Another Anti-Vax Radio Talk Show Host Dies from Covid

[Unveiled Artist]

I only ask to give your answer, whatever it is.
You did.

Where were you going with the question, though?

 

[Revoltingest]

Where were you going with the question, though?

It seemed just a rephrasing of my question.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It seemed just a rephrasing of my question.

I had to rephrase it. I couldn't understand it so I made it active voice. But I did answer your question. I don't see vaccines worse than COVID and to advocate such would be misinformation. Unsafe?

I guess not but I'm not sure why you ask to know if I'm addressing to your point.

 

[Revoltingest]

I had to rephrase it. I couldn't understand it so I made it active voice. But I did answer your question. I don't see vaccines worse than COVID and to advocate such would be misinformation. Unsafe?

I guess not but I'm not sure why you ask to know if I'm addressing to your point.

Now it's less clear.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Now it's less clear.

The answer?

Why did you ask? It would give me an idea of where you going with this or just curiosity to confirm your beliefs you've already had on my position (guessing here)?

 

[Revoltingest]

The answer?

Why did you ask? It would give me an idea of where you going with this or just curiosity to confirm your beliefs you've already had on my position (guessing here)?

I asked to know.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

So some people's pain, suffering, and death from COVID is worse and more important than others based on their political views on the vaccine (for or against)??

Kind of hard not to feel a bit of schadenfreude when the same people who have been hurling insults at anyone taking the disease seriously die of the disease. I don't wish anyone ill, and I wish NO-ONE would die of COVID, or, heck, anything else, really, but if you call me a sheep for wearing a mask or getting vaccinated, and go out of your way to spread misinformation that results in OTHER people getting sick, but end up sick yourself? Well, like I said, I won't wish you ill, but don't ask me to feel bad for you, either.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I asked to know.

Because?

Unless you're just playing with me, I honestly want to know?

It's no use making a point(s) and opinion if you don't want to expand and clarify them.

It makes them, well, pointless and loses your intended response.

Its hard to take what you say into consideration. All talk no discussion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because?

Already answered, ie, I wanted to know.
Ask again, & it'll be the same answer.

Unless you're just playing with me, I honestly want to know?
It's no use making a point(s) and opinion if you don't want to expand and clarify them.
It makes them, well, pointless and loses your intended response.

Tis best to not presume some hidden agenda behind a question.
I don't have one.

Its hard to take what you say into consideration. All talk no discussion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Already answered, ie, I wanted to know.
Ask again, & it'll be the same answer.

Tis best to not presume some hidden agenda behind a question.
I don't have one.

This is a cop out. If you want to end the discussion or make a clear point do it maturely and assertively. I'm too old for games.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is a cop out. If you want to end the discussion or make a clear point do it maturely abs assertively. I'm too old for games.

I've been clear.
The problem lies elsewhere.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I've been clear.
The problem lies elsewhere.

This means nothing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It would. When I am presented with a direct statement(s), I can't deny them. If they are assumptions (seems/conclusions/insinuate/etc) I can't defend or agree with that. People's opinions don't always reflect facts.

Here's the full post:

But the suffering and death of people with COVID importance shouldn't be divided if people actually care about the dying.

It makes it seem like you guys don't care about people dying in general. It really devalues the argument of getting the vaccine if the importance of one's pain and suffering is dependent on their vaccination status.

--

The importance of suffering and death of COVID victims shouldn't be divided (or people shouldn't make double standards in care) if they actually cared about the dying.

It makes it seem like you guys don't care about the dying in general.

Actually, you're the one who doesn't seem to care about the dying. You certainly haven't shown that you care about the people who died from the misinformation from people like Marc Bernier.

It devalues your argument of getting the vaccine because the care you guys have for COVID victims is based on their vaccination status not their pain and suffering.

This double standard devalues the argument of getting the vaccine.

There's that anti-vax nonsense again.

How does saying don't make a double standard in people provaxxers care about encouraging people not to take the vaccine???

Sorry - I can't parse this sentence. Can you rephrase?

I never made that argument.

I never made statements against vaccines.

You really need to give me a direct statement because like my example above, your opinions aren't aligning with facts. I can't take what you say into consideration unless you give me direct examples to support your opinions.

Cause I'm literally at a lost.

I had a quick look through your threads... in retrospect, it seems like you may just be repeating anti-vaxxer and anti-masker talking points without realizing that they're anti-vaxxer or anti-masker talking points.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Actually, you're the one who doesn't seem to care about the dying. You certainly haven't shown that you care about the people who died from the misinformation from people like Marc Bernier.


