Just talked with a friend of mine who not long ago retired from the CDC and said she's laughing at how everyone is declaring COVID is over. She said, "It just warmed up and it's now ready for the main event," which she feels means a return to restrictions greater than we've had, before the end of the summer.

With an estimated 90% effectiveness of the vaccine, that means up to 88,000 breakthrough cases could occur and still be within parameters.

The fundamental problem is how to overcome the anti-vac crowd and get the majority of the remaining unvaccinated 40% vaccinated.

It certainly doesn't help that 3 hosts on Fox News ( who have a combined nightly audience of 7 million viewers) constantly beat the anti-vax drum.

The real danger is that the hold outs are big enough in number to allow the virus to continue to spread and mutate which could well produce a new variant that will require a whole new vaccine??? God forbid, but entirely possible.

Hard to understand how so many can ignore all the available STRONG evidence that the available vaccines are nearly 100% effective in preventing serious disease but then again there's a full 30 % of Americans who believe Trump won the election. Go figure !!

Ross Rowland

Well, I can note that last week, 100% of the Covid fatalities, in Maryland were not vaccinated. Similarly, of the serious ICH hospitalizations, mid-to-high ninety per-cents were un-vaccinated. Similar numbers for general hospitalizations. Seems that those who choose to forego vaccination and are voluntarily self-enlisting as part of the control group, are proving a point. Maybe not the one they intended to, though...

It would not be so hard to understand if you were hearing both sides of the argument. That has normally been the way our society decides what action to take. Any collective proclamation is 100% convincing if it is not allowed to be questioned.

Ron Travis that's the kind of non sense that's gotten us into this dangerous place.

How many thousands of unvaccinated deaths will it take to convince the wackos on Fox News and other places to stop spreading the nonsense that is killing people???

Sad but true. Ross Rowland

The Earth is Flat. Let's hear both sides of the argument.

It's a difference of opinion as to whether or not the state should require motorcycle riders to wear helmets. - Hey if you want to be an organ donor, have at it. It is NOT a difference of opinion as to whether wearing said helmet makes it more likely for one to survive laying down one's bike.

Brian

The shape of the planet, and almost all planets, is an absolute easily verified by multitudes of physical evidence over centuries.

The efficacy of the specific vaccines in question, as well as their long-term side effects, the various virus mutations, etc., is not absolute, at least yet. And anyone who acts like it is is not operating on the basis of science, but other agendas.

I'm not an anti-vaxxer, and I got my vaccinations as soon as they were made available to my age group. And I'm dealing with a close friend who refused to get the vaccine, tested positive, and is now out two weeks from work with minimal symptoms other than a loss of smell.
Nonetheless, there are areas of science where, no matter how strong the evidence may be, you cannot operate in terms of absolutes.

There is a lot of surface level information out there on vaccines, but hardly anyone that we come in contact with deal with deeper issues regarding the vaccine and its long term effects. While both myself and my family got the vaccine as soon as it became available to us, and stand by that decision, there are still risks regarding the vaccine that should at least be known. I would highly recommend the Darkhorse Podcast channel on Youtube if you would like to learn more about the risks involved with the vaccine. Both Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying are actual evoluntionary biologists, so they are the "experts" that we are all supposed to be listening to. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAWCKUrmvK5F_ynBY_CMlIA

I know that there are concerns about the vaccine among some, but after weighing the risks I decided those were risks I was willing to take. But our so called leaders are trying to take away our ability to become informed about the vaccine through censorship and shaming. That never works, because instead of getting more people to take the vaccine, when you censor something, our suspicious nature kicks in and makes people start opposing it. WHY don't you want people to talk about it, they ask. And they are right to ask that. We are a free people after all and we demand to be treated with the respect that we deserve.


The best way to get more people to take the vaccine is to not suppress or censor information and people, but make everything out in the open where we can discuss and debate freely. I find it amazing that our leaders do not understand that you cannot just do that to people and expect them to blindly comply. This is one of the reasons why I am not going to lock this thread, because we need to discuss and debate this issue on both sides. Off topic as it may be, it still does not harm anyone because this thread exists.

I was out working at the IRM today. And although I was painting I talked with a few car hosts working the Thomas event running this and last weekend.
As with Metra and the airlines we have asked everyone on the trains to wear a mask. Most trains are still selling out, and there are only a few adults complaining about masks.

Almost all the kids on thees trains can’t be vaccinated. We wear the masks for them, not us.

