# Austria first country to make Covid vaccine mandatory



## subcon959 (Nov 19, 2021)

Quote from Financial Times,

Austria’s government has said it will put forward legislation to make vaccination against coronavirus mandatory for all citizens from early next year, making it the first country worldwide to do so, as infections continue to rocket higher.

It is time “to face reality”, Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg told a news briefing on Friday, as he imposed a three-week lockdown for all Austrians.

The government has begun to draft legislation making vaccines obligatory, Schallenberg said, but the process will require extensive consultation, making February the likely earliest date at which it could come into force.

“We have too many political forces in this country who fight against vaccination,” the chancellor told reporters in Tyrol, following late night discussions with Austria’s state governors. “Despite campaigns, [too many] people have still not got vaccinated.”

The consequence of allowing resistance to continue, he added, was “endless human suffering”. 

From midnight on Friday all bars, restaurants, non-essential shops and entertainment venues will all close in Austria until December 13. Schools will remain open.

*After December 13, the lockdown will be maintained for unvaccinated people.* A review will be conducted in 10 days’ time, at which point some relaxation of the rules may be allowed.


----------



## Jayro (Nov 19, 2021)

Sounds like a great start. Hope the U.S.A. is next. My favorite part is that the unvaccinated morons can't participate in public events. Their tears are delicious.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 19, 2021)

How unfortunate.

Also how quick people are to abandon "my body, my choice".


----------



## Milenko (Nov 19, 2021)

Schools are one of the worst places for transmission, yeah kids don't get as sick but they still bring it home


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 19, 2021)

<--- Read my Avatarpicture..


EDIT:
Sorry - Christmas is comning...it says before:

A Picture of Austrias Outline,crossed out in Red and titled "Fuck Austria"


----------



## AmandaRose (Nov 19, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> <--- Read my Avatarpicture..


Perhaps you should move to the small Austrian town called Fucking. That way you will be in Fucking Austria


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 19, 2021)

AmandaRose said:


> Perhaps you should move to the small Austrian town called Fucking. That way you will be in Fucking Austria
> 
> View attachment 285685




Better on the Bottom on the Sea,I never heard of Covid in Bikini Bottom.


----------



## Valwinz (Nov 19, 2021)

from the people that give you the Anschluss, they are no stranger to going full dictators.
Funny to see people here happy about the government forcing their people with no choice to do something.

also, remember when people were called conspiracy nuts for saying the governments were going to do this?


----------



## AmandaRose (Nov 19, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> Better on the Bottom on the Sea,I never heard of Covid in Bikini Bottom.


Are you ready, tempers?
Aye, aye, Amanda !
I can't hear you!
Aye, aye, Amanda!
Oh!


Who lives in a pineapple under the sea?
Alexander!
Austrian and funny and beautiful is he
Alexander !
If EOF nonsense be something you wish
Alexander !
Free drinks tomorrow let's all get pissed!
Alexander !


Ready?!
Alexander !
Alexander !
Alexander !
Alexander ! 


Ah-hah
Hahaha
Ah-hah, hahahar


----------



## tabzer (Nov 19, 2021)

Fookin Austria has it out for @Alexander1970.  Maybe society will split into two.  One that is raised and educated by the government, pays taxes, gets their shots, and stays within the rails of its maze.  And the other, will have families.



FAST6191 said:


> How unfortunate.
> 
> Also how quick people are to abandon "my body, my choice".



It's always been "their body, 'our' choice".  They only pretend that an individual has agency as long as they *stay subservient to the hive mind.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 19, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Fookin Austria has it out for @Alexander1970.  Maybe society will split into two.  One that is raised and educated by the government, pays taxes, gets their shots, and stays within the rails of its maze.  And the other, will have families.
> 
> 
> 
> It's always been "their body, 'our' choice".  They only pretend that an individual has agency as long as they subservient to the hive mind.


Very good said,my Friend.


Thankfully we have in the next Weeks the Alternative with Novavax and maybe also Valneva.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 19, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> How unfortunate.
> 
> Also how quick people are to abandon "my body, my choice".


Except those against getting vaccinated are a harm to those around them. It’s not just their body being effected, it’s their household, neighborhood, schools, and so on. All because some people believe in garbage they read on Facebook. The choice to not get vaccinated continues the spread of viruses and harms more than just the individual.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 19, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> Except those against getting vaccinated are a harm to those around them. It’s not just their body being effected, it’s their household, neighborhood, schools, and so on. All because some people believe in garage they read on Facebook. The choice to not get vaccinated continues the spread of viruses and harms more than just the individual.



Did you try to Imagine your biological mother being forced to have an abortion using the same reasoning?

Because it's pretty fooking hilarious.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 19, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> Except those against getting vaccinated are a harm to those around them. It’s not just their body being effected, it’s their household, neighborhood, schools, and so on. All because some people believe in garage they read on Facebook. The choice to not get vaccinated continues the spread of viruses and harms more than just the individual.


How much harm do we tolerate then? Plenty of other things that fall under "my body, my choice" have a societal cost to bear as well, arguably even more than kung flu ever would.
There are plenty of things that harm others and we let go for the sake of allow things to go on.

Also it is all delusional from randoms on the internet? Bit simplified there.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 19, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> How much harm do we tolerate then? Plenty of other things that fall under "my body, my choice" have a societal cost to bear as well, arguably even more than kung flu ever would.
> There are plenty of things that harm others and we let go for the sake of allow things to go on.
> 
> Also it is all delusional from randoms on the internet? Bit simplified there.


There’s no reason to tolerate people not getting vaccinated, unless that person medically can’t get vaccinated. There’s also no reason to respect people misusing “my body, my choice” in a situation where their choice is proven to be detrimental to literally everyone around them. This isn’t some social cost nor is a matter of choices with controlled outcomes. Covid is rapid spreading and mutating, the outcome can only be controlled through taking the proper preventive measures, including vaccination, avoiding others when sick, and so on.
And I will say that those against vaccination have not proven their stance to be backed actual research. The most they’ve gotten is temporary and known side effects that don’t compare to the actual disease. Either they provide peer-reviewed research to back up their shit or their claims hold no weight. We aren’t at a point anymore where this shit is debatable.


----------



## Coto (Nov 19, 2021)

yours truly, from _"my body, my choice"_ to concentration camps.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 19, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> There’s no reason to tolerate people not getting vaccinated, unless that person medically can’t get vaccinated. There’s also no reason to respect people misusing “my body, my choice” in a situation where their choice is proven to be detrimental to literally everyone around them. This isn’t some social cost nor is a matter of choices with controlled outcomes. Covid is rabid spreading and mutating, the outcome can only be controlled through taking the proper preventive measures, including vaccination, avoiding others when sick, and so on.
> And I will say that those against vaccination have not proven their stance to be backed actual research. The most they’ve gotten is temporary and known side effects that don’t compare to the actual disease. Either they provide peer-reviewed research to back up their shit or their claims hold no weight. We aren’t at a point anymore where this shit is debatable.


In your risk-reward analysis there is no need to tolerate people, one I might question if it is coloured by your personal perception (you have previously claimed to be especially prone to such things, and maybe have those in your life that are similarly so). For others it can differ. Detrimental is also something that gets to be qualified, though there are detriments.
I don't see it being a misuse -- it is a fairly trite concept in line with similarly trite notions of free speech, freedom of religion and various other things. Agree with what you have to say is one thing but right to say it and all that. Too many qualifiers and you risk losing the entire thing, and frankly I don't see this as being near any kind of real hardline approach being forced lest humanity fail or something.

Typing on a phone? Rabid spreading is amusing I take it that means rapid.
OK. Given most countries can't manage even supply then third world shitholes are going to be that way for longer and presumably going on there (see also this Indian variant lark and they have way better than most of Africa, Asia and possibly even South America at this point. Might it be said to then be pissing into the wind or something equally futile, and also tricky from a rights thing above (if you are going to stamp all over them in a big way then probably ought to be for a good reason). Similarly the asymptomatic cases and overwhelming counts thereof (if we extrapolate backwards from reliable tests and known spread rates it is presumably a rather high count) does mean we are back at community arguments if we are going that way.

There are some longer term side effects I would place up there with the disease as well, certainly ones that if you maliciously caused it in someone else would cause you to be slapped hard. Rare and percentage balances get fun with if we are doing the maths of sociopaths (or those making the "hard decisions"), but things that exist, though side effects or not is almost immaterial in this discussion (though side effects vs disease can certainly form part of that and a rebuttal, certainly would from me).


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 19, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> In your risk-reward analysis there is no need to tolerate people, one I might question if it is coloured by your personal perception (you have previously claimed to be especially prone to such things, and maybe have those in your life that are similarly so). For others it can differ. Detrimental is also something that gets to be qualified, though there are detriments.
> I don't see it being a misuse -- it is a fairly trite concept in line with similarly trite notions of free speech, freedom of religion and various other things. Agree with what you have to say is one thing but right to say it and all that. Too many qualifiers and you risk losing the entire thing, and frankly I don't see this as being near any kind of real hardline approach being forced lest humanity fail or something.
> 
> Typing on a phone? Rabid spreading is amusing I take it that means rapid.
> ...


Can you provide any peer-reviewed sources that show those against getting vaccinated have any grounds in reality? You say a lot of words but at the end of day, none of them are changing reality in favor of respecting those against getting vaccinated.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 19, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> Can you provide any peer-reviewed sources that show those against getting vaccinated have any grounds in reality? You say a lot of words but at the end of day, none of them are changing reality in favor of respecting those against getting vaccinated.


Don't need to.
"my body, my choice" is a compelling argument, even if it would be more desirable for them to be vaccinated.

Similarly if you really care you can go look at the list of unpleasant side effects. If they tip their risk-reward calculations into such scenarios, despite the miniscule practical risk, it is still ultimately something society generally says is their choice.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 19, 2021)

Good. Hope the US follows suite some time soon. But I doubt it. Not when the moronic right are even trying to stop Biden's covid TESTING mandate for large companies under the false pretense that they are being mandated to take the vaccine. I think if people started calling it what is actually is here in the US, a TEST mandate, the right wouldn't be so incredibly stupid about it. I hope they start crashing through peoples windows, holding them down, and literally FORCING the vaccine. Fuck you, your body, and your "rights". The sooner the better.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 19, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Don't need to.
> "my body, my choice" is a compelling argument, even if it would be more desirable for them to be vaccinated.
> 
> Similarly if you really care you can go look at the list of unpleasant side effects. If they tip their risk-reward calculations into such scenarios, despite the miniscule practical risk, it is still ultimately something society generally says is their choice.


Fine, prove that statement holds up in regards to Covid. Does one choosing not get vaccinated only effect them?
The side effects of the vaccines have been shown to be temporary. Discomfort for a few hours to maybe a few days does not compare to the possible weeks to even lifetime side effects of Covid. Choosing to avoid a short period of discomfort with the risk of harming others goes beyond just one’s body.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 19, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> Fine, prove that statement holds up in regards to Covid. Does one choosing not get vaccinated only effect them?


Even ignoring butterfly effect then few actions ever will be isolated to one person.
Equally in debate it is the one making the radical claim is the one that gets to back it up. Is kung flu damaging enough to bypass the otherwise fairly fundamentally held right over what goes into your body? One that has had innumerable similar situations in prior years too and nobody has gone for that if prior actions/tradeoffs mean anything in this.


----------



## MichiS97 (Nov 19, 2021)

Oh my these comments are a cesspool

I should add, I really hope Germany follows up next. The situation is really terrifying right now with hospitals filling up with mostly unvaccinated COVID patients. Here's to hoping none of my relatives, friends and loved ones have an accident or medical incident where they require urgent medical care because too many people didn't get vaccinated because it's "their choice". 
I actually got my booster shot this Wednesday and I'm so grateful for it. Just get the shot guys, it's not a big deal. Or refuse treatment in an ICU. If you don't "trust the science" then at least be consistent with it


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2021)

Just another police state doing typical police state things, nothing new under the sun. I strongly support getting vaccinated (because it provably works), but not at the point of a gun. With some luck the Austrian government will reap what they sow next election season.


----------



## MichiS97 (Nov 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Just another police state doing typical police state things, nothing new under the sun. I strongly support getting vaccinated (because it probably works), but not at the point of a gun. With some luck the Australian government will reap what they sow next election season.



I mean, there's no gun pointing involved, only a bit of jail time or, even more likely, a fine but okay.


----------



## osm70 (Nov 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Just another police state doing typical police state things, nothing new under the sun. I strongly support getting vaccinated (because it probably works), but not at the point of a gun. With some luck the Australian government will reap what they sow next election season.


I support taking the vaccine and I somewhat support making it mandatory to some extend. (Like, don't jail me if I don't take it, but feel free to prevent me leaving my home or something to that effect.) But at the same time, I don't agree with a thing the Australian government did and I was one of the people who compared Australia to North Korea (country exit ban, for example).

So... what does that say about me?


----------



## Jokey_Carrot (Nov 19, 2021)

This is really bad man.


----------



## lokomelo (Nov 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Just another police state doing typical police state things, nothing new under the sun. I strongly support getting vaccinated (because it probably works), but not at the point of a gun. With some luck the Australian government will reap what they sow next election season.


is it Australia or Austria? Are you mismatching?

It would be funny to see a politician in Australia lose a election because a domestic Austrian Law.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 19, 2021)

Anyone know if there's a particular age involved here? I can't find if it's the entire population or just adults.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Just another police state doing typical police state things, nothing new under the sun. I strongly support getting vaccinated (because it probably works), but not at the point of a gun. With some luck the Australian government will reap what they sow next election season.


Austrian please.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2021)

MichiS97 said:


> I mean, there's no gun pointing involved, only a bit of jail time or, even more likely, a fine but okay.


Of course there’s a gun involved. The government has the most and the biggest guns. Incarceration isn’t optional - government stooges *with guns* take you there. When the government expects something of you, it is always under the threat of violence because that’s the only instrument the government has. It operates on coercion, and always has. Fines are just as egregious - making that money took time and effort, so you can mathematically arrive at an exact figure of how much freedom the state has deprived you of.


Alexander1970 said:


> Austrian please.


Herp-a-derp, we’ll-spotted, Australia isn’t far behind though, given the civil unrest in Melbourne. Will edit now, thanks.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 19, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Anyone know if there's a particular age involved here? I can't find if it's the entire population or just adults.





> Ab welchem Alter die Impfpflicht schlagend wird, ist noch nicht geklärt: Eine diesbezügliche Anfrage beantwortete das Gesundheitsministerium auf ORF.at-Anfrage folgendermaßen: „Es handelt sich hierbei um den Startschuss für einen umfassenden Prozess, dem nicht vorgegriffen werden soll, und an dessen Ende Details zu Organisation, Kommunikation, Sanktionierung, Ausnahmen etc. stehen werden.“



The age at which vaccination becomes mandatory has not yet been clarified: The Ministry of Health responded to a request in this regard to ORF.at as follows: “This is the starting signal for a comprehensive process that should not be anticipated, and at the end of it Details on organization, communication, sanctions, exceptions, etc. will be available. "


First decide, then the details ... Austrian Politics.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 19, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Even ignoring butterfly effect then few actions ever will be isolated to one person.
> Equally in debate it is the one making the radical claim is the one that gets to back it up. Is kung flu damaging enough to bypass the otherwise fairly fundamentally held right over what goes into your body? One that has had innumerable similar situations in prior years too and nobody has gone for that if prior actions/tradeoffs mean anything in this.


This isn’t a source nor even a link to any kind of article. There’s no debate to be had, just provide a source that shows not getting vaccinated doesn’t have harmful effects on others around the Individual.


----------



## Deleted member 507653 (Nov 19, 2021)

tabzer said:


> It's always been "their body, 'our' choice".  They only pretend that an individual has agency as long as they subservient to the hive mind.



Lmao, do you act the same way for other actions that hurt people around you?

"Oh my god! the government has MANDATED that I must drive sober. My body my choice, I CAN DRIVE DRUNK IF I WANT TO"


----------



## plasturion (Nov 19, 2021)

Sorry to hear that, it should never happen, but that was easy to predict.
Damn global communists are going to far, but they get what they asking for.
Nuremberg 2.0 comming soon.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 19, 2021)

What is sad:
The people who are now screaming loudest
"Yes, I said yes, you have to force the vaccination into their brains ...!"
I'm personally sorry for them.
Are you aware that a GENERAL vaccination obligation means that with the next mutation you MUST take the vaccine, no matter how untested / new it is!

I read here from people who actually pay attention / are proud of their bodies and who emphasize this again and again and then do these people allow themselves to inject any shit?

Well....bravo ....


----------



## osm70 (Nov 19, 2021)

cauliquackers said:


> Lmao, do you act the same way for other actions that hurt people around you?
> 
> "Oh my god! the government has MANDATED that I must drive sober. My body my choice, I CAN DRIVE DRUNK IF I WANT TO"


While I support vaccination, this is a bad argument. The government is saying you an't drive while being drunk. That's not the same thing.
You would have a point about the "my body my choice" thing if the government said you can't drink at all.


----------



## MichiS97 (Nov 19, 2021)

cauliquackers said:


> Lmao, do you act the same way for other actions that hurt people around you?
> 
> "Oh my god! the government is trying to make me drive SOBER. My body my choice, I CAN DRIVE DRUNK IF I WANT TO"


Given what we've experienced in the pandemic I'm surprised there aren't more people who deliberately drive black out drunk every day or deliberately crash their car without wearing a seat belt just to "own the libs" or "trigger the sheeple" or "stick it to the government" or whatever it is that their QAnon cult leaders and tabloids tell them is the new cool thing to do.


----------



## Deleted member 507653 (Nov 19, 2021)

osm70 said:


> While I support vaccination, this is a bad argument. The government is saying you an't drive while being drunk. That's not the same thing.
> You would have a point about the "my body my choice" thing if the government said you can't drink at all.



Well if youre drunk then you're legally not allowed to drive at all.

The point is the government limits what we can and can't do or have all the time in pursuit of public safety and health.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2021)

MichiS97 said:


> Given what we've experienced in the pandemic I'm surprised there aren't more people who deliberately drive black out drunk every day or deliberately crash their car without wearing a seat belt just to "own the libs" or "trigger the sheeple" or "stick it to the government" or whatever it is that their QAnon cult leaders and tabloids tell them is the new cool thing to do.


I’m surprised that more people aren’t in the streets burning down anything that’s flammable considering the fact that we’ll soon be on year 2 of 2 weeks to stop the spread. The world population is exceedingly calm given the circumstances.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I’m surprised that more people aren’t in the streets burning down anything that’s flammable considering the fact that we’ll soon be on year 2 of 2 weeks to stop the spread. The world population is exceedingly calm given the circumstances.


Funny....a Moment ago:

https://www.krone.at/2559828

Corona frustated People want to burn Policecar and the Policeofficers....


----------



## osm70 (Nov 19, 2021)

cauliquackers said:


> Well if youre drunk then you're legally not allowed to drive at all


"You have to take the vaccine" is comparable to "you can't drink at all".

"You can't drive while being drunk" would be comparable to "you can't have a job if you aren't vaccinated".

That's all I am saying.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2021)

lokomelo said:


> is it Australia or Austria? Are you mismatching?
> 
> It would be funny to see a politician in Australia lose a election because a domestic Austrian Law.


Yeah, I’ve corrected myself, it is Austria. I’m on mobile so my typing ability is severely limited by autocorrect and hands like loaves of bread.


----------



## Deleted member 507653 (Nov 19, 2021)

osm70 said:


> "You have to take the vaccine" is comparable to "you can't drink at all".
> 
> "You can't drive while being drunk" would be comparable to "you can't have a job if you aren't vaccinated".
> 
> That's all I am saying.



I think you're misunderstanding. I wasn't trying to do a one-to-one comparison. I was simply addressing the statement "my body my choice" and how that is simply not true when it comes to public health

But yeah I agree, a better comparison would be something like stopping people from doing crystal meth


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Just another police state doing typical police state things, nothing new under the sun. I strongly support getting vaccinated (because it probably works), but not at the point of a gun. With some luck the Australian government will reap what they sow next election season.


+1 to being happy to see Australian gov getting a kick in the teeth but that is a different topic.
Seems they are presently governed by the OVP (nominally a right wing party, though right-left is probably a poor framing on this site and as concerns Austria) and greens (which seem to have all kinds of personal rights at their heart) in coalition. Unless you are going to reckon some kind of massive sea change...




MichiS97 said:


> I mean, there's no gun pointing involved, only a bit of jail time or, even more likely, a fine but okay.


Which is enforced at the point of a gun (tried running away from jail or fines lately?). Minor abstraction.


The Catboy said:


> This isn’t a source nor even a link to any kind of article. There’s no debate to be had, just provide a source that shows not getting vaccinated doesn’t have harmful effects on others around the Individual.


Again you being the one to make the radical claim (that being we should forcibly inject people of otherwise sound mind against their will) get to be the one to back it up on it being such an overwhelming necessity as to justify bypassing what is otherwise a fairly fundamentally held right.
I would probably completely agree on statistically (absolutism and science you seem to want to champion do not go hand in hand but for the sake of discussion that can be overlooked) there is going to be someone with a shitty immune system (even more so as mere age works for this it seems) in some kind of non abstract circles, and transmission rates is fairly sound maths even without that. Diseases tend to have transmission rates (higher than many but ultimately fairly low as these things go in this case) and deadliness factors (higher than some but still far from apocalyptic, even if some did like to do the sky is falling routine) that go together for the basic metric of their concern levels (100% fatal but only contracted from prolonged sexual contact with a rare rock would probably be hard to justify a forced vaccination for, even assuming someone thought it sexy enough to make a vaccine for* it). Evolution/mutation is also good maths fun simple maths covered in that one.

*this is also far from the first coronavirus in modern times to have serious fun around the place. Are those that denied funding the last few goes around now negligent to the point you seem to want to hold the unvaccinated to?


----------



## osm70 (Nov 19, 2021)

I like how people act as if mandatory vaccination was something new and exclusive to covid. The pox vaccine is also mandatory, for example. or at least in some countries, no idea about the whole world.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 19, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> What is sad:
> The people who are now screaming loudest
> "Yes, I said yes, you have to force the vaccination into their brains ...!"
> I'm personally sorry for them.
> ...


Most of the people forcing everyone about this are trusting the pharm companies too much. I had to get the vaccine because I am on the vulnerable list. I'm on the vulnerable list because I was prescribed a drug that the pharm company lied about the safety even when they knew it could be dangerous. This is why I am strongly against medical mandates by the government because I know they can be made to make bad decisions.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2021)

osm70 said:


> I like how people act as if mandatory vaccination was something new and exclusive to covid. The pox vaccine is also mandatory, for example. or at least in some countries, no idea about the whole world.


The pox vaccine, along with other vaccinations intended for young children, is administered between the ages of 12 and 15 months. The COVID vaccine is administered primarily to grown adults who have their own agency and can make a decision in regards to their own health. There is precedent for the state making decisions on behalf of citizens who lack the capacity to make them themselves, there is no such precedent for grown adults who should be protected by the right to bodily integrity as described in the human rights charter. This includes the right to choose what medical procedures one is willing to undertake and which ones they refuse, for all the right or wrong reasons. It is not for you or for the government to decide what medication your neighbour chooses to ingest or inject, and your neighbour is not obligated to placate anyone’s hypochondria and paranoia regarding their medical status.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 19, 2021)

osm70 said:


> I like how people act as if mandatory vaccination was something new and exclusive to covid. The pox vaccine is also mandatory, for example. or at least in some countries, no idea about the whole world.


Most countries anybody would want to live in encourage it strongly (make it dirt cheap/free, education, incentives both carrot and stick, and for generally good stuff that demonstrably works) but stop short of making it mandatory. Making it mandatory is something usually reserved for rather more authoritarian setups that we usually see people want to claim asylum from or otherwise migrate from whenever they can/if given half a chance, that or in truly dire cases (life seems to be going on OK despite being what two years on at this point since someone nibbled some bat soup).
Making it mandatory might as a society wide affair be of some net good, similar to killing all the religious, the stupid, the autistic, the vegans, the disabled, and [insert other nebulous grouping that are holding back society or at least not as positive as some others for your particular goals], but does rather go against individual freedoms (that tend to also by why people want to live in those places if given the chance).


----------



## deinonychus71 (Nov 19, 2021)

"Your freedom ends where mine begins".

Such a simple concept, you'd think everyone would agree with that.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 19, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> +1 to being happy to see Australian gov getting a kick in the teeth but that is a different topic.
> Seems they are presently governed by the OVP (nominally a right wing party, though right-left is probably a poor framing on this site and as concerns Austria) and greens (which seem to have all kinds of personal rights at their heart) in coalition. Unless you are going to reckon some kind of massive sea change...
> 
> 
> ...


I did not claim to want people to want to force people to be vaccinated nor even show support for mandatory vaccination. I am on the mindset that the government shouldn’t force people to do anything. I am on the mindset that those who can be vaccinated but choose not to, should not be respected as they are a detriment to others. My requests have been to prove that they have actual research to back up their reasoning for not wanting to be vaccinated. My additional requests was for sources showing that they aren’t a danger to others. I am not being unreasonable to request resources for someone’s position nor am I unreasonable for poking holes through statements that don’t match up with the request. I am simply looking for the sources people used to come to their conclusions.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2021)

deinonychus71 said:


> "Your freedom ends where mine begins".
> 
> Such a simple concept, you'd think everyone would agree with that.


There is only one side here that forces the other to do something they don’t want or care to do. Nobody is forcing you to associate with the unvaccinated, nobody is stopping you from getting vaccinated yourself. I don’t see how this argument entitles you to make decisions regarding any third party’s health - you’re the one in control of your own safety, the risk and reward calculation is in your favour.


----------



## osm70 (Nov 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The pox vaccine, along with other vaccinations intended for young children, is administered between the ages of 12 and 15 months. The COVID vaccine is administered primarily to grown adults who have their own agency and can make a decision in regards to their own health. There is precedent for the state making decisions on behalf of citizens who lack the capacity to make them themselves, there is no such precedent for grown adults who should be protected by the right to bodily integrity as described in the human rights charter. This includes the right to choose what medical procedures one is willing to undertake and which ones they refuse, for all the right or wrong reasons. It is not for you or for the government to decide what medication your neighbour chooses to ingest or inject, and your neighbour is not obligated to placate anyone’s hypochondria and paranoia regarding their medical status.


No precedent, you say? Well, let me blow your mind. I live in the Czech Republic and I am 26 years old. 2 months ago, I went to a hospital with a leg injury. When I was there, they checked my medical records and found out that my mandatory tetanus vaccination is expired. They injected me with another tetanus shot right there, no questions asked. It's been like that for years in this country and as far as I can see, no one questions it.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 19, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> I did not claim to want people to want to force people to be vaccinated nor even show support for mandatory vaccination. I am on the mindset that the government shouldn’t force people to do anything. I am on the mindset that those who can be vaccinated but choose not to, should not be respected as they are a detriment to others. My requests have been to prove that they have actual research to back up their reasoning for not wanting to be vaccinated. My additional requests was for sources showing that they aren’t a danger to others. I am not being unreasonable to request resources for someone’s position nor am I unreasonable for poking holes through statements that don’t match up with the request. I am simply looking for the sources people used to come to their conclusions.


Whether that is my misread or you changing goalposts I can't be bothered to parse at this point.
If that is your burden then so it goes. They in turn get to live without your respect, which going by previous philosophy/political/whatever threads is no mean feat to obtain either and about as valuable as opinions are in general.
The reasoning could be as simple as "ew potential for unpleasant side effect, no thanks" ("tragedy is when I prick my finger, comedy is when you fall down a well and die" and all that -- my sore arm is worth more than your life, or indeed my risk of strokes (be it from the vaccination itself, which was a thing in rare cases for some of them, or from maltreatment because some half baked whatever in the cattle sheds administering it did an air bubble) could be valid if sitting within your framework, and if going for the general law then "my horoscope said not to" is as good as anything else.

Equally the vaccinated could still be a demonstrable danger to others (even as far as efficacy goes this is on the more dubious side of things, even before the likes of the undiagnosed cancer problem), just presumably less of one.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Nov 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> There is only one side here that forces the other to do something they don’t want or care to do. Nobody is forcing you to associate with the unvaccinated, nobody is stopping you from getting vaccinated yourself. I don’t see how this argument entitles you to make decisions regarding any third party’s health - you’re the one in control of your own safety, the risk and reward calculation is in your favour.



Clusters are primarily started in under vaccinated areas, effectively putting the entire population at risk. People can travel the country (or the world) twice before showing any symptom. "Nobody is forcing you to associate with the unvaccinated" is not true in all countries. In the US there is no Covid pass that can be verified, as it's just a piece of paper and many people -in the name of that freedom- are lying about their status, therefore exposing other people who in their right ~"their freedom"~ choose to not accept unvaccinated people or people without masks on their premises.

We are also not in control of our own safety in a society when in order to live one must go to work everyday. We can only reduce the risks while other people make it more difficult for everyone.

Non vaccinated people -are- undermining the global effort to get rid and the pandemic. I haven't been able to see my family in almost 2 years because of travel bans, and I was happy to comply for the interest of all, now if Christmas is a bust again I'm absolutely going to blame unvaccinated people for forcing another lockdown on us.

But I will still comply. Because the interest of us all is more important.

Now of course the underlying issue has nothing to do with the vaccine itself, no need to pretend otherwise. It's entirely political.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2021)

osm70 said:


> No precedent, you say? Well, let me blow your mind. I live in the Czech Republic and I am 26 years old. 2 months ago, I went to a hospital with a leg injury. When I was there, they checked my medical records and found out that my mandatory tetanus vaccination is expired. They injected me with another tetanus shot right there, no questions asked. It's been like that for years in this country and as far as I can see, no one questions it.


Of course they injected you with a tetanus vaccination, that’s part of the treatment for that kind of injury anyway, especially if you’re dealing with an open wound. You haven’t blown my mind, I’m afraid. 




I very much doubt that anyone’s chasing you around with a flu jab every year, it’s entirely optional, and the flu kills hundreds of thousands of people worldwide. You were also free to refuse treatment, you just didn’t. You’ll also note that your vaccination was long since expired and you weren’t, y’know, in jail for missing it. Nice try though.


----------



## osm70 (Nov 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Of course they injected you with a tetanus vaccination, that’s part of the treatment for that kind of injury anyway, especially if you’re dealing with an open fracture. You haven’t blown my mind, I’m afraid. I very much doubt that anyone’s chasing you around with a flu jab every year, it’s entirely optional, and the flu kills hundreds of thousands of people worldwide. You were also free to refuse treatment, you just didn’t. You’ll also note that your vaccination was long since expired and you weren’t, y’know, in jail for missing it. Nice try though.


Well... yes. You are right about the flu vaccine not being mandatory here. I guess this just shows that I don't know what I am talking about.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2021)

osm70 said:


> Well... yes. You are right about the flu vaccine not being mandatory here. I guess this just shows that I don't know what I am talking about.


No harm done. I’m pro vaccine anyway, it’s proven to be effective and everyone should take it at their earliest convenience. I’m just not willing to put people in jail or fine them for exercising their human rights.


----------



## AmandaRose (Nov 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> No harm done. I’m pro vaccine anyway, it’s proven to be effective and everyone should take it at their earliest convenience. I’m just not willing to put people in jail or fine them for exercising their human rights.


For once I am actually in agreement with one of your posts


----------



## Deleted member 507653 (Nov 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> No harm done. I’m pro vaccine anyway, it’s proven to be effective and everyone should take it at their earliest convenience. I’m just not willing to put people in jail or fine them for exercising their human rights.



Easy to say, hard to define. If you're aiming for human rights where you get to do whatever you want whenever you want, I'd invite you come out from under your rock. On the other hand, if we pursue human rights as an optimization to allow the most amount of freedom for everyone in society as a *whole*, the vaccine mandate falls completely under that.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 19, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> I did not claim to want people to want to force people to be vaccinated nor even show support for mandatory vaccination. I am on the mindset that the government shouldn’t force people to do anything.


That's strange because you only seem to like the posts that are pro mandate and never the ones that are pro choice? Are you making an exemption to your core values because you strongly believe the science? That was rhetorical I'll assume yes. So therefore, would you be willing to change this view if at some point down the line there is scientific evidence that the (as yet unknown) long term effects of the MRNA vaccines are problematic? Because, you are making your risk/reward judgement based on only short term data right now, which obviously favours vaccination over disease for a lot of people (myself included).


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 19, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> That's strange because you only seem to like the posts that are pro mandate and never the ones that are pro choice? Are you making an exemption to your core values because you strongly believe the science? That was rhetorical I'll assume yes. So therefore, would you be willing to change this view if at some point down the line there is scientific evidence that the (as yet unknown) long term effects of the MRNA vaccines are problematic? Because, you are making your risk/reward judgement based on only short term data right now, which obviously favours vaccination over disease for a lot of people (myself included).


Where did I state anything that's pro-mandate? That being said, I am always willing to change my position on a matter when proven wrong. At the same time, I find it highly unlikely that I would be wrong as evidence of long-term harm would have shown itself long before this point. I've also yet to be shown evidence that backs up the paranoia of possible long-term side effects. This isn't to say I won't change if the evidence is presented, but it is to say that evidence has not been presented and it seems far more unlikely for that hypothetical evidence to be presented.


----------



## RAHelllord (Nov 19, 2021)

I'm okay with vaccine mandates as long as they're sensible. For example disallowing nation wide access to public services that put a lot of strangers into tight spaces (public transit, publicly accessible institutions, libraries, schools, etc) unless the person is vaccinated. Then add fines if they try to access those things in person without being vaccinated. Exceptions would need to exist for people that can't get vaccinated, of course. But otherwise just fuck those people, if they can't be arsed to do what they can to protect other people around them no reason to allow them to participate in what society provides to them via taxes from everyone. If they don't want the shot they can just stay at home or in the woods and have their food delivered to them, that's their personal freedom right there.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 19, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> Where did I state anything that's pro-mandate? That being said, I am always willing to change my position on a matter when proven wrong. At the same time, I find it highly unlikely that I would be wrong as evidence of long-term harm would have shown itself long before this point. I've also yet to be shown evidence that backs up the paranoia of possible long-term side effects. This isn't to say I won't change if the evidence is presented, but it is to say that evidence has not been presented and it seems far more unlikely for that hypothetical evidence to be presented.


It's all theoretical science at the moment since you can't get long term data without a long amount of time passing. There is particular concern about the spike protein entering the nuclei of cells, which could hamper DNA repair.

Edit: I should add that this could also happen with the disease, but that brings us back to the risk/reward argument.


----------



## RAHelllord (Nov 19, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> That's strange because you only seem to like the posts that are pro mandate and never the ones that are pro choice? Are you making an exemption to your core values because you strongly believe the science? That was rhetorical I'll assume yes. So therefore, would you be willing to change this view if at some point down the line there is scientific evidence that the (as yet unknown) long term effects of the MRNA vaccines are problematic? Because, you are making your risk/reward judgement based on only short term data right now, which obviously favours vaccination over disease for a lot of people (myself included).


If you like books I would suggest reading up on how mRNA vaccines work and how the way they work makes it practically impossible to have long-term effects manifest after a couple weeks have passed. The book Immune from kurzgesagt is a great read on the matter and makes it pretty clear that, if your immune system doesn't kill you within a couple days of the injection, they're safe "forever".

The incredibly abridged tl;dr is that the mRNA makes a bunch of your cells produce the spike protein, your white blood cells see that protein on some of your cells near the injection site, activates the full immune system response because those shouldn't be there, tells these cells to commit Sudoku, vacuums up the corpses, turns them into jigsaw puzzles, takes all parts to the helper cells, develops antibodies for the spike proteins and boom, your immune system now has a weapon ready to go against the real deal. All the mRNA vaccine parts left in your body will be eaten by the white blood cells, turned into harmless nutrients, and used up like normal. Anything they can't eat leaves through your bladder in a couple weeks. The antibodies are just the normal things your body produces against any other infections, too, just tailor made against those proteins.

Again, I highly recommend the book, personally I found it fascinating.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2021)

cauliquackers said:


> Easy to say, hard to define. If you're aiming for human rights where you get to do whatever you want whenever you want, I'd invite you come out from under your rock. On the other hand, if we pursue human rights as an optimization to allow the most amount of freedom for everyone in society as a *whole*, the vaccine mandate falls completely under that.


My rights exist to protect me from you, the government and society as a whole, they’re referred to as individual rights for a reason. I have rights, “society” is just a collectivised goo that exists to obfuscate that fact. They specifically exist to protect the individual from the many, not the many from the individual.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 19, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> It's all theoretical science at the moment since you can't get long term data without a long amount of time passing. There is particular concern about the spike protein entering the nuclei of cells, which could hamper DNA repair.
> 
> Edit: I should add that this could also happen with the disease, but that brings us back to the risk/reward argument.


The vaccines have been demonstrated to be safe and effective. The idea that the vaccines are going to "hamper DNA repair" is conspiracy theory nonsense pulled out of your ass. You know what has been demonstrated to potentially result in the hampering of DNA repair? Actually contracting COVID-19.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 19, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The vaccines have been demonstrated to be safe and effective. The idea that the vaccines are going to "hamper DNA repair" is conspiracy theory nonsense pulled out of your ass. You know what has been demonstrated to potentially result in the hampering of DNA repair? Actually contracting COVID-19.


Can you demonstrate something to be safe and effective in a year for most medical purposes? Trials I generally read about go over for a lot longer timeframes. Either something was rushed here, or things normally are delayed needlessly.
You can certainly make a reasonable case for it, especially with as wide a deployment, but there will ever be long term questions, as there might be about anything -- see the fun cross reactions with people having once been on certain antidepressants and taking quit smoking things years after the fact, or with viruses then polio and the particular cancer a lot of survivors got in later life.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 19, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> It's all theoretical science at the moment since you can't get long term data without a long amount of time passing. There is particular concern about the spike protein entering the nuclei of cells, which could hamper DNA repair.
> 
> Edit: I should add that this could also happen with the disease, but that brings us back to the risk/reward argument.


Just wondering, but what are you quoting here? There’s been plenty of research conducted since the discovery of mRNA to determine the side-effects, both short-term and possible long-term. mRNA isn’t something that was created recently and has been proven to be safe. Considering clinical trials on humans have been going on since 2013, we would have had seen signs potential “long-term side effects” by this point. Vaccines don’t remain in the body for that long, long-term damage would have shown itself within a few hours to days, not weeks or even years down the line.


----------



## RAHelllord (Nov 19, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> It's all theoretical science at the moment since you can't get long term data without a long amount of time passing. There is particular concern about the spike protein entering the nuclei of cells, which could hamper DNA repair.
> 
> Edit: I should add that this could also happen with the disease, but that brings us back to the risk/reward argument.


I didn't actually see this before I posted my reply: The spike protein is part of the outer shell of the virus and is only used to dock the virus to a host cell and help entry through the outer membrane. The actual parts of the virus that can then affect DNA and cause the virus to replicate inside your cells are not part of the spike protein. The vaccine makes your body create what is effectively a docking nozzle of the entire thing, nothing else. The antibodies your body produces afterwards clumps the viruses together at those docking nozzles so they can be eaten more easily by the white blood cells in your body. And as said previously every single cell that produced that spike protein in your body after the vaccine will be killed by the immune system within a few days at most, without a single exception.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 19, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Can you demonstrate something to be safe and effective in a year for most medical purposes? Trials I generally read about go over for a lot longer timeframes. Either something was rushed here, or things normally are delayed needlessly.
> You can certainly make a reasonable case for it, especially with as wide a deployment, but there will ever be long term questions, as there might be about anything -- see the fun cross reactions with people having once been on certain antidepressants and taking quit smoking things years after the fact, or with viruses then polio and the particular cancer a lot of survivors got in later life.


