If we were actually following the data and science and weren't selfish, we wouldn't allow Cole Hocker to get vaccinated now

rojo wrote:

Billy Madison wrote:

This has to be one of the stupidest takes ever written on this website, and I've been reading since the beginning.

Not just stupid, but extremely irresponsible.

Get those clicks , though.

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?

I think you are the one that is being irresponsible.

I think it's just the opposite. People talk about white privilege and1st world privilege. The idea that we'd use a potentially life-saving vaccine on one of America's healthiest people in Cole Hocker ris absolutely disgusting if you really think about it. A senior citizen in Mexico or Kenya etc needs it much more

This may be one of the belligerently stupid takes I've ever seen on this board or frankly anywhere online. Anyone who runs a website with this much traffic should be drastically more responsible than claiming it's "disgusting" for healthy people to get vaccinated. Cole Hocker turning down the opportunity to get vaccinated in the US doesn't mean that shot is magically transported to Mexico to be given to an elderly person before it expires. In the US, vaccine vials are being thrown away because we have reached a point where the supply is greater than the demand. The US is also paying for hundreds of millions of doses to be distributed around the world so we aren't hoarding it to the world's detriment, but we should absolutely work to try and get as much of our population vaccinated as possible before focusing on helping more elsewhere.

We're explaining the reasons why some think that the guy is being irresponsible, selfish, a dumb-ss, etc. for not having been vaccinated, if he did indeed have the opportunity to. There might be multiple reasons to this, I dont think this should be cause for confusion.

As a sociological experiment, this discussion is fascinating.

"I understand why their argument — I took the vaccine, I’m safe, I’m following the science, I’m helping the world — is a powerful one as it plays into the human desire to be in control and have agency over their own lives, lowers their fears about eventual death, and makes them feel good about themselves."

Feeling good is not why I got the vaccine. I did it to protect myself and protect others from transmission and further mutations. That is the clearest conclusion from the best science we have now.

"In the US, the risk of death from COVID-19, as compared to the 18 to 29 age bracket, is 95 times higher for someone in the 65 to 74 age bracket, 230 times higher for the 75 to 84 age bracket and 600 times higher for someone 85+. As of July 7, COVID-19 had killed 473,845 Americans over the age of 65 and just 2,755 under the age of 30."

Death is only one possible negative outcome of contracting COVID. Myocarditis and other long-haul effects could negatively impact Hocker's career.

Young people can transmit the virus to others, putting others' lives at risk. Transmission also helps the virus mutate in ways that compromise the effectiveness of the current vaccines.

"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."

It's the CDC's policy that all Americans should take the vaccine if they are eligible. Is the goal to change government policy by popularly disregarding government policy?

"...there was no good time for him to get two vaccine shots if he wanted them."

Is there a good time to get re-infected? Is there a good time to transmit the virus to others? It's likely a healthy, young person will have mild or no symptoms from the vaccine. It's a matter of choices, but those choices have different scientific, policy and ethical support.

Hocker is a walking, talking super spreader event in the making. He thinks he might have gotten Covid in the same way as Shelburrito might have eaten an uncastrated wild boar burrito. There is no evidence of either being true.

fatsos wrote:

We're explaining the reasons why some think that the guy is being irresponsible, selfish, a dumb-ss, etc. for not having been vaccinated, if he did indeed have the opportunity to. There might be multiple reasons to this, I dont think this should be cause for confusion.

You have a lot of emotions. Misguided emotions.

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.

Plz stop.

Yes, there are tons of people around the world who need the vaccine. That's both related and not related to Cole Hocker. We can talk about American supremacy, capitalism, and access to the vaccine, if you like. The bottom line is that the US has already made a run at the elderly and vulnerable. The vaccine is open to everyone and Hocker should have gotten it based on actual science.

Nobody asked you to comment on this. LRC should not be taking stances on science, when many Americans are all too susceptible to bad takes on vaccines. This isn't helpful. It's reactionary. It's weak.

