BREAKING NEWS FROM BREITBART: Conservatives Wont Get Vaccines Because That Would Make Them Feel Like Cucks! It's Official: Owning Libs > Saving own life.

[homersapien 11,393]

21 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

You make a definitive statement that you didn't infect anyone. I question how you are certain of that. You ask if this is where this is going. Am I missing something?

You going to answer the question?

Well, maybe he's still thinking about it, for once.

[SaltyTiger 7,820]

19 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Were you vaccinated when you contracted Covid from your family member and, if so, do you feel it gave you a leg up on the recovery?

I was vaccinated. JJ, developed pneumonia and positive COVID. Short hospital stay for a covid patient. According to doctors the vaccine helped. They were also able to do the infusion. Maybe where a lot of young people are getting in trouble. If they wait to long for help the decease reaches a point that the infusion is no help…from my understanding. 

Edited September 22, 2021 by SaltyTiger

[I_M4_AU 7,874]

Just now, Leftfield said:

So you were never around anyone besides those you hung out with? Never went out in public? You talk to every person you've ever been around the last year and a half, including those you walked by in whatever stores you went to or restaurants you ate in?

No, I can't say for certain I didn't expose anyone in the past year and a half. Neither can you. I did do everything in my power to limit the possibility of my exposing others. Can you say the same? 

We have a good system of contact tracing around my parts, it’s not perfect, but I can say if I thought I exposed someone I would know it.  I am in a rural area nowadays and these people would let me know.

As to limiting the possibility of exposure, yes I can say I did everything reasonable to limit the possibility of exposing others.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,874]

1 minute ago, SaltyTiger said:

I was vaccinated. JJ, developed pneumonia and positive COVID. Short hospital stay for a covid patient.

You must feel bullet proof now with the vaccine and natural immunity.  I’m glad the vaccination seemed to lessen the severity of Covid for you.

[Leftfield 2,617]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

As to limiting the possibility of exposure, yes I can say I did everything reasonable to limit the possibility of exposing others.

Considering you already admitted you don't follow mitigation recommendations unless mandated, I'm guessing your definition of reasonable does not match that of just about every epidemiologist out there.

[I_M4_AU 7,874]

3 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

recommendations

I do get to think for my self even though you don’t approve.

[SaltyTiger 7,820]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You must feel bullet proof now with the vaccine and natural immunity.  I’m glad the vaccination seemed to lessen the severity of Covid for you.

No, I do not feel bullet proof…still proceeding with caution. Afraid this thing is with us for a while. Unbelievable how long it takes to bounce back and I am a very active person. 

[Leftfield 2,617]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

I do get to think for my self even though you don’t approve.

Of course you're free to think for yourself. That's not my problem. My problem is that you do it so poorly. Once again, if your decisions only impacted you, I wouldn't give two s**ts. 

 

[homersapien 11,393]

16 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Of course you're free to think for yourself. That's not my problem. My problem is that you do it so poorly. Once again, if your decisions only impacted you, I wouldn't give two s**ts. 

 

Well, he's particularly ill-equipped to think for himself.  He's doing his best though.

[I_M4_AU 7,874]

7 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Of course you're free to think for yourself. That's not my problem. My problem is that you do it so poorly. Once again, if your decisions only impacted you, I wouldn't give two s**ts. 

 

Are you conflating my personal life decisions with how you feel everybody should act?  I have no problem if a person is vaccinated or wears a mask.  It is their personal choice. It is amazing how the left wants to tell everyone how they should live their lives to suit their beliefs.  It is almost like a religious cult.

[Leftfield 2,617]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

Are you conflating my personal life decisions with how you feel everybody should act? 

I'm talking about how everybody must act in order to get past this pandemic. Anti-mask, vax, etc. people are always talking about getting back to normal life and not living in fear. The quickest path to that is by doing the opposite of what they're doing. In addition to getting the current strains under control, the scientific community is all but screaming about the threat of variants evolving that are vaccine resistant, but you and others keep pushing back with the "personal choice" mantra. Well, no, it isn't, when others' lives are at risk.

 

8 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 I have no problem if a person is vaccinated or wears a mask.  It is their personal choice. 

Because you fail to grasp the consequences, both actual and potential. Because of your political alignment, you fear that something like mask mandates is a step toward full government control. Well, don't live your life in fear!