There's that anti-vax nonsense again.


Sorry - I can't parse this sentence. Can you rephrase?


I had a quick look through your threads... in retrospect, it seems like you may just be repeating anti-vaxxer and anti-masker talking points without realizing that they're anti-vaxxer or anti-masker talking points.

I'm debating on replying to your points or taking this seriously. Unless you have facts and not just opinions its pretty much has no substance other than insult and misinformation.

This happens when people watch media thinking they are getting facts but just confirming they're on biases. That doesn't help many provaxxers who see what they want to see and don't look at what's hidden and/or take into consideration challenges.

Provax arguments on RF are perfect examples of this.

 

[anna.]

I'm debating on replying to your points or taking this seriously. Unless you have facts and not just opinions its pretty much has no substance other than insult and misinformation.

One can have facts *and* opinions. And opinions don't have to be either insult or misinformation, they can be knowledgeable opinions based on factual information. In fact, some people are paid for their opinions. : )

This happens when people watch media thinking they are getting facts but just confirming they're on biases. That doesn't help many provaxxers who see what they want to see and don't look at what's hidden and/or take into consideration challenges.

Is it your opinion that the people who disagree with you "watch media thinking they are getting facts but just confirming" their own biases? Because it sounds like an opinion. After all, how can you know, factually, how everyone (in this case the provaxxers you mention) gets their information?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Is it unsafe advice to say vaccines are more dangerous than COVID? Ill informed advice but only dangerous if people take it as such.

Yet your choice to refuse vaccination says that you consider vaccines riskier than facing the pandemic unvaccinated. Of course, that doesn't make it your advice for others unless you tell them to be like you, but it is the message that you and all other antivaxxers send, even if the issue is autism from a measles vaccine. People who refuse such vaccination for their children are de facto saying that they consider the vaccine more dangerous than the measles virus and a case of the measles.

I'm sure people can determine fact and opinion-regardless if they are unvaccinated or not.

Really? I'm equally sure that most of them can't. Look at what they're saying and doing. What fraction of America refuses masking, considers COVID a hoax or government conspiracy or a flu, considers horse dewormer a reasonable therapeutic agent, and gather in huge numbers such as Sturgis. I assure that these people cannot distinguish fact from (bad) opinion.

I am (and no one else is) in no position to say what's safe for the other I don't know

Yet you consider yourself qualified to say what is safe for yourself. You're not. You're merely empowered to do so by laws that allow you to make those decisions.

You don't see the disconnect between saying that you're not qualified to advise others, but still make medical decisions yourself? If you're qualified to do one, you're qualified to do both. If you're unqualified to do one, you are unqualified to do either.

Anybody capable of evaluating the relevant data properly is qualified to advise both themselves and others. This is not a subjective process with multiple correct answers. The available data overwhelmingly supports the advice to take the vaccine if offered and not medically contraindicated. If that's not the conclusion you came to, you are not qualified to evaluate such data. It's really like a column of numbers to add. Either you know the rules of addition, apply them carefully, and generate the only correct sum, or you come up with something wrong.

You've implied a few times that you would take advice from your doctor, but haven't said whether you've done that, or if you have, what the advice was. I find it hard to believe that you would take the vaccine even after your doctor recommended it. I'm a retired physician who might have had an office near you, and become your doctor. Would you have taken my advice to get the vaccine? I doubt it. You will always make the decision that not vaccinating is right for you until and unless severe disease or death are staring you in the face. If it's your own face, you're too late, so I'm assuming watching the demise of somebody that you love. Some of those people relent and tell us on the news that COVID is real, and that they wished they (if they're the patient) had gotten the vaccine, and encourage others to do the same in vain. I say in vain because by now, everybody that can learn from words has already taken the vaccine and doesn't need to hear this johnny-come-lately's advice, and the unvaccinated will continue to ignore words, including theirs.

I mentioned to you in another thread that it is pretty easy to divide people into those capable of critical thought and the rest, which is the majority. Most people don't know what that is, and are unaware that there are some around them capable of impartially taking premises and relevant evidence to sound conclusions through fallacy-free reasoning. They aren't aware that some minds can generate truths in this manner the way a computer delivers a correct sum if given the proper rules for adding and applies them error-free.