First, the vaccines have undergone extensive safety testing for closer to two years, not one year. Second, the Pfizer vaccine has gotten full FDA approval in the United States and has met the same rigorous safety standards as any other vaccine. Third, and perhaps most notably, the vaccine is completely out of your system within days/weeks of getting your last dose. The science is very clear that the risk of long-term effects from the vaccines is nearly zero, and that's far from the risk of long-term effects associated with actually contracting COVID-19. If your goal isn't to get sick, isn't to be hospitalized, isn't to spread the disease to others, isn't to suffer long-term effects, and isn't to die, vaccination is by far your best bet.

To get a little more on topic, vaccine mandates are a good thing, they work, and we already have a precedent for them in most countries I can think of.


----------



## XDel (Nov 19, 2021)

SHEEP!!!!


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 19, 2021)

Lacius said:


> First, the vaccines have undergone extensive safety testing for closer to two years, not one year. Second, the Pfizer vaccine has gotten full FDA approval in the United States and has met the same rigorous safety standards as any other vaccine. Third, and perhaps most notably, the vaccine is completely out of your system within days/weeks of getting your last dose. The science is very clear that the risk of long-term effects from the vaccines is nearly zero, and that's far from the risk of long-term effects associated with actually contracting COVID-19. If your goal isn't to get sick, isn't to be hospitalized, isn't to spread the disease to others, isn't to suffer long-term effects, and isn't to die, vaccination is by far your best bet.
> 
> To get a little more on topic, vaccine mandates are a good thing, they work, and we already have a precedent for them in most countries I can think of.


Is it full FDA nowadays or still the somewhat emergency setup? Details matter. Do I want to trust the FDA that much (can't imagine there is no pressure involved in this one, and they almost buckled to addyi/flibanserin the other year, their hands get tied in numerous ways as well if we want to consider supplements) as well?

Also I recall reading the first trials (general safety rather than efficacy, which has some question marks even if way over placebo) rather later into the game such that closer to year than now, or just maybe ticked over if you round up.

Out of your system and effects of it are different matters, else we would need boosters once per month.

Precedent for them is there, would be surprised if not. Whether this meets the precedent is a different matter; death and serious complication rates are notable compared to common cold but far from ebola, rabies or sleeping sickness, transmissibility is high but not measles (one case makes about eight more I think it was, when stay in your home citizen was combined with shoving a sock over a nostril the debates were between R numbers rather lower than that) and incubation/infectious periods are not necessarily the worst either.
It also begs the question why this and not the resurgent measles (which has possibly higher hospitalisation rates, and not for simple IV and go home) in years past, or flu in general (annual tolls for that are still in the "very few wars in history beat this"). Is kung flu that much more dangerous that it justifies this move? In terms of pure danger then the prevalance of fat cunts, alcoholics, smokers (of those that do then how many ultimately die from it, and not always in nice cheap ways with all of those also whilst making life less pleasant for all concerned) and more besides is also rather crippling to society and health systems, and precedents exist to do things there too.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 19, 2021)

RAHelllord said:


> If you like books I would suggest reading up on how mRNA vaccines work and how the way they work makes it practically impossible to have long-term effects manifest after a couple weeks have passed. The book Immune from kurzgesagt is a great read on the matter and makes it pretty clear that, if your immune system doesn't kill you within a couple days of the injection, they're safe "forever".
> 
> The incredibly abridged tl;dr is that the mRNA makes a bunch of your cells produce the spike protein, your white blood cells see that protein on some of your cells near the injection site, activates the full immune system response because those shouldn't be there, tells these cells to commit Sudoku, vacuums up the corpses, turns them into jigsaw puzzles, takes all parts to the helper cells, develops antibodies for the spike proteins and boom, your immune system now has a weapon ready to go against the real deal. All the mRNA vaccine parts left in your body will be eaten by the white blood cells, turned into harmless nutrients, and used up like normal. Anything they can't eat leaves through your bladder in a couple weeks. The antibodies are just the normal things your body produces against any other infections, too, just tailor made against those proteins.
> 
> Again, I highly recommend the book, personally I found it fascinating.


I believe the concern is with the vaccine leaving the injection site in the bloodstream due to improper administration. I don't know about you but every time I got mine the person didn't aspirate first and it scared the crap out of me that they could be hitting vein. I don't think the evidence is yet clear enough on what could happen for every possible variation that could occur. In fact, my personal feeling is that this could be the cause of such inconsistent side effects across the board.

Edit: @RAHelllord I posted this in the other thread but it explains what I'm trying to say. It's a bit technical but not overly so


----------



## Deleted member 507653 (Nov 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> My rights exist to protect me from you, the government and society as a whole, they’re referred to as individual rights for a reason. I have rights, “society” is just a collectivised goo that exists to obfuscate that fact. They specifically exist to protect the individual from the many, not the many from the individual.



Society is a collective goo.....made of, wait what, individuals?! Your rights exist until they harm other people. If you're a walking petri dish your right to continue walking around should not and, as Austria decided, does not take precedent over someone else's right to live. Sure you're not walking down the street swinging a knife but the compounded effect of an unvaccinated group to the immunocompromised is the same.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2021)

cauliquackers said:


> Society is a collective goo.....made of, wait what, individuals?! Your rights exist until they harm other people. If you're a walking petri dish your right to continue walking around should not and, as Austria decided, does not take precedent over someone else's right to live. Sure you're not walking down the street swinging a knife but the compounded effect of an unvaccinated group to the immunocompromised is the same.


Of course it does, the Austrian government doesn’t have the right to detain people without due process, especially if they haven’t committed a crime. You have zero evidence that someone who’s not vaccinated has the disease, or that they can transmit it to you, or that you’re even under any risk of catching it. Your analogy doesn’t apply - you’re penalising people for having pockets where they may or may not carry a knife. You don’t know if they have one, let alone whether they can swing one at you or not. You’re operating under the assumption that everyone is guilty unless proven innocent, which is psychotic and counter to all the rules of civilised society. You’re not under threat, you’re just a hypochondriac, and nobody is under any obligation to humour your neuroticism. If you are vulnerable, or feel vulnerable, the onus is on you to take necessary precautions in order to ensure your own personal safety. Please demonstrate the harm you are personally experiencing. Might be difficult considering not being vaccinated does not translate into spreading the disease.


----------



## RAHelllord (Nov 19, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I believe the concern is with the vaccine leaving the injection site in the bloodstream due to improper administration. I don't know about you but every time I got mine the person didn't aspirate first and it scared the crap out of me that they could be hitting vein. I don't think the evidence is yet clear enough on what could happen for every possible variation that could occur. In fact, my personal feeling is that this could be the cause of such inconsistent side effects across the board.
> 
> Edit: @RAHelllord I posted this in the other thread but it explains what I'm trying to say. It's a bit technical but not overly so



Aspirating a vaccine needle is only done in a few parts of the US and some other nations. Not a single vaccine shot is given like that in Germany, for example. It's an archaic practice that simply hasn't been found to have benefits or detriments so it's basically random how any given nation uses it, and it likely has so little impact either way that nobody bothered running studies on whether it's useful or not.

The video is also saying that it's not been confirmed at all and that everything is just a big old "maybe". But even then, the spike protein can only be created by the mRNA that is part of the vaccine, and that mRNA is used up quickly. The spike protein itself is neither contained in the vaccine, nor can it self replicate, and never enters the bloodstream directly, as it's created inside your body cells, which then get told to kill themselves as soon as they start making those spike proteins. If it does affect the nuclei the cells that were affected will be dead after a few days and the damage can't propagate at all. While there are exosomes that feature that spike in the bloodstream, those seemingly only persist for a few months and then stop being a thing, too. But those spike exosomes also can't enter the nuclei directly and the spike protein stays on the outside of the cells, they don't break off and enter further cells.

And of course, no protein spikes enter the bloodstream by themselves: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaccine-safe-idUSL2N2NX1J6

Also, any time a study shows something in-vitro (meaning inside a petri dish only) take it with an extreme amount of salt, not just a grain. Cells behave radically different in a petri dish because there are billions of other compounds and other cells missing to interact with them. Particularly the entire defense system of the human immune system is not present in a petri dish, which would usually find misbehaving cells very, very quickly unless a few other things go wrong perfectly, too.

The video you linked was actually quite interesting, though he did gloss over a few mechanisms like the forced apoptose after the cells have created the spike protein, something that the real virus would try to prevent for as long as possible but the healthy cell can't prevent, which directly affects how much of a threat either of those two scenarios are.

Edit: Apoptose in particular is important because that causes the cell to split itself into fully contained small "trashbags" containing all contents of the cell. This effectively prevents anything to spill out of the cell, these parts get then eaten and digested by white blood cells, turning all complex proteins into harmless base nutrients they then poop out into your body.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 19, 2021)

cauliquackers said:


> Society is a collective goo.....made of, wait what, individuals?! Your rights exist until they harm other people. If you're a walking petri dish your right to continue walking around should not and, as Austria decided, does not take precedent over someone else's right to live. Sure you're not walking down the street swinging a knife but the compounded effect of an unvaccinated group to the immunocompromised is the same.


So is smoking, so is alcohol, so is being fat, so is driving more than just over walking pace, so is pumping out a bunch of pretty much destined to be criminals because you can't/won't figure out birth control... all of those solved probably with less effort than even if this virus could be solved with a single injection of saline into a compliant populous (plenty of substances effectively banned, exercise is not hard, speed limits are a thing, birth licenses/forced sterilisation is easy). So was it in the years leading up to now with actually far worse diseases (more transmissible, more serious adverse effects) or diseases measured on the same scales (see flu most years).
Was it a failure in the past, double standards or is this actually justified by some standard (maybe for reasons I am not considering)? Or is it an overreach by a fearful government running at the behest of the tyranny of the majority?


----------



## JuanBaNaNa (Nov 19, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> kung flu


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 19, 2021)

JuanMena said:


>


I am hardly the first there.

Go back to 2013 if you want the more traditional take
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-24391346

There were actual ones pertaining to the whole Wuhan coronavirus though.
My favourite being attached


----------



## deinonychus71 (Nov 19, 2021)

cauliquackers said:


> Easy to say, hard to define. If you're aiming for human rights where you get to do whatever you want whenever you want, I'd invite you come out from under your rock. On the other hand, if we pursue human rights as an optimization to allow the most amount of freedom for everyone in society as a *whole*, the vaccine mandate falls completely under that.



Right and there's many cases where "your human rights" are removed from you if you are deemed a danger to society. 
Where we draw the line is really where the discussion should be. Not a hard "these are my human rights" because this isn't an argument by itself.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2021)

deinonychus71 said:


> Right and there's many cases where "your human rights" are removed from you if you are deemed a danger to society.
> Where we draw the line is really where the discussion should be. Not a hard "these are my human rights" because this isn't an argument by itself.


The line is not difficult at all. There are two rights in question here - bodily autonomy and right to be protected from disease (which I find questionable since the government isn’t God, but sure, let’s roll with it). In my estimation, the right to be protected from disease is fulfilled by easy and free access to vaccination which provides a huge boost to one’s immune system and, for the most part, shields them from disease. Problems arise when you take that intention of protection too far and begin infringing on the right to bodily autonomy. Providing a vaccination scheme is great, forcing people to participate is one step too far. That’s what differentiates a country that values liberty from an authoritarian shit pit.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 19, 2021)

cauliquackers said:


> Lmao, do you act the same way for other actions that hurt people around you?
> 
> "Oh my god! the government has MANDATED that I must drive sober. My body my choice, I CAN DRIVE DRUNK IF I WANT TO"



YoU WOulDn'T VaCciNaTe a CaR.

Agency over my body is my right.  In most places that aren't Austria, anyway.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Nov 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The line is not difficult at all. There are two rights in question here - bodily autonomy and right to be protected from disease (which I find questionable since the government isn’t God, but sure, let’s roll with it). In my estimation, the right to be protected from disease is fulfilled by easy and free access to vaccination which provides a huge boost to one’s immune system and, for the most part, shields them from disease. Problems arise when you take that intention of protection too far and begin infringing on the right to bodily autonomy. Providing a vaccination scheme is great, forcing people to participate is one step too far. That’s what differentiates a country that values liberty from an authoritarian shit pit.



Again, these people are undermining the global effort to get rid of a global pandemic. Clusters are created primarily by these people. You're oversimplifying the problem by reducing it to a person to person issue. Individualism will not solve this.

Also, I'm assuming you're calling Austria a shit pit now? Or maybe the whole of Europe for imposing a Covid pass that can actually be verified?
These shit pit countries you're talking about may enforce strict rules during a global pandemic, but they also get access to universal healthcare, free education and strong work ethics. In some of these "shit pit" countries lobbies can't pay elections either, so you get that "right" back.
When talking about "freedom" i'm not sure they're on the losing side.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 19, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> just provide a source that shows not getting vaccinated doesn’t have harmful effects on others around the Individual.



This is braindead drivel that equates not doing something to spreading covid.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2021)

deinonychus71 said:


> Again, these people are undermining the global effort to get rid of a global pandemic. Clusters are created primarily by these people. You're oversimplifying the problem by reducing it to a person to person issue. Individualism will not solve this.
> 
> Also, I'm assuming you're calling Austria a shit pit now? Or maybe the whole of Europe for imposing a Covid pass that can actually be verified?
> These shit pit countries you're talking about may enforce strict rules during a global pandemic, but they also get access to universal healthcare, free education and strong work ethics. In some of these "shit pit" countries lobbies can't pay elections either, so you get that "right" back.
> When talking about "freedom" i'm not sure they're on the losing side.


Any country that violates human rights by decree is a shit pit, yes. The depth of the shit pit can be measured by how often and how egregious those violations are. Nobody is obligated to care about any global effort to do anything. Human rights *are* a person to person issue, and you don’t get to violate them just because it makes you feel safer. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Nov 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Any country that violates human rights by decree is a shit pit, yes. The depth of the shit pit can be measured by how often and how egregious those violations are. Nobody is obligated to care about any global effort to do anything. Human rights *are* a person to person issue, and you don’t get to violate them just because it makes you feel safer. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.


I completely disagree with your "estimation", every person dying during the 5th and next waves are dying because we haven't eradicated this shit, and we're slower at eradicating it BECAUSE of behaviors like that.
There is absolutely a correlation where the anti vax are directly impacting the freedom/survival of others.

And EVEN if you disagree, you don't get to pick where you draw the lines and then use that subjective line to decide what is a shit pit or not...
We as a society decide of common rules to abide by through elections which again the countries you're talking about have it way healthier than some other countries, including the US. If theses countries vote for their government to be more interventionist, they will. If the US population wants to live with no government intervention, it's their prerogative.
And If they thought they went too far the government gets kicked out next time. But a government can absolutely mandate things like that for the good of all.

And yep, the driving argument is on point. You don't get to drive like an idiot because it can affect other people. "Oh but they just wanted to be there, knowing driving is dangerous" just doesn't fly. You could be a very good driver abiding the law, if someone is endangering on purpose they can kill you, and so we have rules to avoid that.
Same with murderers.
Same with every single rule that restricts our freedom for the sake of others. It's not a finite number of rules and is never meant to be.

EDIT: Few edits to avoid diverting from the point


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2021)

deinonychus71 said:


> I completely disagree with your "estimation", every person dying during the 5th and next waves are dying because we haven't eradicated this shit, and we're slower at eradicating it BECAUSE of behaviors like that.
> There is absolutely a correlation where the anti vax are directly impacting the freedom/survival of others.
> 
> And EVEN if you disagree, you don't get to pick where you draw the lines and then use that subjective line to decide what is a shit pit or not...
> ...


Oh, I understand. You think we can eradicate the virus, still. Now your post makes more sense, I’ll blame lack of up-to-date information and estimates for this. We cannot, at this stage it’s virtually impossible, or at least highly unlikely, so I hope you’ll eventually find some comfort. It’s a global pandemic, there are far too many carriers and multiple strains - it’s not going away. You can make peace with that thought, or you can support gradually chipping away at civil liberties. What other medical procedure is good for me? Maybe a vasectomy - the world *is* overpopulated, right? Let me stand right in the queue, for society! Good grief.

In any case, to extrapolate this to a simple example, you can prevent all murder and disease if you lock everyone up in single person rooms (here on Earth we call those “cells”) and deliver them food to the door. You will save millions upon millions of lives every year, nobody ever needs to die again from any causes other than natural, and the only thing you’re sacrificing is all your freedom. Are you okay with that? Let’s assume no.

There is a balance between no freedom and freedom to do anything at all, and people fall on different points of that scale in regards to what they are willing to sacrifice. I am not willing to give the government an inch because I expect it to take a mile, you on the other hand are trusting of the government, which I find odd. It has always been globally accepted that the government cannot force anyone to undergo medical procedures without consent, and this is no exception, particularly not when only select individuals are affected by the pathogen. At some point this circus has to end, and if given the choice, I would like to still have some rights left once it’s all over in an increasingly tyrannical world. Different strokes for different folks. Besides, honey works better than vinegar. If you want people to vaccinate, you should incentivise it.

Of course y’all should still get a jab, it’s safe and it works.

EDIT: As a side note, there is no enumerated right to drive, only a right to travel. Murder is an infringement of the right to life, of course we have laws against it - we all want to live. As for governments, there are authorities that go far beyond your local government, and even more authorities above those. A law that violates other laws of the land or infringes upon civil liberties is unjust by definition, should be met with dissent and opposition and, as far as I’m concerned, can be ignored by the population. The land belongs to the people, the government is only elected to be in charge of it on the proviso that it will defend the people’s rights. If it does the opposite then it’s doing the opposite of its job and there are mechanisms to disband it.

If your entire point is that “my right to be protected from disease is only partially fulfilled by vaccination because the government doesn’t put people who don’t think like me in prison” then that’s textbook authoritarianism, which is not an uncommon thing to revert to when a person feels in danger and logical thinking goes out the window. I sympathise, but wholeheartedly disagree.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 19, 2021)

Is your body inspected and licensed?  *snip!*

EDIT: No need for insults. -Foxi4


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Nov 19, 2021)

Actual literal fascism.

Antifa awfully silent though


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 19, 2021)

Lacius said:


> First, the vaccines have undergone extensive safety testing for closer to two years, not one year. Second, the Pfizer vaccine has gotten full FDA approval in the United States and has met the same rigorous safety standards as any other vaccine. Third, and perhaps most notably, the vaccine is completely out of your system within days/weeks of getting your last dose. The science is very clear that the risk of long-term effects from the vaccines is nearly zero, and that's far from the risk of long-term effects associated with actually contracting COVID-19. If your goal isn't to get sick, isn't to be hospitalized, isn't to spread the disease to others, isn't to suffer long-term effects, and isn't to die, vaccination is by far your best bet.
> 
> To get a little more on topic, vaccine mandates are a good thing, they work, and we already have a precedent for them in most countries I can think of.


Funny:
Biontech/Pfizer never said "We can guarantee that mRNA Vaccines do not alter the DNA or better said never connects to the genetic "make-up".

They said literally "The possibility that the genetic make-up of the vaccinated person is changed via mRNA is practically zero."

But all Medicines/Doctors I have asked said "The Vaccine is 100% safe..."


Like you always say....


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 19, 2021)

RAHelllord said:


> The video is also saying that it's not been confirmed at all and that everything is just a big old "maybe".


That maybe is where I find myself embedded. By the way, thanks for the well considered and respectful response, it's a breath of fresh air compared to the usual attacks to questioning anything around here.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Nov 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh, I understand. You think we can eradicate the virus, still. Now your post makes more sense, I’ll blame lack of up-to-date information and estimates for this. We cannot, at this stage it’s virtually impossible, or at least highly unlikely, so I hope you’ll eventually find some comfort. It’s a global pandemic, there are far too many carriers and multiple strains - it’s not going away. You can make peace with that thought, or you can support gradually chipping away at civil liberties. What other medical procedure is good for me? Maybe a vasectomy - the world *is* overpopulated, right? Let me stand right in the queue, for society! Good grief.
> 
> In any case, to extrapolate this to a simple example, you can prevent all murder and disease if you lock everyone up in single person rooms (here on Earth we call those “cells”) and deliver them food to the door. You will save millions upon millions of lives every year, nobody ever needs to die again from any causes other than natural, and the only thing you’re sacrificing is all your freedom. Are you okay with that? Let’s assume no.
> 
> ...



I do keep myself heavily informed, although not exclusively through the news of one country, so I do believe I have a pretty good understanding of the situation in at least Europe and the US where I currently live. Even since Covid started the latter tends to get a repeat of what Europe suffered from a few weeks prior, so we'll see how it works this time.
Regardless whether it can be fully eradicated or not, non vaccinated people are factually more likely to create a cluster, therefore endangering people.

Like you said, there's a balance, Europe chose to confine heavily during the first few phases of the pandemic, and while you will never be able to prove that it saved lives, let's just reasonably assume that not all scientists of the planet and not every single person in a government is corrupt and that the numbers are right, and it did save lives.
The balance is there like you said, and it's entirely politics. This is where the debate is.

But twisting the debate into a simple "this is a violation of human rights" when yourself just admitted it's a question of balance seems disingenuous. If It's a question of balance, it can and should be debated.

And yep, I tend to trust my government more than the average American does, maybe also because unlike them (and assuming you're from the US) I got to experience what a government can do to place safety nets around people. I consider the freedom of education, work safety and healthcare to trump the freedom the anti vax claim they're losing over doing their part during a global pandemic, interventionism be damned.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2021)

deinonychus71 said:


> I do keep myself heavily informed, although not exclusively through the news of one country, so I do believe I have a pretty good understanding of the situation in at least Europe and the US where I currently live. Even since Covid started the latter tends to get a repeat of what Europe suffered from a few weeks prior, so we'll see how it works this time.
> Regardless whether it can be fully eradicated or not, non vaccinated people are factually more likely to create a cluster, therefore endangering people.
> 
> Like you said, there's a balance, Europe chose to confine heavily during the first few phases of the pandemic, and while you will never be able to prove that it saved lives, let's just reasonably assume that not all scientists of the planet and not every single person in a government is corrupt and that the numbers are right, and it did save lives.
> ...


You generally reach a balance at a point where nobody’s rights are being infringed upon and everybody gets a piece, a golden mean, if you will, which can indeed be debated. If you inject anyone with anything that they don’t want in their body, you have by definition violated their bodily integrity, which opens the doors to a myriad of other such violations “for the greater good”. “For the greater good” would be a great quote for a tombstone if it wasn’t so ironic.

I’m not from the U.S., I’m also from Europe and reside in the U.K. which is also increasingly turning into a shit pit, but in our case it’s freedom of speech that’s being violated - bodily integrity is (for now) protected by the Public Health Act, but we’ll see how long that lasts.

There’s no “twisting” going on - the government is providing you with a vaccine that boasts 96%+ efficacy, and boosters to boot if your immunity starts to diminish over time, which seems to be the case. That is the extent to which they can provide you with protection from disease, anything past that point forces people to undergo medical procedures that they don’t want or care about. It doesn’t even matter how infinitesimally small the risk of various side effects is - yes, the disease is more dangerous, but that’s not your risk/reward calculation to make. If the government is willing to force people to vaccinate, it should with the same breath accept any and all negative outcomes that come with such a program and prepare to pay in the millions for those affected by vaccine injury, which is a known quantity in all vaccinations, not just in regards to COVID - that’s not what’s happening. In fact, manufacturers are 100% shielded from liability. If I get in a car wreck and my air bag fails because of poor design, I can sue the car manufacturer for selling me a faulty product. If I get the jab and I’m that one in a billion person who gets myocardia, or any of the other known possible side effects, I have nobody to blame and no restitution. Will society pay the tab in regards to my medical bills? Will you provide food and lodge to my family? Because the government won’t - the opposite is true. How is this not a violation of the public’s trust is beyond me - any medical procedure *requires* informed consent.

Of course let’s not forget that the sample size of the vaccine is in the billions now, it hardly ever results in any side effects beyond the usual groggy feeling after a jab and we should all go for it. Just not without a gun to our backs.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Nov 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You generally reach a balance at a point where nobody’s rights are being infringed upon and everybody gets a piece, a golden mean, if you will, which can indeed be debated. If you inject anyone with anything that they don’t want in their body, you have by definition violated their bodily integrity, which opens the doors to a myriad of other such violations “for the greater good”. “For the greater good” would be a great quote for a tombstone if it wasn’t so ironic.
> 
> I’m not from the U.S., I’m also from Europe and reside in the U.K. which is also increasingly turning into a shit pit, but in our case it’s freedom of speech that’s being violated - bodily integrity is (for now) protected by the Public Health Act, but we’ll see how long that lasts.
> 
> There’s no “twisting” going on - the government is providing you with a vaccine that boasts 96%+ efficacy, and boosters to boot if your immunity starts to diminish over time, which seems to be the case. That is the extent to which they can provide you with protection from disease, anything past that point forces people to undergo medical procedures that they don’t want or care about. It doesn’t even matter how infinitesimally small the risk of various side effects is - yes, the disease is more dangerous, but that’s not your risk/reward calculation to make. If the government is willing to force people to vaccinate, it should with the same breath accept any and all negative outcomes that come with such a program and prepare to pay in the millions for those affected by vaccine injury, which is a known quantity in all vaccinations, not just in regards to COVID - that’s not what’s happening. In fact, manufacturers are 100% shielded from liability. If I get in a car wreck and my air bag fails because of poor design, I can sue the car manufacturer for selling me a faulty product. If I get the jab and I’m that one in a billion person who gets myocardia, or any of the other known possible side effects, I have nobody to blame and no restitution. Will society pay the tab in regards to my medical bills? Will you provide food and lodge to my family? Because the government won’t - the opposite is true. How is this not a violation of the public’s trust is beyond me - any medical procedure *requires* informed consent.



I can understand the risk factor you're describing. And to me it already sounds better than negating any sort of action from the government "by principle". If there is a legit risk (and there is, although infinitesimal like you said) you got yourself a point.

But then, out of curiosity, are you also against confinement for unvaccinated people?


----------



## Lacius (Nov 19, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> Funny:
> Biontech/Pfizer never said "We can guarantee that mRNA Vaccines do not alter the DNA or better said never connects to the genetic "make-up".
> 
> They said literally "The possibility that the genetic make-up of the vaccinated person is changed via mRNA is practically zero."
> ...


mRNA vaccines do not alter your DNA.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2021)

deinonychus71 said:


> I can understand the risk factor you're describing. And to me it already sounds better than negating any sort of action from the government "by principle". If there is a legit risk (and there is, although infinitesimal like you said) you got yourself a point.
> 
> But then, out of curiosity, are you also against confinement for unvaccinated people?


It’s a violation of the right to freedom of movement, so yes. The land belongs to the people, not to the government - I get to traverse it unimpeded, otherwise I am not truly free. Private establishments can bar me from entry for whatever reason - their property, their rules. If you are afraid of the unvaccinated, you should take reasonable precautions to protect your health until the disease diminishes. I still wear my mask, I have great personal hygiene and no fear. Once I have some spare time I will also book an appointment to get my jabs up to date, since it seems reasonable to me. That is what I am willing to do for my safety and the safety of others, I am not willing to penalise others for their life choices, even if I disagree with them. It is their risk, not mine.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Nov 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s a violation of the right to freedom of movement, so yes. The land belongs to the people, not to the government - I get to traverse it unimpeded, otherwise I am not truly free. Private establishments can bar me from entry for whatever reason - their property, their rules. If you are afraid of the unvaccinated, you should take reasonable precautions to protect your health until the disease diminishes. I still wear my mask, I have great personal hygiene and no fear. Once I have some spare time I will also book an appointment to get my jabs up to date, since it seems reasonable to me. That is what I am willing to do for my safety and the safety of others, I am not willing to penalise others for their life choices, even if I disagree with them. It is their risk, not mine.



As I said before, due to the travel ban I haven't been able to see my family for almost 2 years. I'm sure you could say it's the fault of the different governments in place for forbidding it. Truth is though, even with a booster shot and even with a mask i'm still at risk due to a personal condition.
And you're telling me it's okay for me to either risk my life or be penalized because should there be no travel ban I'd be forced to be around these people just to see my family -when it could have been preventable or at least the risk could have been reduced-?

For the sake of people who don't care if others around them get infected and die?

I don't share your conception of freedom and its limits.


----------



## Deleted member 507653 (Nov 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Of course it does, the Austrian government doesn’t have the right to detain people without due process, especially if they haven’t committed a crime. You have zero evidence that someone who’s not vaccinated has the disease, or that they can transmit it to you, or that you’re even under any risk of catching it. Your analogy doesn’t apply - you’re penalising people for having pockets where they may or may not carry a knife. You don’t know if they have one, let alone whether they can swing one at you or not. You’re operating under the assumption that everyone is guilty unless proven innocent, which is psychotic and counter to all the rules of civilised society. You’re not under threat, you’re just a hypochondriac, and nobody is under any obligation to humour your neuroticism. If you are vulnerable, or feel vulnerable, the onus is on you to take necessary precautions in order to ensure your own personal safety. Please demonstrate the harm you are personally experiencing. Might be difficult considering not being vaccinated does not translate into spreading the disease.



I didn't realize that you think being under lockdown = being detained, so now your reaction makes a lot of sense. 

My analogy is not like someone having or not having pockets, because knives don't magically drop down from the sky into your pockets. There is not "guilty" or "not guilty" because the virus affects you by chance which is why the best case scenario would be to protect everyone.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2021)

cauliquackers said:


> Under lockdown = detained lmao. This whole paragraph is just, tell me you have 0 understanding of public health without telling me you have 0 understanding of public health.


Lockdown =/= confinement. At no point during the U.K. lockdown was I ever prohibited from leaving my home and moving about. Confinements equals sequestering a section of the populace in a facility that they cannot leave. We already have that, it’s called prison. Locking someone in their own home by welding the door shut may pass as acceptable in totalitarian China, here we do not tolerate tyranny. As a side note, “the public” can kiss my ass - it’s overwhelmingly fat around here. Nobody gets to tell me what is and is not healthy when they could benefit from losing a hundred pounds.


deinonychus71 said:


> As I said before, due to the travel ban I haven't been able to see my family for almost 2 years. I'm sure you could say it's the fault of the different governments in place for forbidding it. Truth is though, even with a booster shot and even with a mask i'm still at risk due to a personal condition.
> And you're telling me it's okay for me to either risk my life or be penalized because should there be no travel ban I'd be forced to be around these people just to see my family -when it could have been preventable or at least the risk could have been reduced-?
> 
> For the sake of people who don't care if others around them get infected and die?
> ...


You risk your life by crossing the street. There’s a degree of acceptable risk, operating day to day is acceptable. I also didn’t visit my family - I didn’t attend my father’s wedding, not just due to travel restrictions but also because travelling abroad during the peak of COVID season would’ve been unwise. It is regrettable since he’ll only ever have one wedding, but that was my risk/reward calculation and I think I made the right decision. I won’t make your decisions for you, however.


----------



## Deleted member 507653 (Nov 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Lockdown =/= confinement. At no point during the U.K. lockdown was I ever prohibited from leaving my home and moving about. Confinements equals sequestering a section of the populace in a facility that they cannot leave. We already have that, it’s called prison. Locking someone on their own home by welding the door shut may pass as acceptable in totalitarian China, here we do not tolerate tyranny. As a side note, “the public” can kiss my ass - it’s overwhelmingly fat around here. Nobody gets to tell me what is and is not healthy when they could benefit from losing a hundred pounds.



Austria is having a lockdown for everyone until 12/13. The vaccine is mandatory in that, after that date those who don't have the vaccine will continue being in lockdown. There is talk of possible fines for not getting vaccinated but where are you getting confinement from?


----------



## deinonychus71 (Nov 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Lockdown =/= confinement. At no point during the U.K. lockdown was I ever prohibited from leaving my home and moving about. Confinements equals sequestering a section of the populace in a facility that they cannot leave. We already have that, it’s called prison. Locking someone on their own home by welding the door shut may pass as acceptable in totalitarian China, here we do not tolerate tyranny.


The way I've been using confinement might have been a translation issue. Fine, let's go with lockdown.

You didn't see people rioting and governments falling because of it, because yeah, when hospitals were reaching their limit and people were literally dying in their bed with no help whatsoever (Spain) people accepted country wide lockdowns.
And again: Lives were saved because of it. It'd be good to remember that.

Most of Europe accepted it, in fact. With a large portion of the population (well, according to statistic) agreed with it. You call that tyranny when the majority agrees?
Unless again the problem is defiance against a government and official statistics, but then there's a bigger problem at large that has nothing to do with lockdown.

Your take on freedom almost sound masochistic. Sure, let the virus go rampant in the name of freedom to the point where none of us trying to stay safe will be able to go outside without endangering ourselves. It'll still be our "choice" to not have much of a choice anymore, great!



cauliquackers said:


> Austria is having a lockdown for everyone until 12/13. The vaccine is mandatory in that, after that date those who don't have the vaccine will continue being in lockdown. There is talk of possible fines for not getting vaccinated but where are you getting confinement from?


They were just correcting me on the use of the word.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2021)

deinonychus71 said:


> The way I've been using confinement might have been a translation issue. Fine, let's go with lockdown.
> 
> You didn't see people rioting and governments falling because of it, because yeah, when hospitals were reaching their limit and people were literally dying in their bed with no help whatsoever (Spain) people accepted country wide lockdowns.
> And again: Lives were saved because of it. It'd be good to remember that.
> ...


What kinds of news channels were you watching, exactly? There were protests all over the continent. Not that it matters since you’ve resolved that bit of confusion - as long as your intent isn’t to put people in literal cells until they change their minds, I can find common ground with you on some aspects.


cauliquackers said:


> Austria is having a lockdown for everyone until 12/13. The vaccine is mandatory in that, after that date those who don't have the vaccine will continue being in lockdown. There is talk of possible fines for not getting vaccinated but where are you getting confinement from?


What happens if you don’t pay the fine because you consider it unjust? What if you can’t pay? You *are* going to get arrested at some point, someone will knock on your door eventually, and that person will have a gun.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Nov 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> What kinds of news channels were you watching, exactly? There were protests all over the continent. Not that it matters since you’ve resolved that bit of confusion - as long as your intent isn’t to put people in literal cells until they change their minds, I can find common ground with you on some aspects.



French and British news. I'm not saying everyone was happy, but most people were abiding by the restrictions for the greater good.


----------



## Deleted member 507653 (Nov 19, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> So is smoking, so is alcohol, so is being fat, so is driving more than just over walking pace, so is pumping out a bunch of pretty much destined to be criminals because you can't/won't figure out birth control... all of those solved probably with less effort than even if this virus could be solved with a single injection of saline into a compliant populous (plenty of substances effectively banned, exercise is not hard, speed limits are a thing, birth licenses/forced sterilisation is easy). So was it in the years leading up to now with actually far worse diseases (more transmissible, more serious adverse effects) or diseases measured on the same scales (see flu most years).
> Was it a failure in the past, double standards or is this actually justified by some standard (maybe for reasons I am not considering)? Or is it an overreach by a fearful government running at the behest of the tyranny of the majority?



You brought up a bunch of issues in this world, and then showed how we solved them with policy. Yeah you got it, the pandemic is the same way. We can solve it with policy. 

And again correct with diseases, we used policy to solve those in the past. In 1948 Austria eradicated polio with a mandatory vaccine. I see the current vaccine mandate very in line with past standards.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2021)

deinonychus71 said:


> French and British news. I'm not saying everyone was happy, but most people were abiding by the restrictions for the greater good.


The restrictions weren’t that unreasonable - I can avoid large crowds and I can only shop in person for bare necessities. I’m not “entitled to go to the cinema”, that’s not a right. I do have a right to walk around and catch some fresh air without a government stooge looking over my shoulder, and I have, by myself, since that is reasonable during a pandemic. What I gathered from your post was confinement, which is another way of saying imprisonment, but that is not what you meant, so I have no quarrel on that point.



cauliquackers said:


> You brought up a bunch of issues in this world, and then showed how we solved them with policy. Yeah you got it, the pandemic is the same way. We can solve it with policy.
> 
> And again correct with diseases, we used policy to solve those in the past. In 1948 Austria eradicated polio with a mandatory vaccine. I see the current vaccine mandate very in line with past standards.


The United States eradicated polio with no mandate. Seems like the mandate was unnecessary - peer pressure was plenty. If I could pay a tax that ensures the government doesn’t do anything, I’d overpay every year.


----------



## Deleted member 507653 (Nov 19, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> What happens if you don’t pay the fine because you consider it unjust? What if you can’t pay? You *are* going to get arrested at some point, someone will knock on your door eventually, and that person will have a gun.


If you get arrested that's for failure to pay the fine not failure to vaccinate. I don't know what its like in austria but here in the US, you cant be jailed for fines youre not able to pay. If you're assuming they're going to use the fine as some overpriced gimmick to force people into jail...thats a can of conspiracy I don't want to go down.



Foxi4 said:


> The United States eradicated polio with no mandate. Seems like the mandate was unnecessary - peer pressure was plenty. If I could pay a tax that ensures the government doesn’t do anything, I’d overpay every year.



The question I was responding to was, is the current mandate from Austria in line with its past standards or is it a huge overreach of its government? Hence why I referenced Austria's past not the US's. Of course there's many ways to get something done, but that doesn't mean all others are the wrong way.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2021)

cauliquackers said:


> If you get arrested that's for failure to pay the fine not failure to vaccinate. I don't know what its like in austria but here in the US, you cant be jailed for fines youre not able to pay. If you're assuming they're going to use the fine as some overpriced gimmick to force people into jail...thats a can of conspiracy I don't want to go down.


You are 100% going to be arrested and taken to court for fines that are overdue, in the U.S. and right now. Failure to attend a court proceeding results in sending the bailiffs your way. Removing the cause of arrest by one degree doesn’t negate the initial cause - lack of consent. If the government makes wearing red socks illegal, you get fined and refuse to pay the fine because it is *absurd*, your liberty will be in peril. Even if you don’t get put in jail, the mere act of taking money away from you by force (since debt collection is a thing) effectively means that you were performing slave labour on behalf of an unjust government for the duration it took to earn said money. Either way you’re losing - the government has more and bigger guns. That’s precisely why we have checks and balances in place.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 19, 2021)

cauliquackers said:


> You brought up a bunch of issues in this world, and then showed how we solved them with policy. Yeah you got it, the pandemic is the same way. We can solve it with policy.
> 
> And again correct with diseases, we used policy to solve those in the past. In 1948 Austria eradicated polio with a mandatory vaccine. I see the current vaccine mandate very in line with past standards.


They are extant issues (plenty of smokers, drunks, distracted drivers, families statistically likely to have massively worse outcomes still in existence). The trouble comes in that solving them tends to be viewed as a massive overreach to human rights (do you want to go get a breeding license or be forcibly sterilised if you do not conform to some ideal of human form?), economic issues up the arse, or at least a massive double standard.

If you want to trample over those rights then freedom of speech (amusingly enough one of those rights, one that if we restricted speech to only those of considerable intellect and demonstrated expertise, maybe even those things designed not to hurt feelings, would probably make for a better discourse if we are continuing with examples of utopia at the cost of rights) allows you to claim you want to do that. From where I sit that is a massive overreach/breach of rights for little real gain -- save that sort of thing for something that is truly deadly, massively transmissible and likely to wipe out ridiculous amounts of the population (positive tests to death and serious outcomes ratio is fairly low as these things go, transmissibility nowhere near the big boys). Opening the door to something minor invites them to do it again when it happens next time, and possibly just that little bit less deadly (maybe half the already low ratio) -- just as there is little as permanent as a temporary measure when it comes to government then a little breach of rights does rather sit poorly. Sucks for some but that is the cost of life.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 19, 2021)

cauliquackers said:


> The question I was responding to was, is the current mandate from Austria in line with its past standards or is it a huge overreach of its government? Hence why I referenced Austria's past not the US's. Of course there's many ways to get something done, but that doesn't mean all others are the wrong way.


