Great post by rojo, respect. Hocker isn’t at danger, he isn’t endangering anyone and if you say otherwise you haven’t kept up with the science. Sad to see all the hate he’s getting, makes me root for him a bit in Tokyo.
Great post by rojo, respect. Hocker isn’t at danger, he isn’t endangering anyone and if you say otherwise you haven’t kept up with the science. Sad to see all the hate he’s getting, makes me root for him a bit in Tokyo.
rojo wrote:
I've deleted this post but am responding to it to help teach people what is and isn't deleted and why. Feel free to criticize my article but you can't just call something or someone garbage. As I tell my 3 year old, we don't call people names.
Except that you all posters stupid all the time. And worse
When someone in the US doesn't get vaccinated, they don't send that dose to a country that needs it. It sits in storage and probably expires. Cole, or anyone else here who turns it down, are not helping redistribute it - they're simply adding to the number of unvaccinated people.
Much of the rest of the world badly needs it, and in an ideal world we would be able to get it to the highest-priority people first, regardless of where they live. But that's not the reality we're in.
Hocker might be young and healthy, but (and I can't believe how few people seem to understand this next part) one of the things a vaccine does is *prevent you from spreading it to other people* who might get a more severe case or die. Communicable diseases don't care too much about your, or Cole's, autonomy - it spreads using people as vectors.
Unless they live in a cave, people who flout personal choice not to get vaccinated are well-intentioned but badly misguided. They'll interact with other people, and are effectively making a choice for all those people too.
Hocker turning it down doesn't help anyone and makes him a potential danger to others. That is not a take. It is not an opinion. It is a fact. I like you Rojo, but retract this very poor application of your Ivy League degree.
Hilarious trolling from Rojo. No way he’s serious guys. Remember he has an Ivy degree.
“It’s on Hocker to protest US and global vaccine policy by NOT getting vaccinated despite the supply and opportunity - anything less is despicable”
0/10
Robert Plantar Fascia wrote:
When someone in the US doesn't get vaccinated, they don't send that dose to a country that needs it. It sits in storage and probably expires. Cole, or anyone else here who turns it down, are not helping redistribute it - they're simply adding to the number of unvaccinated people.
Much of the rest of the world badly needs it, and in an ideal world we would be able to get it to the highest-priority people first, regardless of where they live. But that's not the reality we're in.
Hocker might be young and healthy, but (and I can't believe how few people seem to understand this next part) one of the things a vaccine does is *prevent you from spreading it to other people* who might get a more severe case or die. Communicable diseases don't care too much about your, or Cole's, autonomy - it spreads using people as vectors.
Unless they live in a cave, people who flout personal choice not to get vaccinated are well-intentioned but badly misguided. They'll interact with other people, and are effectively making a choice for all those people too.
Hocker turning it down doesn't help anyone and makes him a potential danger to others. That is not a take. It is not an opinion. It is a fact. I like you Rojo, but retract this very poor application of your Ivy League degree.
Hocker, per Rojo, has a duty to take his vaccine dose, fly to a poorly supplied country and personally administer it.
You seem to be viewing this purely in terms of mortality. Vaccination is known to reduce the symptoms of Covid and instances of “long covid” are much lower among vaccinated people. Yes, Hocker is highly unlikely to die from Covid but he could end up with “long covid” and that would effectively end his running career. I’m surprised he’s willing to take the risk.
Hey Rojo you deleted my comment as well but I figured I'd expand on why I think your take is absolute garbage.
Your main claim is operating under a false dichotomy, or a false dilemma. Just in case you’re not familiar, it’s a logical fallacy that occurs when you limit the options of a situation to fit your argument! You're presenting the argument of:
"We should not be encouraging Cole Hocker and millions of other super healthy young people to get vaccinated right now. Why? There are HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of senior citizens across the globe who have yet to be vaccinated. And COVID-19 mainly kills senior citizens."
In order to work with this assumption, the way vaccine distribution would have to work (under CURRENT operation) would be that all doses would have to be in the same pool and have supply less than global demand or availability to those who have not yet received a dose. You would also have to assume that every individual has the EXACT same want and desire for each available vaccine dose.
I am sure you are aware that this is not how the current distribution network works, so your premise that "Cole Hocker and millions of other super healthy young people" should not be vaccinated right now is not valid.
Kudos to you for using two pieces of factual information in that proposal though! There are indeed hundreds of millions of senior citizens yet to be vaccinated and COVID-19 mainly does kill senior citizens. Congrats on presenting part of an argument that is factual! I hope you can continue this habit going forward as it makes discussion actually possible.
