the idea was floated above that "natural" immunity from having caught covid is better than getting vaccinated. The CDC would like a word with you about that...

You illiterate pig. The article is comparing unvaccinated with prior infection vs vaccinated with prior infection. i.e. Both groups had covid, dumbass. Sure you get additional protection regardless, but who cares about reducing a .000000001% chance to ..0000000005% other than idiots like gandalfe (and the other idiots on this board)?

They reached a similar conclusion in the Israel study which also showed that vaccinated people that never had covid were up to 13 times more likely to get covid than unvaccinated with prior infection.

This is why people are fed up with these virtue signaling liberals. They make up ****, they don't know how to read science articles, and they gobble up whatever CNN and MSNBC tells them.
 
Last edited:

MT Steve

Well-Known Member
Contributor
First of all, logic is not your forte, and this will be my last response to you since I can since you are not worth any more of my time.
The drunk driving analogy is not even remotely the same as vaccinated vs unvaccinated. If you get vaccinated, then you are protected, regardless if other people are vaccinated.
I think the drunk driving analogy is pretty appropriate.

The more unvaccinated people there are out in public, the more the virus spreads. The more the virus spreads, the greater the likelihood of the virus mutating into variants that our vaccines are less effective against.
 

MT Steve

Well-Known Member
Contributor
So you've seen the clinical evidence from Israel, where the highest rate of vaccination correlates to the highest rate of transmission and infection?
This is very misleading.

The statistic floating around is that nearly 60% of Israeli hospitalized COVID-19 patients are fully vaccinated. The quick conclusion that a lot of people made is that the vaccines aren't effective at reducing spread.

What this conclusion completely ignores is that 92% of Israelis above age 50 have been vaccinated, and a whopping 86% of the unvaccinated population of Israelis are below the age of 50. So when the risk of severe disease is exponentially greater with older people, and the overwhelming majority of older people are vaccinated, it's not that surprising that you see more severe cases in the vaccinated group.

Here's what happens when you separate the data into two groups - younger and older:

Under age 50
Rate of infection per 100k among unvaccinated: 3.9
Rate of infection per 100k among vaccinated: 0.3 (13x lower)

Over age 50
Rate of infection per 100k among unvaccinated: 91.9
Rate of infection per 100k among vaccinated: 13.6 (6.8x lower)

It becomes very clear when you split the two groups by age and analyze them separately that the vaccines are effective, and the "vaccines aren't effective at reducing spread" narrative is garbage.
 

Top