Only the ways that infringe on inalienable rights which exist precisely in order to protect the citizenry collectively from government tyranny by way of protecting each and every individual they concern.



FAST6191 said:


> They are extant issues (plenty of smokers, drunks, distracted drivers, families statistically likely to have massively worse outcomes still in existence). The trouble comes in that solving them tends to be viewed as a massive overreach to human rights (do you want to go get a breeding license or be forcibly sterilised if you do not conform to some ideal of human form?), economic issues up the arse, or at least a massive double standard.
> 
> If you want to trample over those rights then freedom of speech (amusingly enough one of those rights, one that if we restricted speech to only those of considerable intellect and demonstrated expertise, maybe even those things designed not to hurt feelings, would probably make for a better discourse if we are continuing with examples of utopia at the cost of rights) allows you to claim you want to do that. From where I sit that is a massive overreach/breach of rights for little real gain -- save that sort of thing for something that is truly deadly, massively transmissible and likely to wipe out ridiculous amounts of the population (positive tests to death and serious outcomes ratio is fairly low as these things go, transmissibility nowhere near the big boys). Opening the door to something minor invites them to do it again when it happens next time, and possibly just that little bit less deadly (maybe half the already low ratio) -- just as there is little as permanent as a temporary measure when it comes to government then a little breach of rights does rather sit poorly. Sucks for some but that is the cost of life.


ETA to climate crisis lockdown.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 19, 2021)

cauliquackers said:


> The question I was responding to was, is the current mandate from Austria in line with its past standards or is it a huge overreach of its government? Hence why I referenced Austria's past not the US's. Of course there's many ways to get something done, but that doesn't mean all others are the wrong way.



Except we generally go by UN human rights, European human rights, not whatever they cooked up in the 1940s (I am sure you would be more than happy to pick and choose out of those as well rather than be bound by them, though I must confess I am not sure what goes for gay rights, women's rights, free speech and such during that timeframe if we are holding it up as some kind of paradigm). I certainly have my issues with the current one (there was a nice case not so long ago the ECHR, European court of human rights, held up as just that calling the Islamic prophet muhammed a paedophile, which there is even possibly historical accounts of, is worthy of sanction and that originated in Austria) but different topic.


----------



## AlexMCS (Nov 19, 2021)

I got sick with CoViD-19 in March, despite being moderately careful: maintaining social distance (I LOVE staying home and playing games/working remotely and having nothing to do with people in person except for close friends/family), wearing N95 masks, using alcohol on my hands etc. I still am.
Due to the freaking dentist's lack of care (got my initial symptoms exactly 12 days after that appointment), I got sick and almost died. My SpO2 got down to the 80s, I had to use an oxygen tank for almost 4 weeks just to avoid being admitted into a hospital.

Why is compulsory vaccination being praised? It's a blatant violation of human rights!
Not even China, a country with no regards for its people, went that far.

Not being vaccinated doesn't automatically make me a liability or a walking virus dispenser.
I have no qualms with the restrictions to those that do not get the jab. It's understandable and even acceptable in some cases.
I rarely leave my place and I don't get in contact with pretty much anyone other than my wife, who also does not leave home. Why should I be forced to be vaccinated? I'm more at risk than a risk!

As someone very wary of long-term side effects, specially on the mRNA vaccines, I'd rather wait more time to see if it's worth taking the vax.

I'm quite similar in thought to Foxi4, I just think, as someone who actually got the damn disease, that the cost/benefit ratio of getting a shot is too high to me, *at the moment*.

This whole fiasco could be solved with a better way to check for the disease. Confirmed contagion? Forced lockdown. Problem solved.

As a final note, Covid-19 is not the T-virus. The lethality is 3%. Just don't take stupid risks and you'll most likely never get it, regardless of vaccinations.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Nov 19, 2021)

Personally I think the unvaccinated should have to wear stickers indicating so.

So this way we know who to point at on the street and shout "Shame! Shame!"


----------



## cubes (Nov 19, 2021)

Horrible! I know so many people from Austria that don't want to get vaccinated. Praying for all the families.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 20, 2021)

cubes said:


> Horrible! I know so many people from Austria that don't want to get vaccinated. Praying for all the families.


Unfortunately the People (mostly the "Vaccinated Section") only speaks from the Refusers.

In the last Weeks many from the Covid deceased vaccinated People had Pre-existing conditions like kidney disease, heart surgery and things like that and yet they were "forced" to have the vaccination.
Many People have now really Fear....

Other People like me want the "Dead vaccine" which was denied from the EU and/or Austria *a year ago* (Sinovac for Example)......





But yes,blame it on us....


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 20, 2021)

...I don't really know what to say here.

*sigh* I've said before that I think the vaccine should be mandatory (except for those with underlying medical conditions). I still think so, though I hoped it wouldn't come to this.

But now that it has come to this, I'm not going to walk back on my statement. I had, and still have, my arguments for my reasonings. My girlfriend works in a hospital. The number of patients are on the rise again in Belgium as well (I'll probably blog a bit about it if I find the time). But the only ones in the intensive care section are either unvaccinated people(1) or those with underlying medical ("pathological" is the word she uses, but I don't know the difference). And it's mostly the former.


I know and like @Alexander1970 a lot, and while I respect his personal decision, I'm afraid the situation has simply become too grave to rely upon Austrian individuals to rely upon. 

I mean...a quick google shows a scaringly steep peak in infections. To anything above the start of the year, which was _before vaccinations even started. _ That's cause of worry.


I haven't read all the posts yet (but I will). Thus far I can only hope things'll get better.

@Alexander1970 : I understand if you hate me. And that's okay. I was hoping our disagreements in opinion wouldn't come to this, but...it didn't turn out the way we'd hope...




(1): and remember: everyone had their chance for both shots by now


----------



## Deleted member 568587 (Nov 20, 2021)

So here in America a little over 50% of the population is vaccinated (supposedly)  If true, where is the evidence that there's a 50% reduction in covid? Also in the beginning the year we were sold one single vaccine that's going to save the world, then why did it later turn into two vaccines? And now a booster? They may even be up to 3 vaccines or will be soon. So that proves that the original vaccine did not work and they thought it did. Why would anyone want to enter something in their body that can not be un-entered that later ends up not being what they said it was in the first place? Why would you continue to trust someone that got you to inject something in you that didn't accomplish what it was supposed to accomplish? Where is the line if they get up to 30 vaccines required to be vaccinated will you gladly continue to take them? What if they say you need a vaccine with every meal? Is there any tipping point that exists in you or have you given your complete mind body and soul over to trust in the Government? Do you know these people personally to have this much faith in them? Christians have blind faith in Jesus this sounds like blind faith in the Government.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 20, 2021)

Taleweaver said:


> ...I don't really know what to say here.
> 
> *sigh* I've said before that I think the vaccine should be mandatory (except for those with underlying medical conditions). I still think so, though I hoped it wouldn't come to this.
> 
> ...


Why I should hate you,my Freind ?
You have your opinion and I mine.And we accept/respect each other as Human Person.

Why should I hate someone ?

- it is very,very good,that we have Vaccines.
- Thank God People use the Vaccination,really,that is very good !

That´s it,my Friend.Why should I hate you ? Because you have a different Opinion than me ?
Oh come on.


Believe me,we have enough troubles since our "Chancellor" Schallenberg said yesterday:

"I would appologize for the 4th Lockdown,to the 65 % (Note: that means the Vaccinated People in Austia) of Austrias Citizen,these People have done very well and done all correct...."


A greater division of society and incitement of the vaccinated against the unvaccinated can no longer be practiced ..... Oh yes, Herr Hitler exemplified this to perfection and we're already doing everything again ... learned perfectly from the past.


----------



## Deleted member 568587 (Nov 20, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Personally I think the unvaccinated should have to wear stickers indicating so.
> 
> So this way we know who to point at on the street and shout "Shame! Shame!"



Should segregate restaurants and water fountains too!

I'm feeling deja vu here for some reason.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 20, 2021)

Taleweaver said:


> ...I don't really know what to say here.
> 
> *sigh* I've said before that I think the vaccine should be mandatory (except for those with underlying medical conditions). I still think so, though I hoped it wouldn't come to this.
> 
> ...


By the Way,if you read the Posts,you will realize,I also get my Vaccination....that one,I will choose.


----------



## Pixel64 (Nov 20, 2021)

ConspiracyFactualist said:


> Should segregate restaurants and water fountains too!
> 
> I'm feeling deja vu here for some reason.


it's almost like they were joking 
no way, though


----------



## Cyan (Nov 20, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Lockdown =/= confinement.


Well, in France there is no "lockdown" word and all the country were in "confinement" multiple times. that's what they (the government) call what you describe as lockdown.
and while in confinement, a lot of people were working, leaving their homes with self-signed autorization to go outside. "I autorize myself to go outisde my house to : work/school/shop/travel/medical reason/etc." so in fact, everyone met with everyone else, what a stupid confinement method.



cauliquackers said:


> In 1948 Austria eradicated polio with a mandatory vaccine.


You mean a vaccine which actually kills and sterilize the virus instead of allowing it to live in osmosis with its host ? yes, that's also what I call a vaccine : something preventing you from getting it or giving it, or living with it, all that at 100% rate (or at enough rate to eradicate it).

All the current covid "vaccine" is doing is making the host accept the virus and live with it, you can get it, you can give it, you just don't (usually, some still do) develop bad and deadly problem, and therefore don't go to hospital. but you have it. it's not killed, just accepted to live with it from now on. (oh, and only if you do new injection every 6 months, because it's not effective anymore)

I just don't like the word "vaccine", they should have called it something else. for me a vaccine has always been something to either prevent (by making your immune system stronger) or kill an already present decease/virus/bacteria. if not, it's more of a treatment.
treatment like when you have a cold, you don't cure the cold but treat the nose leaking. you treat the symptoms and not the problem.

I don't say the current "covid vaccine" doesn't have any effect, I only say it shouldn't be using the "vaccine" word as it treats mostly the symptoms that your body could have developed if you didn't have the shot.
I feel they catalogued the treatment as "vaccine" too fast, just because it's administered with a shot. if it was an orally administered drug (like pfizer is now making for 18$ and selling at 700$... but no, pharmaceutical firm at NOT money hungry, they only work for your own health, not their wallet) it probably wouldn't have been called vaccine.

I have a feeling this mislabeled method is disserving (not a word?) and not helping people accepting the treatment or trusting it. I hear a lot of people saying "this is not even a vaccine, you can still get it and give it".
the word is very badly chosen, or people are used that "vaccine" is something else.


general question: my knowledge is certainly lacking here, but is there any other "vaccine" which also doesn't kill the virus, or doesn't prevent from getting it, and only allows the host to still get it but live with it?


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 20, 2021)

Cyan said:


> general question: my knowledge is certainly lacking here, but is there any other "vaccine" which actually doesn't kill the virus, or doesn't prevent from getting it, and only allows the host to still get it but live with it?


The upcoming Novavax and Valneva (by the Way FRANCE) is a protein based "DeadVaccine" - Inactivated Vaccine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inactivated_vaccine


A little similar with Flue Vaccine and has very long Experience with this type of active ingredient (over 60 Years).
So,hopefully in 3 - 4 Weeks you can decide,my Friend - New untested (Oh sorry,we are the Test Subjects actual.....) or "old" reliable Vaccineexperience.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 20, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> The upcoming Novavax and Valneva (by the Way FRANCE) is a protein based "DeadVaccine" - Inactivated Vaccine.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inactivated_vaccine
> 
> ...


Novavax looks very promising (much much better than J&J). My booster is due now but I'm thinking of cancelling and waiting to see if I can get that one instead.


----------



## Cyan (Nov 20, 2021)

I really hope for everyone that all thoses methods are all compatible with each others, and you can start one (mRNA) and do another (dead virus) later, or any other order and method.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 20, 2021)

Cyan said:


> I really hope for everyone that all thoses methods are all compatible with each others, and you can start one (mRNA) and do another (dead virus) later, or any other order and method.


Try to keep an Eye on the Progress from all the Vaccines and do not trust "some" Doctors and Politics.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Nov 21, 2021)

Society is so devided. Let me try to heal the wounds.
a) Progressives should support "my body my choice" for COVID19 vaccination. It reduces the overall number of conservative voters.
b) Conservatives should support "my body my choice" regarding abortion. It reduces the number of progressives in the gene pool.

 Feel the love.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 21, 2021)

I do no longer understand the Hate and Excitement...

We should get the alternative Vaccines in the next Weeks and then the Vaccinationquota should/will raise up to 85 - 90 % 
(100% is really unrealistic honestly....)

*And then.......according to all our EXPERTS out there,the Pandemic is over.......
No more Lockdowns and Restrictions...according to our Politics....




Spoiler: The famous Guy.....








For all,who do not know the Story: That is Pinocchio.A Child made of "magic" Woodpiece.He came alive and experienced many adventures in order to be transformed into a real, human child in the end.
One Thing about him: Ever Time he lied,his Nose got longer.....


*


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 21, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> *
> 
> 
> Spoiler: The famous Guy.....
> ...


I heard he was very popular with the ladies.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 21, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I heard he was very popular with the ladies.


Sorry,I have messed up with him:


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 21, 2021)

My Friends,our great political Führers has the first "Plan" for the Mandatory Vaccination.

The possible Penalties at a glance: 

- A fine of 3600 euros is provided in a draft law on compulsory vaccination for professional groups if they refuse the first vaccination, and 1450 euros for the booster vaccination. Such a fine would also be conceivable with the general compulsory vaccination, according to constitution minister Karoline Edtstadler.
- Constitutional lawyer Heinz Mayer brought into play a “compulsory isolation” for unvaccinated persons - politically and socially hardly enforceable, therefore unlikely. 
 - In the "Krone", lawyer Hubert Niedermayr proposed a driving license withdrawal for those who refused to vaccinate - a large majority unlikely.


So,my Friends,not only the "Refusers" also that People who do not refresh their Vaccination will be punished....

Also:
The question of the exemptions remains unanswered - they will exist for people who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons, said Edtstadler. There are different approaches to the minimum age, in any case the obligation should only apply from the age for which there is also an approved vaccine.

Welcome to Austria 2022.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 21, 2021)

ConspiracyFactualist said:


> So here in America a little over 50% of the population is vaccinated (supposedly)  If true, where is the evidence that there's a 50% reduction in covid? Also in the beginning the year we were sold one single vaccine that's going to save the world, then why did it later turn into two vaccines? And now a booster? They may even be up to 3 vaccines or will be soon. So that proves that the original vaccine did not work and they thought it did. Why would anyone want to enter something in their body that can not be un-entered that later ends up not being what they said it was in the first place? Why would you continue to trust someone that got you to inject something in you that didn't accomplish what it was supposed to accomplish? Where is the line if they get up to 30 vaccines required to be vaccinated will you gladly continue to take them? What if they say you need a vaccine with every meal? Is there any tipping point that exists in you or have you given your complete mind body and soul over to trust in the Government? Do you know these people personally to have this much faith in them? Christians have blind faith in Jesus this sounds like blind faith in the Government.


Sure thing, buddy. Use your faulty mathematics, hearsay and flawed logic to justify your actions while blaming the rest of us to be blind. It's your prerogative. 

I could pretend I cared enough about your health to try to convince you otherwise, but I don't. I could blame you because at the very least your propaganda bullshit caused enough naysayers to keep the virus a threat, but I don't think you'd own up for consequences. 
So instead I'm just going to wait. They say that you can't kill an idea, but right now intensive care is filled with unvaccinated people, so covid will take care of it. Once enough dipshits have gotten serious (and avoidable) illness or even have died in regret of their choice, the idea will fade in oblivion.


----------



## Deleted member 507653 (Nov 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You are 100% going to be arrested and taken to court for fines that are overdue, in the U.S. and right now. Failure to attend a court proceeding results in sending the bailiffs your way. Removing the cause of arrest by one degree doesn’t negate the initial cause - lack of consent. If the government makes wearing red socks illegal, you get fined and refuse to pay the fine because it is *absurd*, your liberty will be in peril. Even if you don’t get put in jail, the mere act of taking money away from you by force (since debt collection is a thing) effectively means that you were performing slave labour on behalf of an unjust government for the duration it took to earn said money. Either way you’re losing - the government has more and bigger guns. That’s precisely why we have checks and balances in place.



That's the cost of living in a society isn't it? You can either follow the laws set by a governing body which was elected in or you can still follow the laws and vote in better people next time or you can not follow the laws and pay the fine. It seems like now your gripe is no longer with the new mandatory vaccine as it is with the establishment as a whole, which is another conversation. 

Checks and balances are in place in Austria so thank god the COVID vaccine act is not as ludicrous as your strawman red socks one.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 21, 2021)

cauliquackers said:


> That's the cost of living in a society isn't it? You can either follow the laws set by a governing body which was elected in or you can still follow the laws and vote in better people next time or you can not follow the laws and pay the fine. It seems like now your gripe is no longer with the new mandatory vaccine as it is with the establishment as a whole, which is another conversation.
> 
> Checks and balances are in place in Austria so thank god the COVID vaccine act is not as ludicrous as your strawman red socks one.


My strawman red socks example is significantly less egregious - there is no enumerated right to wear red socks, there is a globally accepted right to bodily autonomy and a widely recognised requirement of informed consent for medical procedures. Banning wearing red socks is *less* totalitarian than this. Both are coercion, but only one violates human rights, the other is nothing more than a form of dress code.

EDIT: You haven’t rebutted the point, by the way. Removing the arrest by one degree of separation (a fine) doesn’t mean that you’re not being imprisoned for the underlying cause. If refusing to partake in the program caused you to receive a fine, you are in fact imprisoned for the underlying cause - the fine was simply a corrective measure that was meant to coerce you. It’s the first punitive action, the second punitive action is detainment.


----------



## Deleted member 507653 (Nov 21, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> They are extant issues (plenty of smokers, drunks, distracted drivers, families statistically likely to have massively worse outcomes still in existence). The trouble comes in that solving them tends to be viewed as a massive overreach to human rights (do you want to go get a breeding license or be forcibly sterilised if you do not conform to some ideal of human form?), economic issues up the arse, or at least a massive double standard.
> 
> If you want to trample over those rights then freedom of speech (amusingly enough one of those rights, one that if we restricted speech to only those of considerable intellect and demonstrated expertise, maybe even those things designed not to hurt feelings, would probably make for a better discourse if we are continuing with examples of utopia at the cost of rights) allows you to claim you want to do that. From where I sit that is a massive overreach/breach of rights for little real gain -- save that sort of thing for something that is truly deadly, massively transmissible and likely to wipe out ridiculous amounts of the population (positive tests to death and serious outcomes ratio is fairly low as these things go, transmissibility nowhere near the big boys). Opening the door to something minor invites them to do it again when it happens next time, and possibly just that little bit less deadly (maybe half the already low ratio) -- just as there is little as permanent as a temporary measure when it comes to government then a little breach of rights does rather sit poorly. Sucks for some but that is the cost of life.



Breeding license or forcible sterilization? I'm sorry but these are such laughable strawmen. What about the laws already in place? "No smoking" signs in public places, additional taxes put on tobacco, and a huge government-run campaign against smoking. Drinking laws in the US, being arrested for public drunkenness, and an age limit on when you can even drink. Or fines/jailtime for drunk driving and reckless driving, fines for driving while being on your phone.

The new COVID mandate is in line, if not less strict, than some measures in place to try and solve those societal issues you mentioned.

Let me remind you that full freedom of speech is already a pipe dream. IIRC hate speech will get you arrested in the UK. Here in the US, if your speech is a direct danger to others you will also face charges.


----------



## FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR (Nov 21, 2021)

Say goodbye to any freedoms if you accept this.


----------



## Deleted member 507653 (Nov 21, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Except we generally go by UN human rights, European human rights, not whatever they cooked up in the 1940s (I am sure you would be more than happy to pick and choose out of those as well rather than be bound by them, though I must confess I am not sure what goes for gay rights, women's rights, free speech and such during that timeframe if we are holding it up as some kind of paradigm). I certainly have my issues with the current one (there was a nice case not so long ago the ECHR, European court of human rights, held up as just that calling the Islamic prophet muhammed a paedophile, which there is even possibly historical accounts of, is worthy of sanction and that originated in Austria) but different topic.



I think you forgot your original question -- 

"So was it in the years leading up to now with actually far worse diseases (more transmissible, more serious adverse effects) or diseases measured on the same scales (see flu most years).
Was it a failure in the past, double standards or is this actually justified by some standard (maybe for reasons I am not considering)? Or is it an overreach by a fearful government running at the behest of the tyranny of the majority?"

And I answered simply, yes there were far worse diseases that were treated with the same kind of mandate. If you're unsatisfied, I'd suggest phrasing questions more precisely in the future.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 21, 2021)

cauliquackers said:


> Breeding license or forcible sterilization? I'm sorry but these are such laughable strawmen. What about the laws already in place? "No smoking" signs in public places, additional taxes put on tobacco, and a huge government-run campaign against smoking. Drinking laws in the US, being arrested for public drunkenness, and an age limit on when you can even drink. Or fines/jailtime for drunk driving and reckless driving, fines for driving while being on your phone.
> 
> The new COVID mandate is in line, if not less strict, than some measures in place to try and solve those societal issues you mentioned.
> 
> Let me remind you that full freedom of speech is already a pipe dream. IIRC hate speech will get you arrested in the UK. Here in the US, if your speech is a direct danger to others you will also face charges.


>Laughable strawmen
>There are examples of totalitarian governments enacting both throughout history

Okay.

Those laws do not prohibit you from drinking or smoking in the privacy of your own home, they simply designate public areas where such activity is prohibited. The Austrian government intends to vaccinate its citizens against their will regardless of where they are.

You are correct about the UK, we don’t have free speech here anymore. It’s a shame that this right was taken away from the citizens, among other rights - I suppose it wasn’t being defended vigorously enough. Rights only exist if you are willing to stand up for them.


----------



## FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR (Nov 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> >Laughable strawmen
> >There are examples of totalitarian governments enacting both throughout history
> 
> Okay.
> ...


Legal rights yes, Natural rights not. They exist independently from human behaviour.


----------



## Deleted member 507653 (Nov 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Those laws do not prohibit you from drinking or smoking in the privacy of your own home, they simply designate public areas where such activity is prohibited. The Austrian government intends to vaccinate its citizens against their will regardless of where they are.
> 
> You are correct about the UK, we don’t have free speech here anymore. It’s a shame that this right was taken away from the citizens, among other rights - I suppose it wasn’t being defended vigorously enough. Rights only exist if you are willing to stand up for them.



Actually, no, nothing has yet been made on whether they will vaccinate you against your will. Currently the only plan is an extended lockdown for unvaccinated individuals. And drinking in your house will get you fined if you're under 21, it's a matter of difficulty in enforcement, not that it's not written in the law.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 21, 2021)

FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR said:


> Legal rights yes, Natural rights not. They exist independently from human behaviour.


If you lack the ability to defend your rights then your rights don’t exist - they’re only a concept. Their violation remains a moral wrong, but one you can do nothing about.


cauliquackers said:


> Actually, no, nothing has yet been made on whether they will vaccinate you against your will. Currently the only plan is an extended lockdown for unvaccinated individuals. And drinking in your house will get you fined if you're under 21, it's a matter of difficulty in enforcement, not that it's not written in the law.


Not yet - the legislation is being drafted as we speak, as per the OP. As for your other point, make up your mind - either you’re talking about age restrictions or area restrictions. I can’t read your mind. Either way, I’m not particularly interested in what kind of puritanical restrictions the U.S. government enforced on its citizenry in regards to victimless crimes, the U.S. government has nothing to do with the subject at hand and notoriously sticks its nose in other people’s business. Must be that exceptionalism talking.


----------



## FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR (Nov 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> If you lack the ability to defend your rights then your rights don’t exist - they’re only a concept. Their violation remains a moral wrong, but one you can do nothing about.


If legality agrees with natural law, it is redundant. If legality conflicts with natural law, then it is immoral. If laws are immoral, then citizens are faced with the choice of either breaking law and risking fines and prison. Or losing their sense of morality.

So what a right ACTUALLY is, (seperate from the law as we ussually know it, though it can align)
A right is an action, behaviour that does no damage to another sentient being.
Under the "do no harm principle"

Act in opposition and you become distorted, and in devolution. No matter what law system we may have in place or people that are willing to act upon the ACTUAL rights of a sentient being.

But yes, you gotta say no when you gotta say no, and say yes when you gotta say yes. Does that mean you have to protest? not neccessarily. Just stop giving your power away to things that go into opposition to what is good moral and healthy. Non compliance. it really is as simple as that.


----------



## Sheimi (Nov 21, 2021)

I had Covid back in April 2020. Let me tell ya, it is no picnic. What started as oh I got a cold. Take a couple days off from work.

It went from being oh it's just a cold to I cannot walk two feet without being winded. I couldn't make myself any food, get to the bathroom or just walk to the store to get some soda. Getting to my car was a big battle. I never got hospitalized for it. Was told to just wait it out, you're young. 

Two days went by. It just keeps getting worse and worse. I was crying because I couldn't breathe while sitting still. They finally prescribe me a steroid to help my ribs plus lungs. Still took me like 2 more months to gain my lung capacity back. Also they prescribed me a inhaler to help any asthma attack I may get. Not gonna lie, I thought I was going to die at one point. Later on I got diagnosed with asthma from Covid. Dr also thinks I was developing asthma slowly when I told him about it, then covid just amplified it, scarred my lungs.

Get vaccinated people. Not being able to breathe is terrifying if you get it bad.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 21, 2021)

FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR said:


> If legality agrees with natural law, it is redundant. If legality conflicts with natural law, then it is immoral. If laws are immoral, then citizens are faced with the choice of either breaking law and risking fines and prison. Or losing their sense of morality.
> 
> So what a right ACTUALLY is, (seperate from the law as we ussually know it, though it can align)
> A right is an action, behaviour that does no damage to another sentient being.
> ...


You could write this down in one sentence by saying that rights are inherent and privileges are granted or taken away by the state, and do not mix. Not that it matters in practice, really.


Sheimi said:


> I had Covid back in April 2020. Let me tell ya, it is no picnic. What started as oh I got a cold. Take a couple days off from work.
> 
> It went from being oh it's just a cold to I cannot walk two feet without being winded. I couldn't make myself any food, get to the bathroom or just walk to the store to get some soda. Getting to my car was a big battle. I never got hospitalized for it. Was told to just wait it out, you're young.
> 
> ...


I agree, every able bodied individual should take the vaccine rather than wait for a miracle to happen, since this virus isn’t going away.


----------



## FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR (Nov 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You could write this down in one sentence by saying that rights are inherent and privileges are granted or taken away by the state, and do not mix. Not that it matters in practice, really.


Trust me it matters. Go back to basics! It is your power. Know what a right really is, know the difference between your born natural authority. And imposed fake authority. (government and what not)


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 21, 2021)

FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR said:


> Trust me it matters. Go back to basics! It is your power. Know what a right really is, know the difference between your born natural authority. And imposed fake authority. (government and what not)


As a lolbertarian I’m very much aware of the difference, but as a realist I also recognise that semantics aren’t going to get you out of a ticket.


----------



## FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR (Nov 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> As a lolbertarian I’m very much aware of the difference, but as a realist I also recognise that semantics aren’t going to get you out of a ticket.


The systems in place are the systems in place and we gotta deal with them, and as we go through them we go through them, until we have fully worked out our relationship with this "Fake god ordained, "authority" "

But how you go through them? With your personal power in tact or not? It makes a difference. The result might be even very different.  If you don't let yourself get coerced etc. and act from the "do no harm principle" and continue to not comply. They are humans too somewhere. Burn their emotions in case of something that is happening that is not right, don't make it easy on them i'd say.

Eventually it will HAVE to give. Since these natural rights are inherent and nature always returns to it. 
Stop living with the fear of consequences and just live rightly.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 21, 2021)

cauliquackers said:


> Breeding license or forcible sterilization? I'm sorry but these are such laughable strawmen. What about the laws already in place? "No smoking" signs in public places, additional taxes put on tobacco, and a huge government-run campaign against smoking. Drinking laws in the US, being arrested for public drunkenness, and an age limit on when you can even drink. Or fines/jailtime for drunk driving and reckless driving, fines for driving while being on your phone.
> 
> The new COVID mandate is in line, if not less strict, than some measures in place to try and solve those societal issues you mentioned.
> 
> Let me remind you that full freedom of speech is already a pipe dream. IIRC hate speech will get you arrested in the UK. Here in the US, if your speech is a direct danger to others you will also face charges.


There are rulings in various places that state various people are unable to give consent despite otherwise living life. To that end far from a strawman, though maybe a touch hyperbolic (even if I reckon it would probably be a net positive in many regards -- no more single mothers, intelligence being heritable then meaning a net increase, fewer people easing housing concerns, fewer idiots meaning fewer nonsense safety measures, reduction in costly medical conditions... a boy can dream), and that is before we get into the real fun like Tuskegee and various forced sterilisation ( https://www.thoughtco.com/forced-sterilization-in-united-states-721308 ).

I have plenty of issues with UK takes on the matter as well. Direct danger is also something of a mischaracterisation from where I sit.

As far as in line. While denying and compelling can be two sides of the same coin (free speech tending to provide some of the better examples here actually if we were going to continue there) and the unban all drugs set have some compelling arguments I would place forcible dosing of otherwise mentally competent individuals in anything but a life and death scenario as a greater evil.


----------



## FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR (Nov 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You could write this down in one sentence by saying that rights are inherent and privileges are granted or taken away by the state, and do not mix. Not that it matters in practice, really.
> 
> I agree, every able bodied individual should take the vaccine rather than wait for a miracle to happen, since this virus isn’t going away.


I'd double think that seriously. Yesterday I was with a friend and his wife, they recently got vaccinated even though they didn't want to, they basically let themselves get coerced. So I was thinking lets get a magnet based on the rumors going around, cuz why not. And at first I thought i didn't notice anything, but when I was about to pull the magnet away from her arm, I felt magnetic attraction from a spot. She said this is where she got vaccinated. I didn't even know that until she told me that was the place.
It didn't stick to her arm though, the attraction was obvious, but not so strong to make it stick. They had 2 shots, one in each arm.

She confirmed it with her husband, he had it too, and they saw it.

So whatever you want to believe, but im telling you from my heart, im not lying, and i dont understand either. But it seems to much of a coincidence that shortly after they got vaccinated AND at the injection spot there is magnet attraction.

This is not bias or placebo. I know how a magnet responds to a surface when attracted. Very simple and basic and hard to miss.
From what I understand this "shouldn't be possible" and should definitely not be in the body at any rate.

I wanted to confirm wether this was fake news in the alternative media circuit, and since I don't like taking it for granted and be stuck in someone's narrative I tested out. And it does seem like there is a connection, even though it didn't stick in our case.
Now I have seen it with my own eyes. And that's all that matters I guess.

Not even mentioning all the other dozen problems vaccines have been reported on that are infinitely worse then the problem they are suppose to fix.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 21, 2021)

FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR said:


> I'd double think that seriously. Yesterday I was with a friend and his wife, they recently got vaccinated even though they didn't want to, they basically let themselves get coerced. So I was thinking lets get a magnet based on the rumors going around, cuz why not. And at first I thought i didn't notice anything, but when I was about to pull the magnet away from her arm, I felt magnetic attraction from a spot. She said this is where she got vaccinated. I didn't even know that until she told me that was the place.
> It didn't stick to her arm though, the attraction was obvious, but not so strong to make it stick. They had 2 shots, one in each arm.
> 
> She confirmed it with her husband, he had it too, and they saw it.
> ...


I can assure you with 110% confidence that what you’ve just said is complete bollocks lol, no offense. I’m not going to “rethink” anything, I’m a biology major, I know how vaccines work. What you experienced was skin tension or simply sweat sticking to a smooth surface, similar to how some people “attract spoons”. Or you’re making it up. Regardless, the vaccine is safe - been injected billions of times around the world with very few reported cases of side effects. Of course that’s not a reason for any government to mandate it without consent, that’s immoral, but a different subject altogether.


----------



## FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR (Nov 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I can assure you with 110% confidence that what you’ve just said is complete bollocks lol, go offense. I’m not going to “rethink” anything, I’m a biology major, I know how vaccines work.


Are you saying im lying? You are telling me what I experienced? How arrogant. It is not skin tension or sweat or some other bs explanation. like I said It is very easy to recognise magnetic attraction. They themselves felt it too. You are calling my friends liars too?

Right all the other doctors and cases are wrong. And all the reports on vaccines deaths and injuries are wrong too, because you have "biology major". Get over your academic ego? But sure believe what you believe.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 21, 2021)

FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR said:


> Are you saying im lying? You are telling me what I experienced? How arrogant. It is not skin tension or sweat or some other bs explanation. like I said It is very easy to recognise magnetic attraction. They themselves felt it too. You are calling my friends liars too?
> 
> Right all the other doctors and cases are wrong. And all the reports on vaccines deaths and injuries are wrong too, because you have "biology major". Get over your academic ego? But sure believe what you believe.


Vaccines are not magnetic. If they were magnetic in any significant way, particularly if they attracted large magnets, the person you “examined” would be dead. Let me demonstrate.



Dead. As. A. Door. Knob. That’s how I know your observation was incorrect and your conclusion was uneducated. Again, no offense, but what you’re saying is not true.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Nov 21, 2021)

Popcorn, where did I leave it?

(PS: Hey SarkW, don't make fun of others, you plan to travel half the world a few days from now, karma will get you and Europe will close the airports I tell you...)


----------



## FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR (Nov 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Vaccines are not magnetic. If they were magnetic in any significant way, particularly if they attracted large magnets, the person you “examined” would be dead. Let me demonstrate.
> 
> 
> 
> Dead. As. A. Door. Knob. That’s how I know your observation was incorrect and your conclusion was uneducated. Again, no offended, but what you’re saying is not true.



Like I said, they were not so magnetic in as such that things would stick. That didn't happen. can't confirm or deny this claim.
However what I can tell you what I personally experienced is magnetic attraction in the arm of my friends. at certain place in the arms which so happen to be injection spots. So if you don't want to connect that to vaccines, that's fine. But don't tell me what I did or didn't experience!!!!!! And so did they. I have seen it with my very eyes. Thats why I can say it without a shred of doubt.

EDIT:
I just heard from a friend of a friend that tried it, and they claim no attraction or anything.
Varying results appearently.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 21, 2021)

FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR said:


> Like I said, they were not so magnetic in as such that things would stick. That didn't happen. can't confirm or deny this claim.
> However what I can tell you what I personally experienced is magnetic attraction in the arm of my friends. at certain place in the arms which so happen to be injection spots. So if you don't want to connect that to vaccines, that's fine. But don't tell me what I did or didn't experience!!!!!! And so did they. I have seen it with my very eyes. Thats why I can say it without a shred of doubt.


There’s a million different reasons why you may have experienced this phenomenon that have nothing to do with magnetism. Even lightly magnetic particles will clump together and kill the patient instantly - they’re magnetic. There are no magnetic particles in vaccines. In fact, there is no fine particulate in vaccines in general. Show me one vaccine inside a bottle that reacts to a magnet. You are doing a disservice to the cause by spreading bollocks on the Internet - it makes the natural rights side of the debate look stupid. There are thousands of people around the globe who can say “without a shred of doubt” that they saw a UFO, but it was “unidentified” only to them, and a weather balloon to everybody else, they simply lacked the ability to identify what they were seeing. If you sit down for a minute and think, why would it be just the injection site? The vaccine spreads through the bloodstream, why aren’t they Magneto? Use some critical thinking for a minute. Or don’t, no skin off my back. Your friend needs to wash themselves, as the video states.


> EDIT:
> I just heard from a friend of a friend that tried it, and they claim no attraction or anything.
> Varying results appearently.


No, not varying results. No magnetism, and no soap at your friend’s house.


----------



## FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR (Nov 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> There’s a million different reasons why you may have experienced this phenomenon that have nothing to do with magnetism. Even lightly magnetic particles will clump together and kill the patient instantly. There are no magnetic particles in vaccines. You are doing a disservice to the cause by spreading bollocks on the Internet - it makes the natural rights side of the debate look stupid. There are thousands of people around the globe who can say “without a shred of doubt” that they saw a UFO, but it was a UFO only to them, and a weather balloon to everybody else, they simply lacked the ability to identify what they were seeing. If you sit down for a minute and think, why would it be just the injection site? The vaccine spreads through the bloodstream, why aren’t they Magneto? Use some critical thinking for a minute. Or don’t, no skin off my back. Your friend needs to wash themselves, as the video states.


You think I don't know how a magnet responds to a surface? Never played around with magnets as a kid? 
It is very very simple, and I experienced it double triple quadruple check it with my own eyes and hands. 
Whatever story you come up with nope. They definitely were magnetic in their arms. And given the information it is likely that it is because of the vaccines. (it is not because they were trolling me with something stick on the other side of their arm or something.)

It may not make sense, however this is what I observed. I don't profess to know how it is possible what i and my friends observed.  You are calling our experiences bollocks. But you cannot change what we experienced no matter every part of your academic biology brain say it shouldn't be possible. 

UFO = un identified object. So if it is unidentified and they claimed to have seen an unidentified object then it is ufo. You mean they think it is an alien spacecraft for example? Well regardless what they may have experienced, from what I understand many and most ufo's are actually government craft that look alien.  

Yes ofcourse I have had the same thought, it doesn't make sense, why only at the injection site? I had the very same thought it would make more sense to spread to the body. BUT IT IS WHAT WE EXPERIENCED. I can't help it. And I dont care if it is true or not in particular if it's because of vaccines or what. It is what it is.

Comparing something as an ufo sighting to something so easily verifiable is not a strong argument.
Sure I don't expect you to take my word for it. See for yourselves. Surely yourself is vaccinated. It can't hurt no? Only your ego perhaps.


----------



## FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR (Nov 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> There’s a million different reasons why you may have experienced this phenomenon that have nothing to do with magnetism. Even lightly magnetic particles will clump together and kill the patient instantly - they’re magnetic. There are no magnetic particles in vaccines. In fact, there is no fine particulate in vaccines in general. Show me one vaccine inside a bottle that reacts to a magnet. You are doing a disservice to the cause by spreading bollocks on the Internet - it makes the natural rights side of the debate look stupid. There are thousands of people around the globe who can say “without a shred of doubt” that they saw a UFO, but it was “unidentified” only to them, and a weather balloon to everybody else, they simply lacked the ability to identify what they were seeing. If you sit down for a minute and think, why would it be just the injection site? The vaccine spreads through the bloodstream, why aren’t they Magneto? Use some critical thinking for a minute. Or don’t, no skin off my back. Your friend needs to wash themselves, as the video states.
> 
> No, not varying results. No magnetism, and no soap at your friend’s house.


Lmao soap has 0 to do with magnetic attraction when you are hovering a magnet over a surface.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 21, 2021)

FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR said:


> You think I don't know how a magnet responds to a surface? Never played around with magnets as a kid?
> It is very very simple, and I experienced it double triple quadruple check it with my own eyes and hands.
> Whatever story you come up with nope. They definitely were magnetic in their arms. And given the information it is likely that it is because of the vaccines. (it is not because they were trolling me with something stick on the other side of their arm or something.)
> 
> ...


Vaccines are not magnetic. My better half already has her vaccinations in order on account of working in the medical industry, I’m still waiting for my turn in the queue to get mine up to date also. You would make a lick of sense if you mentioned any of the other actually verified side effects, which are exceedingly rare, but do exist. What you pulled out instead is magic mumbo jumbo that is verifiably false. If your friend had a bunch of strongly magnetic particles coursing through their veins, magnetic enough to react to a field from another magnet through the skin, they would be a corpse, just as much as they would be a corpse if they experienced a severe blood clot. There are no magnetic particles in vaccines, period - this entire conspiracy stems from a faulty batch of the Moderna vaccine which was found to contain metal shavings from an improperly calibrated capping machine - this faulty, contaminated batch was quickly detected and is long since recalled. Happens all the time in the jarring and bottling industry - metal shavings or glass shards in food products are not uncommon either and those products are quickly recalled and destroyed.



FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR said:


> Lmao soap has 0 to do with magnetic attraction when you are hovering a magnet over a surface.


I’m sure you experienced “something”, perhaps a gust of wind, or a magnetic field from a different source, just not your friend, on account of your friend being (presumably) still alive… which they wouldn’t be if they were injected with a bunch of magnetic particles strong enough for you to detect them with an off-the-shelf magnet. Even the iron in your blood requires a monstrous magnet to detect any reaction at all. The volume of the vaccine is far too small to make any measurable difference, even if it did contain magnetic particles, which it does not.


----------



## FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR (Nov 21, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Vaccines are not magnetic. My better half already has her vaccinations in order on account of working in the medical industry, I’m still waiting for my turn in the queue to get mine up to date also. You would make a lick of sense if you mentioned any of the other actually verified side effects, which are exceedingly rare, but do exist. What you pulled out instead is magic mumbo jumbo that is verifiably false. If your friend had a bunch of strongly magnetic particles coursing through their veins, magnetic enough to react to a field from another magnet through the skin, they would be a corpse, just as much as they would be a corpse if they experienced a severe blood clot. There are no magnetic particles in vaccines, period - this entire conspiracy stems from a faulty batch of the Moderna vaccine which was found to contain metal shavings from an improperly calibrated capping machine - this faulty, contaminated batch was quickly detected and is long since recalled. Happens all the time in the jarring and bottling industry - metal shavings or glass shards in food products are not uncommon either and those products are quickly recalled and destroyed.


If you are so convinced why not try it on your other half? Prob scared to be ridiculed etc.
Well I can assure you my friends are very much alive. And we experienced what we experienced, so guess that throws your entire medical knowledge out of the window. You can call it as much mumbo jumbo as you like. it does not change the the fact what we experienced.  Side effects? Oh uhm I don't know, heart attacks, heart inflammation, paralysation, death? And many more.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 21, 2021)

FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR said:


> If you are so convinced why not try it on your other half? Prob scared to be ridiculed etc.
> Well I can assure you my friends are very much alive. And we experienced what we experienced, so guess that throws your entire medical knowledge out of the window. You can call it as much mumbo jumbo as you like. it does not change the the fact what we experienced.  Side effects? Oh uhm I don't know, heart attacks, heart inflammation, paralysation, death? And many more.


“I made a poor observation and drew an incorrect conclusion, therefore centuries of scientific discovery in both physics and medicine are wrong” - oh boy, you sure showed me. Now I really feel silly. I guess you’re right, I’m the idiot.  I bet your experiment is repeatable so you can record it and show all of us how real science is done. The burden of proof is on you, you’re the one making an outrageous claim, so grab that camera (and your copy of After Effects) and blow our minds. You have a phone, no? Shouldn’t be too hard. I’ll be waiting, Michael Bay. I want to believe.

There are many possible documented side effects of vaccination, that was never disputed. They are a risk I am personally willing to take when weighted against the alternative. My only point in this thread was that it should be up to the individual to make this decision, rather than the government.


----------



## oxitran (Nov 21, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> Except those against getting vaccinated are a harm to those around them. It’s not just their body being effected, it’s their household, neighborhood, schools, and so on. All because some people believe in garage they read on Facebook. The choice to not get vaccinated continues the spread of viruses and harms more than just the individual.


The vaccine doesn't stop you getting infected and spreading the virus. Also, natural immunity is just as if not more effective than the vaccine at stopping you from getting the virus and also gettnig adverse health effects from it. So no, its not putting those around you at risk by not getting the vaccine, its acting like the virus doesn't exist and throwing all precaution to wind that puts you at risk.

But be a good little Lemming and let the government and pharmacutical companies that support their political campaigns tribalise you and the rest of society into signing away you rights to bent tyrants.


----------



## FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR (Nov 21, 2021)

oxitran said:


> The vaccine doesn't stop you getting infected and spreading the virus. Also, natural immunity is just as if not more effective than the vaccine at stopping you from getting the virus and also gettnig adverse health effects from it. So no, its not putting those around you at risk by not getting the vaccine, its acting like the virus doesn't exist and throwing all precaution to wind that puts you at risk.
> 
> But be a good little Lemming and let the government and pharmacutical companies that support their political campaigns tribalise you and the rest of society into signing away you rights to bent tyrants.


"the virus" was never proven to begin with. The test is not ment for it, at all, and used wrongly even.  A virus is not contagious. Just the garbage men taking out the toxicity out of your body. Now they make these garbage man the enemy. Don't let them make your own body the enemy and each other! So easily divide and conquer strategy.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 21, 2021)

oxitran said:


> The vaccine doesn't stop you getting infected and spreading the virus. Also, natural immunity is just as if not more effective than the vaccine at stopping you from getting the virus and also gettnig adverse health effects from it. So no, its not putting those around you at risk by not getting the vaccine, its acting like the virus doesn't exist and throwing all precaution to wind that puts you at risk.
> 
> But be a good little Lemming and let the government and pharmacutical companies that support their political campaigns tribalise you and the rest of society into signing away you rights to bent tyrants.


Got any sources because it seems like vaccines are doing better at preventing the spread than natural immunity did.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 21, 2021)

oxitran said:


> The vaccine doesn't stop you getting infected and spreading the virus. Also, natural immunity is just as if not more effective than the vaccine at stopping you from getting the virus and also gettnig adverse health effects from it. So no, its not putting those around you at risk by not getting the vaccine, its acting like the virus doesn't exist and throwing all precaution to wind that puts you at risk.
> 
> But be a good little Lemming and let the government and pharmacutical companies that support their political campaigns tribalise you and the rest of society into signing away you rights to bent tyrants.





The Catboy said:


> Got any sources because it seems like vaccines are doing better at preventing the spread than natural immunity did.


The vaccine is far more consistent than natural immunity, and those who were infected and then vaccinated are far more protected than those who rely on natural immunity alone.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/201...ne-induced-immunity.html#anchor_1635539757101

The vaccine does indeed reduce the risk of contracting the virus, which means it reduces the odds that you will get it and transmit it to others. If you have a breakthrough infection, you can still spread the virus as much as someone who wasn't vaccinated, but you are far less likely to suffer serious illness or death if you're vaccinated.

If you care about not getting the disease, not spreading the disease, and not getting seriously ill if you do get the disease, you need to get vaccinated.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 22, 2021)

When I read through this and the other Covid/Vaccine Threads,I have a feeling that it is not only doctors and politicians who are paid to campaign for vaccinations ....


----------



## usernamecharlie (Nov 22, 2021)

Austrian gov promised the vaxxed that corona is over and they won‘t have to go into another lockdown. Now, after this and several other broken promises, they announced a vax mandate which won‘t likely be introduced. It‘s just another hoax and in jan they‘ll say well we can‘t force people but now we have about 80% vaxxed and it‘s no longer necessary (or something like that). Politicians are completelly screwed and they know it - it was only announced to calm the 60-something percentage that have taken their shot(s).


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 22, 2021)

It says,would you like to get vaccinated with an "Totimpfstoff" ?
(Inactivated vaccine like Novavax/Valneva/Coronavac)


----------



## Xzi (Nov 22, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> When I read through this and the other Covid/Vaccine Threads,I have a feeling that it is not only doctors and politicians who are paid to campaign for vaccinations ....


Yes, surely every vaccine advocate must be getting paid.  It's not like they could possibly have any other reason for wanting to keep hospitals from overflowing with COVID patients.


----------



## Tsukiru (Nov 22, 2021)

FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR said:


> "the virus" was never proven to begin with. The test is not ment for it, at all, and used wrongly even.  A virus is not contagious. Just the garbage men taking out the toxicity out of your body. Now they make these garbage man the enemy. Don't let them make your own body the enemy and each other! So easily divide and conquer strategy.


Honestly there's a lot to process with this nonsensical arrangement of words that can be mistaken for a coherent thought, but I'm more infatuated with the signature that reads:


> Scientism is a religion! One of white robes instead of black robes of old.
> Current day scientists often amount to PRIESTS!


which kind of speaks what kind of person is behind the keyboard. On this forum. On the internet. Worked on by scientists. Of the current day.


----------



## Tsukiru (Nov 22, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Yes, surely every vaccine advocate must be getting paid.  It's not like they could possibly have any other reason for wanting to keep hospitals from overflowing with COVID patients.


My mother is a nurse and the beginning of the pandemic was so stressful she found herself leaving before things got out of hand. Not only that, even if you would survive gracefully: Being sick is an awful experience, so I think it's only fair to reduce the damages of that for yourself and people and peers who rely on that. However if Big Gov ALSO wants to pay me for making the world a little less hellish, my PO address is-


----------



## FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR (Nov 22, 2021)

Tsukiru said:


> Honestly there's a lot to process with this nonsensical arrangement of words that can be mistaken for a coherent thought, but I'm more infatuated with the signature that reads:
> 
> which kind of speaks what kind of person is behind the keyboard. On this forum. On the internet. Worked on by scientists. Of the current day.


Real science is something different then scientism. You work it out. It's all about worldviews. Controlling people's worldviews. It's always has been. Through left brained science, through right brained religion etc. What reality is, and being human.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 22, 2021)

FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR said:


> Real science is something different then scientism. You work it out. It's all about worldviews. Controlling people's worldviews. It's always has been. Through left brained science, through right brained religion etc. What reality is, and being human.


Yeah, none of that is real and you are just barking out your ass. 


Alexander1970 said:


> When I read through this and the other Covid/Vaccine Threads,I have a feeling that it is not only doctors and politicians who are paid to campaign for vaccinations ....


I wish I was paid but I am not. I am just someone who’s actually taken the time to research into this issue. When I couldn’t find anything more than conspiracy nonsense backing up the anti-vac movement, I determined it was conspiracy nonsense.


----------



## FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR (Nov 22, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> Yeah, none of that is real and you are just barking out your ass.
> 
> I wish I was paid but I am not. I am just someone who’s actually taken the time to research into this issue. When I couldn’t find anything more than conspiracy nonsense backing up the anti-vac movement, I determined it was conspiracy nonsense.


You can close your eyes to it, but it will not close it eyes towards you.  Does that make you feel any safer? I innerstand that accepting this you'd have to leave your comfort zone and take responsibility it's what people vehemelty avoid. Because most people deep down are too much of a coward to look deep inside. That the safety they have been sold is a LIE and an illusion that these institutions sell.

Make no mistake, we have one global problem. and it's ALL of our institutions.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 22, 2021)

FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR said:


> You can close your eyes to it, but it will not close it eyes towards you.  Does that make you feel any safer? I innerstand that accepting this you'd have to leave your comfort zone and take responsibility it's what people vehemelty avoid. Because most people deep down are too much of a coward to look deep inside. That the safety they have been sold is a LIE and an illusion that these institutions sell.
> 
> Make no mistake, we have one global problem. and it's ALL of our institutions.


I would love to see the sources you've drawn from to come to whatever worldview you've formed for yourself.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 22, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> I would love to see the sources you've drawn from to come to whatever worldview you've formed for yourself.


In all fairness, “scientism” is a known and defined phenomenon. Unlike actual science which is based on constant challenge, revision and self-improvement, scientism functions as a dogmatic, “religious” belief. “Scientist man says so, therefore it is true” is not exactly a scientific approach - science is based on data.


----------



## Tsukiru (Nov 22, 2021)

FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR said:


> Real science is something different then scientism. You work it out. It's all about worldviews. Controlling people's worldviews. It's always has been. Through left brained science, through right brained religion etc. What reality is, and being human.


I think what you're *trying *to warn about is overblown at the moment, even if it's a bit obnoxious. But how you handle it, talking like "you work it out" is also no different. Get over yourself, please.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 22, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Yes, surely every vaccine advocate must be getting paid.  It's not like they could possibly have any other reason for wanting to keep hospitals from overflowing with COVID patients.


Doesn't the CDC get paid from companies like Pfizer via the CDC Foundation?


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> In all fairness, “scientism” is a known and defined phenomenon. Unlike actual science which is based on constant challenge, revision and self-improvement, scientism functions as a dogmatic, “religious” belief. “Scientist man says so, therefore it is true” is not exactly a scientific approach - science is based on data.


It is but that’s about the only slight legitimacy to that post.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 22, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> It is but that’s about the only slight legitimacy to that post.


I like to fish out nuggets of truth from everything, but yeah, the whole “the vaccine is going to kill you” conspiracy boggles the mind. Counting boosters we have to be at 6+ billion injections at least, can’t be arsed to find the exact number, and there’s only been a couple thousand reports of serious side effects globally, no different than with any other vaccine out there. When Germany was trying to count them, they ended up with 31 cases of severe blood clots in 2.7 *million* people tested, and God knows what other underlying conditions that small fraction of people had. Yeah, it’s scary, but drowning in your own blood is a tad scarier. I can understand the lack of hurry for those who are very young and have no underlying conditions since they’re barely at risk from the virus, but they can still be carriers, so it’s prudent to take it - if not for yourself, then for your loved ones in your vicinity.


----------



## Velorian (Nov 22, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> How unfortunate.
> 
> Also how quick people are to abandon "my body, my choice".


My body, my choice only applies to things that have no substantive impact on others.  Deadly diseases spreading from one person to another immediately takes it out of that category.  This is why we already have mandatory vaccinations for other diseases like measles.  My body, my choice would however apply to abortion before the fetus is "viable" because there is no living entity being affected other than the woman housing the fetus.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 22, 2021)

Velorian said:


> My body, my choice only applies to things that have no substantive impact on others.  Deadly diseases spreading from one person to another immediately takes it out of that category.  This is why we already have mandatory vaccinations for other diseases like measles.  My body, my choice would however apply to abortion before the fetus is "viable" because there is no living entity being affected other than the woman housing the fetus.


I am not aware of mandatory vaccinations for anything, and if there is in Austria in the modern world (or past) then I would have to oppose those too owing to the whole bodily autonomy thing. Normally in peacetime there is issues with various hippy mothers, religious weirdos (not Austria but some of the fun ones in the Netherlands actually providing one of the more interesting data sets here), those not trusting of governments and more dodging such things.

Equally plenty of things we allow have a substantive impact on others - being fat not only hurts my eyeballs but my insurance premiums, my companies (unhealthy people get sick more often and are generally less productive by virtue of having to stop and take a breather/rest their knee that the mass above caused to grind away), ditto smoking, ditto drunks, ditto having kids you can't afford (which is also one of the other very big aspects in the debate for abortions where that is a thing -- mostly the US, Ireland and Poland. Kids you can't afford generally taking up my prisons, my welfare, my morgues when they blow their brains out...), as might driving faster than about walking pace (though that is less chemicals and autonomy I suppose).

There is scope to violate it -- if something like measles (R numbers vary but leave kung flu in the dust) ganged up with ebola or sleeping sickness (basically 100% fatal), maybe gaining something fun with infectious and asymptomatic phases whilst also somehow having a vaccination then "fuck you it is happening" becomes a more reasonable proposition. For something as comparatively mild as this then violating bodily autonomy is a massive stretch from where I sit.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 22, 2021)

Velorian said:


> My body, my choice only applies to things that have no substantive impact on others.  Deadly diseases spreading from one person to another immediately takes it out of that category.  This is why we already have mandatory vaccinations for other diseases like measles.  My body, my choice would however apply to abortion before the fetus is "viable" because there is no living entity being affected other than the woman housing the fetus.


Poppycock. You have no idea whether a given unvaccinated individual contributes to the spread of a given disease - in fact, they can’t contribute to it unless they’re confirmed carriers of the pathogen - the probability is higher, but it’s not a given. “My body, my choice” absolutely applies, the expectation that other people should be burdened with your own risk mitigation is based on nothing. You would have a valid argument for compulsory cooperation in the absence of a vaccine - in such a scenario only cooperation can mitigate risk. In the presence of a viable vaccine with 96%+ efficacy the burden of protecting your own health falls squarely on you.


----------



## Velorian (Nov 22, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Poppycock. You have no idea whether a given unvaccinated individual contributes to the spread of a given disease - in fact, they can’t contribute to it unless they’re confirmed carriers of the pathogen - the probability is higher, but it’s not a given. “My body, my choice” absolutely applies, the expectation that other people should be burdened with your own risk mitigation is based on nothing. You would have a valid argument for compulsory cooperation in the absence of a vaccine - in such a scenario only cooperation can mitigate risk. In the presence of a viable vaccine with 96%+ efficacy the burden of protecting your own health falls squarely on you.


Have you ever been around someone that had the flu?  What is the first thing they say or anyone around them says, "stay away because you might get sick".  What is that person doing that spreads the disease?  Sneezing, coughing, in essence shooting bacteria and viruses into the air from an immune system that is compromised and struggling to fight off the disease.  If you had gotten the flu vaccine that year, then what are you not doing? Coughing, sneezing, shooting bacteria and viruses into the air and your immune system annihilates the disease from your body so it literally can't spread.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 22, 2021)

You probably want to pick a better example than flu for that one.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 22, 2021)

Velorian said:


> Have you ever been around someone that had the flu?  What is the first thing they say or anyone around them says, "stay away because you might get sick".  What is that person doing that spreads the disease?  Sneezing, coughing, in essence shooting bacteria and viruses into the air from an immune system that is compromised and struggling to fight off the disease.  If you had gotten the flu vaccine that year, then what are you not doing? Coughing, sneezing, shooting bacteria and viruses into the air and your immune system annihilates the disease from your body so it literally can't spread.


Do you get your yearly flu jab? Influenza kills as much as 650,000 a year globally, and even more people suffer from various complications related to the disease, some of which are permanent. How responsible are you for their health, if at all?

No. Not an argument. You are an educated person, at this point everyone who doesn’t live in the middle of the Sahara desert knows that there’s a COVID vaccine available and, provided their shots are in date, it offers efficacy that is as close to 100% as it can be, since it’s not a force field. You have the option to take advantage of this miraculous form of medicine and protect yourself from disease. Given the fact that you have that option, you do not get to burden others with protecting you from the disease.

If some people want to *risk* getting infected and cough, sneeze or otherwise suffer from it, that’s their risk, not yours. Their body, their choice. You have all the tools you need to *not* get sick *regardless of their sneezing and coughing*, to protect *your body*, or at the very least you have the tools to mitigate your risk to such an extent that it’s infinitesimally small. At that point the ball is in your court.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 22, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Doesn't the CDC get paid from companies like Pfizer via the CDC Foundation?


AFAIK the CDC is a government organization, its employees are on government salaries.  The government also paid for however many millions of doses of various vaccines so that we can receive them for "free."  Big pharmaceutical companies aren't exactly known for operating out of charity/the goodness of their hearts.  Nor would they pay out for something that comes freely, such as demand for vaccines against a deadly virus.


----------



## FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR (Nov 22, 2021)

Velorian said:


> My body, my choice only applies to things that have no substantive impact on others.  Deadly diseases spreading from one person to another immediately takes it out of that category.  This is why we already have mandatory vaccinations for other diseases like measles.  My body, my choice would however apply to abortion before the fetus is "viable" because there is no living entity being affected other than the woman housing the fetus.


Except for that isn't the case.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 22, 2021)

FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR said:


> Except for that isn't the case.


"But have you considered this: nuh-uh."  What a compelling argument lol.

Velorian is correct.  You cannot get pregnant via airborne virus, nor are there airborne abortions floating around.  This shouldn't be something that needs to be spelled out for you.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 22, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Yes, surely every vaccine advocate must be getting paid.  It's not like they could possibly have any other reason for wanting to keep hospitals from overflowing with COVID patients.


I'm trying to give these people the benefit of the doubt, but I honestly think this one is just trolling.

Like, are anti-vax and mask slackers getting paid to spread their nonsense?


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 22, 2021)

Xzi said:


> "But have you considered this: nuh-uh."  What a compelling argument lol.
> 
> Velorian is correct.  You cannot get pregnant via airborne virus, nor are there airborne abortions floating around.  This shouldn't be something that needs to be spelled out for you.


Funny, because that’s sort of what the public health approach towards abortion is. For many years now access to abortion has been promoted as an integral pillar of women’s healthcare, as if pregnancy was a disease instead of a natural consequence of deliberate action. You can become infected with a virus without your knowledge, in fact, that’s how most people contract diseases. It’s rather difficult and considerably more rare to get pregnant without your knowledge and active participation, which used to pass for consent. This really isn’t a good argument for the pro choice segment of the population considering both unwanted pregnancy and spreading viruses could be, for the most part, eliminated with a government mandate, all it takes is just getting rid of bodily autonomy altogether. All of this is an aside, of course - I’m not entirely sure how we got on the subject of pregnancy in a thread about COVID, but it’s not the craziest thing I’ve seen on POLtemp, so I’m not horribly surprised. I’m waiting for the mandatory mention of Trump/Biden and communism/capitalism to complete the GBAtemp’s Anti-Intellectual Trifecta.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> For many years now access to abortion has been promoted as an integral pillar of women’s healthcare, as if pregnancy was a disease instead of a natural consequence of deliberate action.


For one thing, it's not always deliberate action on the part of the person who has to deal with the resulting pregnancy.  For another, there are often unforeseen complications with pregnancy even when it is both deliberate and consensual, as I'm sure you're aware.



Foxi4 said:


> You can become infected with a virus without your knowledge, in fact, that’s how most people contract diseases.


Yeah, that was my point.  To pretend we're not all in this together when it comes to easily-transmissible diseases is to ignore all of human history.  Even primates understand the importance of both relying upon and protecting their communities.


----------



## DCarnage (Nov 23, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> How unfortunate.
> 
> Also how quick people are to abandon "my body, my choice".


How delusional are you?! That only applies to "birth givers" murdering their unborn children... jeez, get with the program.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> For one thing, it's not always deliberate action on the part of the person who has to deal with the resulting pregnancy.  For another, there are often unforeseen complications with pregnancy even when it is both deliberate and consensual, as I'm sure you're aware.
> 
> 
> Yeah, that was my point.  To pretend we're not all in this together when it comes to easily-transmissible diseases is to ignore all of human history.  Even primates understand the importance of both relying upon and protecting their communities.


We’re obviously not talking about rape here, which accounts for a fraction of a percent of all abortions, but as I said, that’s not the subject of the thread here. As for complications, access to abortion for mothers whose life is threatened by continuing the pregnancy is fairly well-established around the world and only the dullest of dullards have any moral quandaries about it. Even the Talmud puts the life of the mother above the life of an unborn child, and by extension, so does the bible, so you have over two millennia of precedent here. If only one can survive, the default is and always has been the mother, unless the mother herself objects.

We’re all in this together in the sense that we’re all facing the same crisis. At no point did anyone sign off their rights just because China wasn’t very forthright with information about yet another virus originating from that part of the world until it took root in so many areas that eradicating it has become a pipe dream. I don’t know what we’re even arguing about at this point - this boat has already sailed. We’re not “eradicating” anything, people will continue to die from COVID at a steadily decreasing rate for many years to come. If somebody doesn’t want a vaccine injected into their body, all you can do is inform them that it is in their best interest to take it, in the same way that you tell someone who doesn’t believe in blood transfusions or animal heart valve transplants that their child is going to die if they don’t put their name on the dotted line and set their superstitions aside for five seconds. In both scenarios you are dealing with easily preventable death, and in both there is nothing you can really do, which is fine.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> If somebody doesn’t want a vaccine injected into their body, all you can do is inform them that it is in their best interest to take it, in the same way that you tell someone who doesn’t believe in blood transfusions or animal heart valve transplants that their child is going to die if they don’t put their name on the dotted line and set their superstitions aside for five seconds. In both scenarios you are dealing with easily preventable death, and in both there is nothing you can really do, which is fine.


Honestly yes, it would be fine if we had some assurances that they were only putting themselves in harm's way.  In other words, if they want to sign a waiver stating that they will not seek medical attention when their COVID symptoms become so severe that they can no longer breathe without assistance, great.  We can't have them continuing to put a strain on hospital resources and thus de-prioritizing patients with _unpreventable_ injuries/illnesses.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Honestly yes, it would be fine if we had some assurances that they were only putting themselves in harm's way.  In other words, if they want to sign a waiver stating that they will not seek medical attention when their COVID symptoms become so severe that they can no longer breathe without assistance, great.  We can't have them continuing to put a strain on hospital resources and thus de-prioritizing patients with _unpreventable_ injuries/illnesses.


Why not? It’s not your resources. Sounds rather spiteful.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Honestly yes, it would be fine if we had some assurances that they were only putting themselves in harm's way.  In other words, if they want to sign a waiver stating that they will not seek medical attention when their COVID symptoms become so severe that they can no longer breathe without assistance, great.  We can't have them continuing to put a strain on hospital resources and thus de-prioritizing patients with _unpreventable_ injuries/illnesses.


Your mind is such a boring place.  A person with a preventable injury cuts in line, all the time, in an ER if the urgency merits it.  It doesn't make sense to shoehorn medical procedure reform in this context.

Your existence inconveniences mine.  Maybe you should be euthanized? 



D34DL1N3R said:


> Fuck you, your body, and your "rights".




Maybe they should force it upon you.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Why not? It’s not your resources. Sounds rather spiteful.


It's a selfish, spiteful choice to remain unvaccinated, especially claiming all the while that it only impacts yourself as an individual and knowing full well that isn't true.

As a healthy individual who gets regular checkups and has made the responsible choice in regards to vaccination, it's impossible for me to know when or if I'll need those resources.  Perhaps somebody crashes into me on the highway or I become the victim of a terrorist attack while shopping for groceries.  Regardless, I shouldn't be expected to be fine with bleeding out in the cold while all hospital beds are occupied by people who willingly and deliberately subjected themselves to severe illness via COVID.

Those who claim to be "rugged individualists" shouldn't have any issue with handling their own medical treatment.  Besides, if they aren't willing to trust medical expertise in regards to vaccination, why should they suddenly reverse course to trust it in any other context?


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 23, 2021)

Spiteful is not wanting everyone to have universal healthcare or any other universal services because you don't like how it is paid for.


----------



## Zajumino (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> "But have you considered this: nuh-uh."  What a compelling argument lol.
> 
> Velorian is correct.  You cannot get pregnant via airborne virus, nor are there airborne abortions floating around.  This shouldn't be something that needs to be spelled out for you.


Wait a second...
If that is the case, then how _do_ people get pregnant?


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2021)

Zajumino said:


> Wait a second...
> If that is the case, then how _do_ people get pregnant?


Well son, when a yandere loves a tsundere very much...


----------



## fst312 (Nov 23, 2021)

I’m not getting vaccinated, as far as I’m concerned a lot of these advertisements tell me the vaccine just protects me supposedly from getting sick or something, nothing to do with the people around me. My immune system is healthy enough as far as I’m concerned, I only usually get sick around april or something and that’s just allergies.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2021)

fst312 said:


> I’m not getting vaccinated, as far as I’m concerned a lot of these advertisements tell me the vaccine just protects me supposedly from getting sick or something


The vaccine drastically reduces your risk of contracting the virus, and drastically reduces your risk of having symptoms severe enough to require hospitalization should you happen to catch it anyway.  In the grand scheme of things, higher vaccination rates also reduce the likelihood of mutations in the virus which might make it more vaccine-resistant.  The fewer easily-infected host bodies, the better.

If you have attended/are attending public school, odds are you're already vaccinated against any number of other diseases and viruses.  Anti-vaxx hysteria is relatively new.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> The vaccine drastically reduces your risk of contracting the virus....


NO ! Please !
That is not true !

How many Times we should say it please ?
You are at the same risk to get the Virus as unvaccinated People.

Only for the Sympthoms.
 It is a SELF PROTECTING Vaccination not a Universal Vaccination that protects EVERYONE against everyone!

We have seen it in Austria the last 8 Weeks.
Over 1 Million of unvaccinated People where negative PCR and Antigen tested.
We unvaccinated People had a Lockdown (only for Unvaccinated People !) before the full Lockdown now.
But the Virus is still spreading.......because the vaccinated were not tested during this Period.


----------



## nWo (Nov 23, 2021)

Why the school still open, tho? It's just stupid reasoning. 

All in all, I don´t like really much the idea of government openly forcing people to do something. 

I recommend all of you, the videos of Dr. Karina Acevedo, sadly they are in spanish only, but she explains very important things about the virus and the vaccines, with supporting evidence.


----------



## stanna (Nov 23, 2021)

Let the idiots take the fake vaccine and lose their immune system, hope it works out for them


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> How many Times we should say it please ?
> You are at the same risk to get the Virus as unvaccinated People.


You are misinformed.  All peer-reviewed studies show that vaccinated individuals have a much lower rate of infection, and those who do experience breakthrough infections exhibit milder symptoms.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-risks.html



> In the new analysis, 3,975 participants completed weekly SARS-CoV-2 testing for 17 consecutive weeks (from December 13, 2020 to April 10, 2021) in eight U.S. locations. Participants self-collected nasal swabs that were laboratory tested for SARS-CoV-2, which is the virus that causes COVID-19. If the tests came back positive, the specimens were further tested to determine the amount of detectable virus in the nose (i.e., viral load) and the number of days that participants tested positive (i.e., viral shedding). Participants were followed over time and the data were analyzed according to vaccination status. To evaluate vaccine benefits, the study investigators accounted for the circulation of SARS-CoV-2 viruses in the area and how consistently participants used personal protective equipment (PPE) at work and in the community. *Once fully vaccinated, participants’ risk of infection was reduced by 91 percent. After partial vaccination, participants’ risk of infection was reduced by 81 percent. These estimates included symptomatic and asymptomatic infections.*
> 
> 
> To determine whether COVID-19 illness was milder, study participants who became infected with SARS-CoV-2 were combined into a single group and compared to unvaccinated, infected participants. Several findings indicated that those who became infected after being fully or partially vaccinated were more likely to have a milder and shorter illness compared to those who were unvaccinated. For example, fully or partially vaccinated people who developed COVID-19 spent on average six fewer total days sick and two fewer days sick in bed. They also had about a 60 percent lower risk of developing symptoms, like fever or chills, compared to those who were unvaccinated. Some study participants infected with SARS-CoV-2 did not develop symptoms.





Alexander1970 said:


> It is a SELF PROTECTING Vaccination not a Universal Vaccination that protects EVERYONE against everyone!


This is nonsensical.  If everyone in a given country was vaccinated, they'd all be protecting each other, as well as protecting themselves.  Assuming travel restrictions are in place, the virus would pretty quickly go extinct in that region.  New Zealand has more or less reached that point.



Alexander1970 said:


> Over 1 Million of unvaccinated People where negative PCR and Antigen tested.


Which is anecdotal.  Of course they're testing negative if they're self-isolating or required to isolate by law/regulation.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> You are misinformed.  All peer-reviewed studies show that vaccinated individuals have a much lower rate of infection, and those who do experience breakthrough infections exhibit milder symptoms.
> 
> https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-risks.html
> 
> ...


Not against the Delta and newer Variations,this seems to be a Missinformation on your Side of the World.

How is is possible,if 5 unvaccinated People (from a Group of 120 People - Personal/Kids/Parents) are negative Tested (daily with PCR AND Antigen for over a Month) and there are 3 positive Cases from Vaccinated People.
Covid Cases ? So happened in our local Kindergarden.

Explain please.



*EDIT:*
Sorry, I let myself be carried away into another senseless Covid discussion. 
Sorry, I should have a "better grip on myself".


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> Not against the Delta and newer Variations,this seems to be a Missinformation on your Side of the World.


The efficacy of each vaccine varies against Delta, as Delta did not exist while the current vaccines were being put through clinical trials.  Moderna came out the biggest winner against Delta and other variants though, given what newer data we do have.



Alexander1970 said:


> How is is possible,if 5 unvaccinated People (from a Group of 120 People - Personal/Kids/Parents) are negative Tested (daily with PCR AND Antigen for over a Month) and there are 3 positive Cases from Vaccinated People.
> Covid Cases ? So happened in our local Kindergarden.
> 
> Explain please.


120 is an extremely small sample size, not enough to form any meaningful data points which can be extrapolated to a country or the world at large.  There are also several important variables here that are nigh impossible to account for.  That being said, 3 out of 120 is 2.5%, so that still falls well within the margin of 91% protection against infection for fully vaccinated individuals.  5 out of 120 is roughly 4.1%, which is a pretty low infection rate for the unvaccinated, but still almost double the rate of infection in this particular case.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> It's a selfish, spiteful choice to remain unvaccinated, especially claiming all the while that it only impacts yourself as an individual and knowing full well that isn't true.
> 
> As a healthy individual who gets regular checkups and has made the responsible choice in regards to vaccination, it's impossible for me to know when or if I'll need those resources.  Perhaps somebody crashes into me on the highway or I become the victim of a terrorist attack while shopping for groceries.  Regardless, I shouldn't be expected to be fine with bleeding out in the cold while all hospital beds are occupied by people who willingly and deliberately subjected themselves to severe illness via COVID.
> 
> Those who claim to be "rugged individualists" shouldn't have any issue with handling their own medical treatment.  Besides, if they aren't willing to trust medical expertise in regards to vaccination, why should they suddenly reverse course to trust it in any other context?


It’s always equal parts funny and fascinating to watch staunch liberals accidentally discover, all on their own, that healthcare is not a right and not everyone is equally entitled to it. Kind of like watching a cat hissing at its own reflection. It’s always for the wrong reasons, but it’s a well-known fact that you can arrive at the right conclusion by following the wrong train of thought, so it’s not a big deal.



KingVamp said:


> Spiteful is not wanting everyone to have universal healthcare or any other universal services because you don't like how it is paid for.


Yes, the reason why you oppose universal healthcare makes it all better. If it’s in the interest of everyone’s hard-earned money, that’s bad. If it’s punitive and vengeful, that’s good. Let me note that down, this will be useful later.

*Jots down that rights only apply to those whom we like*

I’m starting to like your spiel.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s always equal parts funny and fascinating to watch staunch liberals accidentally discover, all on their own, that healthcare is not a right and not everyone is equally entitled to it.


Firstly, I'm not a liberal.  That would imply I'm in favor of the capitalist status quo.  Secondly, healthcare _is_ a right and should be universal, as it is in many developed nations.  I'm simply playing devil's advocate in this discussion and taking anti-vaxxers' "logic" to its inevitable conclusion.  If you're afraid of getting injected with Bill Gates' 5G nanobots, then the last thing you should want is to risk being unconscious on a ventilator in a hospital full of "elitist" medical experts.

"My body my choice" in the context of vaccines implies a person knows how to treat their own symptoms better than doctors or nurses would.  "My body my choice" in the context of abortion implies that a woman is willing to trust medical science and a team of doctors/nurses to perform a delicate procedure on her.  These two things couldn't possibly be any less analogous, but you already knew that and have stated as much.



Foxi4 said:


> Yes, the reason why you oppose universal healthcare makes it all better. If it’s in the interest of everyone’s hard-earned money, that’s bad. If it’s punitive and vengeful, that’s good. Let me note that down, this will be useful later.


Pretty sure he's suggesting the opposite.  US conservatives are in favor of receiving the benefits of universal healthcare for themselves, it's only when they realize that minorities would also benefit from it that their opposition to it suddenly kicks in.  The concern over who's gonna pay for it is just a ploy; a smokescreen.


----------



## smf (Nov 23, 2021)

fst312 said:


> I’m not getting vaccinated, as far as I’m concerned a lot of these advertisements tell me the vaccine just protects me supposedly from getting sick or something, nothing to do with the people around me. My immune system is healthy enough as far as I’m concerned, I only usually get sick around april or something and that’s just allergies.



I've never been killed in a car accident, so I'm going to just run in front of traffic and not wear a seat belt if I'm in the car.

There is no evidence that it will harm me.


----------



## smf (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> US conservatives are in favor of receiving the benefits of universal healthcare for themselves, it's only when they realize that minorities would also benefit from it that their opposition to it suddenly kicks in.


Yeah, we get the same thing in the UK.

The right wing papers are full of sob stories about how capitalism is bad for their readers, who want capitalism when it benefits them and marxism when capitalism doesn't suit them. A recent example is how fuel prices went up during the shortage, with filling stations benefiting from the scarcity of petrol.

We call those people cunts, or conservatives. They are a bane on our society, more so than the immigrants that they all despise

The same cunts who suggest that the conservatives were instrumental in creating their beloved NHS, when the conservatives voted against the plan. The conservatives wanted a system they could milk and by mismanaging the NHS, it appears they are going to be able to achieve that long term plan.


----------



## smf (Nov 23, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> You are at the same risk to get the Virus as unvaccinated People.


That depends on what you mean by "get".

If you mean "exposed to", then sure. What happens next is different based on whether you were vaccinated or unvaccinated.

_A recent study found that vaccinated people infected with the delta variant are 63 per cent less likely to infect people who are unvaccinated.

What is important to realise, de Gier says, is that the full effect of vaccines on reducing transmission is even higher than 63 per cent, because most vaccinated people don’t become infected in the first place._

Austria's problem seems to stem from the government saying that once you were vaccinated that it was the end of even considering covid.

The time before covid is gone.
Once you're vaccinated then the 2020 lockdown is gone.
Vaccination leaves you somewhere in between.

If you're one of those "I'm bored with covid, I want to get back to before" then you're going to be disappointed, especially if you don't get vaccinated.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Firstly, I'm not a liberal.  That would imply I'm in favor of the capitalist status quo.  Secondly, healthcare _is_ a right and should be universal, as it is in many developed nations.  I'm simply playing devil's advocate in this discussion and taking anti-vaxxers' "logic" to its inevitable conclusion.  If you're afraid of getting injected with Bill Gates' 5G nanobots, then the last thing you should want is to risk being unconscious on a ventilator in a hospital full of "elitist" medical experts.
> 
> "My body my choice" in the context of vaccines implies a person knows how to treat their own symptoms better than doctors or nurses would.  "My body my choice" in the context of abortion implies that a woman is willing to trust medical science and a team of doctors/nurses to perform a delicate procedure on her.  These two things couldn't possibly be any less analogous, but you already knew that and have stated as much.
> 
> ...


Of course you’re a liberal, by which I mean you are on the liberal side of the political spectrum. That moniker doesn’t describe your alignment in regards to economic policy. The catch-22 you’re facing is that universal healthcare has the word “universal” in it, which doesn’t conform with the view you just expressed.

As for American conservatives, do you mean the GOP specifically? Because conservatives in general do not want the benefits of universal healthcare, they’re quite happy with paying out of pocket and have been opposing any implementation of universal healthcare since… give me a minute… forever. Since forever.



smf said:


> Yeah, we get the same thing in the UK.
> 
> The right wing papers are full of sob stories about how capitalism is bad for their readers, who want capitalism when it benefits them and marxism when capitalism doesn't suit them. A recent example is how fuel prices went up during the shortage, with filling stations benefiting from the scarcity of petrol.
> 
> ...


There are many ways to skin a cat. Dismantling the NHS would be political suicide, but bankrupting it is just as effective. Not that they need to try hard - the NHS is excellent at wasteful spending and inefficiency, they can manage that themselves if you just leave them to their own devices.


----------



## smf (Nov 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> There are many ways to skin a cat. Dismantling the NHS would be political suicide, but bankrupting it is just as effective. Not that they need to try hard - the NHS is excellent at wasteful spending and inefficiency, they can manage that themselves if you just leave them to their own devices.


Please stop trolling, you have zero idea what you're talking about and are just being inflamatory.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Of course you’re a liberal, by which I mean you are on the liberal side of the political spectrum.


Most people use "left - right" for the political spectrum, as "liberal" and "conservative" mean very different things in different parts of the world.  Liberal in the US implies centrism, or even center-right.