You then present the table of "Rate Ratios compared to 18-29 year olds" from the CDC site and then you jump into the conclusion:
"Those stats prove that it’s actually quite selfish and anti-scientific for people to be demanding that people like Cole Hocker be vaccinated right now. The selfless act would be if we, as Americans, called on all young adults to not take the vaccine and instead redirect that supply of the vaccine so the world’s most vulnerable could be vaccinated first."
Can you please elaborate on why it is selfish and anti-scientific for people to be demanding that people like Cole Hocker be vaccinated right now?
Are you referring to Cole Hocker only in the way that he is part of an age group listed on the CDC table?
Or are you referring to Cole Hocker as an athlete going to the Tokyo Olympics, representing the United States, as someone who is unvaccinated as we are still in the midst of a global pandemic?
Your statement of it being a “selfless act to direct that supply of the vaccine so the world’s most vulnerable could be vaccinated first” is indeed true. However, it would only be true in reality if the current global distribution of vaccines worked that way. Because it does not, your argument is in bad faith and does not hold water.
That is why your take has been referred to as garbage, and why you have apparently deleted multiple posts from those calling you out for your take. Just curious… Will you delete other posts praising your take that add nothing to the conversation?
As a side note, it is rich for you to begin your post by saying "As I tell my 3 year old, we don't call people names." and then a few sentences later respond to someone's post you deleted with "so you respond emotionally like a two-year-old."
I hope you don’t delete this post as I have tried to explain the logic and reasoning behind why some might be calling you out. But if you do delete it then I can just repost again!
rojo wrote:
My article is backed by science.
No, it isn't and I think you know that
rojo wrote:
e h wrote:
Absolutely garbage article Rojo, I’m surprised you posted it.
I've deleted this post but am responding to it to help teach people what is and isn't deleted and why. Feel free to criticize my article but you can't just call something or someone garbage. As I tell my 3 year old, we don't call people names.
Fell free to say it's a bad article but please provide a reason. Throwing out insults like racist/garbage, idiot, etc with supporting arguments isn't productive.
My article is backed by science. It appears to me you just emotionally don't like it but you have no factual response to it so you respond emotionally like a two-year-old.
All of these holier than thou people like yourself that are feeling smug since they got the vaccine don't want to admit they are being selfish as hundreds of millions of poor senior citizens around the globe aren't vaccinated.
Although I was disappointed to hear that Hocker did not get a vaccination, can understand the logic IF indeed he did contract the virus in the early spring because based on the early research there is a 92-95% immunity for at least 6-8 months.
That said, the OP deserves every insult he gets on this one because of his take that vaccinated Americans are selfish. What planet are you from? *thoughtless*
rojo wrote:
The vitriol that some of you showed to Cole Hocker was disgusting and lacking in any scientific basis.
It spurred me to write a column. There are HUNDREDS of Millions of elderly and vulnerable people across the globe that aren't vaccinated who need it much more.
https://www.letsrun.com/news/2021/07/im-pro-vaccine-but-if-we-follow-the-science-we-wouldnt-be-encouraging-olympic-track-stars-like-cole-hocker-to-be-vaccinated/I'm closing the old Hocker thread to comments.
I admire you to reason with people that seem completely incapable of it. But this is a religion to them, and similar to a jesus freak standing on a corner with a sign around their neck, there is no reasoning with this bunch. Some of these people are likely trying to get your site shut down as we speak, since you are "spreading misinformation".
WWRD wrote:
rojo wrote:
The vitriol that some of you showed to Cole Hocker was disgusting and lacking in any scientific basis.
It spurred me to write a column. There are HUNDREDS of Millions of elderly and vulnerable people across the globe that aren't vaccinated who need it much more.
https://www.letsrun.com/news/2021/07/im-pro-vaccine-but-if-we-follow-the-science-we-wouldnt-be-encouraging-olympic-track-stars-like-cole-hocker-to-be-vaccinated/I'm closing the old Hocker thread to comments.
I admire you for trying to reason with people that seem completely incapable of it. But this is a religion to them, and similar to a jesus freak standing on a corner with a sign around their neck, there is no reasoning with this bunch. Some of these people are likely trying to get your site shut down as we speak, since you are "spreading misinformation".
Fixed it.
captainwildcat wrote:
rojo wrote:
My article is backed by science.
No, it isn't and I think you know that
Does he know it?
rojo wrote:
You think it's irresponsible that I"m calling on the world's youth to turn down the vaccine until we can save the most vulnerable - namely the world's elderly?