This is how medicine is done. Let's see, you're tired and pale. Let's do a metabolic survey. Oh look you're red cell count is low. You're anemic. And your mean corpuscular volume (MCV) is low, so you have a microcytic anemia. The commonest cause of that is iron deficiency, so lets do a serum iron and a total iron binding capacity (TIBC). Yep, you have an iron deficiency anemia. Let's try a course of iron supplement (a month later) - look at that we've confirmed that you were iron deficient by your response to iron, and have begun treating it as well. The point is that this is a deductive process that requires a data base of medical knowledge (correct premises) and a flawless deductive method to go from signs and symptoms t diagnosis to effective therapy if any is needed and exists.

Bridge is the same deductive process - going from facts (my right hand opponent has already produced the AK of spades, yet failed to overcall, which only requires a jack more than that according to the opponent's convention card, so his partner is the one with the missing queen of diamonds).

I offer these examples - addition, medical diagnosis, and solving problems at the bridge table as example of critical thinking, or the transformation of raw data into sound conclusions. There is no other method that can do this, and if one doesn't use this method to decide what is true, well, good luck with that.

And I'm here to tell you that if one applies this rigorous method to the available data on COVID and the vaccine, only one conclusion is possible - everybody who can take the vaccine should. There's just no more wiggle room there than there is in any of the other analyses provided here. There is only one correct sum for the addition, and only one method exists to arrive at it, the rules of addition. Anybody who says that's not the way they think about addition, or nobody can tell them what addition is right for them, well, they can't be reached.

Incidentally, when dealing with such a patient who would adjust their own blood pressure meds, and then come in not remembering just when they did this (patients are notoriously poor charters), or what the blood pressure was when they did, with their blood pressure now poorly controlled (maybe they thought that they were taking too many medicines and chose to discontinue one of the antihypertensives), I would need to have a talk with them, which I always tried to make a little funny. I'd tell them that there are two doctors on the case, one who went to medical school, and one who didn't. The one who didn't is incompetent, and needs to be fired forthwith. I see you doing that now with the vaccine decision. You really need somebody more qualified than you to help you decide what to do.

If you're an astute person qualified to make or help make your own medical decisions, you noticed that something very important has been left out of the anemia work-up. If that was all your doctor does, you need another doctor:

Spoiler

You're doctor needs to investigate why you developed iron deficiency. A good place to start is a stool test for blood. If positive, you need to look at the GI tract for thinks like duodenal ulcers and colon cancer, although if the patient is a fertile woman, heavy menstrual bleeding becomes a likely serious consideration after GI problems are ruled out.

One final comment about the people who are apparently unaware that the process called critical analysis exists, much less that others around them might be doing it. They not only think that others cannot generate better answers than they can, they believe that all other belief is also faith like their own - unexamined and unsupported guesses, because after all, what else is there?

Also, they believe that anybody subjected to indoctrination will have their minds changed by it, as when they claim that the left is indoctrinated by the liberal media. Not those that bring skepticism and critical thinking skills to the TV set. They recognize when an claim is unsupported and not to be accepted as fact. Such people don't care what Jake Tapper or Rachell Maddow believe, or what they think the president should have done - just what such people know and can convincingly demonstrate or argue. Such viewers are qualified to come to sound conclusions themselves, which might or might not be the ones that the talking heads suggest. If they accept such opinions, it's not because of their source, but because their own critical analysis concluded that the belief was justified by the facts.

And for those that cannot do this, there are experts to turn to that can, but first, such people need to recognize that such a thing exists, has value, and how to identify it in others. The worst choice is for them to think that their own thinking is just as valid.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm debating on replying to your points or taking this seriously. Unless you have facts and not just opinions its pretty much has no substance other than insult and misinformation.

Take it as venting.

It's frustrating to hear people describe public health measures designed to save lives as "segregation" - as you've done - and then claim that it's the people supporting the live-saving measures that don't care about people dying.

This happens when people watch media thinking they are getting facts but just confirming they're on biases. That doesn't help many provaxxers who see what they want to see and don't look at what's hidden and/or take into consideration challenges.

Provax arguments on RF are perfect examples of this.

What do you think "provax" people aren't seeing?

 

[QuestioningMind]

But that doesn't compare. Many unvaccinated go to work, come home, fix meal for the family, and wake up to do it all over again. If anything it's more like accusing people not wearing a seatbelt for possibly hitting a person in an accident. The consequence of "not" doing something. But the fact is seatbelts don't cause accidents so the decision and action are from the person not just the law (or pandemic data) and not the seatbelt (the vaccine). The person driving drunk is "doing something" to put others in danger. People who arent vaccinating aren't doing anything to increase their risk. They're leaving themselves open not increasing the risk of transmission.