 

17 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

It is amazing how the left wants to tell everyone how they should live their lives to suit their beliefs. 

I've rarely voted Democrat, though I'll admit I've slid left somewhat during the last few years, thanks to Trumpists and some others on the political right. At no time, however, did I believe that my personal freedom took greater priority than someone else's life.

24 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 It is almost like a religious cult.

Wow, never heard that comparison before. What were you saying about thinking for yourself?

 

[I_M4_AU 7,874]

4 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I'm talking about how everybody must act in order to get past this pandemic. Anti-mask, vax, etc. people are always talking about getting back to normal life and not living in fear. The quickest path to that is by doing the opposite of what they're doing. In addition to getting the current strains under control, the scientific community is all but screaming about the threat of variants evolving that are vaccine resistant, but you and others keep pushing back with the "personal choice" mantra. Well, no, it isn't, when others' lives are at risk.

When the pandemic was in its early stage, I think most got on board with the 15 day to slow the spread.  Now, a year and a half later, most realize that Covid is with us for awhile.  So we learn to live with the virus and do the best we can.  Eliminating the virus was and is a campaign slogan.  

The FDA just recently decided that a vaccine booster was not warranted at this time for people under 65.  What does this say about the scientific community and the importance of the vaccine?

27 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Because you fail to grasp the consequences, both actual and potential. Because of your political alignment, you fear that something like mask mandates is a step toward full government control. Well, don't live your life in fear!

I don’t wear a mask because of my political alignment, that an assumption you’re making.  I have already said I wear a mask when asked along with social distancing if required by the business I’m shopping in.  So this statement is not a true.

32 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

At no time, however, did I believe that my personal freedom took greater priority than someone else's life.

If you were confronted by a person determined to do you harm or even end your life your personal freedom is not a priority?  I don’t believe my personal convenience is more important than yours if it puts you out in anyway and I try to understand the difference.  I don’t believe my not wearing a mask is putting you in danger.  That would be your personal opinion and you have no reason to think I am threatening you in anyway.  You would be speculating in your distrust of your fellow man.

[Leftfield 2,617]

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Eliminating the virus was and is a campaign slogan.  

Hence why I said under control. I didn't say eliminate, and to my knowledge nobody has. 

 

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

The FDA just recently decided that a vaccine booster was not warranted at this time for people under 65.  What does this say about the scientific community and the importance of the vaccine?

Well, gee, I guess it says the vaccine boosters are not warranted at this time for those under 65. Is this somehow controversial? Those over 65 have always been more at risk, and there has been a slight diminishing of protection over time, so they are recommending those at high risk to get a booster, but for the bulk of the population the vaccines still provide enough protection. How does that reflect poorly on the scientific community? 

 

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I don’t wear a mask because of my political alignment, that an assumption you’re making.  I have already said I wear a mask when asked along with social distancing if required by the business I’m shopping in.  So this statement is not a true.

Is my assumption wrong? You've already pointed out you only take protective measures when asked or when the establishment you're entering requires it, not of your own volition. I'd love to hear the reason why you won't do it just because the bulk of the scientific community says they work. You're saying your political alignment has nothing to do with your distrust of scientists?

 

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

 I don’t believe my not wearing a mask is putting you in danger.  That would be your personal opinion and you have no reason to think I am threatening you in anyway.  You would be speculating in your distrust of your fellow man.

No, it's not. Do you believe the scientific community saying masks work is based on their opinions?

No, I don't think you are actively trying to harm anyone, but your and like-minded peoples' ignorance and distrust of the scientific community is doing just that.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Leftfield

[wdefromtx 3,159]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

You can always stick a candy bar in your pocket for later if you don't want to expose the person sitting next to you.

But I suppose that's a really tough decision for you?

How would he expose them? Did he state he was sick with it? He could already be vaccinated. How come it is all his fault? 

I will ask again:

What part was disrespectful? Him eating or the filming part?

What about the couple? Should they have been respectful that you are allowed to take your mask off to eat on a plane?

Basically what you are telling me by not answering these is that in reality you would one of them in the video because you don't think they are doing anything wrong. 

Don't be a maskhole. 

 

[homersapien 11,393]

13 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

How would he expose them? Did he state he was sick with it? He could already be vaccinated. How come it is all his fault? 