Like I said before, in January it would be a great argument. But why do you think there is a shortage of vaccine now?
This argument only works, Rojo, if there's some magical way to redistribute refused vaccines instantly to where they are desired.
The fact is that Hocker knew he was (likely) traveling to a foreign country to be near athletes from all over the world. It's not hard to argue that he presents more risk than an elderly person at home because he's gonna be such a mobile vector.
The argument that's he's recovered from COVID and thus is lower priority for immunization is better, but given that higher levels of immunity likely confer more protection against breakthru infection and a disastrous positive test.... I still think it was a bad choice to forego the vaccine.
this is stupid....a young person like Hocker getting a vaccine would not take away a vaccine from a more vulnerable person. The logic is just not there....my mind is blown at the stupidity of this
no, he definitely doesn't
forcerunner wrote:
Hey Rojo you deleted my comment as well but I figured I'd expand on why I think your take is absolute garbage.
Your main claim is operating under a false dichotomy, or a false dilemma. Just in case you’re not familiar, it’s a logical fallacy that occurs when you limit the options of a situation to fit your argument! You're presenting the argument of:
"We should not be encouraging Cole Hocker and millions of other super healthy young people to get vaccinated right now. Why? There are HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of senior citizens across the globe who have yet to be vaccinated. And COVID-19 mainly kills senior citizens."
In order to work with this assumption, the way vaccine distribution would have to work (under CURRENT operation) would be that all doses would have to be in the same pool and have supply less than global demand or availability to those who have not yet received a dose. You would also have to assume that every individual has the EXACT same want and desire for each available vaccine dose.
I am sure you are aware that this is not how the current distribution network works, so your premise that "Cole Hocker and millions of other super healthy young people" should not be vaccinated right now is not valid.
Kudos to you for using two pieces of factual information in that proposal though! There are indeed hundreds of millions of senior citizens yet to be vaccinated and COVID-19 mainly does kill senior citizens. Congrats on presenting part of an argument that is factual! I hope you can continue this habit going forward as it makes discussion actually possible.
You then present the table of "Rate Ratios compared to 18-29 year olds" from the CDC site and then you jump into the conclusion:
"Those stats prove that it’s actually quite selfish and anti-scientific for people to be demanding that people like Cole Hocker be vaccinated right now. The selfless act would be if we, as Americans, called on all young adults to not take the vaccine and instead redirect that supply of the vaccine so the world’s most vulnerable could be vaccinated first."
Can you please elaborate on why it is selfish and anti-scientific for people to be demanding that people like Cole Hocker be vaccinated right now?
Are you referring to Cole Hocker only in the way that he is part of an age group listed on the CDC table?
Or are you referring to Cole Hocker as an athlete going to the Tokyo Olympics, representing the United States, as someone who is unvaccinated as we are still in the midst of a global pandemic?
Your statement of it being a “selfless act to direct that supply of the vaccine so the world’s most vulnerable could be vaccinated first” is indeed true. However, it would only be true in reality if the current global distribution of vaccines worked that way. Because it does not, your argument is in bad faith and does not hold water.
That is why your take has been referred to as garbage, and why you have apparently deleted multiple posts from those calling you out for your take. Just curious… Will you delete other posts praising your take that add nothing to the conversation?
As a side note, it is rich for you to begin your post by saying "As I tell my 3 year old, we don't call people names." and then a few sentences later respond to someone's post you deleted with "so you respond emotionally like a two-year-old."
I hope you don’t delete this post as I have tried to explain the logic and reasoning behind why some might be calling you out. But if you do delete it then I can just repost again!
^THIS
rojo wrote:
The vitriol that some of you showed to Cole Hocker was disgusting and lacking in any scientific basis.
It spurred me to write a column. There are HUNDREDS of Millions of elderly and vulnerable people across the globe that aren't vaccinated who need it much more.
https://www.letsrun.com/news/2021/07/im-pro-vaccine-but-if-we-follow-the-science-we-wouldnt-be-encouraging-olympic-track-stars-like-cole-hocker-to-be-vaccinated/I'm closing the old Hocker thread to comments.
I will say that it does speak to one thing:
American Privilege.
There are some communities that value life more than others and are not willing to take the chance of losing even one family member to a virus.
Like my family and friends in the Philippines.
Some of them are afraid to get vaccinated.
But some of them have grandparents in intensive care right now.
For me the biggest benefit of the vaccination is to keep it from thriving in different hosts and allowing more mutations.
The idea of a virus mutating within me and becoming something that kills even more people really bothers me.
1 post was removed from this page.