Foxi4 said:


> The catch-22 you’re facing is that universal healthcare has the word “universal” in it, which doesn’t conform with the view you just expressed.


I'll admit my "medical waiver" suggestion was maybe a bit overkill in terms of preventing any treatment whatsoever.  Perhaps those who choose to remain unvaccinated should simply be de-prioritized for treatment instead, sent to the back of the line when and where hospitals are already at capacity.



Foxi4 said:


> As for American conservatives, do you mean the GOP specifically? Because conservatives in general do not want the benefits of universal healthcare, they’re quite happy with paying out of pocket and have been opposing any implementation of universal healthcare since… give me a minute… forever. Since forever.


Conservatives want to have their cake and eat it too.  Of course they'd prefer to pay less for the same standard of care, and many already seek medical care outside of the US to save a few bucks.  They just don't want people they don't like (minorities, Democrats) to have access to the same benefits.  Their working-class voter base is the most negatively affected by this policy stance, but decades of force-fed propaganda from millionaires and billionaires has them believing it's worth it for...reasons.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2021)

smf said:


> Please stop trolling, you have zero idea what you're talking about and are just being inflamatory.


You do realise that I live in the UK, and have for many, many years, right? I pay my not-so-insignificant taxes here, I’m afraid that I have as much of a say as you do. You can find some comfort in knowing that I don’t vote since all of your major political parties are ridiculous. Maybe one day.



Xzi said:


> Most people use "left - right" for the political spectrum, as "liberal" and "conservative" mean very different things in different parts of the world.  Liberal in the US implies centrism, or even center-right.
> 
> 
> I'll admit my "medical waiver" suggestion was maybe a bit overkill in terms of preventing any treatment whatsoever.  Perhaps those who choose to remain unvaccinated should simply be de-prioritized for treatment instead, sent to the back of the line when and where hospitals are already at capacity.
> ...


Fair. I was using more common parlance since I’m aware that you’re not a democrat, so if anything, I was giving you a little credit.

Also fair, I accept the concession. Still vengeful, and discriminatory in nature, but at least you realise that these two ideas are not compatible and cannot be reconciled.

Everyone would like to pay less for goods and services, the way conservatives go about it is by cutting out all the excess fat. Sadly, the U.S. system is too convoluted, primarily due to the fragmentation of services and the government-mandated employer-based insurance driving prices up by establishing an insurance industry monopoly on coverage, so you’d have to blow this thing up entirely to actually do anything meaningful with it, whether you wanted a free market model or a single payer model. Right now it’s a bizarre chimera that makes nobody happy, a middle ground clump of concessions that both sides can call “capitalist” or “socialist” in nature, with both being right and wrong simultaneously. We call that Shroedinger’s Healthcare model… or schizo care.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Right now it’s a bizarre chimera that makes nobody happy, a middle ground clump of concessions that both sides can call “capitalist” or “socialist” in nature, with both being right and wrong simultaneously. We call that Shroedinger’s Healthcare model… or schizo care.


I assume you're referring to medicare/medicaid when you say "socialist," but as things stand now, these programs are ultimately toothless when it comes to competing with private insurers and healthcare providers.  They're very much allowed to charge whatever ridiculous "free market" markups they want, which is why Americans pay ten, twenty, or even thirty times as much for common prescription medications as our neighbors to the North or South.  If we had any hint of socialism in our healthcare system, we'd pay closer to Cuban prices, which are a fraction of our own.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I assume you're referring to medicare/medicaid when you say "socialist," but as things stand now, these programs are ultimately toothless when it comes to competing with private insurers and healthcare providers.  They're very much allowed to charge whatever ridiculous "free market" markups they want, which is why Americans pay ten, twenty, or even thirty times as much for common prescription medications as our neighbors to the North or South.  If we had any hint of socialism in our healthcare system, we'd pay closer to Cuban prices, which are a fraction of our own.


I’m glad that you’ve put “free market” in quotes, since the system is about as far from it as it possibly can be. It more closely resembles a Ponzi scheme. As for your socialism comment, it goes well beyond that. The whole system hinges on the idea that a third-party, in this case your employer, picks your insurance plan and pays for it, and yet another third-party actually pays the care provider, but only a fraction of the cost, so the provider has to jack up prices knowing that the remainder may as well never be paid anyway. At no point are you, the person receiving care, the actual customer, there’s a bunch of customers involved, but they’re not you, and it’s all done by government mandate. It’s a logistical nightmare. As an added bonus, all of this nonsense operates under the assumption that this is all magic money, and not just your money anyway that your employer shaved off of what would’ve been your wage otherwise, because nobody knows math. In the American healthcare context money to cover cost can simply spontaneously appear, it’s totally not a known quantity and an integral part of cost of employment.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> AFAIK the CDC is a government organization, its employees are on government salaries.


Allow me to fill in the gaps then..

"The CDC Foundation is an independent nonprofit and the sole entity created by Congress to mobilize philanthropic and private-sector resources to support the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s critical health protection work."
https://www.cdcfoundation.org/our-story

"Pfizer Inc."
https://www.cdcfoundation.org/partner-list/foundations

Now you can of course choose to believe what you want from that evidence but there's a reason the CDC isn't particularly reputable outside the US. The same can be said for FDA, whether the overall outcome is good or bad there's always a trail that should make people sceptical. The WHO basically are captured by China these days, as was evident by that famous Taiwan related interview.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It more closely resembles a Ponzi scheme.


And what's more capitalist than that?  Grifters grifting other grifters is the American way.



Foxi4 said:


> The whole system hinges on the idea that a third-party, in this case your employer, picks your insurance plan and pays for it, and yet another third party actually pays the care provider, but only a fraction of the cost, so the provider has to jack up prices knowing that the remainder may as well never be paid anyway. At no point are you, the person receiving care, the actual customer, there’s a bunch of customers involved, but they’re not you, and it’s all done by government mandate. It’s a logistical nightmare. As an added bonus, all of this nonsense operates under the assumption that this is all magic money, and not just your money anyway that your employer shaved off of what would’ve been your wage anyway, because nobody knows math and money can simply spontaneously appear, rather than be an ingrained part of cost of employment.


Why do you think both parties were so opposed to Medicare-for-all?  Lots of useless blood-sucking middlemen out there who make sure the rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to get poorer.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Now you can of course choose to believe what you want from that evidence but there's a reason the CDC isn't particularly reputable outside the US. The same can be said for FDA, whether the overall outcome is good or bad there's always a trail that should make people sceptical. The WHO basically are captured by China these days, as was evident by that famous Taiwan related interview.


Occam's razor.  Either: Pfizer paid off 98% of every nation's scientists, health experts, and public health organizations to the extent that nobody is willing to speak a word about this conspiracy, _or_ they did the same type of work they've always done in creating a fairly-effective vaccine against COVID, which in turn resulted in massive income. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Not to mention: Moderna and Johnson & Johnson are competitors to Pfizer.  Either of them would jump at the chance to release that type of damaging information about their rival(s).


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Occam's razor.  Either: Pfizer paid off 98% of every nation's scientists, health experts, and public health organizations to the extent that nobody is willing to speak a word about this conspiracy, _or_ they did the same type of work they've always done in creating a fairly-effective vaccine against COVID, which in turn resulted in massive income. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
> 
> Not to mention: Moderna and Johnson & Johnson are competitors to Pfizer.  Either of them would jump at the chance to release that type of damaging information about their rival(s).


As I said, you're free to draw whatever conclusions help you sleep at night. My opinion is that they are all corrupt as fuck.

Edit: Btw I'm not saying it as a conspiracy.. I'm saying the whole system is setup that way and it's perfectly normal and they all do it. Just look at how lobbying works.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> As I said, you're free to draw whatever conclusions help you sleep at night. My opinion is that they are all corrupt as fuck.


But to what end?  Money?  Power?  Big pharma already has both.  Conspiracy without conclusion is simply paranoia.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> But to what end?  Money?  Power?  Big pharma already has both.  Conspiracy without conclusion is simply paranoia.


I didn't actually present any conspiracy, just a direct monetary connection from their own website.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I didn't actually present any conspiracy, just a direct monetary connection from their own website.


You provided the opposite of that, documentation of the CDC's nonprofit status.  "Partnership" with a given organization is not sufficient proof itself of malfeasance/bribery.  You'd have to do a lot of investigative journalism to convince anyone of that, and odds are someone would've already beat you to it.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> You provided the opposite of that, documentation of the CDC's nonprofit status.  "Partnership" with a given organization is not sufficient proof itself of malfeasance/bribery.  You'd have to do a lot of investigative journalism to convince anyone of that, and odds are someone would've already beat you to it.


Again, I didn't mention bribery.. I'm saying it's corrupt.. you can just call it a conflict of interest if you want to make it sound more benign.. that the group that is in charge of recommending a drug is getting funding from the manufacturer of said drug. I chose to only quote the CDC itself because I knew any journalistic source wouldn't be accepted, but there are lots out there if you're interested.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Again, I didn't mention bribery.. I'm saying it's corrupt.. you can just call it a conflict of interest if you want to make it sound more benign.. that the group that is in charge of recommending a drug is getting funding from the manufacturer of said drug. I chose to only quote the CDC itself because I knew any journalistic source wouldn't be accepted, but there are lots out there if you're interested.


The CDC never recommended any specific vaccine though, only that people get vaccinated in general.  Your argument that they're corrupt would be a lot more convincing if you could at least point out when and where they gave that impression.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> The CDC never recommended any specific vaccine though, only that people get vaccinated in general.  Your argument that they're corrupt would be a lot more convincing if you could at least point out when and where they gave that impression.


I was making a more general point about why I didn't trust them. The Pfizer example was just the one I already knew off the top of my head and I don't really care to go and do any homework to find more, but I did notice Merck on the list as I was scanning. It's possible that the foundations of the others have un-related names, but that's speculation.

Also, I thought it was well known that organisations like these always have a connected non-profit that takes "private donations". It's all part of the lobbying that is built into the system and why I don't care for left/right arguments about most things as the main problem is universal. Bring it all crashing down damnit.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Also, I thought it was well known that organisations like these always have a connected non-profit that takes "private donations". It's all part of the lobbying that is built into the system and why I don't care for left/right arguments about most things as the main problem is universal. Bring it all crashing down damnit.


Nonprofit means they spend equally as much on operating costs as they take in.  Therefore a nonprofit business model is far _less_ susceptible to corruption than your bog-standard capitalist corporation, which will always find ways to funnel as much cash as possible to morally-bankrupt executives.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Nonprofit means they spend equally as much on operating costs as they take in.



That's wrong. Double check that.  Also, nonprofits aren't "less susceptible" to corruption.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> And what's more capitalist than that?  Grifters grifting other grifters is the American way.
> 
> 
> Why do you think both parties were so opposed to Medicare-for-all?  Lots of useless blood-sucking middlemen out there who make sure the rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to get poorer.


Scams are not “capitalist”, scams are scams. As for opposition to Medicare, it’s been pretty clear throughout Obama’s presidency and the following years.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2021)

tabzer said:


> That's wrong. Double check that.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprofit_organization


> A nonprofit is subject to the non-distribution constraint: *any revenues that exceed expenses must be committed to the organization's purpose, not taken by private parties*. An array of organizations are nonprofit, including some political organizations, schools, business associations, churches, social clubs, and consumer cooperatives. Nonprofit entities may seek approval from governments to be tax-exempt, and some may also qualify to receive tax-deductible contributions, but an entity may incorporate as a nonprofit entity without securing tax-exempt status.


Every non-wiki site also says the same thing.  You can't be a nonprofit without operating under that constraint.



tabzer said:


> Also, nonprofits aren't "less susceptible" to corruption.


The two most corrupting influences in society are money and power.  Both your salary and your rank stay more or less consistent within a nonprofit from year to year.  So yes, less susceptible compared to a traditional corporate capitalist business model by far.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Every non-wiki site also says the same thing. You can't be a nonprofit without operating under that constraint.



Yes, but what you said does not equal what you quoted.  Nonprofits can and do operate as piggybanks with many methods of siphoning off funds.  A nonprofit doesn't stop capitalism from existing at its doorstep.  It operates on it.  In a "capitalistic" society, where there is corruption, a nonprofit is just another vector--not a safe space.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Yes, but what you said does not equal what you quoted.  Nonprofits can and do operate as piggybanks with many methods of siphoning off funds.  A nonprofit doesn't stop capitalism from existing at its doorstep.  It operates on supply and demand.  In a capitalistic society, where there is corruption, a nonprofit is just another vector--not a safe space.


Supply and demand of _what?_  The CDC does not sell products or insurance or anything else.  Its purpose is public health and safety, meaning any excess funds must go toward furthering that purpose.  In other words, they might setup or assist clinics in under-served areas of the country, they might hire speakers for school assemblies, or they might distribute free PPE such as masks and gloves.  That's all assuming they don't take in _just enough_ money to keep the lights on at their headquarters, of course, which has surely been the case at times.

I'm as jaded as anyone when it comes to capitalism, but I'm not just going to assume that every person and organization that operates in America is inherently corrupt.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and short of that, you aren't going to convince anybody with more than two brain cells to rub together.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Supply and demand of _what?_



Of their "service" based on its constraints.

I'm not making any extraordinary claims.  I'm just saying that you were wrong--which is perfectly ordinary.  Handling that gracefully, however, was an extraordinary expectation.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 23, 2021)

I honestly didn't realise that being sceptical of the CDC was controversial. Doesn't anyone remember how they helped push the flu vaccine even though their own data didn't support their claims? I seem to recall Fauci being involved in that too.

Here's an interesting article from 2018.. btw it's from a group that advocates for children's health - but is a non-profit so probably not corrupt..

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/...ality-in-the-elderly-but-wheres-the-evidence/


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Of their "service" based on its constraints.


And how much "demand" do you wager there is for their services?  Because from my perspective, it seems like most people forget the CDC exists entirely except when they're in need of conspiracy fodder/a political boogeyman.



tabzer said:


> I'm not making any extraordinary claims.


You're claiming that nonprofits, such as soup kitchens, are equally as susceptible to corruption as Exxon Mobil.  That's a pretty extraordinary claim by any measure, bordering on paranoid delusion even.



tabzer said:


> I'm just saying that you were wrong


Ah yes, ever the contrarian just for contrarianism's sake.  Gotta find a way to feel special somehow, I suppose.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> You're claiming that nonprofits, such as soup kitchens, are equally as susceptible to corruption as Exxon Mobil.


What's with the intellectual dishonesty? Are you really not able to distinguish between a soup kitchen and the non-profit wing of a multinational corporation?


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> What's with the intellectual dishonesty? Are you really not able to distinguish between a soup kitchen and the non-profit wing of a multinational corporation?


He made the claim that any nonprofit is equally as susceptible to corruption as any capitalist for-profit corporation.  That's demonstrably ridiculous in any number of ways, so I simply took advantage of that opening.



subcon959 said:


> Here's an interesting article from 2018.. btw it's from a group that advocates for children's health - but is a non-profit so probably not corrupt..
> 
> https://childrenshealthdefense.org/...ality-in-the-elderly-but-wheres-the-evidence/


Corruption I'm not sure about, but that site and its creator are known for spreading misinformation, as well as having an obvious political bias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Health_Defense


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> He made the claim that any nonprofit is equally as susceptible to corruption as any capitalist for-profit corporation.  That's demonstrably ridiculous in any number of ways, so I simply took advantage of that opening.
> 
> 
> Corruption I'm not sure about, but that site and its creator are known for spreading misinformation, as well as having an obvious political bias.
> ...


Sorry, I thought it was clear I was being facetious about the whole non-profit corruption thing. I get the flu jab every year and so do my kids.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Sorry, I thought it was clear I was being facetious about the whole non-profit corruption thing. I get the flu jab every year and so do my kids.


Yeah, perhaps your definition of corruption is just more broad than my own.  Political nonprofits are certainly built on more shaky ground than others in that regard, and tend to lie more freely in service of an agenda.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Yeah, perhaps your definition of corruption is just more broad than my own.  Political nonprofits are certainly built on more shaky ground than others in that regard, and tend to lie more freely in service of an agenda.


As I see it, the CDC does overall good. It is underfunded though, so the corruption comes into play with how they get the extra resources they need. The problem is that it's hard for the average person to tell the difference between what's real and what's a result of special interest lobbying/donations. I'm more on the questioning side, but I get that others might be more on the trusting side. What I don't get is how someone can be on the absolute blind faith side.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Nov 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> We’re all in this together in the sense that we’re all facing the same crisis. At no point did anyone sign off their rights just because China wasn’t very forthright with information about yet another virus originating from that part of the world until it took root in so many areas that eradicating it has become a pipe dream.


China has been the best in the world in terms of stopping the spread. You think the US would have managed better if it had broken out there? Or that it would have reacted differently if China had informed the US earlier? No way, Jose. 
I still think COVID19 originated in the US (due to the blood sample analysis of the Red Cross), but even if it originated in Wuhan: Sars COV1 was first found in Guangzhou. That´s like saying Spain and Germany is "that part of the world".


----------



## Marc_LFD (Nov 23, 2021)

So safe, healthy and good that they have to make it mandatory.


----------



## Marc_LFD (Nov 23, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Good. Hope the US follows suite some time soon. But I doubt it. Not when the moronic right are even trying to stop Biden's covid TESTING mandate for large companies under the false pretense that they are being mandated to take the vaccine. I think if people started calling it what is actually is here in the US, a TEST mandate, the right wouldn't be so incredibly stupid about it. *I hope they start crashing through peoples windows, holding them down, and literally FORCING the vaccine. Fuck you, your body, and your "rights".* The sooner the better.


Can't believe what I've just read. Do that yourself and expect people to defend themselves from a psycho like you.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> There are many ways to skin a cat. Dismantling the NHS would be political suicide, but bankrupting it is just as effective.


Because wanting the dismantling and bankrupting of a program that covers everyone, isn't spiteful.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Because wanting the dismantling and bankrupting of a program that covers everyone, isn't spiteful.


Of course it’s not. I don’t have anything against those people, I do have a lot against paying for a service I don’t and never will use. They haven’t wronged me in any way, there’s no spite involved, I just dislike the concept on principle. I do not wish to be burdened with other people’s expenditure - I have my own insurance, thank you. A free market setup, as in an actually free market setup, would drive prices down anyway, so I’m doing everyone a favour.


UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> China has been the best in the world in terms of stopping the spread. You think the US would have managed better if it had broken out there? Or that it would have reacted differently if China had informed the US earlier? No way, Jose.
> I still think COVID19 originated in the US (due to the blood sample analysis of the Red Cross), but even if it originated in Wuhan: Sars COV1 was first found in Guangzhou. That´s like saying Spain and Germany is "that part of the world".


From what we’re being told. The Chinese media or the Chinese government cannot be trusted. I am also quite uncomfortable with welding people’s doors shut and chasing them around with armed police squads to make sure they’re not being a bit too free. Probably very effective, just like putting everyone in a cell would’ve been, which doesn’t make it right.


----------



## fst312 (Nov 23, 2021)

smf said:


> I've never been killed in a car accident, so I'm going to just run in front of traffic and not wear a seat belt if I'm in the car.
> 
> There is no evidence that it will harm me.


That’s two completely different things, I can’t believe I’m going to sort of compare this to the flu but why not, since this vaccine is still in a way new, this may not make since right now. So every year people get the flu shot, and every year I keep hearing the same thing this a person passed away after about week even though they got the flu shot, in other cases they say the flu shot may have helped the person recover. Here’s the thing I haven’t got a flu shot in about 4 years now and I’m still good. To me a vaccine may give you a chance to stay healthy but at the same time it could make things worse. If you must know I’m waiting for them to eventually make pills for this thing. I haven’t bought over the counter medication since last year but again as my previous post I said, when I get sick it’s basically allergies, so that’s the medicine I buy. Not trying to convince anyone to not get the vaccine but to me I won’t because it’s still new and I think they just want people to be part of some statistics. It should really be a choice and if it’s still spreading it’s because schools are obviously open again and businesses. Hey if I can’t enter your business because I’m not vaccinated that’s okay with me, take out is still an option in many places. If you also must know, I still wear a mask because I got use to wearing one and honestly that’s the best I will do for people around me.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> As I see it, the CDC does overall good. It is underfunded though, so the corruption comes into play with how they get the extra resources they need. The problem is that it's hard for the average person to tell the difference between what's real and what's a result of special interest lobbying/donations. I'm more on the questioning side, but I get that others might be more on the trusting side. What I don't get is how someone can be on the absolute blind faith side.


Trust but verify.  The CDC's only real role in this whole pandemic has been to review scientific documents (which themselves have already been peer-reviewed), and then assuming the methodology isn't flawed, make recommendations based on their findings/conclusions.  The same documents are widely available to the public if you know where to look, but most people who "do their own research" would rather base their theories on memes and Facebook posts.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Trust but verify.  The CDC's only real role in this whole pandemic has been to review scientific documents (which themselves have already been peer-reviewed), and then assuming the methodology isn't flawed, make recommendations based on their findings/conclusions.  The same documents are widely available to the public if you know where to look, but most people who "do their own research" would rather base their theories on memes and Facebook posts.


By the same token, people seem happy to reference the CDC when proselytizing the vaccine as if they are some sort of higher power so therein lies the issue. It's that damn scientism again.

Anyway, I just came across this fun article in the BMJ about a Pfizer whistle blower shedding light on their less than stellar practices during the vaccine trials.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> He made the claim that any nonprofit is equally as susceptible to corruption as any capitalist for-profit corporation.



No I didn't.  Read what I wrote.  I kept it short and simple so you wouldn't keep making the same mistakes.  I didn't say everything you said about everything is wrong just because you bungled up a few descriptors or made a wrong assumption.  I said that nonprofits are vectors for corruption.  They aren't "free from capitalism", and there is no rule that they have to output equal to their input.

You spiral out, and it's a little insane.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2021)

tabzer said:


> No I didn't.  Read what I wrote.  I kept it short and simple so you wouldn't keep making the same mistakes.  I didn't say everything you said about everything is wrong just because you bungled up a few descriptors or made a wrong assumption.  I said that nonprofits are vectors for corruption.  They aren't "free from capitalism", and there is no rule that they have to output equal to their input.
> 
> You spiral out, and it's a little insane.


The term you’re looking for is “overhead” and “speaking fees”. It’s very surprising just how profitable a non-profit can be, especially for the person running it.




Keep in mind that those are average salaries across particular percentiles in a particular state, but it demonstrates the point. You don’t have to exchange money under the table - you can just say it’s part of your operating cost, job done. Everything depends on how big the organisation is and how high up the ladder you are. It’s not uncommon for non-profit executives to earn upwards of a $100k a year just in salary, and orders of magnitude more in speaking fees, which is no chump change. Now, I am the last person to criticise someone for making a profit - good on them, but I have the uncanny ability to detect scams from a mile away, and that there is a scam.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2021)

tabzer said:


> there is no rule that they have to output equal to their input.


Except there is, and I provided a source stating as much.  If they fail to dedicate all income, excess or otherwise, to operating costs, they lose their nonprofit status.  The government polices and monitors nonprofits much more thoroughly than churches with tax exempt status in this regard.  Repeatedly doubling down after already being proven wrong is never going to suddenly make you right.



Foxi4 said:


> The term you’re looking for is “overhead” and “speaking fees”. It’s very surprising just how profitable a non-profit can be, especially for the person running it.
> 
> View attachment 286655
> 
> Keep in mind that those are average salaries across particular percentiles in a particular state, but it demonstrates the point. You don’t have to exchange money under the table - you can just say it’s part of your operating cost, job done. Everything depends on how big the organisation is and how high up the ladder you are. It’s not uncommon for non-profit executives to earn upwards of a $100k a year just in salary, and orders of magnitude more in speaking fees, which is no chump change. Now, I am the last person to criticise someone for making a profit - good on them, but I have the uncanny ability to detect scams from a mile away, and that there is a scam.


Lmao, even 83 grand a year is in poverty wage territory if you live close to either the West or East coast.  A good rule of thumb is to check who the founder of a nonprofit is.  If they were already rich and corrupt before starting the organization, odds are the organization itself follows suit in that corruption.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Except there is, and I provided a source stating as much.  If they fail to dedicate all income, excess or otherwise, to operating costs, they lose their nonprofit status.  The government polices and monitors nonprofits much more thoroughly than churches with tax exempt status in this regard.  Repeatedly doubling down after already being proven wrong is never going to suddenly make you right.
> 
> 
> Lmao, even 83 grand a year is in poverty wage territory if you live close to either the West or East coast.


That is not how non-profit status works, and 83 grand a year is nowhere near “poverty range” in California. According to the Bureau of Labour and Statistics the median yearly income for an individual in Cali hovers around $31K a year. In fact, the median *household* income is measured at around $75K, so the average non-profit CEO in California earns more than an entire average household.

The idea that non-profits must dedicate all their income to charitable causes is nonsense, and the term “non-profit” is a misnomer. In fact, all non-profits are supposed to post a yearly profit in order to maintain their own sustainability. What they’re prohibited from doing is creating “private benefit”, that doesn’t mean they’re not allowed to set whatever salaries they fancy.

https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/myths-about-nonprofits


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> That is not how non-profit status works, and 83 grand a year is nowhere near “poverty range” in California. According to the Bureau of Labour and Statistics the median yearly income for an individual in Cali hovers around $31K a year. In fact, the median *household* income is measured at around $75K, so the average non-profit CEO in California earns more than an entire average household.


That contradicts your own infographic.  The average nonprofit CEO in California only makes $51K a year.  And that's assuming a CEO exists at all, as many nonprofits are operated by committee at the top.  

From my viewpoint, politically-focused nonprofits are worth putting into their own category, as they often operate on a similar principle to politically-focused churches.  Both are just a means of tax avoidance.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> That contradicts your own infographic.  The average nonprofit CEO in California only makes $51K a year.  And that's assuming a CEO exists at all, as many nonprofits are operated by committee at the top.
> 
> From my viewpoint, politically-focused nonprofits are worth putting into their own category, as they often operate on a similar principle to politically-focused churches.  Both are just a means of tax avoidance.


That’s not an average income of a CEO, that’s an average income of a non-profit employee. They have salaried and hourly employees just like any other private entity. A CEO would be classified as Top Earner, along with other executives. Not that it makes much of a difference, pretty much all levels of permanent non-profit employees earn above average income. The heavy lifting is done by volunteers who earn peanuts, if anything at all, because they’re there to actually do some good.

Your viewpoint is irrelevant - non-profit means non-profit. If you want to narrow things down to a specific category, like soup kitchens, then you should’ve done that. As it stands, most non-profits are *not* soup kitchens, they’re organised lobby groups, and some, as you yourself mention, are a method of laundering money.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The idea that non-profits must dedicate all their income to charitable causes is nonsense, and the term “non-profit” is a misnomer. In fact, all non-profits are supposed to post a yearly profit in order to maintain their own sustainability. What they’re prohibited from doing is creating “private benefit”, that doesn’t mean they’re not allowed to set whatever salaries they fancy.


I didn't say "charitable causes," I specifically said "operating costs," which is inclusive of employee salaries.  It should be a given that nobody works for free, but again, that's no evidence itself of malfeasance.  Proving such a claim takes more journalistic legwork than anybody on this forum is willing to put in themselves.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I didn't say "charitable causes," I specifically said "operating costs," which is inclusive of employee salaries.  It should be a given that nobody works for free.


Sure. What percentage of income should be dedicated to operating cost? Do you have a figure in mind? Because to me the salaries should be the absolute bare minimum - non-profits present themselves as organisations that exist for the benefit of the public, not self-enrichment. A non-profit should operate out of a shed, not a beautiful office covered in marble. If non-profits were fully transparent with just how much money never actually gets spent on the needy and is used to buy yachts instead, I have a feeling people would donate less and volunteer more.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Because to me the salaries should be the absolute bare minimum


Big shocker coming from a libertarian, lol.  You pay people minimum wage and you get minimum effort in return, which is not what most nonprofits are looking for in their staff.



Foxi4 said:


> If non-profits were fully transparent in just how much money never actually gets spent on the needy and is used to buy yachts instead, I have a feeling they would donate less and volunteer more.


Time is a resource even scarcer than money for many in the US, especially those working multiple jobs already.  Bad enough we have to rely on nonprofits at all for stuff like feeding the homeless, when there's an insane amount of pork which could be cut out of corporate handouts and the military budget on the federal level.  In most European countries, it'd be considered a failure of government in one of its most basic duties to the citizenry.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Big shocker coming from a libertarian, lol.  You pay people minimum wage and you get minimum effort in return, which is not what most nonprofits are looking for in their staff.
> 
> 
> Time is a resource even scarcer than money for many in the US, especially those working multiple jobs already.  Bad enough we have to rely on nonprofits at all for stuff like feeding the homeless, when there's an insane amount of pork which could be cut out of corporate handouts and the military budget on the federal level.  In most European countries, it'd be considered a failure of government in one of its most basic duties to the citizenry.


Oh, I have no problem with them earning however much they want. I have a problem with dishonesty, and lying to the public. The Better Business Bureau set a recommended *maximum* level of overhead at 35%, meanwhile large American non-profits have “overhead costs” measured in the 80%+ range, including Wishing Well USA (91%), Defeat Diabetes Foundation (81%) Faith’s Hope Foundation (91%) and more. The gross majority of the funds isn’t spent on the purported cause, it’s spent on “fundraising” in and out of itself. The average operating cost across the whole spectrum of foundations is 30%, so only 5% short of what the BBB would consider egregious. “Non-profit” is a classic case of false advertising as far as I’m concerned, they should just call them “charitable organisations” instead because pretending they don’t make a profit is deliberately misleading those who donate.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> “Non-profit” is a classic case of false advertising as far as I’m concerned, they should just call them “charitable organisations” instead because pretending they don’t make a profit is deliberately misleading those who donate.


The issue here is that you're trying to redefine what "profit" means, as employee salaries are not considered as part of profit by any capitalist company/corporation on the planet.  In fact they're considered an expenditure, the opposite of profit.  And I have to reiterate once again that $81K a year is hardly egregious by executive standards, as any other industry's executives very commonly pull in several hundred thousand a year, if not millions a year.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Except there is, and I provided a source stating as much.



No you didn't.  What you posted demonstrates what both me and Foxi4 have said.  



Xzi said:


> Repeatedly doubling down after already being proven wrong is never going to



Mmmhmmm...  I guess if anybody knew that, it would be the master... or not.

I also think it's dumb that salary is how you measure "corruption".


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I also think it's dumb that salary is how you measure "corruption".


I've not said anything like that.  In fact I've outright stated the opposite, that paying employees a salary is not indicative of any sort of corruption on its own.  But again, money and power leveraged in a certain way are the two most corrupting influence in modern society.



tabzer said:


> No you didn't. What you posted demonstrates what both me and Foxi4 have said.


Neither of you have disproved the notion that all money taken in by nonprofits must be directed toward operating costs, as employees' salaries are included in that.  I was correct on that point the first time I said it, and I'm still correct on it now.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Neither of you have disproved the notion that all money taken in by nonprofits must be directed toward operating costs, as employees' salaries are included in that. I was correct on that point the first time I said it, and I'm still correct on it now.



Again, not what you said.  Also that is true, if there is no corruption.

Original statement:



Xzi said:


> Nonprofit means they spend equally as much on operating costs as they take in.



In which I said:

"That's wrong. Double check that.  Also, nonprofits aren't 'less susceptible' to corruption."

Then I reiterated the point with an example of a method of corruption nonprofits are utilized for, hence calling them a "vector" of corruption:




tabzer said:


> "Nonprofits can and do operate as piggybanks with many methods of siphoning off funds."



With your original claim, you suggest that a nonprofit cannot have surplus (profit).  See foundations, treasuries, donations..  You also alluded that they are outside the scope of capitalism.

Take the L.  You've made a baseless claim that nonprofits are less susceptible to corruption--tax status does not expel/ward off corruption.  You've made patently false claims about the nature of a nonprofit, that your own reference don't support--"nonprofit means they spend equally as much on operating costs as they take in".  Suggested that they are beyond/above capitalism and economics.  (lol)  And you were making the argument how CEOs off corrupt big business make too much money (salary = corruption) where nonprofits don't make so much money so they are okay (less salary = less corruption).

*Snip*

Edit: I asked everybody earlier to refrain from using any insults. Don’t let me catch you again. Argue politely or not at all. -Foxi4


----------



## Zajumino (Nov 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Neither of you have disproved the notion that all money taken in by nonprofits must be directed toward operating costs, as employees' salaries are included in that.  I was correct on that point the first time I said it, and I'm still correct on it now.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the point being made is that for certain non-profits, way too much money goes toward overhead costs (in a sense profit for employees) and fundraising (a.k.a. collecting more money) rather than the useful things that the organization claims to be doing. And so they look corrupt to a certain degree.

It could be argued that for-profit companies are less susceptible to corruption due to things like competition and the fact that people want things of sufficient value in return for their money.

In any case, the moral of the story is:
1. Be careful about what "non-profits" you donate to.
2. You don't necessarily need to be careful about what companies you buy stuff from, but not supporting corrupt ones might be desirable.

By the way, what's an Austria? Is that like an ostrich? Is it a vaccinated ostrich?


----------



## Immortallix (Nov 24, 2021)




----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You've made a baseless claim that nonprofits are less susceptible to corruption--tax status does not expel/ward off corruption.


Good thing I said nothing about tax status having any effect on susceptibility to corruption then.  Not all nonprofits are tax exempt, either.



tabzer said:


> You've made patently false claims about the nature of a nonprofit, that your own reference don't support--"nonprofit means they spend equally as much on operating costs as they take in".


"Patently false even though I've done nothing whatsoever to prove it false."  Okay kiddo.



tabzer said:


> And you were making the argument how CEOs off corrupt big business make too much money (salary = corruption) where nonprofits don't make so much money so they are okay (less salary = less corruption).


Twisting my words again because you can't argue with the points I've actually made, cute.  For the third time, I said money and power are some of the most corrupting influences in modern society _when leveraged in a certain way_. That's not referring to an annual salary or rank which stay more or less consistent from year to year within a given organization. Perhaps this relatively-simple concept is just too complex to wrap your mind around.



Zajumino said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the point being made is that for certain non-profits, way too much money goes toward overhead costs (in a sense profit for employees) and fundraising (a.k.a. collecting more money) rather than the useful things that the organization claims to be doing. And so they look corrupt to a certain degree.


"Too much" is relative.  In almost every case, nonprofit employees could be earning far more money in the private sector.  So that might be the point that others are attempting to make, but it's a flimsy one at best.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Good thing I said nothing about tax status having any effect on susceptibility to corruption then.  Not all nonprofits are tax exempt, either.
> 
> 
> "Patently false even though I've done nothing whatsoever to prove it false."  Okay kiddo.
> ...


Lol, no u.

Hard to tell if you are pretending to be daft, and if so, why.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2021)

Immortallix said:


>



Nobody's under the illusion that big pharmaceutical companies create vaccines out of the goodness of their hearts.  If they weren't motivated by profit, they'd distribute said vaccines for free, rather than charging the governments of the world billions for them.  No brand loyalty is required to get the vaccine, and ironically it's mostly anti-vaxxers which happen to be against taxing big pharma corporations more anyway.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> The issue here is that you're trying to redefine what "profit" means, as employee salaries are not considered as part of profit by any capitalist company/corporation on the planet.  In fact they're considered an expenditure, the opposite of profit.  And I have to reiterate once again that $81K a year is hardly egregious by executive standards, as any other industry's executives very commonly pull in several hundred thousand a year, if not millions a year.


No, I’m not. In addition to salaries that are considerably higher than average, non-profits can and do post annual profits, defined as income that exceeds expenditure. We already went over that earlier, if you glossed over it. I was simply reiterating that “spending on the program” is literally the lowest item on the spending list for a charity, even though the watchdog-recommended program expenditure is 50%. The real life figures I commonly see on CharityWatch are between 5 and 10%, sometimes less, which is embarrassing. If I donate a dollar to charity, I am not operating under the misguided assumption that I’m giving a dollar to the needy, but I don’t expect it to be less than 10 cents - there’s a limit to acceptable overhead and administrative costs. You’ve also glossed over the fact that these salaries are medians, dragged down by the multitude of small, local charities. Many of the top-end charity-runners earn millions of dollars a year, they’re simply lumped in with those who earn next to nothing because there is no accepted salary standard. Once again, any excess income an NPO makes *does not* have to be spent on the charity purpose or any administrative purpose, it can just sit in a bank account. The only thing an NPO cannot do is spend that profit to the benefit of a private entity since they don’t have shareholders… in theory. We both know that there are ways to get around that also.

That’s not to say that you shouldn’t donate to charity. Absolutely do donate to charity, however you should always research the organisation in question to make sure that your money is being spent primarily on the cause and not on pretty buildings and road trips. Ideally you should spend on small, local charities which directly benefit your community, so that you can monitor whether the organisation is actually making a difference.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 24, 2021)

Zajumino said:


> By the way, what's an Austria? Is that like an ostrich? Is it a vaccinated ostrich?


Very funny.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> non-profits can and do post annual profits, defined as income that exceeds expenditure.


And these profits are then used to sustain the organization in the long-term, IE carried over for future operating costs.  Per your own source, it cannot be used for the benefit of any private party.



Foxi4 said:


> the recommended BBB program expenditure is 50%. The real life figures I commonly see is between 5 and 10%, sometimes less, which is embarrassing.


"The figures you see?"  That sounds an awful lot like, "many people are saying."  It's anecdotal at best, just an opinion formed out of preexisting biases at worst.



Foxi4 said:


> You’ve also glossed over the fact that these salaries are medians, dragged down by the multitude of small local charities. Many of the top-end charity-runners earn millions of dollars a year, they’re simply lumped in with those who earn next to nothing because there is no accepted salary standard.


Again per your own source, 92 percent of all nonprofits take in revenue of less than one million a year.  Logically then, no individual within one of those organizations can possibly be earning millions by themselves.



Foxi4 said:


> The only thing an NPO cannot do is spend that profit to the benefit of a private entity since they don’t have shareholders… in theory. We both know that there are ways to get around that also.


Correct, an individual cannot legally use a nonprofit's bank account as a slush fund, which is what the Trump Foundation got shut down for.  And yes there are ways around that for smart criminals, but in general it's much easier to start a PAC/super PAC to conceal any sort of fraud/money laundering/tax evasion, as there's far less scrutiny into those.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> And these profits are then used to sustain the organization in the long-term, IE carried over for future operating costs.  Per your own source, it cannot be used for the benefit of any private party.
> 
> 
> "The figures you see?"  That sounds an awful lot like, "many people are saying."  It's anecdotal at best, just an opinion formed out of preexisting biases at worst.
> ...


When in doubt, revert to Trump. Weak sauce, do better. I already posted the averages as recorded by the BBB and CW. I never said that earning millions is a common, I said that many charity runners do earn salaries in the millions, and on average they earn higher-than-average incomes, to the tune of over 2x when compared to *a household*. I also specified that it’s contingent on the size of the organisation, since smaller charities obviously don’t operate on nearly as much money, so the slice is smaller. You haven’t rebutted anything I said, you just neglected to read the post. There’s nothing in my sources that contradicts anything I’ve said about non-profits. Your first point is actually something I’ve already mentioned as one of the few specific IRS requirements for NPO status, and one that is easily bypassed. If you don’t know how to bypass it, I don’t know what to tell you. Either way, we’re straying further and further away from the subject, I was merely questioning what you’ve said since you seem to put excessive trust in companies that are supposed to help the needy. Just because they’re classified under the NPO moniker doesn’t mean that they’re actually doing anything good - few do, the “big boys” mostly “raise awareness”, however you choose to define that, spending single-digit % on making a difference and the lion’s share of their income on making sure the well doesn’t run dry next year. I don’t define that as “charity”, that’s a “grift”.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I was merely questioning what you’ve said since you seem to put excessive trust in companies that are supposed to help the needy.