I will ask again:

What part was disrespectful? Him eating or the filming part?

What about the couple? Should they have been respectful that you are allowed to take your mask off to eat on a plane?

Basically what you are telling me by not answering these is that in reality you would one of them in the video because you don't think they are doing anything wrong. 

Don't be a maskhole. 

 

He exposed them by removing his mask and then talking to them while in close proximity.

In reality, I would have behaved differently than this guy.  I would have saved the candy bar for later and kept my mask on. I just don't see that as a huge sacrifice on my part. It's not like a meal was being served.

He was the one  being an a**hole.

If you feel differently, that's the difference between you and me.

Edited September 23, 2021 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,874]

13 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Hence why I said under control. I didn't say eliminate, and to my knowledge nobody has. 

Background Press Call by Senior Administration Officials Previewing the Global Summit to End COVID-⁠19.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/09/22/background-press-call-by-senior-administration-officials-previewing-the-global-summit-to-end-covid-19/

This is from whitehouse.gov.  I know it doesn’t say eliminate, but if you *end* Covid 19 you have eliminated the virus.  And this was YESTERDAY.

He has repeatedly said he will *end* this.

If you listen to the beginning he states any President that is responsible for 220,000 deaths should not be President.  Well, I guess its time for Joe to step down.

13 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Well, gee, I guess it says the vaccine boosters are not warranted at this time for those under 65. Is this somehow controversial?

It’s controversial because about a month earlier Joe stated the FDA was about to announce the approval of the booster for everyone.  So the controversy is that what Joe promised, again, did not come true.

 

13 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Is my assumption wrong? You've already pointed out you only take protective measures when asked or when the establishment you're entering requires it, not of your own volition. I'd love to hear the reason why you won't do it just because the bulk of the scientific community says they work. You're saying your political alignment has nothing to do with your distrust of scientists?

The start this pandemic was confusing with regard to masking.  Fauci stated masks did no appreciably defend against the virus and was more of a *feel good* deterrent to the virus than anything. I know he walked that back, but usually people like Fauci will say the quiet part out loud at first and it turns out to be true.

The fact that there was no universal mask, such as the N95, as the standard really started to erode the requirement for masks.  Why this happened I really don’t know, but you’ve got anything from neck gators to bandannas passing as qualified masks.

Is this the same scientific community that stated its ok to protest without social distancing and masks as racism was worse than the virus?  Even though the bulk of the scientific community say they work, the bulk of our leadership are seen without masks in areas where they say we should be wearing them.  Even when they themselves mandate their use.  

There have been numerous sporting events that have occurred and no *super spreader* that I have heard of and I’m sure that would have been highlighted if it had occurred.  Therefore, for me personally, masks really are not required.  If you want to wear them I have not problem.  Not wearing a mask is not political, wearing the mask is the political part.

If the scientific community would treat us with respect and not like children I would have more respect for them.  When you see mandates born out of miss information and the elites being exempt from such mandates you start to wonder if what we are being told is true.

There should not be mask mandates, but if you want to wear a mask that’s OK.  That would be having a little trust in your fellow man.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

17 minutes ago, homersapien said:

He exposed them by removing his mask and then talking to them while in close proximity.

In reality, I would have behaved differently than this guy.  I would have saved the candy bar for later and kept my mask on. I just don't see that as a huge sacrifice on my part. It's not like a meal was being served.

He was the one  being an a**hole.

If you feel differently, that's the difference between you and me.

Correct, the difference is:

A: I do not feel that I need to have everyone conform to whatever makes my life easier as you do.

B: I like to know the facts about something before jumping to conclusions. Essentially all we know is this guy was eating a candy bar on the plane and that couple lost their mind. This guy may be vaccinated already, and if so what is the problem? And to you it may just be a candy bar, but what if the guy is diabetic and needed to eat something sweet to get his blood sugar back. Also, it could be a breakfast bar, protein bar, granola bar, etc. Maybe it is the only thing he's had to eat all day. Maybe he saw how protected they were and decided to mess with them and instigated it. If he did that then yes he's an a$$ if he tried to scare people that are already scared. If all he did was start to eat his candy/food and they flipped out, they are the a**holes in this situation. 

 

[homersapien 11,393]

22 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

 I like to know the facts about something before jumping to conclusions.

