this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2025
45 points (97.9% liked)

politics

25495 readers
2266 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I never said vaccination is a replacement for masking. That's a begging the question logical fallacy on your part. Of course the caregiver should also be masking.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I added the mask recommendation so that anyone reading this post knows what to do around people with vulnerable immune systems.

The vaccination status of the caregiver (or any visitor) is irrelevant. The at risk remain at risk.

The phrase "even if they live with someone at high risk of severe illness" is superfluous. Vaccination of others does not protect people at high risk of severe illness from Covid.

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The vaccination status of the caregiver (or any visitor) is irrelevant.

No, our opinions on it are irrelevant to them. Only they get to decide what's relevant to them. And that's why restricting the eligibility to the vaccine for political reasons is immoral.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

This is a different argument. This is "anyone who wants the vaccine should be able to have it". Agreed.

My point is that assuming that caregivers should get covid vaccines is unscientific and encourages dangerous behavior around those at risk. (Because it implies if you are vaccinated against Covid then you present no risk)

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

My point is that assuming that caregivers should get covid vaccines is unscientific and encourages dangerous behavior around those at risk. (Because it implies if you are vaccinated against Covid then you present no risk)

No, it does not imply that, at all. You are inferring it. Caregivers should get the vaccine, because everyone who does not have a medical reason not to should, because it is scientifically observed to reduce viral load and improve outcomes from an infection. That's a completely independent statement from masking recommendations.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

This is not an argument about getting vaccinated. You are not reading correctly.

A caregivers covid vaccination status is irrelevant to the at risk. The covid vaccine does not stop transmission. It will not protect people at risk.

Putting it bluntly. You being vaccinated will not stop you killing your immunocompromised grandmother with covid.

[–] swelter_spark@reddthat.com 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I've noticed that a lot of people on Lemmy simply don't believe this, and consider it to be anti-vax propaganda.

The first time I got covid, it was from someone who had been vaccinated. She didn't wear a mask around me or tell me she had covid because she didn't think she could give it to me.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

People tend to have only binary opinions and this is a technical topic that has been deeply politicised.

I think this particular argument of viral transmission is worth having, because it may just make someone think twice around their more vulnerable friends and family members.

I should have also highlighted that recently recovered can also silently infect with other strains.