Rick Rowlands wrote:

"But our so called leaders are trying to take away our ability to become informed about the vaccine through censorship and shaming. That never works, because instead of getting more people to take the vaccine, when you censor something, our suspicious nature kicks in and makes people start opposing it. WHY don't you want people to talk about it, they ask. And they are right to ask that. We are a free people after all and we demand to be treated with the respect that we deserve. ... The best way to get more people to take the vaccine is to not suppress or censor information and people, but make everything out in the open where we can discuss and debate freely. I find it amazing that our leaders do not understand that you cannot just do that to people and expect them to blindly comply."

Yes, Rick, it's truly "amazing" that our leaders don't understand what you believe they should, because "we are a free people after all" and "deserve respect" (goddammit!) and we demand that the gummint here in 'Murica sees things just the way you do.

Or maybe it's you.

Ironically, you recently wrote on another thread that "the entire purpose of rail preservation and history is to bring up things that happened in the past so that we can learn from those events. The ENTIRE PURPOSE."

What, then, do you learn from such past events as the Supreme Court's decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), upholding compulsory vaccination? Writing for the majority, Justice Harlan stated that “The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good.”

That's been the law of the land for 116 years now, but apparently "our so called leaders" of the present day went badly wrong in their handling of the present pandemic (in far less Constitutionally-intrusive ways than mandating vaccinations) simply because they didn't consult you first.

The point I believe Rick was making is that government should not have to the right to prevent people from publically expressing their opinion on an issue in the public discourse if the government finds the opinion objectionable for whatever reason. Certainly, that was my point when I mentioned above, the risk of a person not being aware of both sides of a public debate. So the government should not have the right to prevent people from criticizing policies surrounding the Covid response by authorities.

And yet we have the government working in conjunction with Big Tech to prevent people from communicating any criticism of two large key issues we have been confronted by over the last year or so. Assuming that this is a slippery slope, there will be more to come. The effect will be that the entire population will be controlled to more easily accept authoritative advice or regulation because they are made unaware of opinions that question that advice.

In the past, our system has encouraged people to listen to all sides of an argument and then decide which to accept. You get the most informed decisions that way. But now we are entering an era where government is seeing itself as final arbiter of truth, and so they will decide what people shall believe simply by cancelling beliefs they do not approve of. You get the most efficient regulatory apparatus that way.

Thank you Brother Powell for pointing out that the right of the government to mandate vaccinations is settled law and has been so for over a century. I believe that I may be one of the most chronologically senior in this forum and many of the vaccines available now (and required for such things as public school enrollment) were not yet developed when my family immigrated. Pre-vaccine, mumps, measles, whooping cough, and rubella could close the schools for weeks and some students would never return. Scarlet Fever would do the same thing and even though there is no vaccine for it we now have the antibiotics to control it. We don't view smallpox or polio as a threat any more because of vaccines. I have bittersweet memories of a childhood friend who spent much of her life in an iron lung, having contracted polio before the vaccine was available in this country.

Now simply forget your politics for 2 minutes and while you are doing that reread and think about Brother Morris' last line in his post above. Then remember that every single one of us was once 10 years old. If you want to go back to the era when the so called childhood diseases could spread unchecked and were possibly fatal see a physician about reversing your own immunities but do not presume from that the right to place me, my significant other, my children, my grandchildren, my great grandchildren or anybody else in jeopardy.

GME

This is pushing one of my personal buttons. I don’t see the government trying to quash criticism. That’s a guaranteed right. However, I do see at least a part of government finally trying to get a handle on disinformation, conspiracy theories, “alternative facts” and ridiculous opinions presented as fact with no data to back any of it up. We’ve been becoming an ignorant society with the slide becoming exponentially faster over the past twenty years or so. It must be a tasty pablum to some on that spoon. I find it bitter and distasteful. My European relatives seriously want to know “…just what the hell is going on over there?”. I honestly don’t have a good answer to that.

As to wearing a helmet, that is not a good analogy. That only affects one person. If you want to make a mess on the pavement, have at it as you’re free to do so. Not being vaccinated has the potential to affect many others and infringes on others personal freedoms. That, my friends, is selfish.

Now you’ll have to please excuse me while I get off my soap box to re-wrap my head in aluminum foil so the government can’t control my thoughts. Again….

It's easy to find whatever "Truth" fits your worldview:

https://old.reddit.com/r/TopMindsOfRedd ... llowed_to/

There's a list of several truths floating around social media. I see no evidence of government censorship.

Brian