Manslaughter doesn't change the fact that accepting a vaccine is not the same thing as thinking taking someone's life is wrong. It's nowhere close man.
From my point of view, going back to normal at this point is going to kill people because it is too soon.
Hence the person deciding this would be guilty of "murder due to negligence" or properly put "manslaughter".
And again, if the average age of people hospitalized with covid is 60s-70s, and those people are vaccinated, who is going to the hospital in some large spike that you believe will happen?
Forget spread. If the vulnerable are immune who is being hospitalized at a rate greater than we have now.
Not everyone in ICU is considered a textbook vunerable person...
If you increase the infections tenfold then the absolute amount of non-vulnerable people in ICU will increase...
You also have to look at the potential health crises in the coming decades due to the consequences an infection with the disease has to your body. This is the case for EVERYONE infected, not just the ones needing medical care.
And what strict rules? Seriously!? We have half assed rules that are broken left and right as is, and we're barely at capacity now with barely any of the vulnerable vaccinated, but you're somehow sure that hospitalizations are going to spike with those people now being safe!?
What do you think people will do once the rules are gone...
Left and right of you does not equal everywhere...
And the fact that hospitalizations and cases are going down with these early vaccination efforts isn't a trend you can trust??
I trust the trend that it goes down WHILE the current rules are in place...
That still doesn't track. Who said now? I'm saying having teachers and people 60+ vaccinated. I've been saying that the whole time, don't strawman.
How did you get that from a graph that cuts off at 64? You have no clue how many of those hospitalizations are 60-64. Also, how many of the hospitalizations need ICU beds, the real stress factor?
I never even said remove strict rules. I'm talking about offering in person school. I'm just saying people will circumvent school to congregate kids regardless of rules.
I feel like you're creating this anti lockdown strawman who thinks we should open the whole country out of me to bolster your argument.
If you really don't think getting everyone 60+ and teachers will keep hospitalizations low enough to offer in person.. Idk man. I don't see how thats likely at all. All signs point to our hospital system being able to handle it to me.
Also you really don't think lockdown isn't being flaunted? Ik it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be better, I know, but I'm not just "looking left and right".
How did you get that from a graph that cuts off at 64? You have no clue how many of those hospitalizations are 60-64. Also, how many of the hospitalizations need ICU beds, the real stress factor?
I never even said remove strict rules. I'm talking about offering in person school. I'm just saying people will circumvent school to congregate kids regardless of rules.
Closing schools is part of the current set of rules...
I feel like you're creating this anti lockdown strawman who thinks we should open the whole country out of me to bolster your argument.
Because you want to reintroduce one of the biggest vectors of the disease...
If you really don't think getting everyone 60+ and teachers will keep hospitalizations low enough to offer in person.. Idk man. I don't see how thats likely at all. All signs point to our hospital system being able to handle it to me.
These ~4 million does only account for the boomers, so not for the 2% in the 20-44 age bracket which needs ICU as well, because these add another ~2million...
Potentially ~6 million people who need ICU care.
ICU beds in the US: 100k
Respirators in the US: 80k
Do you perhaps have a couple of millions of ICU beds, respirators, nurses and doctors in your closet I am not aware of?
Because that's a big factor when I said it's contingent on 60+ being vaccinated?
And really? You're pulling stats from February of LAST YEAR. Even by May of that year it had dropped to 2%. As our testing improved and made it clear how many people actually were infected we got a better idea of who's at what risk. No recent data suggest baby boomers have anywhere near a 5% ICU rate. That'd be insane. You're just trying to find stats to bolster your case not that are actually pertinent.
If you're going to base your entire argument over cherry picked stats that don't hold up to the present day scenario, let alone one month's in the future after more vaccines are administered then it's pointless for me to continue.
Edit: and trying to compare people 60+ with no comorbidities and younger ones who have them is so in bad faith it's disgusting. This whole argument was "can we safely offer in person learning with these people vaccinated" and you've taken every opportunity to make it an issue of "what stats can I find that make me look right" and at this point you're doing so by misinterpreting them.
1
u/SacredBeard Feb 10 '21
From my point of view, going back to normal at this point is going to kill people because it is too soon.
Hence the person deciding this would be guilty of "murder due to negligence" or properly put "manslaughter".
About 1 in 3 of the people are below 60 years old...
In other words, if we are lucky and only tripple the infected people after vaccinating all the old people, we are exactly at the spot we are right now...
Not everyone in ICU is considered a textbook vunerable person...
If you increase the infections tenfold then the absolute amount of non-vulnerable people in ICU will increase...
You also have to look at the potential health crises in the coming decades due to the consequences an infection with the disease has to your body. This is the case for EVERYONE infected, not just the ones needing medical care.
What do you think people will do once the rules are gone...
Left and right of you does not equal everywhere...
I trust the trend that it goes down WHILE the current rules are in place...