Its both sides. You guys aren't the Law.

If you're on a high way doing the speed limit, you'd practically get ran over. If you go with traffic, VA law lets a driver go over the speed limit to flow with the traffic. If you are going by the law, you can get into an accident. If you go by the flow of traffic, you're safer.

Take walking across the street. In my area you have to watch the cars not just the light. When I thought I was going blind, the department of the blind showed me how to go across the street by the car pattern since I couldn't see the cross signal.

This would mean that if the crossing light wasn't on (since cars don't go by pedestrian cross signals) and the cars move, I side with the cars not the light. It's "thinking for yourself" in some respects to keep yourself safe.

That's the counter examples of the seatbelt analogies often used.



I couldn't follow the story. It wasn't getting to the point other than him saying he didn't want to take the vaccine.

Shrugs. I dislike people's behavior but if they are ill and die, I do feel something for them. In other words, I can't relate to your sentiment but what can I say.

But that doesn't compare. Many unvaccinated go to work, come home, fix meal for the family, and wake up to do it all over again. If anything it's more like accusing people not wearing a seatbelt for possibly hitting a person in an accident. The consequence of "not" doing something. But the fact is seatbelts don't cause accidents so the decision and action are from the person not just the law (or pandemic data) and not the seatbelt (the vaccine). The person driving drunk is "doing something" to put others in danger. People who arent vaccinating aren't doing anything to increase their risk. They're leaving themselves open not increasing the risk of transmission.



The OP cites an anti-vaxer with a radio platform, so it absolutely does compare.


I couldn't follow the story. It wasn't getting to the point other than him saying he didn't want to take the vaccine.

Shrugs. I dislike people's behavior but if they are ill and die, I do feel something for them. In other words, I can't relate to your sentiment but what can I say.


Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? At no point have I stated that I feel absolutely zero sympathy for such individuals. What I have said is that I find it much HARDER to feel sympathy for someone like that. I sympathize with anyone who is suffering, regardless of how much they may be responsible for their own suffering. It’s just easier to feel sympathy for someone who isn’t responsible for their own suffering. You’ve said as much yourself when it comes to the drunk driver, so not sure why you have so much trouble comprehending the same sentiments from me.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But that doesn't compare. Many unvaccinated go to work, come home, fix meal for the family, and wake up to do it all over again. If anything it's more like accusing people not wearing a seatbelt for possibly hitting a person in an accident. The consequence of "not" doing something. But the fact is seatbelts don't cause accidents so the decision and action are from the person not just the law (or pandemic data) and not the seatbelt (the vaccine). The person driving drunk is "doing something" to put others in danger. People who arent vaccinating aren't doing anything to increase their risk. They're leaving themselves open not increasing the risk of transmission.



The OP cites an anti-vaxer with a radio platform, so it absolutely does compare.


I couldn't follow the story. It wasn't getting to the point other than him saying he didn't want to take the vaccine.

Shrugs. I dislike people's behavior but if they are ill and die, I do feel something for them. In other words, I can't relate to your sentiment but what can I say.


Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? At no point have I stated that I feel absolutely zero sympathy for such individuals. What I have said is that I find it much HARDER to feel sympathy for someone like that. I sympathize with anyone who is suffering, regardless of how much they may be responsible for their own suffering. It’s just easier to feel sympathy for someone who isn’t responsible for their own suffering. You’ve said as much yourself when it comes to the drunk driver, so not sure why you have so much trouble comprehending the same sentiments from me.

Actually, yes. I have trouble with reading comprehension.

It's easier to address people's points without the emotionalism/sarcasm. That, or if you really want to spark reaction separate your points (guys) so it won't be lost in the mix.

That way we won't be arguing with emotions as if they are part of the topic discussed.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Actually, yes. I have trouble with reading comprehension.

It's easier to address people's points without the emotionalism/sarcasm. That, or if you really want to spark reaction separate your points (guys) so it won't be lost in the mix.

That way we won't be arguing with emotions as if they are part of the topic discussed.

Clearly it takes more than just emotionalism and sarcasm for you to lack comprehension, since I was being neither emotional or sarcastic. When I stated that it's HARDER for me to have sympathy for someone who's responsible for their own suffering you foolishly decided to conclude that means I have NO sympathy. And then you kept on suggesting as much, even after I'd informed you that you're wrong.