Trust really has nothing to do with it, as most trustworthy NPOs voluntarily release their operating budgets to the public.  If only most private corporations were even half as transparent.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Trust really has nothing to do with it, as most trustworthy NPOs voluntarily release their operating budgets to the public.  If only most private corporations were even half as transparent.


Every publicly traded company posts a yearly report which is publicly available and detailed - they have to in order to maintain their position in the stock market. If you’ve never looked at one, perhaps you don’t invest in stock.

EDIT: In fact, quarterly reports are pretty much standard - shareholders like to know what their money is doing, but those are usually much shorter.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Trust really has nothing to do with it, as most trustworthy NPOs voluntarily release their operating budgets to the public.



Trust really has nothing to do with it.

"But let me tell you about the most trustworthy NPOs."

*Snip*

EDIT: This is the second time I ask you not to troll and get personal, there won’t be a third. You’re not a hype man, either argue the points or not at all. -Foxi4


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Every publicly traded company posts a yearly report which is publicly available and detailed - they have to in order to maintain their position in the stock market. If you’ve never looked at one, perhaps you don’t invest in stock.


Yeah and I'm sure megacorps like Exxon Mobil totally include their foreign assassinations budget on those reports lmao.  I'm not conspiracy-minded by nature, but nor am I naive.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Yeah and I'm sure megacorps like Exxon Mobil totally include their foreign assissinations budget on those reports lmao.  I'm not conspiracy-minded by nature, but nor am I naive.


That’s a good point, I don’t report my assassination budget to the HMRC either, although I have killed many people’s whole careers this year. 

*Mic drop, hardcore gangsta rap blasting with way too much bass*


----------



## tabzer (Nov 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Yeah and I'm sure megacorps like Exxon Mobil totally include their foreign assassinations budget on those reports lmao. I'm not conspiracy-minded by nature, but nor am I naive.



Did you get your megacorp vaccine?  (or the mom's and pop's one?)


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Did you get your megacorp vaccine?  (or the mom's and pop's one?)


I can trust in medical science's advancement over the years and simultaneously advocate for much higher taxes on corporations.  Two things can both be true, gasp.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I can trust in medical science's advancement over the years and simultaneously advocate for much higher taxes on corporations.  Two things can both be true, gasp.



I guess the corruption is okay then.  Nice bait homey.  Bet you thought I was going to mention that it is possible for an "anti-vaxer" to be against big pharma and against taxes at the same time, didn't ya?


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I guess the corruption is okay then.


How is the government paying for millions of units of a product, and then receiving that product exactly as advertised "corruption," exactly?  It's the bare ass minimum of what the government should be expected to do to help manage a pandemic.



tabzer said:


> Bet you thought I was going to mention that it is possible for an "anti-vaxer" to be against big pharma and against taxes at the same time, didn't ya?


It's certainly worth mentioning, as that is the reality of the situation.  Most anti-vaxxers are anti-big pharma but will happily advocate for keeping all corporate taxes low, thus massively benefiting big pharma.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> How is the government paying for millions of units of a product, and then receiving that product exactly as advertised "corruption," exactly? It's the bare ass minimum of what the government should be expected to do to help manage a pandemic.



That wasn't my insinuation at all.  




Xzi said:


> It's certainly worth mentioning, as that is the reality of the situation. Most anti-vaxxers are anti-big pharma but will happily advocate for keeping all corporate taxes low, thus massively benefiting big pharma.



I thought so too.  But you didn't mention it.



Xzi said:


> ironically it's mostly anti-vaxxers which happen to be against taxing big pharma corporations more anyway.



Fishing for a CNN position?


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I thought so too. But you didn't mention it.


But I just did?  Or did you think I was saying that's a good thing (lmao)?  It's hypocrisy, or at least something closely resembling that.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> But I just did?  Or did you think I was saying that's a good thing (lmao)?  It's hypocrisy, or at least something closely resembling that.


I mentioned it.  You did not.  Is it hypocrisy or not, to retain a value consistently, even if it is for your enemy?

It just sounds bad when you make it sound like they are trying to benefit the bad guys exclusively.   It's also what makes news fake.


----------



## Zajumino (Nov 24, 2021)

The things the Chancellor says makes him seem a bit naïve to me.

He talks about "endless human suffering" but its not as if COVID is going away any time soon. Meanwhile, the lockdowns he imposed will likely have lasting effects on the economy, which is going to cause quite a bit of suffering.

How are they even going to enforce the unvaccinated people only lockdown? Are they going to force every business to check every person's vaccination status? I wonder what their plan is.

Moreover, how long has it been since the start of the pandemic? Now that vaccines have been available for quite a while, shouldn't things be easier to deal with? They're literally using the same tactics to fight the virus as when it first appeared. If I lived in Austria, I would be angry less about the mandate itself and more about the fact that it was necessary in the first place.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Is it hypocrisy or not, to retain a value consistently, even if it is for your enemy?


Yeah I'd say it is hypocrisy, if for no other reason than it's foolish.  Your opinion on tax brackets should not be as dearly-held as a personal value, and you can advocate for keeping middle and lower-class taxes low while also advocating to increase corporate taxes.  Nobody considers that dishonorable.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Yeah I'd say it is hypocrisy, if for no other reason than it's foolish.


It sounds like you think you are smart.  That's about it.  Other than being logically handicapped.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Rephrasing the taxation issue being a, "tax is okay but.." is just more fake stuff.


In what sense is it "fake?"  Taxing the wealthy and ultra-wealthy is perfectly acceptable, their standard of living of living would remain unchanged regardless.  Additionally, corporations aren't even people, they don't need food or shelter to survive, so there are no moral quandaries surrounding their taxation.  Push to tax the shit out of them, _especially_ if you want to hit big pharma right where it hurts most.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> In what sense is it "fake?"  Taxing the wealthy and ultra-wealthy is perfectly acceptable, their standard of living of living would remain unchanged regardless.  Additionally, corporations aren't even people, they don't need food or shelter to survive, so there are no moral quandaries surrounding their taxation.  Push to tax the shit out of them, _especially_ if you want to hit big pharma right where it hurts most.


Suggesting that people who are against taxation and government influence in general to just being a "tax bracket issue" is disingenuous.  You make no effort to understand people, and every effort to sound smarter than others.  You remain tone-deaf to your own voice.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 24, 2021)

Zajumino said:


> The things the Chancellor says makes him seem a bit naïve to me.
> 
> He talks about "endless human suffering" but its not as if COVID is going away any time soon. Meanwhile, the lockdowns he imposed will likely have lasting effects on the economy, which is going to cause quite a bit of suffering.
> 
> ...


Very well said,my Friend.

The Fact is,we would have recieved a Vaccine in 2020 long BEFORE the Pfizer & Company Connection appeared and Austria in According with the EU refused it...because of "too expensive" and "maybe insufficient"......Yes,I am talking about Sinovac - now known as Coronavac.....on the Pharmindex List again for getting the EMA Permission next Year....


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Suggesting that people who are against taxation and government influence in general to just being a "tax bracket issue" is disingenuous.


The whole conversation is predicated on the idea that these people also supposedly hate big pharma, but by choice or by ignorance they're ultimately just pawns to its every whim.



tabzer said:


> You make no effort to understand people


Oh I understand perfectly, a lot of people hold contradictory viewpoints in regards to a number of different issues.  That doesn't mean I have to respect someone who does mental gymnastics simply so they can justify being a bootlicker for the corporate status quo while also pretending to be a rebel against it.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> The Fact is,we would have recieved a Vaccine in 2020 long BEFORE the Pfizer & Company Connection appeared and Austria in According with the EU refused it...because of "too expensive" and "maybe insufficient"......Yes,I am talking about Sinovac - now known as Coronavac.....on the Pharmindex List again for getting the EMA Permission next Year....


If you don't trust European pharmaceutical corporations, why would you trust a Chinese pharmaceutical corporation?  All of them are equally motivated by the same thing: money, and none of them are giving their vaccines away for free.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> The whole conversation is predicated on the idea that these people also supposedly hate big pharma, but by choice or by ignorance they're ultimately just pawns to its every whim.



No.  The whole conversation is predicated on the fact that you couldn't admit that NPO's can have bank accounts with a balance.  By voting at all, they are becoming pawns?  Or by not rioting?  If someone was against taxation, what would they do to be sincere about that, according to Xzi?



Xzi said:


> Oh I understand perfectly, a lot of people hold contradictory viewpoints in regards to a number of different issues. That doesn't mean I have to respect someone who does mental gymnastics simply so they can justify being a bootlicker for the corporate status quo while also pretending to be a rebel against it.


Sounds like you imo.


----------



## smf (Nov 24, 2021)

Zajumino said:


> Moreover, how long has it been since the start of the pandemic? Now that vaccines have been available for quite a while, shouldn't things be easier to deal with? They're literally using the same tactics to fight the virus as when it first appeared. If I lived in Austria, I would be angry less about the mandate itself and more about the fact that it was necessary in the first place.


Things are easier to deal with, but in Austria they don't have the vaccination numbers (a pitiful 42.2%) and went for a "now we have a vaccine, we don't have to do anything" approach.

Which is kinda like having sex with loads of people because you have a cupboard full of condoms that you aren't using. All the STI's should be aware of your cupboard full of condoms and stay away, right?

It's no surprise that Austria are using the same tactics as they are are in roughly the same position as when covid 19 first appeared.


----------



## AmandaRose (Nov 24, 2021)

Aparently there are people in Italy/Germany/Austria who are deliberately getting Covid at so called covid party's. Now that is just insanity. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-party-death-italy-bolzano-b1962661.html?amp


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> If you don't trust European pharmaceutical corporations, why would you trust a Chinese pharmaceutical corporation?  All of them are equally motivated by the same thing: money, and none of them are giving their vaccines away for free.


As I maybe said here (or in another Covid Thread) before:

I do no longer trust most of our Medicine/Doctors for the Covid Topic.They lied to me.
I have asked the Companies about one single Question:

_*Can you guarantee that the contents of the mRNA vaccines will not combine with the genetic make-up ?*_

Pfizer/Biontech and Co answered me clearly:
"No we can´t guartanee it."
Their Answers where like:

"Very unlikely.."
"Almost Zero Percent..."
and that kind.

Then I have asked many Doctors from all Sections (Lung/Otorhinolaryngology/General) and of course Doctors on the famous "Vaccine Information Days"....

All said unisono:

"100% save"
"No risk"
"Myself are vaccinatet and I am 100% save."
..some called me dumb too,if I believe such Things...
No,this is no Exaggeration!


So,my Friend:

Which Section would you believe ?


----------



## smf (Nov 24, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> The Fact is,we would have recieved a Vaccine in 2020 long BEFORE the Pfizer & Company Connection appeared and Austria in According with the EU refused it...because of "too expensive" and "maybe insufficient"......Yes,I am talking about Sinovac - now known as Coronavac.....on the Pharmindex List again for getting the EMA Permission next Year....


Clinical trials of Pfizer in the EU started in april 2020 at the exact same time that Coronavac entered it's trials in China. So I don't see how it could have completed it's trials long before Pfizer.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 24, 2021)

smf said:


> Clinical trials of Pfizer in the EU started in april 2020 at the exact same time that Coronavac entered it's trials in China. So I don't see how it could have completed it's trials long before Pfizer.


Long before they got a EMA Permission,Austria (Chancellor Kurz) got Deals with them....please inform yourself about Austrian Politics and the Background..


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2021)

tabzer said:


> No. The whole conversation is predicated on the fact that you couldn't admit that NPO's can have bank accounts with a balance.


I never denied that to begin with.  The argument was over what that balance can legally be spent on.



tabzer said:


> By voting at all, they are becoming pawns?


To the slight extent that a two-party system is broken and both parties are majority-owned by two different sets of corporations, sure.  But that's not particularly relevant to the conversation at hand.



tabzer said:


> If someone was against taxation, what would they do to be sincere about that, according to Xzi?


Oh I believe that they're sincere in the belief that taxes need to be low as a blanket, one-size-fits-all type of policy toward both individuals and corporations.  It's just that it's also sincerely stupid to operate with that type of black-and-white worldview toward everything, being that the world consists mostly of greys.  Complex problems require complex solutions.


----------



## smf (Nov 24, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> Pfizer/Biontech and Co answered me clearly:
> "No we can´t guartanee it."



Nobody can guarantee anything....

_Mutations can result from *DNA copying mistakes made during cell division*, exposure to ionizing radiation, exposure to chemicals called mutagens, or infection by viruses._


Good luck not eating, drinking or breathing.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> As I maybe said here (or in another Covid Thread) before:
> 
> I do no longer trust most of our Medicine/Doctors for the Covid Topic.They lied to me.
> I have asked the Companies about one single Question:
> ...


Not sure I believe that, but you didn't answer my initial question.  Why trust in Sinovac when there's a language barrier there and you can't as easily communicate with them as you supposedly did with the other pharmaceutical corporations?


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 24, 2021)

smf said:


> Nobody can guarantee anything....
> 
> _Mutations can result from *DNA copying mistakes made during cell division*, exposure to ionizing radiation, exposure to chemicals called mutagens, or infection by viruses._
> 
> ...


Yeah same...


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Not sure I believe that, but you didn't answer my initial question.  Why trust in Sinovac when there's a language barrier there and you can't as easily communicate with them as you supposedly did with the other pharmaceutical corporations?


Sinovac = Inactivated Vaccine.
Please...leave it,you do not want to understand me.....


----------



## tabzer (Nov 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> The argument was over what that balance can legally be spent on



I made it distinctively clear as to the premise of why I disagreed with you.  This is, by record, not it.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> Sinovac = Inactivated Vaccine.
> Please...leave it,you do not want to understand me.....


I gotcha, probably only a slightly different formula than Johnson & Johnson's vaccine then, with COVID spike proteins being delivered by dead/dying cold cells.  Long-term data shows the mRNA vaccines are actually more effective against variants such as Delta, but far be it for me to gatekeep so long as you're giving honest consideration to getting vaccinated in general.


----------



## smf (Nov 24, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> Long before they got a EMA Permission,Austria (Chancellor Kurz) got Deals with them....please inform yourself about Austrian Politics and the Background..


Pfizer was approved on 21st December 2020, it was the first to get EMA approval. I can't find anything about austria trying to do a deal with Sinovac before that, could you back up what you're saying?


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I made it distinctively clear as to the premise of why I disagreed with you.  This is, by record, not it.


Yeah yeah, you think everything and everyone is inherently corrupt and corruptible to the exact same extent.  We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on that, Mr. Nihilist.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 24, 2021)

smf said:


> Pfizer was approved on 21st December 2020, it was the first to get EMA approval. I can't find anything about austria trying to do a deal with Sinovac before that, could you back up what you're saying?


I only can give you this German Article from February 2020.

The Information about this on our ORF.at Site is unfortunately "gone"....as many other Articles about Covid....

https://www.dw.com/de/coronavirus-wie-wirksam-sind-die-impfstoffe-aus-china/a-56361390
(Please use Google or whatever,I have enough of Language Barriers and Missunderstandings...)

....as you see,long before Pfizer and Company.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 24, 2021)

I don’t see a problem if someone wants to wait for a traditional vaccine, at least they’re consenting to *a* jab, they just want to have a choice which one they’re getting. In the U.S. a lot of people went for the J&J jab for the same reason, but statistically it was 30-odd % less effective compared to the mRNA one. At the end of the day, both of them will do the same thing - deliver an inactive spike protein to the immune system to combat, the only difference is that the inactive vaccine will deliver it in the form of a destroyed virus cells whereas the mRNA one will instruct your body to make them, that’s what messenger RNA does.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 24, 2021)

Very sad,everything on the ORF.at Site before March 2020 is gone...also the famous Pressconference in Januar 2020 from Chancellor Kurz and Anschober about the China Situation (a Video from Wuhan is running in the Background).

He said:

"Solche Bilder und Situationen sind in Österreich undenkbar und werden nicht passieren.Wir haben alles im Griff."

"Such images and situations are unthinkable in Austria and will not happen. We have everything under control."

What a shame,all these Articles also about Ischgl are gone....


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I don’t see a problem if someone wants to wait for a traditional vaccine, at least they’re consenting to *a* jab, they just want to have a choice which one they’re getting. In the U.S. a lot of people went for the J&J jab for the same reason, but statistically it was 30-odd % less effective compared to the mRNA one. At the end of the day, both of them will do the same thing - deliver an inactive spike protein to the immune system to combat, the only difference is that the inactive vaccine will deliver it in the form of a destroyed virus cell whereas the mRNA one will instruct your body to make them, that’s what messenger RNA does.


 Thank you.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Long-term data shows the mRNA vaccines are actually more effective against variants such as Delta


Based on the waning efficacy after 6 months (and need for boosters) I'm not convinced the mRNA vaccines are anywhere near as good as first advertised. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that natural immunity will end up trouncing it when data is reviewed many years from now. BTW, I'm including a proper adenovirus-based vaccine in my natural immunity moniker as I see them as very similar things. I have no idea how J&J managed to fuck up their attempt and get such a low efficacy so I don't consider theirs to be "proper". Novavax so far is slated as over 90% so I'm going with that one as my poster child until (hopefully not) proven otherwise.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Novavax so far is slated as over 90% so I'm going with that one as my poster child until (hopefully not) proven otherwise.


Moderna and Pfizer are both rated at or near that after full vaccination as well (2-shot).  Besides, I guarantee Novavac will also require more than one shot to be fully effective, and its efficacy will also decline over time.  That's just the reality of living with a virus that can mutate and change as easily as the flu.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 24, 2021)

Christ, I just realised I've been saying Novavax all this time when I meant Sinovac. No idea how I got those mixed up.

Edit: I mean in terms of adenovirus vaccine, I still meant it for the one I'm most interested in. Why does this all have to be so complicated? I couldn't even tell you the brand name of any other vaccine I've ever had in my life.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Why does this all have to be so complicated? I couldn't even tell you the brand name of any other vaccine I've ever had in my life.


It doesn't.  And that's likely because most vaccines you've had previously, you had as a young child.


----------



## zellko (Nov 24, 2021)

I don't understand why ppl are so hostile. Why it's better to die now from a virus, rather than take a risk of a shot? This is not a passer-by who tells you a vaccination can save your life, but authorities who know a lot about medicine, health care, etc...


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 24, 2021)

zellko said:


> I don't understand why ppl are so hostile. Why it's better to die now from a virus, rather than take a risk of a shot? This is not a passer-by who tells you a vaccination can save your life, but authorities who know a lot about medicine, health care, etc...


The government doesn’t know shit and sucks at everything.  It’s not professionals making up these rules, it’s elected officials, they’re only slightly smarter than lizards. Some more conspiratorial individuals argue that they *are* lizards…


----------



## zellko (Nov 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The government doesn’t know shit and sucks at everything.  It’s not professionals making up these rules, it’s elected officials, they’re only slightly smarter than lizard.


But you don't know this is exactly wrong decision. I don't protect the officials!!! But I'm just scared so many ppl die because of the virus, not because of the vax!


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 24, 2021)

zellko said:


> But you don't know this is exactly wrong decision. I don't protect the officials!!! But I'm just scared so many ppl die because of the virus, not because of the vax!


I know it’s the wrong decision because it violates basic human rights. Your fear of the virus does not empower you or the government to make healthcare decisions on behalf of other people.


----------



## zellko (Nov 24, 2021)

Ok, but you aren't Dr of Medical Sciences to know what's better for your health. I understand that a person need to have a choice. But what to do if there are so many ppl who are against it and who don't understand this could possibly save their life?


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 24, 2021)

zellko said:


> Ok, but you aren't Dr of Medical Sciences to know what's better for your health. I understand that a person need to have a choice. But what to do if there are so many ppl who are against it and who don't understand this could possibly save their life?


Nothing. It’s not your life to save. You get the jab - you should, it’s good. I don’t need to be a doctor of any kind of sciences to know that you can’t give someone medicine they don’t want.


----------



## zellko (Nov 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Nothing. It’s not your life to save. You get the jab - you should, it’s good. I don’t need to be a doctor of any kind of sciences to know that you can’t give someone medicine they don’t want.


Yeah, you're right. I don't dispute with you. It shouldn't be mandatory. I just say it's a sane recommendation and don't get why ppl don't want to follow it. But again, it's only my worries


----------



## JaapDaniels (Nov 24, 2021)

My opinion it's good there's somepush to get the vaccin since:

It helps lowering the costs of hospitals.
Helps lower the number of unneceserry deaths (older people a special), so yes i blame those who don't vaccinate partly for the high death rates of grandmothers and grandfathers and already ill people.
It helps you tou have less chance of getting sick.
It helps you for the chances of a (total) lockdown get get lowered.
It helps you for your bills will drop if everything is open, if healthcare is closer to the normal bill, if your covernment doesn't have to help those who are in financial need.
Why it shouldn't be mandatory:

You don't know if someone has an allready weakened health.
Each person has the right to choose what's gonna happen to its body.
You might have an extreme fear for either the vaccin or the needle.
Religion might tell you it's wrong.
But, having a right doesn't have to mean it's without consequences:

By this i mean i think it's the right to the mass that if someone is a threat to thier health (and unvaccinated people are a threat to thier surrounding people) that they should get protection from those who are creating this risk.
I think it's only right to streicten laws to lower the risks by saying on crouded places you should at least split those unvaccinated from those vaccinated.
I think it's quite normal to say for big party's you have to proof you're vaccinated.
By now it's proven that vaccin works better than being cured, your body holds its gaurd longer.
By now it's proven that the vaccin helps big time in keeping you out of the hospital (but yes you might still get sick).
By now it's proven that getting vaccinated lowers the spreading of the virus, but it doesn't stop it (just as you heal faster you being a spreader for a shorter term).


----------



## obs123194 (Nov 24, 2021)

Jayro said:


> Sounds like a great start. Hope the U.S.A. is next. My favorite part is that the unvaccinated morons can't participate in public events. Their tears are delicious.


yeah that's not gonna happen buddy


----------



## Jayro (Nov 24, 2021)

obs123194 said:


> yeah that's not gonna happen buddy


Most of us wouldn't have a problem with it, just the dumb anti-vaxxers. And fuck their shitty opinions, lol.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Yeah yeah, you think everything and everyone is inherently corrupt and corruptible to the exact same extent.  We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on that, Mr. Nihilist.


Didn't say that either.  When are you gonna get it right?


----------



## tabzer (Nov 24, 2021)

Jayro said:


> Most of us wouldn't have a problem with it, just the dumb anti-vaxxers. And fuck their shitty opinions, lol.



I think a lot more than %30 of Americans would have a problem with enforced medical assault.  I do believe they still educate people about the Holocaust in schools.  People in wishing others medical assault are, hopefully, fewer.  I don't understand why they are allowed to be so loud on this board, but my relatively tame jabs are not.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2021)

The way you go about mandated vaccines properly is to just make them a requirement to attend public school as we've done for decades.  Parents can make empty threats about sending their kids to private schools all they want, as most of those require a certain baseline of vaccinations as well.  Knowing that students will be packed together tightly in an enclosed space for years and years of their lives, it's just common sense.  Eventually new generations replace the old, COVID goes extinct, and the opposition to a mandated vaccine looks as stupid in hindsight as opposition to MMR and polio vaccines does to us now.


----------



## Jayro (Nov 25, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I think a lot more than %30 of Americans would have a problem with enforced medical assault.  I do believe they still educate people about the Holocaust in schools.  People in wishing others medical assault are, hopefully, fewer.  I don't understand why they are allowed to be so loud on this board, but my relatively tame jabs are not.


I'm sorry, but I'm still laughing at "enforced medical assault".  



Xzi said:


> The way you go about mandated vaccines properly is to just make them a requirement to attend public school as we've done for decades.  Parents can make empty threats about sending their kids to private schools all they want, as most of those require a certain baseline of vaccinations as well.  Knowing that students will be packed together tightly in an enclosed space for years and years of their lives, it's just common sense.  Eventually new generations replace the old, COVID goes extinct, and the opposition to a mandated vaccine looks as stupid in hindsight as opposition to MMR and polio vaccines does to us now.


You sir, nailed it.


----------



## AlexMCS (Nov 25, 2021)

zellko said:


> I don't understand why ppl are so hostile. Why it's better to die now from a virus, rather than take a risk of a shot? This is not a passer-by who tells you a vaccination can save your life, but authorities who know a lot about medicine, health care, etc...



Some CoViD-19 facts¹:
-It currently has a* less than 2% lethality rate* (*peaked at ~7% in April, 2020, *only got lower from there*)* and a small but significant (< 0.1%) mortality rate. Cancer has a 0.158% mortality rate, for comparison.
-Age and comorbidities are the main risk factors.
-Most cases (70%+) are asymptomatic or mild.
-Even the numbers on it, at least over here, are *severely* overblown: in most cases, if you die (even more so in hospitals) and get a positive CoViD-19 test after death, you died from CoViD-19, no questions asked.

Stop treating it like a *death sentence*.
It is a serious disease but it's not worse than cancer.

The whole issue with CoViD-19 is* detection and spread*. It spreads far too easily and is hard to detect.
There should be a lot more research on detection, instead of prevention or treatment alone.

Take the necessary precautions - masks, social distancing, alcohol etc. (vaccine included, if you are so inclined) and move on.

People were *much more* willing on risking experimental drug treatment with current medicines because those have *known side effects*. And other than abusing most of those drugs, there are no long term effects associated with them.

Most vaccines have *unknown long term side effects*.

*All vaccines, *even those "proven safe", are in an "experimental" emergency use authorization state by most health ministries in the world. They have not been proven safe at all on the long term. Even more so for the "novel" mRNA ones.

*No vaccine *has been deemed 100% safe by their manufacturers. That's the deal breaker for most people.

At the very least, CoronaVac, or similar alternatives, should be the #1 option due to the safety of its design.

*The most alarming thing of all is that mRNA vaccines do seem to work as advertised.*
The possibilities of using such tech for evil are tremendous.
And if they don't who knows what might happen.

[1] Data sources for the figures:
-https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
-https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid
-https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics


----------



## Immortallix (Nov 25, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Nobody's under the illusion that big pharmaceutical companies create vaccines out of the goodness of their hearts.  If they weren't motivated by profit, they'd distribute said vaccines for free, rather than charging the governments of the world billions for them.  No brand loyalty is required to get the vaccine, and ironically it's mostly anti-vaxxers which happen to be against taxing big pharma corporations more anyway.


When you say no one, are you excluding many in the big ol covid thread that seem to treat which vaccine they got as a personality trait?


----------



## Xzi (Nov 25, 2021)

Immortallix said:


> When you say no one, are you excluding many in the big ol covid thread that seem to treat which vaccine they got as a personality trait?


No.  Stating which vaccine you got and the reasons why you chose that particular one does not have any connection to a person's demeanor toward big pharma as a whole industry.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 25, 2021)

Xzi said:


> The way you go about mandated vaccines properly is to just make them a requirement to attend public school as we've done for decades.  Parents can make empty threats about sending their kids to private schools all they want, as most of those require a certain baseline of vaccinations as well.  Knowing that students will be packed together tightly in an enclosed space for years and years of their lives, it's just common sense.  Eventually new generations replace the old, COVID goes extinct, and the opposition to a mandated vaccine looks as stupid in hindsight as opposition to MMR and polio vaccines does to us now.


Ever consider that the reason diseases tend to disappear may be mostly influenced by increased standards of living and cleanliness?  Just because there is a "vaccine" doesn't mean that it is the reason why diseases disappeared.  After all, correlation does not imply causation.  (Hope that didn't trigger autism).  On top of that, we have multiple strains of humanity that have persisted despite not being vaccinated.  Maybe natural selection is on their side and not yours.

Just a couple thoughts.  Wouldn't want to gaslight you into thinking that you are definitely going to die because you are not biologically equipped to handle living without government assistance.


----------



## stanna (Nov 25, 2021)

Having had covid me my missus and six kids, it's just a fucking COLD, 4 days and back to NORMAL, get a grip people.


----------



## wartutor (Nov 25, 2021)

I like how all these so called smart people want to go around blaming the unvaccinated for people getting sick and dying. Can you still get covid if you are vaccinated? Can you still spread it? Then logic dictates the people vaccinated and thinking they are better than everyone else and go around to this event and that event are the ones fuxing spreading it. Vaccinated or not if you think its ok to goto a party or sporting event you are spreading it and part of the problem. (If you think its a problem. I myself think its a cold on steroids.) Its been politicalized and used for this cause or that when in truth the origins should of been investigated immediatly (too damn late now.) Anyway use your brain instead of relying on people to tell you how to think. Quit blaming the unvaccinated when you and your kids go to school and this event or that event spreading it just as much (if not more). And just because i can #fjb


----------



## LinkmstrYT (Nov 25, 2021)

Now that's just disingenuous and ignoring so many things others have been saying. It's not solely the unvaccinated's fault, but many of them are still part of the problem.

You can still get COVID-19 even if you're vaccinated, yes. However, the chances of you getting infected and suffering from heavier diseases that accompany COVID-19 is significantly lower, thus have a higher chance of survival.
You can still spread it while vaccinated, yes. However, vaccinated people can spread it less since the body actively fights and eliminates as much of the virus in the body, so there's less to spread overall compared to the unvaccinated. All the more reason to get the vaccine especially around people who are immunocompromised and can't take the vaccine.
If you go to events with huge amounts of people, of course it'll spread like crazy since lots of people are so near each other at close proximity that it's a lot easier to spread it around, vaccinated or not. All the more reason to get vaccinated anyways because it does help increase the odds of survival and getting milder effects.
It shouldn't have to be political. It's just like every other vaccine out there. It's to help protect others, not be some dividing political bullshit.
Did you know many schools require children to take certain vaccines before going to school? Obviously to protect the children and to lessen the spread of any potential virus/disease since children and teachers are grouped together in closed spaces, like classrooms.
It's not hard to see the issue when a huge majority of COVID-19 deaths are from the unvaccinated. Calling it a "cold on steroids" shows how ignorant you are and downplaying the threat of COVID-19 when it has infected and killed millions of lives within the past 2 years.


----------



## Lucaserf (Nov 25, 2021)

LinkmstrYT said:


> Now that's just disingenuous and ignoring so many things others have been saying. It's not solely the unvaccinated's fault, but many of them are still part of the problem.
> 
> You can still get COVID-19 even if you're vaccinated, yes. However, the chances of you getting infected and suffering from heavier diseases that accompany COVID-19 is significantly lower, thus have a higher chance of survival.
> You can still spread it while vaccinated, yes. However, vaccinated people can spread it less since the body actively fights and eliminates as much of the virus in the body, so there's less to spread overall compared to the unvaccinated. All the more reason to get the vaccine especially around people who are immunocompromised and can't take the vaccine.
> ...


5 million dead and people still call it "only a cold" smh


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 25, 2021)

LinkmstrYT said:


> It's to help protect others



It shouldn't be. Everyone who wants to protect themselves should get it, and everyone who doesn't want it should be able to not get it. It seems really weird to mandate a medical procedure so you help other people. I don't think it's a good idea for that sort of precedent to be set.


----------



## fischermasamune (Nov 25, 2021)

According to Geert Vanden Bossche (DVM, PhD):

https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/...s-to-be-considered-a-public-health-experiment

"First, there is no evidence that any of the C-19 vaccines proven to be efficacious in a clinical research setting will prevent the virus from successfully exploiting its evolutionary capacity when challenged by widespread immune pressure exerted by the population on the very protein that these vaccines are directed at (i.e., at spike [ S ] protein). However, population-level immune pressure on S protein is the inevitable consequence of mass vaccination. There isn’t even any precedent to the use of non-replicating viral vaccines in mass vaccination campaigns conducted during a pandemic, or even epidemic, of a highly mutable virus.

[...]

Mass vaccination programs previously conducted to combat viral epidemics/pandemics (e.g., smallpox, polio, measles, yellow fever) have nothing in common with the ongoing mass vaccination campaigns today as those viruses are very different in terms of their pathogenesis, transmissibility, route of infection, potential reservoirs, predominant effector mechanisms involved in antiviral immunity, susceptibility of population segments, as well as with regard to the vaccines used (all prior vaccination campaigns involved live-attenuated virus).

In addition, vaccine _efficacy _as assessed during clinical trials is different from viral _effectiveness_, which reflects how well a vaccine performs _in the field._

[...]

Furthermore, re-exposure to circulating viral variants in the presence of low affinity antibodies (**) could potentially provoke life-threatening antibody-dependent enhancement of C-19 disease (ADE). Clearly, results from clinical studies do not permit the drawing of any conclusions regarding the impact of viral exposure in the presence of low affinity antibodies. Consequently, big question marks remain as to the likelihood that ADE, or whether other immunogenicity-related adverse events could occur as an indirect result of vaccination (6). It is important to note that previous efforts to develop a SARS-CoV-1 (***) vaccine had been abrogated due to the occurrence of ADE in preclinical models (7).

[...]

Based on all the above, widespread deployment of current Covid-19 vaccines in large-scale vaccination campaigns should first and foremost be considered _highly experimental and empirical_ in terms of the efficacy and safety (****) outcome as well as in terms of the impact on individual and public health. Because the experimental use of current Covid-19 vaccines raises serious concerns regarding their effectiveness and their potential to cause serious harm to both individuals and the public at large, one can only conclude that vaccination mandates are completely unethical."


----------



## stanna (Nov 26, 2021)

Covid is rife in our town at the moment hundreds of kids in the secondary school have it, loads of parents and staff at nursery school, my other half is on school WhatsApp groups with hundreds of other parents, everybody is saying, we thought it was going to make us very ill but it's hasnt, cold symptoms at worst.
People on here are saying but what about all the deaths, hospitals are attributing covid to nearly every death nowadays, it's just not true, to many financial incentives to do so, and the few who are ill with covid with other comorbiditys are given midazolam injections to make them better which is a end of life drug that shuts down the kidneys and floods the lungs causing pneumonia and death within 5 days, very similar to a so called covid death, makes you wonder hey.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 26, 2021)

stanna said:


> the few who are ill with covid with other comorbiditys are given midazolam injections to make them better which is a end of life drug that shuts down the kidneys and floods the lungs causing pneumonia and death within 5 days, very similar to a so called covid death, makes you wonder hey.



Think you went too far with that one lol


----------



## zellko (Nov 26, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Think you went too far with that one lol


Aha, exactly!


----------



## wartutor (Nov 26, 2021)

LinkmstrYT said:


> Now that's just disingenuous and ignoring so many things others have been saying. It's not solely the unvaccinated's fault, but many of them are still part of the problem.
> 
> You can still get COVID-19 even if you're vaccinated, yes. However, the chances of you getting infected and suffering from heavier diseases that accompany COVID-19 is significantly lower, thus have a higher chance of survival.
> You can still spread it while vaccinated, yes. However, vaccinated people can spread it less since the body actively fights and eliminates as much of the virus in the body, so there's less to spread overall compared to the unvaccinated. All the more reason to get the vaccine especially around people who are immunocompromised and can't take the vaccine.
> ...





Lucaserf said:


> 5 million dead and people still call it "only a cold" smh




There is zero proof that a lot of those people would of died by just the flu. Yes covid is a cold...well the flu on steroids. It kills not my point my point was the amount of self righteous fucks out there that think they are "holyer than thou" just because they get a shot. Want to tell everyone else what to do with their body. A LOT DOING IT WHILE PROTESTING THEIR RIGHT TO ABORTION. My body my choice only applies to the pregnant liberal is that it. Now just for your information I am vaccinated. It was my choice and i got the shot. I HAVE NO SELF DELUSIONS nor do i believe i have the right to force anything on anyone. Especially a un tested (well we currently testing it) vaccine to "help fight" (it dont even cure it just fights it....and while im here there in zero proof that it slows the spread of covid. I have seen countless vaccinated people contract and spread it.) Long story short noone has any right to demand someone else get this vaccine.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 26, 2021)

wartutor said:


> Long story short noone has any right to demand someone else get this vaccine.


Austrian government thinks they do and I could see other countries following their example. Welcome to the authoritarian dystopia we used to read about in fiction.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 26, 2021)

wartutor said:


> There is zero proof that a lot of those people would of died by just the flu. Yes covid is a cold...well the flu on steroids. It kills not my point my point was the amount of self righteous fucks out there that think they are "holyer than thou" just because they get a shot. Want to tell everyone else what to do with their body. A LOT DOING IT WHILE PROTESTING THEIR RIGHT TO ABORTION. My body my choice only applies to the pregnant liberal is that it. Now just for your information I am vaccinated. It was my choice and i got the shot. I HAVE NO SELF DELUSIONS nor do i believe i have the right to force anything on anyone. Especially a un tested (well we currently testing it) vaccine to "help fight" (it dont even cure it just fights it....and while im here there in zero proof that it slows the spread of covid. I have seen countless vaccinated people contract and spread it.) Long story short noone has any right to demand someone else get this vaccine.


It’s literally not the cold though. The cold is caused by Rhinoviruses, where as Covid 19 is caused by Coronaviruses. These are not the same thing and shouldn’t be treated as the same thing. As for the rest of your post, abortion only effects the individual having it, not getting vaccinated can effect an entire community. These are not comparable either. Would you like to provide the sources to you claim that vaccines don’t slow the spread of Covid?


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 26, 2021)

How delightfully amusing
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41366-021-01016-9
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0245424
Primo journals, good scientists as far as I can tell (not really much of a biology type but if you make it to Nature... yeah) and peer reviewed for those that claim to care about such things.

Turns out being fat (about half the US population at present, if not more) does a number on the useful antibodies for this whole Wuhan coronavirus lark in patients (and actually has some serious negative ones for autoimmune fun and games).
If we are to be injecting people at the barrel of a gun under the auspices of not having them infect others/be hidden carriers/not taking up hospital resources as and when then do we also get to point one at fatties, slap the cake out of their hands and say get on the treadmill (granted the rates among the military and police make this a dubious proposition for enforcement)? In terms of harms done and risk averted then... yeah it is probably better than getting the few holdouts and that is not factoring in the other things associated with being fat (all the cancers*, heart disease, general autoimmune, diabetes and all that). Obesity is also framed as an epidemic ( https://www.who.int/news-room/facts-in-pictures/detail/6-facts-on-obesity if we think the world health organisation has credibility) if that helps and has death rates as cause/massive contributing factor also in the millions per annum (and likely more in years to come as the curve only gets worse).

* https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/obesity/obesity-fact-sheet https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20507889/

Or is medical ethics harder than some might naively think?


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 26, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> How delightfully amusing
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41366-021-01016-9
> https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0245424
> Primo journals, good scientists as far as I can tell (not really much of a biology type but if you make it to Nature... yeah) and peer reviewed for those that claim to care about such things.
> ...


“Being fat” is one of the biggest comorbidities in America linked not just to plummeted survival rates for COVID, but also increasing the risk of heart disease, cancer, diabetes and many other lead killer diseases. It’s by far a bigger “epidemic” than COVID.

Easy solution, people. SFE Therapy. Stop fucking eating.


----------



## stanna (Nov 26, 2021)

How many of these get your vaccine experts have actually had covid ?


----------



## wartutor (Nov 26, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> It’s literally not the cold though. The cold is caused by Rhinoviruses, where as Covid 19 is caused by Coronaviruses. These are not the same thing and shouldn’t be treated as the same thing. As for the rest of your post, abortion only effects the individual having it, not getting vaccinated can effect an entire community. These are not comparable either. Would you like to provide the sources to you claim that vaccines don’t slow the spread of Covid?


