>and who are the 'you and yours' and 'they' that you're
>referring to?

What an obtuse question. I'm talking to an antivaxxer about antivaxxers.

Sorry, but asking me who I'm referring to is a flat out stupid question.

>One of the most unproductive things we can do when adding to
>this conversation is start to draw lines and denigrate "the
>other" - contributing yet to another culture war -- especially
>when it's not necessary to do so.

one of the people I'm talking to called liberals sociopaths- but I'm creating the other? FOH. And, frankly, your devils advocate, can't we all just get along routine here is nothing but an enabler.

You're approaching me, trying to chastize me, as though I'm talking to two honest interlocutors. I'm not.

>Yes there are some flagrant anti-vaxxers pushing
>disinformation that need to be called out. But not all people
>who refuse a vaccination fit neatly into these hyperbolic
>caricatures that is being drummed up.

The two loud antivaxers in this post are absolutely within that caricature.

>Ultimately it comes down to strategy and principle. I point
>to a nation like Japan as an exemplary model on how to
>approach the subject.
>
>~80% of Japan is fully vaccinated, and the government has
>strongly encouraged all citizens to get vaccinated.

Sounds like they're not contending with anything resembling the sizable, loud, zealous, antivax populace we have here. Good for them.

>However - the Japanese government has made it clear that
>getting vaccinated is a personal choice – and warns the
>public not to "discriminate" against those who choose not to:

Who is actually being discriminated against here, and in what ways?

>"Although we encourage all citizens to receive the Covid-19
>vaccination, it is not compulsory or mandatory," a notice on
>the Ministry of Health website reads.
>
>"Vaccination will be given only with the consent of the person
>to be vaccinated after the information provided. Please get
>vaccinated of your own decision, understanding both the
>effectiveness in preventing infectious diseases and the risk
>of side effects."
>
>"Vaccines will never be administered without the recipient's
>consent," it says.
>
>"We urge the public never to coerce vaccinations at the
>workplace or upon others around them, and never to treat those
>who have not received the vaccine in a discriminatory
>manner."
>
>Source: https://japan.kantei.go.jp/ongoingtopics/vaccine.html

Are vaccines being administered with people's consent?
This is downright bizarre.


>Incidentally, Japan is a world leader in maintaining low Covid
>case-counts and mitigating spread - and they are doing it by
>persuading its citizens with science, compassion, and respect
>-- not coercion and vilifying "the other".

Cool. How's that approach working here in the states?

How about this: instead of getting on my case for not meeting your standards of dealing with antivaxxers, how about YOU fucking do that shit. I don't see you in here trying to persuade kayru or Mac with science, compassion, and respect.

So give them that and let's see how that plays out. if they get the shot as a result of your compassion and respect, win-win for everyone.

But you're NOT in here doing that. You're too busy trying to chasten everyone else.

It is human nature
>(particularly in a country like the U.S.) to want to resist
>something that is mandated to you on a compulsory basis. It's
>not sound strategy to do this in a country that has enshrined
>individual rights into its constitutional framework. It
>backfires; it achieves less vaccinated protection.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Like I said, you're not in here dealing with that.
Put your money where your mouth is.

>vaccinated (and even
>>>boosted) hosts are still getting infected and transmitting
>>the
>>>virus at significant rates.
>
>>>....but then you turn around and drop this nonsense.<<
>
>How is this 'nonsense'? That's just a factual statement --
>which requires context like this:
>
><<Yes, vaccinated people contract and transmit the virus- but
>the likelihood and severity are significantly reduced.>>
>
>That's literally what I said.

It's like you didn't read the rest of the post. You've consistently ignored context throughout these discussions, and I've been rather charitable with that, but no more. You're doing it again now- interestingly enough, you chose to use a quote from yourself, and not the full quote that I was responding to when I said that.

>Look: If we can't have a nuanced and factual discussion then
>what's the point?

Oh we absolutely can- and I AM having that discussion. But what you did above is more nonsense.

We don't have to pretend that breakthrough
>infections aren't happening at relatively high rates (they
>are)

I'm not, so I don't know who "we" is.

I've consistently said that the vaccine reduces the overall likelihood and severity, and that's it's not a brick wall- ahem, nuance- and you've consistently replied to me as though I'm saying it is.

Where the nuance there, on your part?

- nor do we have to overly defend Pfizer and Moderna and
>act like the vaccines are perfectly calibrated for Omicron
>(they aren't).

Where am I "overly defending Pfizer and Moderna and acting like vaccines are perfectly calibrated for Omicron?

Your post is littered with strawmen, yet you're telling me that I'm advocating for no nuance? Bullshit.

We also don't have to reflexively defend the
>CDC when it fucks up (which it's done multiple times over the
>course of the pandemic).

Where am I doing that in here? Yeah I'm good on this w/you.

It's wild that you're trying to lecture me about nuanced discussion, being civil, etc, and yet you're taking me to task for shit I'm not doing. I'm not going to bother with the rest of your reply because you're doing the exact thing you're trying (incorrectly) to chastise me for.