That’s called results oriented thinking. Nobody HAS to get covid. She could’ve avoided it by doing many things differently. Not our place to chastise her now over a stupid debate. Thanks for all you do and I hope she pulls through.

Re: ‘Nobody HAS to get covid’:
While I fully support non-pharmacological mitigation efforts, covid is an airborne virus - there is no way to truly prevent exposure. If you are unvaccinated, that exposure can be devastating.

If there is a common trait amongst all of our dying covid patients, it seems to be the belief that it wouldn’t happen to them.

This may sound hyperbolic, but it is very much like we are all on the sinking titanic, and some of our brightest invented life jackets - and some would rather drown because the jackets are itchy, or they think that they are good swimmers

Yes, this isn’t an either/or scenario. You don’t have to choose between health and happiness. You should have both. “Nobody is predestined to get covid,” is what I meant.
This girl for whatever reason refused a free vaccine. We don’t know why. So her suffering doesn’t really prove anything. It just saddens me.

BeyondThePale wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:39 pmThis may sound hyperbolic, but it is very much like we are all on the sinking titanic, and some of our brightest invented life jackets - and some would rather drown because the jackets are itchy, or they think that they are good swimmers

You're not being hyperbolic; if anything you're being too patient here. And we could extend the metaphor to say that not only do some people reject the life jackets being offered them (for mostly foolish reasons), but some don't even think the ship is sinking at all, despite it not having been level for some time.

Honestly, it seems like denial for the sake of being obstinate. Or just being lazy or atavistic out of inertia or spite. This would be more forgivable if others' lives weren't at stake.

hbiden@onlyfans.com wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:09 pm What we don’t know is the long term effects on fertility.

Reducing fertility would probably be a good thing considering there are too many people on the planet.

Curry Pervert wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 5:37 pm

hbiden@onlyfans.com wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:09 pm What we don’t know is the long term effects on fertility.

Reducing fertility would probably be a good thing considering there are too many people on the planet.

Unfortunately we probably want the people who are getting the vaccine to reproduce, not the people irrationally unwilling to get it.

tallchris wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 6:48 pm

Curry Pervert wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 5:37 pm

hbiden@onlyfans.com wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:09 pm What we don’t know is the long term effects on fertility.

Reducing fertility would probably be a good thing considering there are too many people on the planet.

Unfortunately we probably want the people who are getting the vaccine to reproduce, not the people irrationally unwilling to get it.

I was just about to predict someone would make this argument. Thank you for not disappointing.

Pandemics are just nature’s way of population control.

In general, it's insensitive at best to say that lower fertility rates are desirable.

But rather than overpopulation/Malthusian scenarios coming to a head, it's projected now that a significant decline of the population will become more of an issue by mid-century. This will have all kinds of implications on inter-generational dynamics and the economy.

^ Yes, and it's painfully ironic that one of the best natural forces to mitigate our impending collision with environmental disaster is itself a potential economic disaster. There seems to be little in modern humanity we could call sustainable.