Abortion effects the unborn baby, their future children and generations of possible people deleted by your one choice. Absurd way you look at things no wonder you think you should be able to tell one person what to do while screaming about being told not to directly murder. And i dont yave to link my source when replying to a post with zero support to their claim that it slows the spread because "your body is fighting and keeping the numbers down." The exact same thing your body naturally does just some get overwelmed and cant fight it quick enough (causing hospitalization and death) But i give you trying to make a point with your type that thinks they control everyone and everything is like telling a tree not to grow its roots in my septic. Eventually i have to cut it short and everything has shit on it afterwards. Good luck pushing the vaccine people will die over it. #fjb


----------



## Lucaserf (Nov 26, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> It’s literally not the cold though. The cold is caused by Rhinoviruses, where as Covid 19 is caused by Coronaviruses. These are not the same thing and shouldn’t be treated as the same thing. As for the rest of your post, abortion only effects the individual having it, not getting vaccinated can effect an entire community. These are not comparable either. Would you like to provide the sources to you claim that vaccines don’t slow the spread of Covid?


He is unable to, don't bother


----------



## tabzer (Nov 26, 2021)

@CatBoy still thinks its mother's choice to not get an abortion isn't adversely affecting people to this day.   However, if she did terminate @CatBoy as an internal love baby, I'm sure that @CatBoy wouldn't be around to spout the nonsense about not being affected by such choice.  

If the definition of life is so fluid (subjective), then perhaps it could be said that they aren't even truly living a life now.  Post-delivery abortions anyone?  Pro-abortion and pro-forced-vaccination seem to be conflicting values, but are quite compatible in someone who disrespects life.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 26, 2021)

stanna said:


> How many of these get your vaccine experts have actually had covid ?


How is that relevant?


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 26, 2021)

With the new Omicron *B.1.1.529 *Variante all the Vaccines are seem more or less "useless"....

I really hope,one Day,Mankind will understand.....


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 26, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> With the new Omicron *B.1.1.529 *Variante all the Vaccines are seem more or less "useless"....
> 
> I really hope,one Day,Mankind will understand.....


I hope people understand that it’s the action constantly spreading the virus that caused this. Vaccines aren’t at fault for people not being vaccinated and continuing the spread


----------



## Homlet (Nov 26, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> I hope people understand that it’s the action constantly spreading the virus that caused this. Vaccines aren’t at fault for people not being vaccinated and continuing the spread


Not reading the entire thread and the whole anti-vaxx vs force-vaxx argument is tiring and tired, but I saw this post in the recent content tab and this is just silly. Nature of covid makes it so the virus is highly unstable and constantly mutating. You can't eradicate covid like we did polio, just like we can't eradicate influenza. The virus just mutates, all we can hope for is that it mutates into more infectious but less deadly variants, and that we develop better drugs to treat sick people/make a vaccine with a broader range of efficacy


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 27, 2021)

Homlet said:


> Not reading the entire thread and the whole anti-vaxx vs force-vaxx argument is tiring and tired, but I saw this post in the recent content tab and this is just silly. Nature of covid makes it so the virus is highly unstable and constantly mutating. You can't eradicate covid like we did polio, just like we can't eradicate influenza. The virus just mutates, all we can hope for is that it mutates into more infectious but less deadly variants, and that we develop better drugs to treat sick people/make a vaccine with a broader range of efficacy


There is no “forced-vaxx” there only people who understand vaccines vs those who don’t and continue to refuse to learn anything different. That being said, it is those who are unvaccinated that have been the largest contributing factor to the virus continuing to spread. The largest portion of the population still getting infected are those not vaccinated. This isn’t to say unvaccinated are the only reason why the virus is mutating but to say that them continuing the spread only makes matters worse. This makes preventive measures far more difficult when the virus is continuing to spread and mutates further. The best memes of dealing with Covid (and really all other viruses,) is to get vaccinated and other preventive measures.


----------



## Homlet (Nov 27, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> There is no “forced-vaxx” there only people who understand vaccines vs those who don’t and continue to refuse to learn anything different. That being said, it is those who are unvaccinated that have been the largest contributing factor to the virus continuing to spread. The largest portion of the population still getting infected are those not vaccinated. This isn’t to say unvaccinated are the only reason why the virus is mutating but to say that them continuing the spread only makes matters worse. This makes preventive measures far more difficult when the virus is continuing to spread and mutates further. The best memes of dealing with Covid (and really all other viruses,) is to get vaccinated and other preventive measures.


Vaccination rate has nothing to with virus mutation is all I said. Vaccine do reduce severity of symptoms and, to an extent, transmission. 
>The largest portion of the population still getting infected are those not vaccinated
And countries with a 100% vaccination rate still see plenty of infections. Covid won't be eradicated, no more than the flu has been. Anyways, I'm out, I really don't care for this argument. Have a nice evening


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 27, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> There is no “forced-vaxx” there only people who understand vaccines vs those who don’t and continue to refuse to learn anything different.


Were we reading a different thread? Plenty of people thus far have seemingly been all for considerable levels of force being applied and legal mandates to have it done (they call it force of law for a reason). That would be the force element.
There are several that are quite familiar with viral spreading mechanics* (they are the same whether you are doing evolution, microbial stuff, psychology to an extent -- there is a reason it is called going viral, or computery things) as well as baseline medical ethics that say forcing something into someone with the capacity to refuse treatment is all kinds of unethical, even if it is better (for some definition of the term, possibly even a generally accepted one) for them and society at large. Some from this and the above even beginning to broach the topic of what it might take to go into a force scenario (absolutism is a hard one for this where other things might be easier to go with that for).
There are several that might have glommed onto the previous delineation as a means to an end, or end run perhaps, from other aspects.
Several that might be seeking a better choice (and there is a difference between in some ways untested, or at least scarcely tested, and things that have been tested for decades, even if minimal).
Several that are pondering the nature of endemic.
Several that are from the various broadly anti crowds (of which there are several very distinct flavours with their own histories, beliefs and makeups).

*I might even place a bet on this set having more of those with a greater familiarity with the mechanics where it gets really down and dirty than those of the previous set.


----------



## lone_wolf323 (Nov 27, 2021)

I say all for it. People wonder why they get sick when they dont get vaccinated. And most countries so far have done frick all to do anything. The world wants this gone, yet theres a good bit of people that wont bother trying to help, will go around with no precautions in place. Yet bitch that its consuming them. The government not doing f all is another annoying aspect. There are concentrated work forces getting bombarded yet dont mandate anything. The world needs to get its head outta its ass and finally get things done. Maybe then they might see numbers dropping properly.


----------



## stanna (Nov 27, 2021)

As I said it's rife in my town what I failed to report is that most are fully vaccinated and some have had the booster, just goes to show the fake vaccine is indeed totally useless, why would you still put that dna altering crap into your body.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 27, 2021)

stanna said:


> As I said it's rife in my town what I failed to report is that most are fully vaccinated and some have had the booster, just goes to show the fake vaccine is indeed totally useless, why would you still put that dna altering crap into your body.


Where did you get the DNA altering bit from? I don't see how that could happen. The mRNA is purely for protein synthesis.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 27, 2021)

stanna said:


> dna altering crap into your body.


Source for this claim?


----------



## Lacius (Nov 27, 2021)

stanna said:


> As I said it's rife in my town what I failed to report is that most are fully vaccinated and some have had the booster, just goes to show the fake vaccine is indeed totally useless, why would you still put that dna altering crap into your body.


The vast majority of Americans (~92%) dying of COVID-19 are unvaccinated.


----------



## AmandaRose (Nov 27, 2021)

stanna said:


> As I said it's rife in my town what I failed to report is that most are fully vaccinated and some have had the booster, just goes to show the fake vaccine is indeed totally useless, why would you still put that dna altering crap into your body.


And yet the vast majority of people in hospital in Great Britain who are seriously ill with covid are unvaccinated.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...almost-all-unvaccinated-says-oxford-scientist​


----------



## sith (Nov 27, 2021)

blows me away how many cheer and applaud these authoritarian measures, does no one remember all the terrible shit western governments have done just in our lifetimes? cold war, war of drugs, war on terror, war on germs, war on freedom.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Nov 27, 2021)

lone_wolf323 said:


> I say all for it. People wonder why they get sick when they dont get vaccinated. And most countries so far have done frick all to do anything. The world wants this gone, yet theres a good bit of people that wont bother trying to help, will go around with no precautions in place. Yet bitch that its consuming them. The government not doing f all is another annoying aspect. There are concentrated work forces getting bombarded yet dont mandate anything. The world needs to get its head outta its ass and finally get things done. Maybe then they might see numbers dropping properly.



Im sure hundreds of millions of people aged Teens to 30's that absolutely do not need a vaccine and have a 0.001% fatality rate for this virus is a great idea and wont spawn vaccine resistant super strains or anything.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Nov 27, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The vast majority of Americans (~92%) dying of COVID-19 are unvaccinated.


Source?


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 27, 2021)

tabzer said:


> @CatBoy still thinks its mother's choice to not get an abortion isn't adversely affecting people to this day.   However, if she did terminate @CatBoy as an internal love baby, I'm sure that @CatBoy wouldn't be around to spout the nonsense about not being affected by such choice.
> 
> If the definition of life is so fluid (subjective), then perhaps it could be said that they aren't even truly living a life now.  Post-delivery abortions anyone?  Pro-abortion and pro-forced-vaccination seem to be conflicting values, but are quite compatible in someone who disrespects life.


This nonsensical argument just sounds like you are against everyone who decided not to reproduce.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 27, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Source?


https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70...r/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm?s_cid=mm7037e1_w

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status

As stated previously in this or other COVID-19 threads, the 92% is the low estimate. It may be closer to 93-94%.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Nov 27, 2021)

Lacius said:


> https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70...r/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm?s_cid=mm7037e1_w
> 
> https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status
> 
> As stated previously in this or other COVID-19 threads, the 92% is the low estimate. It may be closer to 93-94%.


that drop off tho


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 27, 2021)

it's either this or shutdown air/seaports which would do severe economic damage world wide i'm worried bout omnicron varient being more lethal and (as proven already) more easily spread than delta


----------



## Lacius (Nov 27, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> that drop off tho


What about it? It doesn't change anything about the efficacy of the vaccines, and most/all northern hemisphere countries are seeing rises in cases and deaths as the weather gets colder that isn't seen in this data that stopped in October.


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 27, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> How unfortunate.
> 
> Also how quick people are to abandon "my body, my choice".


tell that to fucking texas with their abortion ban after 6 weeks (most pregnancy test cannot detect a pregnancy til after that cut off)


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Nov 27, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> tell that to fucking texas with their abortion ban after 6 weeks (most pregnancy test cannot detect a pregnancy til after that cut off)


Based non murdering non baby killing state!


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 27, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Based non murdering non baby killing state!


they don't call them the try em and fry em state for nothing hypocritical imo


----------



## wartutor (Nov 27, 2021)

Lacius said:


> https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70...r/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm?s_cid=mm7037e1_w
> 
> https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status
> 
> As stated previously in this or other COVID-19 threads, the 92% is the low estimate. It may be closer to 93-94%.


Your first one was just a weekly report as the 1st pic shows. Not alot of info in that one. The second site is based on numbers gotten by (what is it 25 heath departments) and deprived by those numbers. Easy to fudge numbers when u make them up. Lets see actual numbers from entire world you can do better with your sources...or just dont have any real ones and believe whatever your told like a good little dog.



chrisrlink said:


> they don't call them the try em and fry em state for nothing hypocritical imo


Would be a lot less crime if we killed all the criminals. People would think twice about commiting crimes in the future also. How the fuck do you compare that to killing babys.


----------



## MetoMeto (Nov 27, 2021)

Jayro said:


> Sounds like a great start. Hope the U.S.A. is next. My favorite part is that the unvaccinated morons can't participate in public events. Their tears are delicious.


Its not about vacines, its about mandatory part, and stripping freedom of choice is what this means.

thats not a good thing.

Go ahead and vacinate yourself, protect yourself. thats all you need to do and not force oters and call them names and vurtue signaling.

your attitude is evethig wrong with world today.

thats all am gonna say about this topic.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 27, 2021)

wartutor said:


> Your first one was just a weekly report as the 1st pic shows. Not alot of info in that one. The second site is based on numbers gotten by (what is it 25 heath departments) and deprived by those numbers. Easy to fudge numbers when u make them up. Lets see actual numbers from entire world you can do better with your sources...or just dont have any real ones and believe whatever your told like a good little dog.


There is nothing wrong with the sources I provided. Here's the full PDF for the first source I provided, so I'm completely flabbergasted that you described it as having "not a lot of info." I guess you didn't read it.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7037e1-H.pdf

As for the second source, please point to the part that's "fudged" or "made up." The numbers come from various sources (that's a good thing), and they corroborate one another (also a good thing).

Let's not pretend your post was anything other than blanket science denial, because that's what it was.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 27, 2021)

MetoMeto said:


> Its not about vacines, its about mandatory part, and stripping freedom of choice is what this means.
> 
> thats not a good thing.
> 
> ...


People who participate in civilized society have certain responsibilities. I can't walk around wherever I want naked, for example. If you don't want to get vaccinated, that's fine (albeit stupid). Your body, your choice. But that doesn't mean you should have the privilege of being able to interact with the rest of us while unvaccinated. If you're going to wall yourself off from the rest of society (please do), then feel free to not get vaccinated. Similarly, I'll continue to walk around my house naked.

Mandating vaccines works, there's precedent for it, it's legally justified, and it's morally justified. What happened that caused people to be so selfish and anti-responsibility?


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Nov 27, 2021)

chrisrlink said:


> they don't call them the try em and fry em state for nothing hypocritical imo


Killing murderers and rapists is totally the same as killing an unborn child.

The hypocrisy!!!


----------



## Lacius (Nov 27, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> Killing murderers and rapists is totally the same as killing an unborn child.
> 
> The hypocrisy!!!


They aren't the same. Killing criminals is worse. The criminals are human beings who are killed for no good reason, and many of those human beings are later exonerated.

Also, abortion isn't murder; it's the termination of a pregnancy, and the fetus just so happens to be unable to survive outside the womb. Also, an embryo/fetus is not a child.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Nov 27, 2021)

Lacius said:


> They aren't the same. Killing criminals is worse. The criminals are human beings who are killed for no good reason, and many of those human beings are later exonerated.
> 
> Also, abortion isn't murder; it's the termination of a pregnancy, and the fetus just so happens to be unable to survive outside the womb. Also, an embryo/fetus is not a child.


"many"
lol

"an embryo/fetus is not a child."
yes it is.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 27, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> "many"
> lol
> 
> "an embryo/fetus is not a child."
> yes it is.


For every ten people who have been executed since the 1970s, one person has been set free.

An embryo is a clump of unspecialized cells and isn't a child by any objective measure. A fetus isn't a child either. Even if an embryo or fetus were a child, it  wouldn't change anything about a woman's right to bodily autonomy.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Nov 27, 2021)

Lacius said:


> For every ten people who have been executed since the 1970s, one person has been set free.
> 
> An embryo is a clump of unspecialized cells and isn't a child by any objective measure. A fetus isn't a child either. Even if an embryo or fetus were a child, it  wouldn't change anything about a woman's right to bodily autonomy.


If I run up to a pregnant woman and kick her in the stomach and she loses the """""embryo"""""".

Did I just kill a child or not?


----------



## Lacius (Nov 27, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> If I run up to a pregnant woman and kick her in the stomach and she loses the """""embryo"""""".
> 
> Did I just kill a child or not?


That depends on how far along in the pregnancy she is. Regardless, it's immoral and illegal to terminate a pregnancy against someone's will.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Nov 27, 2021)

Lacius said:


> to terminate a pregnancy


To kill a child.


----------



## Jayro (Nov 27, 2021)

MetoMeto said:


> Its not about vacines, its about mandatory part, and stripping freedom of choice is what this means.
> 
> thats not a good thing.
> 
> ...


Ah yes, it's that same old "but, but, MUH FREEDUMBS!!!" rhetoric. That's getting old.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 27, 2021)

Purple_Shyguy said:


> To kill a child.


An embryo isn't a child. It doesn't even have a brain.

The termination of a pregnancy isn't the killing of a child. It fact, it's sometimes birth.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 27, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Of course it’s not. I don’t have anything against those people, I do have a lot against paying for a service I don’t and never will use.


So selfishness instead? Doesn't sound much better. 



Foxi4 said:


> They haven’t wronged me in any way, there’s no spite involved, I just dislike the concept on principle. I do not wish to be burdened with other people’s expenditure - I have my own insurance, thank you.


They haven't even wronged you, yet you go as far as wanting their healthcare sabotaged for the sake of it. 



Foxi4 said:


> A free market setup, as in an actually free market setup, would drive prices down anyway, so I’m doing everyone a favour.


You have no proof that this isn't nothing, but idealism. Show me a system that has no government involvement and is completely free market, yet still covers everyone. Let alone worth the risk for dropping a program that already covers everyone, for it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 27, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> So selfishness instead? Doesn't sound much better.
> 
> 
> They haven't even wronged you, yet you go as far as wanting their healthcare sabotaged for the sake of it.
> ...


Do you often pay for Xbox Live when you only use a Nintendo device? C’mon, man - there are Xbox gamers out there who could use a better, more stable service, and that takes money. You should give your money to Microsoft, even though you will never, ever use Xbox Live.

I’m not “sabotaging” anything, their healthcare is not my burden. It was never my burden - we’re not family, we’re strangers. Defending, or attempting to regain what is rightfully mine isn’t sabotage - it’s justice. If anything, I’m the one getting sabotaged here since I was brazen enough to have taxable income. How rude of me, better slice it up.

No proof except basic principles that have governed trade since the dawn of civilisation, even before we came up with the name “capitalism”. Supply and demand are non-negotiable. It’s economics 101, and healthcare isn’t a magical industry that is somehow exempt from the same rules that affect every other industry in the planet.

For the record, I am not opposed to an extremely basic public sector for the purposes of providing critical care to the homeless, unemployed or otherwise insolvent citizens, and this service should be subsidised by paying customers in the exact same way other city services work. The city won’t turn off your heating in the dead of winter - that creates a very real possibility that you will freeze to death. What I *am* opposed to is universal healthcare, as in a single payer, single provider system which is inherently unfair to those who do not use the service. If I don’t use a service, I shouldn’t have to pay for it. I’m perfectly happy to pay at the till if I was stupid enough not to purchase health insurance (which I did purchase, as a side note - it’s prudent). Other people’s poor life choices are not my problem, I’m not their dad.

I’m sorry that you feel entitled to my money for some undisclosed reason, but you’re not. Pay for your own shit.


----------



## plasturion (Nov 27, 2021)

Lacius said:


> An embryo isn't a child. It doesn't even have a brain.
> 
> The termination of a pregnancy isn't the killing of a child. It fact, it's sometimes birth.


No dude, I can't listen that bastard terminology.
It's a murder, the worst one, and that's how it should be called by science!


----------



## Lacius (Nov 27, 2021)

plasturion said:


> No dude, I can't listen that bastard terminology.
> It's a murder, the worst one, and that's how it should be called by science!


You're telling me that if a mother terminates a pregnancy 9.5 months into gestation (i.e. She gives birth), that's murder?


----------



## smf (Nov 27, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> I only can give you this German Article from February 2020.
> 
> The Information about this on our ORF.at Site is unfortunately "gone"....as many other Articles about Covid....
> 
> ...


The article says it's from 2nd January 2021. There were no vaccines anywhere in February 2020.

_*Date* 02/01/2021_
_*Author* Fabian Schmidt_

It seems china were 8 days after pfizer and company, not long before..

_Vero is so far the only Chinese vaccine for which the manufacturer has published official data. On December 29, 2020, Sinopharm reported an effectiveness of 79 percent in an interim evaluation. A day later, the vaccine was approved in China. _


_Comirnaty is now authorised across the EU. This follows the granting of a conditional marketing authorisation by the European Commission on 21 December 2020. _


----------



## smf (Nov 27, 2021)

plasturion said:


> No dude, I can't listen that bastard terminology.
> It's a murder, the worst one, and that's how it should be called by science!


If all killing is wrong then we shouldn't eat meat, we shouldn't have the death penalty, we shouldn't have wars, or guns.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a19748134/what-is-abortion/

Masturbation and wet dreams would also be murder.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 27, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Do you often pay for Xbox Live when you only use a Nintendo device? C’mon, man - there are Xbox gamers out there who could use a better, more stable service, and that takes money. You should give your money to Microsoft, even though you will never, ever use Xbox Live.


I wasn't aware that I had to remind you that we are talking about people's livelihood. My mistake. 



Foxi4 said:


> I’m not “sabotaging” anything, their healthcare is not my burden. It was never my burden - we’re not family, we’re strangers. Defending, or attempting to regain what is rightfully mine isn’t sabotage - it’s justice. If anything, I’m the one getting sabotaged here since I was brazen enough to have taxable income. How rude of me, better slice it up.


You want to intentionally bankrupt the system that covers everyone, so yes, sabotage. Other words, "Taking away people's healthcare is justice."



Foxi4 said:


> No proof except basic principles that have governed trade since the dawn of civilisation, even before we came up with the name “capitalism”. Supply and demand are non-negotiable. It’s economics 101, and healthcare isn’t a magical industry that is somehow exempt from the same rules that affect every other industry in the planet.


Then it should be easy to show me this cheap completely free market system, that covers everyone. 



Foxi4 said:


> For the record, I am not opposed to an extremely basic public sector for the purposes of providing critical care to the homeless, unemployed or otherwise insolvent citizens, and this service should be subsidised by paying customers in the exact same way other city services work.


How is this any different than a healthcare system that covers everyone, even the insolvent citizens? Your logic dictates that they shouldn't be paying for homeless services, because they don't use them.



Foxi4 said:


> What I *am* opposed to is universal healthcare, as in a single payer, single provider system which is inherently unfair to those who do not use the service. If I don’t use a service, I shouldn’t have to pay for it. I’m perfectly happy to pay at the till if I was stupid enough not to purchase health insurance (which I did purchase, as a side note - it’s prudent). Other people’s poor life choices are not my problem, I’m not their dad.


It is inherently unfair for people that need healthcare, but can't afford it, especially since we have a way to cover everyone. 

I never had my stuff burned down, therefor, I want the firefighter service shutdown. If the poor can't afford the ever increasing prices of private firefighters, too bad. 



Foxi4 said:


> I’m sorry that you feel entitled to my money for some undisclosed reason, but you’re not. Pay for your own shit.


I'm sorry that there are people that keep claiming to care about other people and yet keep proving otherwise.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 27, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> I wasn't aware that I had to remind you that we are talking about people's livelihood. My mistake.
> 
> 
> You want to intentionally bankrupt the system that covers everyone, so yes, sabotage. Other words, "Taking away people's healthcare is justice."
> ...


What other things constitute people’s livelihood? How about food? Shelter? Water? Electricity? What else am I expected to pay for, you can’t live without those either, effectively. Not that it matters, it’s not even an argument, I’m not responsible for strangers. The point flew over your head anyway.

I would love to see the NHS dismantled - it’s a monopoly on UK healthcare. Much like other monopolies, it could benefit from being splintered into (ideally) privately ran institutions rather than stay one inefficient government monster. The quickest way to do that is to make sure it runs out of money, which it’s doing anyway without the government doing anything. It doesn’t matter *what* they do, if the NHS was concerned with patching roads instead of healthcare I’d want to see it broken up all the same, the government has no business doing either.

I’m not ‘taking away people’s healthcare”, healthcare exists regardless of whether the NHS exists or not, I’m simply taking back my money, which is indeed justice. The sole reason why I make the homeless and insolvent exception is because *they’re insolvent* and ideally we shouldn’t have dead people littering the streets. People who do make income should purchase their own healthcare as opposed to getting dragged into a system they may or may not use on their own dime, as enforced by the government.

Switzerland’s healthcare system is completely private and covers everyone, so you’re right, it is quite easy to provide an example, and a good one considering Swiss healthcare is some of the best in the world. Even that system is a little too intrusive since insurance is compulsory - universality is not a goal I’m particularly interested in, “covering everyone” isn’t and shouldn’t be a must.

You are not entitled to other people’s money or labour, it is inherently unfair that you expect strangers to fund the lives of other strangers under the threat of force. Your sense of fairness is crooked because you’re uncomfortable with the concepts of death and disease - I’m not.

Firefighting started off as an entirely private venture, and it was profitable. Bad example, you don’t know history.

I care about other people, that’s why I want the government to stop stealing their money for superfluous, inefficient and poorly conceived nonsense.

As a side note, I know what you’re doing, because all of you guys do the same thing. You want to push for government control over the entire sector under the guise of benevolence, and you paint whoever opposes that as someone who lacks empathy. It’s not that the idea is poor and amoral, the problem is that the other person is just evil. It’s pretty transparent, and it’s not going to work on me. I believe that there are other, better ways of doing this that don’t involve massive government overreach and taxing people out the ass - plenty of countries around the world figured it out. I’m okay playing the role of a villain though - I don’t really care what you think of me, attacking my character isn’t going to sway me. I’ve heard worse things about myself than “uncaring”, try harder.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 27, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> This nonsensical argument just sounds like you are against everyone who decided not to reproduce.



No it doesn't.  That's how you are choosing to interpret it.


----------



## wartutor (Nov 28, 2021)

Lacius said:


> They aren't the same. Killing criminals is worse. The criminals are human beings who are killed for no good reason, and many of those human beings are later exonerated.
> 
> Also, abortion isn't murder; it's the termination of a pregnancy, and the fetus just so happens to be unable to survive outside the womb. Also, an embryo/fetus is not a child.


Abortion isnt murder. Shit im goin to go out and shoot 50 people then claim its just post-abortion so it isnt murder. Bet that will go over real well in court. Sarcasm intended. Again my body my choice only matters when its your liberal ass in line at the clinic.

One of those aborted children 20 years ago could of grew up and cured cancer, maybe changed the whole world. But someone with your mindset decided to get out the vac and throw away the trash. Abortions should come with mandatory (and perminant) removal of ovaries and testicals of both parties.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 28, 2021)

wartutor said:


> Abortion isnt murder. Shit im goin to go out and shoot 50 people then claim its just post-abortion so it isnt murder. Bet that will go over real well in court. Sarcasm intended.


Shooting a person is murder. Not sure what point you were trying to make.



wartutor said:


> Again my body my choice only matters when its your liberal ass in line at the clinic.


Everyone has a right to bodily autonomy. Don't want to be pregnant anymore? Get an abortion. Don't want to get vaccinated? Don't get vaccinated. However, certain privileges associated with civilized society require certain concessions and certain responsibilities. I can't walk around naked in public, and you shouldn't be able to walk around unvaccinated in a public school, for example.

I guess the anti-vaxxers could send their kids to private school, but a.) Vaccines should be required in private schools, and b.) We all know a lot of anti-vaxxers are poor trailer trash who couldn't afford private school if they tried.



wartutor said:


> One of those aborted children 20 years ago could of grew up and cured cancer, maybe changed the whole world. But someone with your mindset decided to get out the vac and throw away the trash. Abortions should come with mandatory (and perminant) removal of ovaries and testicals of both parties.


Hypothetical people don't get moral considerations or rights. Otherwise, a rapist who impregnates his victim could claim that the great-grandchild of that rape could have cured cancer. Hypotheticals are irrelevant. That being said, if the argument is "something good could have hypothetically come from a specific individual not being aborted," you should probably do some research regarding the drop in crime/criminals after Roe v. Wade.

If a person is forcibly sterilized against their will, that's deplorable, and it's a violation of bodily autonomy.


----------



## wartutor (Nov 28, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Shooting a person is murder. Not sure what point you were trying to make.
> 
> 
> Everyone has a right to bodily autonomy. Don't want to be pregnant anymore? Get an abortion. Don't want to get vaccinated? Don't get vaccinated. However, certain privileges associated with civilized society require certain concessions and certain responsibilities. I can't walk around naked in public, and you shouldn't be able to walk around unvaccinated in a public school, for example.
> ...


I walked around for the last 2 years unvaccinated...as a essential worker who the fuck do you think you are to tell someone they dont have the right to walk around freely. If you dont like being around unvaccinated people stay your ass the fuck home.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 28, 2021)

wartutor said:


> I walked around for the last 2 years unvaccinated...as a essential worker who the fuck do you think you are to tell someone they dont have the right to walk around freely. If you dont like being around unvaccinated people stay your ass the fuck home.


If you care about not getting sick, not ending up in the hospital if you do get sick, not dying if you end up in the hospital, and not spreading disease to others, then you must get vaccinated if you are medically able to do so.

Anything else is selfish, and there are things you shouldn't be able to do unvaccinated, just as there are things I shouldn't be able to do if I am naked.

It isn't more complicated than that.


----------



## Esdeath (Nov 28, 2021)

At first I was against the poke for all mentality since I thought people were at least conscious enough to realize they need to be cautious. Now with the vaccine being effective and  dumb politicians who promise that COVID will be gone again and again like they could actually deport it and not taking in account the majority of dumb people spreading it far and wide I don’t believe so anymore.
Imo everyone who can should get it, if they want it or not.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 28, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> What other things constitute people’s livelihood? How about food? Shelter? Water? Electricity? What else am I expected to pay for, you can’t live without those either, effectively. Not that it matters, it’s not even an argument, I’m not responsible for strangers.


"Yes Meme" It is called welfare, that you may or may not use.



Foxi4 said:


> The sole reason why I make the homeless and insolvent exception is because *they’re insolvent* and ideally we shouldn’t have dead people littering the streets.


Ideally no. Unfortunately, some of the same people that want to shutdown public services for the sake of it, would fight against helping them too. 

That said, what happened to "free market"? I thought that was the answer to everything. What happen to not paying for services you are never going to use?



Foxi4 said:


> I’m not ‘taking away people’s healthcare”, healthcare exists regardless of whether the NHS exists or not, I’m simply taking back my money, which is indeed justice.


You can't guarantee everyone will still be covered nor do you seem care if people lose their healthcare if the NHS falls. 



Foxi4 said:


> Your sense of fairness is crooked because you’re uncomfortable with the concepts of death and disease - I’m not.


This is just an excuse to not do or care about anything. 



Foxi4 said:


> Switzerland’s healthcare system is completely private and covers everyone, so you’re right, it is quite easy to provide an example, and a good one considering Swiss healthcare is some of the best in the world. Even that system is a little too intrusive since insurance is compulsory - universality is not a goal I’m particularly interested in, “covering everyone” isn’t and shouldn’t be a must.


You already posted this. Regulates prices, mandatory healthcare (as pointed out) and the government still covers you, if you don't have enough income.

This is not the complete free market you are looking for, try again. Not to mention, they are still better healthcare systems. 



Foxi4 said:


> Firefighting started off as an entirely private venture, and it was profitable. Bad example, you don’t know history.


Missing the point. So I'll just say, the healthcare here is also profitable, too bad that's at the expense of healthcare being more expensive and still not covering everyone. 



Foxi4 said:


> I would love to see the NHS dismantled - it’s a monopoly on UK healthcare. Much like other monopolies, it could benefit from being splintered into (ideally) privately ran institutions rather than stay one inefficient government monster. The quickest way to do that is to make sure it runs out of money, which it’s doing anyway without the government doing anything. It doesn’t matter *what* they do, if the NHS was concerned with patching roads instead of healthcare I’d want to see it broken up all the same, the government has no business doing either.
> 
> I care about other people, that’s why I want the government to stop stealing their money for superfluous, inefficient and poorly conceived nonsense.


Just not about the people that risk not having healthcare or any other needs met because the private market decided to price gouge them instead.



Foxi4 said:


> As a side note, I know what you’re doing, because all of you guys do the same thing. You want to push for government control over the entire sector under the guise of benevolence, and you paint whoever opposes that as someone who lacks empathy. It’s not that the idea is poor and amoral, the problem is that the other person is just evil. It’s pretty transparent, and it’s not going to work on me. I believe that there are other, better ways of doing this that don’t involve massive government overreach and taxing people out the ass - plenty of countries around the world figured it out. I’m okay playing the role of a villain though - I don’t really care what you think about me, attacking my character isn’t going to sway me.I’ve heard worse things about myself than “uncaring”, try harder.


"We" push for what makes sense and not just anti-government for the sake of it. They are painting themselves, at the center of it all, greed seems to be the only real reason why some people want to take these programs down. 

Or maybe stuff like "not responsible for strangers" and “covering everyone isn’t and shouldn’t be a must.", when it comes to health, despite being able to, is inherently showing a lack empathy? Yeah, a lot of countries figured out that it is better to do universal services than let private companies not only price people out the wazoo, but price these people out of getting the services altogether. I don't think most people care that you play make believe, as long as it isn't making real victims. 



tabzer said:


> No it doesn't.  That's how you are choosing to interpret it.





wartutor said:


> One of those aborted children 20 years ago could of grew up and cured cancer, maybe changed the whole world. But someone with your mindset decided to get out the vac and throw away the trash.


As I said, this same argument can be use on anyone that chose not to have kids. Not to mention, the opposite could be true, give birth to someone that change the whole world, for the worse.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 28, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> "Yes Meme" It is called welfare, that you may or may not use.
> 
> 
> Ideally no. Unfortunately, some of the same people that want to shutdown public services for the sake of it, would fight against helping them too.
> ...


Choosing to not have kids =/= choosing to stop a kid from developing.  You want to interpret the gestation period in terms that allow you to validate feelings about terminating life, and that's in your nature.  Maybe you want to have recreational sex without the concerns of raising another life (birth control is option for degenerates).  Maybe you were raped and do not want to have a child with a rapist father/mother (stop exposing yourself recklessly; we are in a pandemic).  I _kind _of understand that.  But choices and consequences and all of that.  If assuming that they aren't sentient helps you validate you making the choice, that's your crutch.  I'm still unconvinced of your sentience, so I totally relate.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 28, 2021)

Esdeath said:


> At first I was against the poke for all mentality since I thought people were at least conscious enough to realize they need to be cautious. Now with the vaccine being effective and  dumb politicians who promise that COVID will be gone again and again like they could actually deport it and not taking in account the majority of dumb people spreading it far and wide I don’t believe so anymore.
> Imo everyone who can should get it, if they want it or not.


Kind of funny that Lacius liked this massacre of a legible language--though fitting.

Basically, you've harbored authoritarian respect for yourself, with the hopes that you wouldn't have to force people.   In your imagined scenario, people have decided to choose against what you have chose for them.  Don't worry.  You don't have a say in the matter, unless you are playing a part in the enforcing of it.  Then I'd fear for you.


----------



## weatMod (Nov 28, 2021)

threadly reminder



1) the vaccine don't work



2) the vaccines do NOT prevent  transmission

even  admitted by MSM now






Your browser is not able to display this video.




 , so there is fuckall  reason to make them mandatory for anything because vaccinated people are just as if not MORE likely to spread the disease as the  unvaccinated

also the vaccinated are CREATING variants ,  Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche was right



3) the vaccines cause heart attacks

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712

 ( my neighbor took 2 heart attacks after getting the shot, not even 50yo)


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 28, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> "Yes Meme" It is called welfare, that you may or may not use.
> 
> 
> Ideally no. Unfortunately, some of the same people that want to shutdown public services for the sake of it, would fight against helping them too.
> ...


There is no national food service, electricity service, or even water service anywhere in the UK - all of those industries are privately ran. The government may purchase goods and services from private companies and/or individuals for the purposes of welfare, it does not actually provide any goods or services in and out of itself because that’s retarded - the government isn’t a bakery, or a power company, or a water company, and has zero expertise in any of those sectors. You could argue that council housing is a form of an actual government-ran service, but even that is built by private contractors. If the government built those houses, they would fall apart (like the ones in the Soviet bloc) because, surprise, the government is also not a construction company. Everything you’ve said so far is either inapplicable to the NHS scenario or wrong, so good job on the first paragraph, you’re totally not embarrassing yourself.

Healthcare should not be a public service. It doesn’t serve “the public”, it serves individual customers. Selling young people on the idea that this is not the case was an amazing achievement, but scandal after scandal people are slowly catching on - it’s a money pit, and a honey pot for those involved.

Me ensuring that my front yard isn’t littered with homeless people is a part of the free market, I pay for garbage collection too. Moreover, the government has a duty of care over its citizens and should probably ensure that they don’t die in the absence of means of payment. Those who have means of payment and use public funds regardless overburden the system. It’s called overhead - a given healthcare provider can and should profit from the business endeavour, but by the same token must not refuse service, so means of payment are of secondary importance. Healthcare isn’t the only industry where the government picks up the tab when no other payer is available, we call those critical industries, not that the socially-minded people would know.

I have indeed mentioned the Swiss, because their system is both more fair and objectively better based on outcome rankings. If you don’t have a counter-argument, you can just say so. It is indeed not a complete free market free-for-all, but it would be a step in the right direction. Not that it matters considering the NHS will be largely privatised not just in my lifetime, but in the immediate future, judging by the healthcare legislation and private contracts signed within the last 5 or so years, so the bear is already skinned.

I didn’t “miss the point”, you just made a very poor point. The private sector always takes over in the absence of government service, and usually does a better job.

Nobody controls the whims of the market, not even the government. If you think price gouging is exclusive to private enterprise, you should probably look into the size of the bonuses doctors receive in the NHS. The money is spent wastefully, and that’s a fact. There’s a reason why doctors from all over the world migrate to the UK and wrestle for government contracts.

What you’re pushing for doesn’t make sense, for a myriad of reasons I’ve mentioned and a lot more that I haven’t.

You’re the one showing lack of empathy - I’m the guy who doesn’t want people to be slaves for large swathes of the year, since their hard-earned money being taken away by the government without recourse to fund boondoggles effectively means they are working for free.

In any case, this argument is getting lengthy, and is straying further and further away from Austria and their mandates. We’ve had this conversation before countless times, and it’s exhausting to have to repeat myself over and over. If you want to discuss the benefits of private healthcare (which are numerous, as seen in Switzerland, Netherlands, Israel and many, many more countries with excellent healthcare), you can make a thread about it. I’m not particularly interested in detailing this thread just to give you a platform to pontificate from. What I’ve said is very simple - expecting other people to devote the fruits of their labour on a public service that they do not use just because it lets you sleep better at night is indistinguishable from theft. The government isn’t Robin Hood, it is not its job to rob its citizens just because it believes that it knows how to spend it better. If *you* think you know how to spend my money better, you’re delusional to begin with - you come across as someone who’s very young, somewhat naive and probably with no significant assets of your own, so it’s easy for you to give speeches on how other people’s money should be spent. Me, I’d rather if they spent it themselves, considering it is their money, and they’ll always know better what it should be spent on.


----------



## AmandaRose (Nov 28, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> There is no national food service, electricity service, or even water service anywhere in the UK - all of those industries are privately ran. The government may purchase goods and services from private companies and/or individuals for the purposes of welfare, it does not actually provide any goods or services in and out of itself because that’s retarded - the government isn’t a bakery, or a power company, or a water company, and has zero expertise in any of those sectors.



The above might be true for the rest of Britain but not for Scotland. Our water is 100% supplied by one company called Scottish Water. They are 100% owned by the Scottish government. 






And as for the claim it would be retarded for a government to supply water ect as they have zero experience in such sectors well all I can say is the Scottish Government must be doing something right as the water here is constantly voted as being amongst the safest and best in the world.


----------



## Esdeath (Nov 28, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Kind of funny that Lacius liked this massacre of a legible language--though fitting.
> 
> Basically, you've harbored authoritarian respect for yourself, with the hopes that you wouldn't have to force people.   In your imagined scenario, people have decided to choose against what you have chose for them.  Don't worry.  You don't have a say in the matter, unless you are playing a part in the enforcing of it.  Then I'd fear for you.


I agree, the second sentence especially got a bit out of hand.
There is a difference though with the scenario part. You let people have more than enough freedom, but they didn’t care enough to sustain it, so they have to live with restrictions. It apparently doesn’t work otherwise, so the appropriate thing to say would be „people decided to choose what I chose for them, because they didn’t like the only other possible choice“.
I am not some kind of evil overlord, I was just pointing out, why IMO it was the right choice to make the vaccine mandatory in Austria.
Don’t really get why you would have to fear for me either if I had some say in this matter, most of those who would go and had to get it would probably forget soon anyways since it takes less than 5 minutes to get over with it.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 28, 2021)

Esdeath said:


> because they didn’t like the only other possible choice



The "do this, or we'll make you do this,"  kind of choice?