 

Well, I can certainly agree with this.

But from what I saw in the video, he was the one jawing at the two ladies, leaning over toward them while doing so.  Perhaps he did have a "right" or a justification, but it's not the way I would have responded.

If he needed sugar, he could have gotten up and gone to the bathroom.

[Leftfield 2,617]

35 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Background Press Call by Senior Administration Officials Previewing the Global Summit to End COVID-⁠19.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/09/22/background-press-call-by-senior-administration-officials-previewing-the-global-summit-to-end-covid-19/

This is from whitehouse.gov.  I know it doesn’t say eliminate, but if you *end* Covid 19 you have eliminated the virus.  And this was YESTERDAY.

He has repeatedly said he will *end* this.

Yes, he's repeatedly said he will end it. Meaning the pandemic. I'm not going to spend a bunch of time on this. If you want to win a semantic argument, fine....you win.

 

39 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

If you listen to the beginning he states any President that is responsible for 220,000 deaths should not be President.  Well, I guess its time for Joe to step down.

And I guess you're just going to ignore the circumstances of what had happened by then and what's happening now? As in, Trump had done basically nothing other than pour money into a vaccine (already given him credit for that)? He ignored the advice of the medical community, repeatedly ridiculed mask and mask wearers, downplayed the severity of the virus, etc. You're also going to ignore the rise of the Delta variant, which is more deadly, spreads much more easily, and is more dangerous to younger age groups? You're going to ignore the states that fight against mask mandates and other mitigation measures, going so far as to tell businesses and schools that they can't impose them? You're going to ignore the people, largely those who listened to Trump, that refuse to get a vaccine and still dismiss the severity of the virus? 

Sounds fair.

 

44 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 It’s controversial because about a month earlier Joe stated the FDA was about to announce the approval of the booster for everyone.  So the controversy is that what Joe promised, again, did not come true.

Well then, he shouldn't have said that, but you asked what it said about the scientists, not Joe Biden. Since they didn't do what Biden said they were going to do, I guess you can't complain that they just say whatever the Biden administration wants them to say, right?

 

48 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The start this pandemic was confusing with regard to masking.  Fauci stated masks did no appreciably defend against the virus and was more of a *feel good* deterrent to the virus than anything. I know he walked that back, but usually people like Fauci will say the quiet part out loud at first and it turns out to be true.

Not going to rehash this. This has been covered many times in many threads. If you had trouble following what was going on, I don't know what to tell you. I followed it just fine. It's almost exclusively people against mitigation measures that complain it was confusing. Those who happily try to protect others had no problem keeping up.

 

51 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The fact that there was no universal mask, such as the N95, as the standard really started to erode the requirement for masks.  Why this happened I really don’t know, but you’ve got anything from neck gators to bandannas passing as qualified masks.

N95 couldn't be the standard because there was a severe shortage of them. Even the medical community couldn't get enough, and they took priority. Regardless, to be completely effective, they need to be fitted properly, and even then they are far less comfortable. Trying to get the public at large to use them correctly, particularly children, would have been a fool's errand. However, the CDC has always said they are the most effective, and do provide significant protection to the wearer, as opposed to cloth masks.

 

57 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Is this the same scientific community that stated its ok to protest without social distancing and masks as racism was worse than the virus?  Even though the bulk of the scientific community say they work, the bulk of our leadership are seen without masks in areas where they say we should be wearing them.  Even when they themselves mandate their use.  

Did the scientific community ever say that? I know that some politicians did, but I don't recall any statements by the CDC or others.

Not saying I agree with the politicians, but I think you can understand that there were extenuating circumstances. I would also point out that there was at least a significant portion of protesters at BLM rallies that continued to wear masks. Take a look at any right-leaning protest or rally, whatever it's being held for, and you'll hardly see anyone with a mask on.

I don't know why you're bringing up politicians that don't follow their own advice. I never said anything to the effect that I support them. Stop trying to distract.

 

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

There have been numerous sporting events that have occurred and no *super spreader* that I have heard of and I’m sure that would have been highlighted if it had occurred.  Therefore, for me personally, masks really are not required. 

Can't speak for other areas, but I'm in Wisconsin, and I know there were at least 500 cases attributed to fans that attended the Bucks' championship game and gathered in the Deer District. That also occurred two months ago, very early into the current surge.

