Quote Originally Posted by mojo
A vaccinated person with their guard down is less risk to society than an unvaccinated person with their guard up.
This opinion seems insane to me. Vaccinated people who assume they are incapable of spreading or catching the virus are much more dangerous than unvaccinated people who know they are potential carriers. Vaxed people are less likely to do tests if they get what they think is merely a cold. I'm testing even though I feel absolutely fine, because I know the risk I currently pose is far greater than a week ago. If I were vaccinated, would I still be isolating and testing? I think the probability goes down.

The odds that spit from your lungs makes it into someone else's lungs is almost guaranteed.
Right, so I'm putting myself at risk by breathing in these particles of virus. I'm not putting others at risk unless I continue to mingle with folk when I am contagious.

That's why an unvaccinated person shouldn't be allowed in indoor spaces during a respiratory pandemic.
You too are making the naive assumption that unvaccinated = infectious, while vaccinated = not infectious. This is what I think is more dangerous than not being vaccinated.

Having a fever is not something you want.
I'm not so sure about this, at least for an otherwise healthy person. I want my immune system to fight the virus with everything it has. That's what fever is.

Having a fever means your body cannot fight the infection with anti-bodies
Ok this is contrary to my uneducated understanding of this, as I understand it fever increases the body temperature to allow the antibodies to fight the infection better. I could definitely be mistaken here though.

I agree, that if the pandemic ends and the vaccine requirement stays, that'd be wrong.
This is good, because I don't really have a problem with restrictions while the pandemic is ongoing. I'm not worried about not being able to attend a festival during a pandemic, but I am worried about not being able to go when there is no threat.

What greater "safety" trial can you cite from the history of vaccination?
How many years do other vaccines get trialed for? More than two. We have no idea if there are long term effects. We can quite comfortably say "probably not", but not "definitely not".

Your failure to look at what scientists and epidemiologists are saying about the effectiveness of the vaccine is on you.
How much political pressure are these people under? If a scientist makes a claim that the vaccine is potentially dangerous, they are roundly discredited and/or struck off.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates...cines-skeptic/

To be clear, I don't necessarily believe what this guy claims. But the response was to call him "dangerous and irresponsible", rather than to look into his claims. That doesn't fill me with confidence. And this is just the first guy I found from a google search.

I have explained how being in a crowded indoor space is putting everyone there at risk.
I understand that, but to put others at risk, you have to actually be infectious. Being unvaccinated does not make you infectious. I've explained that as an unvaccinated person, I am extremely cautious. If I were to go to a nightclub, I would absolutely test myself before doing so. Assuming a negative test, how am I putting other people at any more risk than a vaccinated person?

Right now, people are still dying to COVID.
And this implies the vaccine is ineffective when it comes to ending the pandemic.