Okay okay, just because someone is critical of Hocker doesn’t mean they’re advocating for everyone to be force vaccinated or something insane. It’s just a strong recommendation, and social pressure is appropriate in these instances. If person A thinks person B is endangering people, then they are allowed to say so.

But we can all agree Rojo is wrong though, right? Is anyone still defending that nonsense? Just checking for mental stragglers. Those who have fallen off the pace, so to speak.

fat at 27 wrote:

But we can all agree Rojo is wrong though, right? .

correct

i'm a scientist wrote:

fat at 27 wrote:

But we can all agree Rojo is wrong though, right? .

correct

Agreed.

Yeah about that wrote:

i'm a scientist wrote:

correct

Agreed.

Hate to see it, but it's true.

Monkeys Skyping wrote:

AlexJonesDMT wrote:

If he is social distancing and wearing a mask while only seeing the people he lives with what is the problem?

Let's imagine instead that he's going to the airport, getting on a plane, flying to a country with an aging population and relatively low vaccine rates, potentially interacting with persons from all parts of the world over a week or two, most of whom are returning to the airport, getting on planes to their respective corners of the world, and then only seeing the people he lives with.

Problem?

Doesn’t he have to get tested before boarding the plane?

Bullet_Proof wrote:

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?

I think you are the one that is being irresponsible.

I think it's just the opposite. People talk about white privilege and1st world privilege. The idea that we'd use a potentially life-saving vaccine on one of America's healthiest people in Cole Hocker ris absolutely disgusting if you really think about it. A senior citizen in Mexico or Kenya etc needs it much more

Rojo, I 100% agree with you on this one.

Thank you for standing up for whats right.

Thank you for using a science approach. And a reasonable tone.

Thank you for using your platform for good.

No, Rojo is not right, and you aren't either.

1) Vaccines in the US are not going to be shipped elsewhere. There is no moral/ethical reason for a young healthy person to not get the vaccine.

2) It is beneficial for a healthy young person to get the vaccine, not only to protect himself, but to protect others who can't get the vaccine (young children, people who are immunocompromised). It also cuts down on the number of variant breeders.

So, just stop. Rojo doesn't know what he's talking about, and anyone who defends him doesn't know either.

fake news alert wrote:

It's insane how many people are outraged that the fittest, healthiest 19 year old in the nation is not vaccinated.

If you are vaccinated then you are immune. Or do you fear the vaccine you got is not effective? And if the vaccine is not effective, why are you telling people to get it? This is how cults start.

1) None of the vaccines makes you "immune".

2) He is putting himself at risk.

3) He is putting others at risk -- young children, and anyone else who can't yet get the vaccine like immunocompromised people.

4) He is making himself a potential variant breeder.

What you just wrote there is all based on your ignorance.

Yeah about that wrote:

i'm a scientist wrote:

correct

Agreed.

correct

Flagpole wrote:

So, just stop. Rojo doesn't know what he's talking about, and anyone who defends him doesn't know either.

Correct

I don’t get how people don’t understand that he is an elite athlete. Not only that, but you could say his career and his income (future or current given the new ncaa rules) depend of these few months of him being at his absolute athletic best. Is the vaccine dangerous? Of course not, I’m sure Cole Hocker knows that. Does it have the possibility to put a damper on training for up to a week? Of course! We know it causes fatigue, fever, body aches, all of which are normal healthy immune responses, but are catastrophic for someone in the most important training phase of their life. Of course these symptoms are usually 24 hours but it’s not unheard of for it to last up to a week according to literally every health organization. So if I were him I also wouldn’t risk it when I’m trying to medal in the olympics. After the olympics I’m sure he will get vaccinated, but there’s no reason to call him an anti vaxxer until the olympics are done.

thread is going well for rojo

[quote]fat at 27 wrote:

It’s just a strong recommendation, and social pressure is appropriate in these instances. If person A thinks person B is endangering people, then they are allowed to say so.

/quote]

The problem is that the terrified-of-vaccines group that posts on this board nonstop thinks they SHOULD be insulated from all criticism or it's 'coercion.'

A bit too snowflakey for my liking