Most sports are played outside. Not sure how you make the step from that to "I don't need to wear a mask anywhere."  I guess we'll see what happens moving forward, particularly with basketball and hockey being indoors. 

 

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

If the scientific community would treat us with respect and not like children I would have more respect for them.  When you see mandates born out of miss information and the elites being exempt from such mandates you start to wonder if what we are being told is true.

I've never felt like the scientific community was treating me like a child. It also sounds like you're listening too much to politicians and not enough to what the scientists are actually saying. Those are you problems.

 

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

There should not be mask mandates, but if you want to wear a mask that’s OK.  That would be having a little trust in your fellow man.

This doesn't even make sense. As has already been pointed out, and if you had any significant awareness of what's going on you would know this, a person can spread the the virus even when they don't have symptoms, or before they develop them. Even if I could trust every person to not go out in public if they're sick (good luck with that), there is still a huge number that spreads without even realizing it. Of course, I forget, you apparently don't believe there is anything such as asymptomatic spread. You also think people should trust everyone else, even though you clearly don't. 

You also admitted in another thread that sometimes people will not do the right thing unless forced. Why do you think this is different?

 

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

 Not wearing a mask is not political, wearing the mask is the political part.

You're nauseating.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,874]

@Leftfieldyou asked and I answered.  I’m sorry you don’t like the answer. And:

Over 1,000 health professionals sign a letter saying, Don't shut down protests using coronavirus concerns as an excuse.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-letter-protests-coronavirus-trnd/index.html

 

[Leftfield 2,617]

21 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Over 1,000 health professionals sign a letter saying, Don't shut down protests using coronavirus concerns as an excuse.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-letter-protests-coronavirus-trnd/index.html

 

Then you were right and wrong. They stated to not shut down the protests, but they did not say it was safe to protest without masks or distancing. They do still say to wear masks and keep distance to the extent possible, while admitting that is not likely to be the case. They also mention to be prepared for an increase in infections afterward. 

And I think you're still ignoring the fact that what happened to George Floyd was a transformative, generational event. Stifling protests could have been worse, which is what they're pointing out.

 

21 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I’m sorry you don’t like the answer.

You're right. I don't. Because I want this s**t to end so I can get back to my life. 

Edited September 23, 2021 by Leftfield

[wdefromtx 3,159]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, I can certainly agree with this.

But from what I saw in the video, he was the one jawing at the two ladies, leaning over toward them while doing so.  Perhaps he did have a "right" or a justification, but it's not the way I would have responded.

If he needed sugar, he could have gotten up and gone to the bathroom.

Really depends on how they came at him to being with. If they were calm and polite about not eating that next to him then he handled it wrong. If they came at him in typical left winger fashion then I can see why he would react the way he did. He should have asked for another seat just to diffuse the situation. Or the ladies could have moved to a seat where they didn't have to be next to anyone. However, there is nothing wrong with taking your mask off on a plane to eat. It is within the rules. I will also add that if those ladies are that terrified of the virus then maybe the close confinement of a plane is not the place for them. 

[homersapien 11,393]

28 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Really depends on how they came at him to being with. If they were calm and polite about not eating that next to him then he handled it wrong. If they came at him in typical left winger fashion then I can see why he would react the way he did. He should have asked for another seat just to diffuse the situation. Or the ladies could have moved to a seat where they didn't have to be next to anyone. However, there is nothing wrong with taking your mask off on a plane to eat. It is within the rules. I will also add that if those ladies are that terrified of the virus then maybe the close confinement of a plane is not the place for them. 

Yeah, they look like a couple of "typical left wingers" all right. 

But I agree with your last sentence. 

Edited September 23, 2021 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,874]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Yeah, they look like a couple of "typical left wingers" all right. 

But I agree with your last sentence. 

Since this is the smack talk forum; they actually looked like Jen Psaki protecting a cowering Joe Biden in the window seat.  😂 

[SLAG-91 1,483]

 

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Because I want this s**t to end so I can get back to my life. 

If you're waiting for Covid to go away before getting back to your life, then you're going to be waiting forever. It's endemic at this point, as it was eventually destined to be once those howler monkey idiots let it loose in a land far, far away.

Like Joe Louis said many years ago, "He can run, but he can't hide."

