This is incoherent. Could you explain the connection more clearly? Why are you making this comparison to dismiss the observation that your initial comment was ableist?
I think its mean to be hyperbolic like, “well if you dont want to recognise disabled people, why dont we just make the whole world better?” Like, yeah dude, car dependency is a major problem that created a lot of needless harm to people and the living world.
Also, there are disabled people who drive and able-bodied people who don’t? Car dependency stratifies public space along the lines of class as well as ability. I genuinely just think you thought a eugenicist argument made sense and now you’re having a hard time rationalising it, but it’s possible I have not understood the message behind this second comment.
I’m saying there are easier simplier ways to get health outcomes than covid vaccines for everyone.
I’m not sure I follow the logic on COVID vaccines only being offered to vulnerable populations as a eugenicist argument. Those who need the vaccines get them free. Those who don’t need them don’t get them for free.
I’m fully aware I’ll probably get COVID for a third time. I’m equally aware I’ll probably just be sick for a couple days again. I’m not fully aware of what the impact of my 7th COVID booster will be on my personal health outcomes, or the health outcomes of others.
While not equal, it seems equitable to me. Perhaps I’m missing a key population who isn’t getting the vaccine who should be?
And to fully kill COVID, we don’t need a vaccine; we just need everyone to stay the fuck home for 3 weeks, but we’ve proven time and time again we’re incapable of that.
There is so much misinformation and conservative talking points in this comment I’m having a hard time taking you as an honest person.
It is eugenicist to assert that this thing is not a problem because only the right kinds of people die from it. You are arguing that it is acceptable to devalue particular lives because you view them as physically defective relative to you. COVID-19 infection has caused disability in millions of “healthy” adults who were not “vulnerable” peoples. At one point, the CDC designated corrective lenses as a comorbidity because they were so desperate to make people think it only impacts disabled people.
We do know how different impact from infection vs. booster is because literally hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent researching it (infection is worse, full stop). We also know that your immunity diminishes quickly and that multiple infections absolutely fucks your immune and circulatory systems. We continue to experience an increase in deaths related to heart disease represented by groups who do not usually experience it, I.e. younger, “healthy” people.
Nobody cares about what is equitable “to you,” what the sweet fuck do you know about public health or equitability? You didn’t even know how the funding works let alone what the best decisions to do with that funding is. Nobody anywhere in this thread has said the vaccine is the sole solution, I even pointed out that COVID-19 is politicised so heavily because it is only effectively addressed by community consciousness that prioritizes human life over profit. No, not “people are too morally flawed to stay home and because of the original sin we can’t mitigate death from COVID.” It is impossible for that to even be an option when medical leave and necessity costs are not subsidized in this country. That wouldn’t work anyway, as many people do not show symptoms and are not currently required to mask to access spaces where “vulnerable” people receive medical treatment. Individualism is not a worldview that is compatible with reality.
I will not be responding to you again, you’ve shown that you are an apathetic and dangerous person who feels no responsibility for what they say.
I’m having a hard time taking you as an honest person.
I appreciate the attempt.
At one point, the CDC designated corrective lenses as a comorbidity because they were so desperate to make people think it only impacts disabled people
So this is the source of my misinformation. I’ve been told, and had no reason until now, to believe that certain vulnerable groups have worse outcomes, and therefore need extra protection. It makes sense to me to give these people extra protection (which a targetted vaccine scheme seems to do).
Nobody cares about what is equitable “to you,”
Individual me, no; multiple, yes. The pol in politics stands for people, public health is a political system. If public health Québec isn’t doing enough on COVID, than the people must demand action.
The funding was obviously hyperbolic, but PH does have to work in a resource constrained environment.
people are too morally flawed to stay home and because of the original sin we can’t mitigate death from COVID
Never said that. We can’t stay home because “the economy”
you’ve shown that you are an apathetic and dangerous person who feels no responsibility for what they say.
Im sorry you think that. I like to believe I think mostly rationally with the information presented to me. That doesn’t mean i have the best information, or right circumstances, to make an optimal choice.
This is incoherent. Could you explain the connection more clearly? Why are you making this comparison to dismiss the observation that your initial comment was ableist?
I think its mean to be hyperbolic like, “well if you dont want to recognise disabled people, why dont we just make the whole world better?” Like, yeah dude, car dependency is a major problem that created a lot of needless harm to people and the living world.
Also, there are disabled people who drive and able-bodied people who don’t? Car dependency stratifies public space along the lines of class as well as ability. I genuinely just think you thought a eugenicist argument made sense and now you’re having a hard time rationalising it, but it’s possible I have not understood the message behind this second comment.
I’m saying there are
easiersimplier ways to get health outcomes than covid vaccines for everyone.I’m not sure I follow the logic on COVID vaccines only being offered to vulnerable populations as a eugenicist argument. Those who need the vaccines get them free. Those who don’t need them don’t get them for free.
I’m fully aware I’ll probably get COVID for a third time. I’m equally aware I’ll probably just be sick for a couple days again. I’m not fully aware of what the impact of my 7th COVID booster will be on my personal health outcomes, or the health outcomes of others.
While not equal, it seems equitable to me. Perhaps I’m missing a key population who isn’t getting the vaccine who should be?
And to fully kill COVID, we don’t need a vaccine; we just need everyone to stay the fuck home for 3 weeks, but we’ve proven time and time again we’re incapable of that.
There is so much misinformation and conservative talking points in this comment I’m having a hard time taking you as an honest person.
It is eugenicist to assert that this thing is not a problem because only the right kinds of people die from it. You are arguing that it is acceptable to devalue particular lives because you view them as physically defective relative to you. COVID-19 infection has caused disability in millions of “healthy” adults who were not “vulnerable” peoples. At one point, the CDC designated corrective lenses as a comorbidity because they were so desperate to make people think it only impacts disabled people.
We do know how different impact from infection vs. booster is because literally hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent researching it (infection is worse, full stop). We also know that your immunity diminishes quickly and that multiple infections absolutely fucks your immune and circulatory systems. We continue to experience an increase in deaths related to heart disease represented by groups who do not usually experience it, I.e. younger, “healthy” people.
Nobody cares about what is equitable “to you,” what the sweet fuck do you know about public health or equitability? You didn’t even know how the funding works let alone what the best decisions to do with that funding is. Nobody anywhere in this thread has said the vaccine is the sole solution, I even pointed out that COVID-19 is politicised so heavily because it is only effectively addressed by community consciousness that prioritizes human life over profit. No, not “people are too morally flawed to stay home and because of the original sin we can’t mitigate death from COVID.” It is impossible for that to even be an option when medical leave and necessity costs are not subsidized in this country. That wouldn’t work anyway, as many people do not show symptoms and are not currently required to mask to access spaces where “vulnerable” people receive medical treatment. Individualism is not a worldview that is compatible with reality.
I will not be responding to you again, you’ve shown that you are an apathetic and dangerous person who feels no responsibility for what they say.
I appreciate the attempt.
So this is the source of my misinformation. I’ve been told, and had no reason until now, to believe that certain vulnerable groups have worse outcomes, and therefore need extra protection. It makes sense to me to give these people extra protection (which a targetted vaccine scheme seems to do).
Individual me, no; multiple, yes. The pol in politics stands for people, public health is a political system. If public health Québec isn’t doing enough on COVID, than the people must demand action.
The funding was obviously hyperbolic, but PH does have to work in a resource constrained environment.
Never said that. We can’t stay home because “the economy”
Im sorry you think that. I like to believe I think mostly rationally with the information presented to me. That doesn’t mean i have the best information, or right circumstances, to make an optimal choice.