pouët.net

But it boils down to the trolley problem, and a solution satisfactory to everybody is yet to be found.

Yeah because there is no way to have a risk-free vaccine, or anything else for that matter. But if you think that's a reason to avoid things then I guess you don't do much. Such as eating and sleeping.

You don't avoid your C64 due to risk of electric shock do you?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ROFLCOPTER LOL LOL

best joke i've heard all day, thanks for that :)

Please refrain from poor attempts at ad-hominem attacks. But let me re-iterate that i'll be fully cross-vaccinated until Deadline, and that this is still not the point.

Isn't the chance to have thrombosis from, say, smoking (or taking birth control pills for that matter) much higher than getting one of the non-mRNA-based vaccines? (which have higher rates than the mRNA ones)

... or if you're so worried about getting thrombosis, don't get COVID-19

(also yes I know I'm late and that that post was from 2 pages ago)

Mentioning your use of the C64 is not an attack. It's not meant as in insult...

It was a way of demonstrating my point. I'll make it more clear then: We all take risks every day, there is no way to have a 100% risk-free day. Society depends on accepting that. So it's perfectly acceptable to require people to accept small risks for greater reward. Being vaccinated is a smaller risk than a Covid-19 infection and has a great reward (the protection), so it should be acceptable to ask people to do it before attending Deadline.

As mentioned before it is also acceptable to not be vaccinated but in that case (as of right now) you cannot attend Deadline IRL.

It's also prudent to allow everyone else to make an informed decision about their bodies and lives. If you're not vaccinated, I don't want to associate with you in an indoor setting due to multiple family members (including my child) being in a covid risk group. Then again, "vaccine critics" are a bit like the vegans of old. They will let you know.

It's acceptable in terms of "your party, your rules", but it still means that you're imposing your convictions on your guests, simply by going beyond legally required minimum measures.

Because let's review:
- not being vaccinated does not protect yourself (and you can contract the virus and spread it, but you're required to have a daily negative test report)
- being vaccinated protects yourself (but you can still contract the virus and spread it, albeit both to an arguably lower extent, however there is no test requirement)

So the difference in terms of the party itself is largely not about the vaccinated majority (whose risk is largely unaffected either way), but basically whether or not you're accepting a higher risk for the unvaccinated... adults.
(And your conscience as an organiser, see the oft-quoted statement.)

The unvaccinated minority came in fully aware of the risks they're taking, and supposedly have their reasons for not being vaccinated.
So we're at nannying again, or at condemning their decision, or at condescending them, or any combination thereof. (List likely incomplete.)

Also please note that...... being barred from entering the party or being kindly asked to leave asap is mandatory for anybody actually or very likely infected, regardless of vaccination status.

And how exactly are we supposed to make a proper risk-benefit analysis if we don't know the medium to long term risks? The fact that they skipped the animal trials is not exactly confidence inspiring either. It could be just fine in the long run but it could also be absolutely fatal. The hubris of wanting to inject the entire world with this experimental treatment is just mind-boggling to me.

you just watch too much sci-fi movies or smoke too much weed if you think some vaccine will lay dormant for a decade in someone's body just with the ultimate goal to mutate half the population into purple-eyed demented lizards

There is a reason vaccine trials take 10 years or more, it's because we don't know what the effects are on the long term. Go take a look at previous corona virus trials in animals and see how well they went. Spoiler: not well.

or in more seriousness.. counteract with other medicine/ailments... they usually discover such bad things pretty fast and we're already a year in since the first volunteers

"go take a look at previous corona virus trials in animals and see how well they went" url plz

Could you people just stop talking to people with obvious brain damage? Let them not vaccinate and, if they are unlucky, die an extraordinarily gruesome death of suffocation while they shove literally every other shit inside their every body opening without questioning.
These very critically thinking, intelligent people will never acknowledge anything out of their bullshit-bubble and are not worth your time, people. I've did some talking to conspiracy nuts and skeptics like that over the last two decades and can tell, that they will not change, unless they do it completely by themselves.

And here I thought the scene would be more or less immune to covidiots, but apparently not...

Not sure what prevents the covidiots from setting up their own very special party in some plague-positive country or region. While, preferably, also subdividing themselves into their own scene.

Probably chemtrails... I'm pretty sure it's chemtrails.

I wonder why this is so swiftly broken down to a black&white issue (and resorted to ad-hominem attacks), while various personal stances vary wildly on any given scale.

Maybe it's because most of us don't enjoy playing chess with pigeons again and again and again for the 457th time.

Apt illustration. But i have yet to see a convincing argument as to how accepting a daily negative test result is worse than accepting vaccination without any test. =)

It's worse because vaccination is more effective at preventing infection than a test. Testing isn't bad, but vaccation is better.

Krill: v3nom had explained that. It's about responsibility. What do you do if you have non-vaccinated people at the party and then a test comes back positive?

At UC we did just that (daily test), and it was clear what the consequences of a test coming back would be: Aborting the party.

It's much easier to just have only vaccinated people at the party. Should an infection occur, you don't have blood on your hands.

I'd join a party that has a "vaccination OR daily negative test" policy anytime. But I highly respect the decision of Deadline to go the "I can sleep well as an organizer"-route. That's still miles ahead of the alternatives there are right now, which mostly is "let's not have a party at all".

As was said multiple times here: For those who disagree with DL's policy. Please go ahead and organize your own party, with different policies. And I mean this in a positive way. If the policies are good, people will join.

^ I totally agree what Scamp said!