Comes down to worldview, I guess... I just don't worry about Covid anymore. It's out there, and we've all got an exposure date with it coming at some point. Vinay Prasad has the right idea.

Each day we inch toward the end of COVID-19. The end is not when cases go to zero, but rather when we accept what has been true all along. Because of multiple animal reservoirs, because vaccinated people can still experience breakthrough infections, and because billions of people globally have yet to be vaccinated, the truth is clear: SARS-CoV-2 is an endemic virus.

Over the next decade, give or take a few years, every single person on earth has a date with this virus. We will all be exposed, and the virus might replicate in some of our respiratory mucosa. A few of us might get very sick, while many of us may only get mild illness or not get sick at all from our encounter. I prefer to meet the virus on the best terms: after two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine (as I have gotten).


When we truly come to accept that avoiding the virus for decades is impossible, many things change. Our policy goals change, and the restrictions we place on society change.

If you are an adult and have neither been vaccinated nor have natural immunity, you should seek out vaccination. If you are in a location with limited vaccine availability -- and you are older or vulnerable -- you might want to shield yourself, as best you can, while you wait for a vaccine. Kids who aren't yet eligible for vaccines -- and people in close contact with young kids or other unvaccinated people -- may also choose to take precautions.

If instead you are among the majority of U.S. adults who have been vaccinated or have natural immunity to the virus, your choice is clear: you can continue to follow strict personal precautions (avoid weddings, skip parties, etc.) and delay your encounter with the virus, or you can loosen up those precautions and speed up the time to encountering it. What you can't do is avoid it forever.

Some folks who are vulnerable may wish to get a booster prior to changing their behavior, but we have yet to see clinical outcomes improve from boosting in the general population, and it is possible that with more time, the booster will also wane and you might need a series of them. Despite all this, you may still eventually encounter the virus.

Healthy people, particularly young people who have been vaccinated (such as college students), might realistically not be able to do anything more to optimize their chances of remaining well when they encounter the virus. They can skip parties, avoid dating, and give up indoor restaurants, but practically this may just delay COVID-19 from age 22 to 30. The price paid for this delay will be the inconvenience of those precautions, and the events they did not experience along the way.

Thinking about meeting SARS-CoV-2 as a matter of when, and under what circumstances, rather than if, changes one's policy choices. First, it stresses the importance of vaccination. It doesn't matter if vaccines are not perfect or if you can still get sick -- because they greatly reduce the chance of hospitalization and death, they are worth pursuing.

Second, it makes one question our policy choices. For example, many universities are currently testing asymptomatic college students weekly. When cases rise, these schools have banned private gatherings and implemented masking indoors and out. These policies might either have no proven benefits (outdoor masking) or somewhat slow the spread of the virus (banning gatherings), but what is the big picture goal? Every one of these students will eventually be exposed to the virus, particularly as parties get pushed inside in the winter and during big spring break gatherings. If the local healthcare system is not experiencing a rise in hospitalizations (which they're not in many of these cities), then these policies deprive college students of experiences that mean something and at best shift the date they encounter the virus. Since most students are young and healthy, the risk the virus poses to them and the odds they're going to encounter it are unlikely to be significantly changed.

Beyond only colleges, heavily vaccinated cities such as San Francisco continue to implement restrictions, such as indoor mask mandates for the vaccinated. Again, at some point in the next decade, the virus will likely meet all the people in San Francisco. If they wear surgical masks for the next 6, 12, or 18 months, eventually they will fatigue, and the virus will be there when they do. The odds of getting very sick won't change for most people, so what is the goal of delaying the encounter if local hospitals aren't stressed?

Acceptance means reminding ourselves that the things we have put on hold -- dinners, parties, lectures, meetings, museums, restaurants, travel, weddings, and so on -- can't be put on hold forever. And avoiding all these activities in pursuit of health means giving up living in order to stay alive.

Acceptance is coming -- that's the true end of the pandemic. COVID-19 won't vanish as some may have believed early on. Instead, some pockets of the U.S. will continue to have caseload increases, some hospitals may get overloaded and local measures may be necessary, but the virus is not going away and the burden is on us to come to terms with that. Each of us has to decide how much life we are willing to trade to delay our time to meet the virus.

Pooh-pooh natural immunity to your own detriment, people...consistently ignored when vaccine mandates are mentioned.