----------



## Esdeath (Nov 28, 2021)

tabzer said:


> The "do this, or we'll make you do this,"  kind of choice?


That would imply they had no choice at all. 
Just imagine a teacher collecting the homework and one student didn't do it multiple times over different subjects (let those be the measures against covid), what comes next is clear, a letter is sent to the parents. It is taken to the next level if you will. It is not like the student didn't know what would happen, it is just so he wanted to always get the same warning without any consequences.
Everything has general conditions in which you can act, and sometimes the scope isn't too big.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 28, 2021)

AmandaRose said:


> The above might be true for the rest of Britain but not for Scotland. Our water is 100% supplied by one company called Scottish Water. They are 100% owned by the Scottish government.
> 
> And as for the claim it would be retarded for a government to supply water ect as they have zero experience in such sectors well all I can say is the Scottish Government must be doing something right as the water here is constantly voted as being amongst the safest and best in the world.


Interesting. Not that it was my point that the government directly does everything. 

Things like public housing exist, because runaway privatization isn't the answer to everything. 



Foxi4 said:


> Healthcare should not be a public service. It doesn’t serve “the public”, it serves individual customers. Selling young people on the idea that this is not the case was an amazing achievement, but scandal after scandal people are slowly catching on - it’s a money pit, and a honey pot for those involved.


It literally serves public health. Yes, all the young people (and people in general) that wouldn't have healthcare if the government didn't step in, are slowing catching on that private companies are overpricing healthcare.



Foxi4 said:


> is indeed not a complete free market free-for-all, but it would be a step in the right direction.


So, you admit such a thing doesn't exist. Your ideal in reality, will only cause price gorging and people not being covered. 




Foxi4 said:


> you come across as someone who’s very young, somewhat naive and probably with no significant assets of your own, so it’s easy for you to give speeches on how other people’s money should be spent. Me, I’d rather if they spent it themselves, considering it is their money, and they’ll always know better what it should be spent on.


No, I pay taxes like everyone. It is a weird assumption that people that want their taxes to actually help people, that they must not have money themselves, but yeah, rich people totally need their 10th jet while poorer people can't even get healthcare or even a home. 

Anyway, OK. Agree To disagree.


----------



## smf (Nov 28, 2021)

fst312 said:


> That’s two completely different things, I can’t believe I’m going to sort of compare this to the flu but why not, since this vaccine is still in a way new, this may not make since right now. So every year people get the flu shot, and every year I keep hearing the same thing this a person passed away after about week even though they got the flu shot, in other cases they say the flu shot may have helped the person recover. Here’s the thing I haven’t got a flu shot in about 4 years now and I’m still good.


Again, that is like saying that you drive over the speed limit, drunk and don't wear a seat belt & you didn't die & so it must be safe.

The government disagree & put laws in place, which is up to you whether you follow them or not.

You can say you don't care about causing an accident or killing someone, but you can't argue that you're just as safe just because you haven't killed anyone yet.


----------



## smf (Nov 28, 2021)

Xzi said:


> If they weren't motivated by profit, they'd distribute said vaccines for free, rather than charging the governments of the world billions for them.


That would be impossible as their suppliers need paying, astra zeneca said they won't make a profit during the pandemic though.


----------



## smf (Nov 28, 2021)

wartutor said:


> One of those aborted children 20 years ago could of grew up and cured cancer, maybe changed the whole world. But someone with your mindset decided to get out the vac and throw away the trash. Abortions should come with mandatory (and perminant) removal of ovaries and testicals of both parties.


One of those aborted fetus could have grown into a person who murdered the person who will cure cancer.

I'm a believer in not asking people to do something you won't agree to yourself, so have your reproduction organs removed and we can talk.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 28, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Kind of funny that Lacius liked this massacre of a legible language--though fitting.



There was nothing wrong with the content of @Esdeath's post. I liked the post because I agreed with it. I'd love to see a substantive response to it from you though.
You should probably make sure your own posts are legible before criticizing other people's posts. 
Please have the courage to tag me the next time you talk about me.



weatMod said:


> 1) the vaccine don't work


The vaccines do work. They make it less likely a person will get infected with COVID-19, they make it less likely you will be hospitalized if you do get infected with COVID-19, and they make it less likely you will die if you get infected with COVID-19. I'm not sure what else you want from the vaccines.



weatMod said:


> 2) the vaccines do NOT prevent  transmission


The vaccines reduce the odds that someone will be infected with COVID-19. If you are less likely to get infected with COVID-19, then you are less likely to spread the disease. If you are vaccinated and get infected with COVID-19, yes, you can still spread the disease. This is one of the many reasons why it's important for as many people as possible to get vaccinated, particularly when there are people out there who cannot get vaccinated (or the vaccine isn't likely to work for them, like if you're severely  immunocompromised).



weatMod said:


> so there is fuckall  reason to make them mandatory for anything because vaccinated people are just as if not MORE likely to spread the disease as the  unvaccinated


Vaccinated people, if they suffer a breakthrough infection, are about as likely to spread the disease as their unvaccinated counterparts. That doesn't mean they are equally likely to contract the disease in the first place. In addition, unvaccinated people make up approximately 92-94% of COVID-19 deaths. That would be reason enough to get vaccinated.



weatMod said:


> also the vaccinated are CREATING variants


All of the available evidence suggests every notable variant we've heard about so far was the result of the virus spreading unchecked amongst unvaccinated populations. The more people who are vaccinated, the less likely the disease will spread. The less the disease spreads, the less likely new variants will pop up.



weatMod said:


> 3) the vaccines cause heart attacks


There is zero evidence the vaccines have ever caused a heart attack. Just because someone has a heart attack after the vaccine does not mean the vaccine caused the heart attack. Correlation does not equal causality. When you have millions of people getting vaccinated, you're going to have millions who suffer something after the vaccine that they would have otherwise suffered without it. What you have to do is analyze if the frequency of heart attacks increased after vaccinations. The science presently shows that the frequency of heart attacks has been unaffected by the vaccines.

In very rare circumstances, myocarditis and pericarditis have been reported with the mRNA vaccines, mostly in males between ages 12-29. However, the odds of this are extraordinarily rare, there are other vaccines available (J&J in the USA, for example), and there are other mitigations in place.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 28, 2021)

AmandaRose said:


> The above might be true for the rest of Britain but not for Scotland. Our water is 100% supplied by one company called Scottish Water. They are 100% owned by the Scottish government.
> 
> View attachment 287331
> 
> And as for the claim it would be retarded for a government to supply water ect as they have zero experience in such sectors well all I can say is the Scottish Government must be doing something right as the water here is constantly voted as being amongst the safest and best in the world.


Scottish Water is a statutory corporation. It was *started* by the state (via merger of major water providers through the Water Industry Act of 2002), but it is not ran by the state, nor is it part of the state. Instead, it has its own CEO and board of directors, private citizens, who are accountable before the state and the public for its day to day operations. The easiest way to explain it to a layman is that it’s a business with the government as a majority shareholder. Is that public or private? The answer is… Ehh? *Shrugs* It’s a corporation with a majority shareholder, like any other, except that shareholder happens to be the state. The state owns Scottish Water, but Scottish Water is not part of the government. You are not taxed for your water, you are paying a bill to your water supplier, just like you normally would. The government doesn’t siphon public funds to keep Scottish Water solvent - it’s supposed to be solvent in and out of itself. That is not the same as the government having a water department - what I said remains true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Water

EDIT: It appears that in Scotland your water bill is included in Council Tax, which is band-dependent, so a little correction on my part. Thanks for pointing it out, @AmandaRose!


KingVamp said:


> Interesting. Not that it was my point that the government directly does everything.
> 
> Things like public housing exist, because runaway privatization isn't the answer to everything.
> 
> ...


Runaway privatisation is not the answer for everything, just most things. There are certain duties that the government has (judiciary, defense from internal and external threats etc.) and those necessarily cannot be privatised, others absolutely can be ran privately, and if anything, Scottish Water is a prime example that the private sector is perfectly capable of providing services that the government would otherwise suck at. It is also an example of the government setting up monopolies, but that’s a different discussion.

Public health is just statistics - individual people are either healthy or unhealthy. The public doesn’t go to the doctor, patients do. We call them “customers”.

You asked me for examples of free market private healthcare, I’ve given you a very admirable example of free market healthcare. If you want to move the goalpost from where it was all the way to the moon then you’re welcome to do so, but I’m not playing sour grapes with you - the Swiss healthcare system is 100% private, covers everyone via compulsory health insurance and *only* subsidises care for patients who are homeless, insolvent or otherwise incapable of payment. That is literally, word for word, what I described as fair, so yes, it closely describes what I want and ranks first in the world. Nothing that exists is perfect, but Switzerland got pretty dang close, and I’m okay with close to perfect.

Everybody pays taxes because sales taxes and other consumption taxes exist. That doesn’t mean you have a horse in the race. If rich people want 11 jets then that is their prerogative, it’s their money to spend as they please. It is not encumbent on them, or anyone else, to fund other people’s healthcare, they are not responsible for other people’s life choices and they shouldn’t pay for their mistakes, in the most literal sense.


----------



## AmandaRose (Nov 28, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You are not taxed for your water, you are paying a bill to your water supplier, just like you normally would. The government doesn’t siphon public funds to keep Scottish Water solvent - it’s supposed to be solvent in and out of itself. That is not the same as the government having a water department - what I said remains true.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Water


Exept we do pay for water in our taxes unlike the rest of Britain that pays water bills.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 28, 2021)

@Foxi4 Isn't the difference between basic healthcare for poor plus mandatory insurance for rest versus national healthcare for all just semantics? I mean in terms of not wanting to pay for other people. Btw, I don't know what percentage of income tax goes towards the NHS and I don't know how much the equivalent level of private insurance would cost.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 28, 2021)

Esdeath said:


> That would imply they had no choice at all.
> Just imagine a teacher collecting the homework and one student didn't do it multiple times over different subjects (let those be the measures against covid), what comes next is clear, a letter is sent to the parents. It is taken to the next level if you will. It is not like the student didn't know what would happen, it is just so he wanted to always get the same warning without any consequences.
> Everything has general conditions in which you can act, and sometimes the scope isn't too big.



I'm not sure if the metaphor lines up.  It sounds like, in general, you are saying that forcing people to get vaccinated is the consequence of people not "choosing" to get vaccinated.  If the end result is force, the idea of a choice wasn't ever real or meaningful.  



Lacius said:


> You should probably make sure your own posts are legible before criticizing other people's posts.



No.  U.



Lacius said:


> Please have the courage to tag me the next time you talk about me.



That defeats the purpose of talking about you.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 28, 2021)

tabzer said:


> That defeats the purpose of talking about you.


Are you admitting that the purpose of your posts is to shout into the ether and run away without having to engage with people who are critical of your posts? If I had adopted a position as asinine as being anti-vax, I wouldn't want to engage in discourse either.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 28, 2021)

AmandaRose said:


> Exept we do pay for water in our taxes unlike the rest of Britain that pays water bills.
> 
> 
> View attachment 287340


That’s odd, and I was unaware of this, so good info on your part - you know what they say, you learn something new every day. It appears to be an dedicated payment included in your council tax, which is fair enough. In Wales this is how we pay for garbage collection, so it’s not exactly unprecedented, though I would’ve preferred a meter and a bill. I’ll correct my post to reflect that, thanks! With that being said, the rest of my post still applies.


----------



## Esdeath (Nov 28, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I'm not sure if the metaphor lines up.  It sounds like, in general, you are saying that forcing people to get vaccinated is the consequence of people not "choosing" to get vaccinated.  If the end result is force, the idea of a choice wasn't ever real or meaningful.


The alternative would have been to strictly follow the social distancing and mask guidlines, not staright up getting the vaccine (basically doing the homework).
From what I have seen IRL most people didn't care enough.
The thing is, I can understand how more and more people don't want to go along with it anymore since it seems like a never ending story.
In such a crucial time a clear cut or using "force" like you said is a thing you have to do IMO because otherwise it's really going to become a never ending story.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 28, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> @Foxi4 Isn't the difference between basic healthcare for poor plus mandatory insurance for rest versus national healthcare for all just semantics? I mean in terms of not wanting to pay for other people. Btw, I don't know what percentage of income tax goes towards the NHS and I don't know how much the equivalent level of private insurance would cost.


I would argue that it is not, as it creates at least some degree of competition - it’s exactly the same as car insurance. You have multiple providers competing in the realms of price and coverage, and you allow customers to pick and choose what they actually want/need. There is still government coercion considering you are forced to buy it, but considerably less compared to a compulsory tax - more choice is better than less.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 28, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I would argue that it is not, as it creates at least some degree of competition - it’s exactly the same as car insurance. You have multiple providers competing in the realms of price and coverage, and you allow customers to pick and choose what they actually want/need. There is still government coercion considering you are forced to buy it, but considerably less compared to a compulsory tax - more choice is better than less.


Oh I'm not arguing about quality. Purely that (if the cost is equivalent, I don't know) then not wanting to pay for others seems like semantics if you're paying the same for insurance anyway. Perhaps they are not comparable cost-wise, but it was more of a thought exercise. I have no doubt that incentivisation is vastly different on the whole.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 28, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Oh I'm not arguing about quality. Purely that (if the cost is equivalent, I don't know) then not wanting to pay for others seems like semantics if you're paying the same for insurance anyway. Perhaps they are not comparable cost-wise, but it was more of a thought exercise. I have no doubt that incentivisation is vastly different on the whole.


My coverage is my own - I either have it or I don’t. I’m not in charge of the financials of the insurance company, it’s the insurance company that manages the funds. I’m under no delusion that this is a singular account from which only I can make claims - that’s not how insurance works. If I wanted to do that, I would just open a rainy day account - if I just want to use my own money, I can do that without a middleman, what I’m paying for is a specific service. The point of insurance is a calculated bet between me and the insurance company, the bet being that whatever I would’ve paid out of pocket, they will pay less for the same procedures. The benefit for me is that regardless of how long I’ve had the plan, it covers me all the same - the benefit for the insurance company is that I give them money for, for the most part, absolutely nothing and they get to manage, invest or otherwise multiply the capital they collect. This is different from a government scheme which has no competition, generally doesn’t invest money and operates on the premise that the coverage it provides now will be paid for by taxing the next generation which doesn’t need much medical attention on account of their age. This kind of program can only exist with a positive population growth - right now population is stagnant and market growth is very slow.

You can observe this interaction in the U.S. as we speak. The young people paying for Social Security now are paying into a fund that is on the brink of bankruptcy and without significant reform it will become insolvent within the foreseeable future - the latest estimate is by 2033. The fund’s insolvency was accelerated by massive expenses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The cynical part of me expected COVID-19 to save the Social Security fund as it primarily wipes out the elderly and people with severe pre-existing conditions who not only  need the most care, but also are the beneficiaries of Social Security cheques. What I didn’t take into account, or rather didn’t expect, was that the economy might also collapse under current leadership. Higher unemployment equals less Social Security contributions, and with no contributions the engine is running on fumes, so it’s swings and roundabouts until the situation stabilises. Either way, expect massive changes in how American safety nets operate within the next decade, possibly sooner if the trajectory doesn’t change.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 28, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> My coverage is my own - I either have it or I don’t. I’m not in charge of the financials of the insurance company, it’s the insurance company that manages the funds. I’m under no delusion that this is a singular account from which only I can make claims - that’s not how insurance works. If I wanted to do that, I would just open a rainy day account - if I just want to use my own money, I can do that without a middleman, what I’m paying for is a specific service. The point of insurance is a calculated bet between me and the insurance company, the bet being that whatever I would’ve paid out of pocket, they will pay less for the same procedures. The benefit for me is that regardless of how long I’ve had the plan, it covers me all the same - the benefit for the insurance company is that I give them money for, for the most part, absolutely nothing and they get to manage, invest or otherwise multiply the capital they collect. This is different from a government scheme which has no competition, generally doesn’t invest money and operates on the premise that the coverage it provides now will be paid for by taxing the next generation which doesn’t need much medical attention on account of their age. This kind of program can only exist with a positive population growth - right now population is stagnant and market growth is very slow.
> 
> You can observe this interaction in the U.S. as we speak. The young people paying for Social Security now are paying into a fund that is on the brink of bankruptcy and without significant reform it will become insolvent within the foreseeable future - the latest estimate is by 2033. The fund’s insolvency was accelerated by massive expenses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The cynical part of me expected COVID-19 to save the Social Security fund as it primarily wipes out the elderly and people with severe pre-existing conditions who not only  need the most care, but also are the beneficiaries of Social Security cheques. What I didn’t take into account, or rather didn’t expect, was that the economy might also collapse under current leadership. Higher unemployment equals less Social Security contributions, and with no contributions the engine is running on fumes, so it’s swings and roundabouts until the situation stabilises. Either way, expect massive changes in how American safety nets operate within the next decade, possibly sooner if the trajectory doesn’t change.


My interest in the American system isn't particularly strong, I'm much more concerned with the NHS and it's dire state. Having been an out-patient for almost 40 years, and somewhat ironically trained as a doctor in the middle of that (but never got to practice due to the aforementioned Vioxx incident - why I spend most of my time on here railing against big pharm), I'm always interested in actual, real ways to improve things. I feel like the situation is somewhat similar to the monarchy and is just a matter of waiting it out before a big change can eventually be made.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 28, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> My interest in the American system isn't particularly strong, I'm much more concerned with the NHS and it's dire state. Having been an out-patient for almost 40 years, and somewhat ironically trained as a doctor in the middle of that (but never got to practice due to the aforementioned Vioxx incident - why I spend most of my time on here railing against big pharm), I'm always interested in actual, real ways to improve things. I feel like the situation is somewhat similar to the monarchy and is just a matter of waiting it out before a big change can eventually be made.


The government (almost) never shrinks. What I suspect, and what the Tory government has been pushing for for the past couple of years, is what left-wingers call “gutting” the NHS, by which they mean selling it off piecemeal to private healthcare providers and only retain the top branch managing body which will be concerned solely with regulation rather than care. This will create a quasi healthcare market wherein given locations or sectors of care will be operated by different companies, under the watchful eye of what remains of the NHS core. In this model the government doesn’t actually provide any care whatsoever - private industry does, the government simply negotiates and gives directives on how things should be ran. We’re talking about billion pound+ contracts with private service providers here, so it’s not exactly “reversible” at this stage.

https://www.gmb.org.uk/news/privatisation-nhs-contracts-15bn

Here’s a source, from the GMB, so expect it to be negative coverage. Unions don’t like getting pushed away from the government’s teet.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 28, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The government (almost) never shrinks. What I suspect, and what the Tory government has been pushing for for the past couple of years, is what left-wingers call “gutting” the NHS, by which they mean selling it off piecemeal to private healthcare providers and only retain the top branch managing body which will be concerned solely with regulation rather than care. This will create a quasi healthcare market wherein given locations or sectors of care will be operated by different companies, under the watchful eye of what remains of the NHS core. In this model the government doesn’t actually provide any care whatsoever - private industry does, the government simply negotiates and gives directives on how things should be ran. We’re talking about billion pound+ contracts with private service providers here, so it’s not exactly “reversible” at this stage.
> 
> https://www.gmb.org.uk/news/privatisation-nhs-contracts-15bn
> 
> Here’s a source, from the GMB, so expect it to be negative coverage. Unions don’t like getting pushed away from the government’s teet.


Those figures kind of put things into perspective, although I would still be concerned about the governments ability to correctly oversee things and not be easily influenced by "perks".


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 28, 2021)

stanna said:


> As I said it's rife in my town what I failed to report is that most are fully vaccinated and some have had the booster, just goes to show the fake vaccine is indeed totally useless, why would you still put that dna altering crap into your body.


Ok, the following video relays a HYPOTHESIS only, but it could be a way that both the virus and vaccine could do DNA damage (not altering in the way you probably meant)..


----------



## tabzer (Nov 28, 2021)

Esdeath said:


> The alternative would have been to strictly follow the social distancing and mask guidlines, not staright up getting the vaccine (basically doing the homework).
> From what I have seen IRL most people didn't care enough.
> The thing is, I can understand how more and more people don't want to go along with it anymore since it seems like a never ending story.
> In such a crucial time a clear cut or using "force" like you said is a thing you have to do IMO because otherwise it's really going to become a never ending story.



I have high doubts Covid is going to "vanish" with or without the vaccine, even if efforts are made to force them.  I think it's the usual case of bad advertising--overpromised and under delivered.  



Lacius said:


> Are you admitting that the purpose of your posts is to shout into the ether and run away without having to engage with people who are critical of your posts? If I had adopted a position as asinine as being anti-vax, I wouldn't want to engage in discourse either.



I hope your strawman loves you as much as you do, it.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 28, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Ok, the following video relays a HYPOTHESIS only, but it could be a way that both the virus and vaccine could do DNA damage (not altering in the way you probably meant)..


Let us know when it's anything other than an anti-vaxxer's fever dream.



tabzer said:


> I have high doubts Covid is going to "vanish" with or without the vaccine, even if efforts are made to force them.  I think it's the usual case of bad advertising--overpromised and under delivered.


The only people in the USA I remember saying COVID-19 would "disappear" were the former president and the Republican Party.



tabzer said:


> I hope your strawman loves you as much as you do, it.


I asked a question about what I considered to be the logical conclusion to your last post, so no, it isn't a strawman by any definition.

As a refresher, I asked you to tag me so I would be more likely to see it and respond to your posts (intentionally not doing so seems cowardly or dodgy to me), and then you said that would "defeat the purpose of your posts." That implies that the purpose of your posts is to avoid criticism from those you're attempting to criticize. That isn't how people who hold tenable positions tend to act.

Let me know if you'd like to get back to talking about the vaccine. I wouldn't blame you if you wanted to talk about literally anything other than your position though.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 28, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Let us know when it's anything other than an anti-vaxxer's fever dream.


The research is about the potential dangers of Sars-CoV2 you simple minded gimboid.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 28, 2021)

What makes me curious:

Are you seriously ok with vaccinate all 2 -3 Months ?
Is Mankinds "Intelligence" so low,to not see what happens here ?
The Cycles are getting shorter and shorter...you will need maybe more Shots for every greater "Variants" like Omicron....

That should be healthy ? That should make medical sense ? That should stop the Virus like our Governments has promised in the Past ?


By the Way,our Politics are better to argue against each other (Chancellor Schallenberg and FPÖ) instead of preparing for the next,big and more more threatening Wave in 1-2 Weeks ...

Also said for the last Year:
Why they have not educated our many,many Students for the Covid Intense Stations ? Why not upgraded our Intense Stations instead of telling us daily how many Beds are occupied....many,many,many Beds and Intense Personal where "removed/saved" by Politics a couple of Years ago..

Why not ?
Because nobody want to hear this,only the "broken Record" that tells us every Second "Vaccinate,vaccinate,vaccinate......"


----------



## LinkmstrYT (Nov 28, 2021)

Back to the original topic at hand, I understand that it's bad for the government to make things mandatory and force other people to do things. But in this case with a global pandemic as a whole, I see this more as an emergency measure considering that, as mentioned in articles all around, infection rates are still extremely high along with death counts still continuing to rise up, as well. And we do know that there are lots, and I mean, *LOTS*, of people that are stubborn in their own ways, blinded by conspiracies and politics, are endangering themselves along with the people around them, especially those that are immunocompromised and medically can't take one.

I understand the whole "My body, my choice" thing, but is that whole thing really worth risking your own life for and potentially screwing over yourself, family, friends, relatives, etc.? Not everyone is made of money and can be able to pay for the best possible treatments in the world. We have had hundreds of thousands of people ruining their own lives and their families' lives just because they don't want to get vaccinated, costing upwards to hundreds of thousands of dollars and people being in debt and asking for others for money to pay for bills and funerals. And even when someone who's unvaccinated survives the ordeal, there is still a good chance of "Long Covid" damages and issues, such as organ damages (lungs, heart, kidneys, etc.), mental instability (depression, anxiety, brain fog, etc.), body pains all over, and so on and so forth. And there's potential causes of death with all those Long Covid damages, too, so some folks aren't completely out of the waters just yet for a "full" recovery.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 28, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> The research is about the potential dangers of Sars-CoV2 you simple minded gimboid.


The idea that the vaccine comes with the dangers you suggested is an idea that, at present, exists nowhere other than your ass. Remember that before resorting to calling someone else "simple minded."


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 28, 2021)

LinkmstrYT said:


> I understand the whole "My body, my choice" thing, but is that whole thing really worth risking your own life.


Speaking for many unvaccinated Austrians:

It is not that Matter alone (and maybe not the Main Point of View...) of this "My body, my choice"..
It is more the real First Mandatory Vaccination for all People,not only some Groups.
What´s the next Step ?

This and Fear,bad or Misinformation (from the Government and the medical Side..) and lost Trust is still the main Reason for many People here to not get vaccinated.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 28, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The idea that the vaccine comes with the dangers you suggested is an idea that, at present, exists nowhere other than your ass. Remember that before resorting to calling someone else "simple minded."


It was a Red Dwarf quote. I guess you're not much of a sci-fi fan.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 28, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> It was a Red Dwarf quote. I guess you're not much of a sci-fi fan.


Regardless of the reference, you've suggested at least twice that vaccines are potentially dangerous in a way that isn't at all supported by the science. That was my point.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 28, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Regardless of the reference, you've suggested at least twice that vaccines are potentially dangerous in a way that isn't at all supported by the science. That was my point.


I'm not the doctor in the video and it's not my postulation. I even said I didn't think it was plausible in my previous response to the person who posted about "DNA altering". However, having watched the video I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that the virus could enter nuclei and disrupt DNA strands. The mechanism by which that could happen could be extrapolated to the mRNA vaccine but it's not a particularly compelling hypothesis without any experimental data. You would think it could easily be shown in vitro if it was the case.

I'm much more interested in the implications for how the virus works to cause rapid cellular destruction.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 28, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I'm not the doctor in the video and it's not my postulation. I even said I didn't think it was plausible in my previous response to the person who posted about "DNA altering". However, having watched the video I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that the virus could enter nuclei and disrupt DNA strands. The mechanism by which that could happen could be extrapolated to the mRNA vaccine but it's not a particularly compelling hypothesis without any experimental data. You would think it could easily be shown in vitro if it was the case.
> 
> I'm much more interested in the implications for how the virus works to cause rapid cellular destruction.


You are the one who has repeatedly made the bullshit claim that the vaccines may be unsafe in this way. The fact that you "aren't the doctor in the video," or you responded to a different post saying the vaccines don't directly alter one's DNA, are irrelevant.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 28, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You are the one who has repeatedly made the bullshit claim that the vaccines may be unsafe in this way. The fact that you "aren't the doctor in the video," or you responded to a different post saying the vaccines don't directly alter one's DNA, are irrelevant.


Yeah, yeah. My mistake for trying to talk to you like a person. I'll go back to thinking of you as a bot.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 29, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Yeah, yeah. My mistake for trying to talk to you like a person. I'll go back to thinking of you as a bot.


I don't care how you think of me as long as you aren't pulling things out of your ass and acting as though they're legitimate safety concerns.

Edit: And in the future, own your posts. Posting a video doesn't deflect responsibility for posting the video.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I don't care how you think of me as long as you aren't pulling things out of your ass and acting as though they're legitimate safety concerns.


Can you stop referring to my ass, it's highly inappropriate in this setting.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 29, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Can you stop referring to my ass, it's highly inappropriate in this setting.


Sure, that's fine, but I'm not the only pulling things out of it in front of everyone.

My point is that your concerns are conspiratorial nonsense, and they have no basis in science.


----------



## stanna (Nov 29, 2021)

Covid will be the least of your problems when they release smallpox.


----------



## tabzer (Nov 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I asked a question about what I considered to be the logical conclusion to your last post, so no, it isn't a strawman by any definition.



It's a strawman, by the definition.  Your considerations aren't very important to me, nor relevent to what I actually said.  If there is something I said that you are critical of, please point it out.  Calling me an anti-vaxer to bait me, in the absence of an actual argument, is a strawman.  We can argue back and forth about this, but it will not touch a point that anyone ever made.



Lacius said:


> As a refresher, I asked you to tag me so I would be more likely to see it and respond to your posts (intentionally not doing so seems cowardly or dodgy to me), and then you said that would "defeat the purpose of your posts." That implies that the purpose of your posts is to avoid criticism from those you're attempting to criticize. That isn't how people who hold tenable positions tend to act.



I'd have tagged you if I wanted to talk to you.  I didn't want to talk to you.  I still don't.  Bye.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 29, 2021)

tabzer said:


> It's a strawman, by the definition.  Your considerations aren't very important to me, nor relevent to what I actually said.  If there is something I said that you are critical of, please point it out.  Calling me an anti-vaxer to bait me, in the absence of an actual argument, is a strawman.  We can argue back and forth about this, but it will not touch a point that anyone ever made.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd have tagged you if I wanted to talk to you.  I didn't want to talk to you.  I still don't.  Bye.


You've posted things that can be fairly characterized as anti-vax. It was not to bait you, and it can't be a strawman if it is your position. I'm happy to hear, however, that you've maybe changed your position and are no longer anti-vax.

If you don't want to talk to me, don't respond to my posts. You're also the one who brought me into this conversation by talking about me, lol.


----------



## smf (Nov 29, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> However, having watched the video I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that the virus could enter nuclei and disrupt DNA strands.



It's possible for virus to modify DNA, I don't know if covid 19 is doing it though.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161128151050.htm

When viruses infect us, they can embed small chunks of their genetic material in our DNA. Although infrequent, the incorporation of this material into the human genome has been occurring for millions of years. As a result of this ongoing process, viral genetic material comprises nearly 10 percent of the modern human genome. Over time, the vast majority of viral invaders populating our genome have mutated to the point that they no longer lead to active infections. But, as scientists funded by the National Institutes of Health have demonstrated, they are not entirely dormant.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 29, 2021)

smf said:


> It's possible for virus to modify DNA, I don't know if covid 19 is doing it though.
> 
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161128151050.htm
> 
> When viruses infect us, they can embed small chunks of their genetic material in our DNA. Although infrequent, the incorporation of this material into the human genome has been occurring for millions of years. As a result of this ongoing process, viral genetic material comprises nearly 10 percent of the modern human genome. Over time, the vast majority of viral invaders populating our genome have mutated to the point that they no longer lead to active infections. But, as scientists funded by the National Institutes of Health have demonstrated, they are not entirely dormant.


That looks like an interesting read so I'll be sure to get to it tonight at some point, but I have heard the hypothesis before that these viral interactions are what cause autoimmune diseases.


----------



## smf (Nov 29, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> That looks like an interesting read so I'll be sure to get to it tonight at some point, but I have heard the hypothesis before that these viral interactions are what cause autoimmune diseases.


https://www.science.org/content/art...tic-material-human-chromosomes-what-does-mean

The anti vaxxers might be avoiding the vaccine because "it changes their dna" but it could actually be the opposite, it might be protecting their dna from covid19.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 29, 2021)

Omicron "emerged/comes" from HIV infected People,said some Experts today....


----------



## AmandaRose (Nov 29, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> Omicron "emerged/comes" from HIV infected People,said some Experts today....


The expert actually said it was either caused by unvaccinated people or people with HIV or possibly a combination of both. 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.s...he-unvaccinated-and-immunosuppressed-12481188

The bad news for me is Omicron has sadly arrived in Scotland with 6 people confirmed to have caught it so far.


----------



## sl0ps (Nov 29, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You've posted things that can be fairly characterized as anti-vax. It was not to bait you, and it can't be a strawman if it is your position. I'm happy to hear, however, that you've maybe changed your position and are no longer anti-vax.
> 
> If you don't want to talk to me, don't respond to my posts. You're also the one who brought me into this conversation by talking about me, lol.


Allow me to preface by acknowledging my lack of decorum.

You're really coming across like a jackass.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 29, 2021)

sl0ps said:


> Allow me to preface by acknowledging my lack of decorum.
> 
> You're really coming across like a jackass.


I don't see anything about the post you quoted that can be reasonably described as "coming off as a jackass." If you would like to talk about it more, please send me a PM. It's off topic.


----------



## smf (Nov 29, 2021)

stanna said:


> Covid will be the least of your problems when they release smallpox.


Again?

Or maybe there isn't a global conspiracy to kill everyone....


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 29, 2021)

It is just weird that both the vaccine and covid has become a government death conspiracy. At least chose one, since you only need one of those for that conspiracy.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 29, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> It is just weird that both the vaccine and covid has become a government death conspiracy. At least chose one, since you only need one of those for that conspiracy.


What’s actually weird about this whole situation is that the approach towards the virus flipped 180 over time. Before COVID-19 became a global pandemic, the “right-wing conspiracy theorists” were warning everybody about a virus hailing from China that is capable of wiping out millions and the western press dismissed it as “just a flu, bro”. Now, over a year later, the “right-wing conspiracy theorists” are complaining about everybody overreacting to “just a flu, bro” while the western press is panicking as if this thing was an airborne Ebola. Both of those approaches are equally stupid, but the fact that the two sides, the ultra liberals and the ultra conservatives, completely passed by each other without ever meeting anywhere in the middle, is pretty funny. Makes your noggin’ go jogging, at no point was anyone ever “chill”, which makes me question whether a sensible middle ground even exists.


----------



## smf (Nov 29, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> It is just weird that both the vaccine and covid has become a government death conspiracy. At least chose one, since you only need one of those for that conspiracy.



Stupid ideas propagate faster within people who lack intelligence.

If opposing stupid ideas find a host that will believe anything, then they can both reproduce.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 30, 2021)

Why an Austrian ? Because of the excellent Situation (for the mandatory Vacciation) we actual have here ?

https://orf.at/stories/3238373/

Austrians new WHO crisis manager in Europe Gerald Rockenschaub from Austria has been appointed Director of Health Emergencies in the European Region of the World Health Organization (WHO).
"I am very pleased that an Austrian doctor and public health expert has been appointed to this high position in the WHO," said Health Minister Wolfgang Mückstein (Greens) yesterday.
 Rockenschaub, who was born in Styria, will become "the top crisis manager for health emergencies in Europe" and, as such, will support regional director Hans Kluge in the fight against the Covid 19 pandemic, according to a press release from the Ministry of Health.

*Countries of the EU,be warned - you all will be next with the Mandatory Vaccination.....*


----------



## stanna (Nov 30, 2021)

https://www.banned.video/watch?id=61a2d6e091e3df6cfc414aa1


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 30, 2021)

stanna said:


> https://www.banned.video/watch?id=61a2d6e091e3df6cfc414aa1


As I ever said,the Human Scum should wiped off from this Planet.....hopefully the Comet comes soon...


----------



## tabzer (Nov 30, 2021)

I enjoyed the video description.

"Covid-19 is an artificially created bio-weapon designed to be rolled out in stages against humanity, ending in societal collapse and 90% depopulation.
The Cyber Monday Mega Blowout Sale is now LIVE! Save up to 60% with double Patriot Points & FREE shipping on our hottest items NOW!"

I mean, I know that the money I'm going to make from this pandemic will not be spendable anywhere in the near future, but it is easier to accrue than firewood.


----------



## stanna (Nov 30, 2021)

Funny that all the sky news channels in the UK full of adverts every 10 minutes.


----------



## smf (Nov 30, 2021)

tabzer said:


> "Covid-19 is an artificially created bio-weapon designed to be rolled out in stages against humanity, ending in societal collapse and 90% depopulation.


I'm looking forward to their xmas greatest hits albums of all their best paranoid delusions.

What is laughable is they think anyone is competent enough to pull it off. If I'm wrong, then they are so competent that me worrying about it is pointless.

If you were going to roll out a bio weapon, then the people you would want to save are those who would get vaccinated. The special snowflakes who are bitching on social media about swollen testicles, magnetism and 5g are the ones you would kill. If I'm wrong, then I certainly don't want to live in a world full of those retards.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 30, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> What’s actually weird about this whole situation is that the approach towards the virus flipped 180 over time. Before COVID-19 became a global pandemic, the “right-wing conspiracy theorists” were warning everybody about a virus hailing from China that is capable of wiping out millions and the western press dismissed it as “just a flu, bro”. Now, over a year later, the “right-wing conspiracy theorists” are complaining about everybody overreacting to “just a flu, bro” while the western press is panicking as if this thing was an airborne Ebola. Both of those approaches are equally stupid, but the fact that the two sides, the ultra liberals and the ultra conservatives, completely passed by each other without ever meeting anywhere in the middle, is pretty funny. Makes your noggin’ go jogging, at no point was anyone ever “chill”, which makes me question whether a sensible middle ground even exists.


What I remember are people going around calling it the "Chinese flu" and how unreliable Trump is in general, which probably generally delayed people's response to it. Meanwhile, you had Trump downplaying the virus the whole time, while simultaneously trying to take credit for doing something against the "not a big deal" virus.


Please tell me, what's the middle ground between magnetic arms, 5G chips and bioweapons vs mask, vaccines and social distancing?



smf said:


> Stupid ideas propagate faster within people who lack intelligence.
> 
> If opposing stupid ideas find a host that will believe anything, then they can both reproduce.


Tbf, maybe these aren't the same people, but I haven't read or seen any debates between the two ideas.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 30, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> What I remember are people going around calling it the "Chinese flu" and how unreliable Trump is in general, which probably generally delayed people's response to it. Meanwhile, you had Trump downplaying the virus the whole time, while simultaneously trying to take credit for doing something against the "not a big deal" virus.
> 
> 
> Please tell me, what's the middle ground between magnetic arms, 5G chips and bioweapons vs mask, vaccines and social distancing?


We have a very different recollection of the events, except only one of those is backed up by actual sources. I remember pretty distinctly that “sources”, including the WHO, dismissed the virus to the point that even human-to-human transmission was questioned, until it was too late.



Here’s Axios kindly reminding readers that if they’re panicking about the coronavirus, they should be more concerned about the flu:

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-i...tes-64311582-2031-40af-8ec3-9ff68341d4f3.html

The Daily Beast coming at you with a similar brain dead take, although they seem to have “updated” it later, by which I mean “wiping egg off their face”:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/flu-not-coronavirus-is-the-virus-killing-us-kids-like-luca-calanni

A lot of the articles from more mainstream publications were straight up deleted, but I’m sure pesky little users archived them accordingly. The comparisons to the flu didn’t start with Trump, they were started by the press, and the Internet never forgets. The people most concerned about the virus, back when it was still called “spontaneous pneumonia”, were exclusively on the “conspiracy theorist” side of the Internet, and the sole reason why they were concerned was because the Chinese government was welding people’s doors shut and at the same time, the WHO was informing the world that “there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission” and we should all chill. The containment actions taken by the Chinese government that people saw with their own eyes thanks to whistleblowers online did not match what we were being told, so doubt was a rather natural reaction. The overwhelming sentiment among the right was “they know something that they’re not telling us”, and this sentiment turned out to be correct.

As for your quip regarding medical quackery, I’m not entirely sure why you ascribe it specifically to right-wingers considering it’s historically the left that subscribes to all sorts of alternative medicine, from “healing crystals” all the way to homeopathy. Not five minutes ago in historical terms the most wealthy and densely liberal areas of America had the lowest rates of vaccination against small pox etc., comparable to South Sudan - those people are not rabid Trump supporters, they’re as blue as the open sea.

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/380252/

Regarding Trump, he took immediate action by banning travel from affected areas, he tried to prevent a national panic by downplaying the virus in speeches, but handled the situation fairly well in terms of actions taken, which is completely understandable to me. This conversation is two years out of date. You can have your own opinion on the subject, but last I checked, when banning travel, a perfectly sensible mitigation strategy, was introduced, the left responded with “that’s racist”, and with Nancy Pelosi parading across Chinatown to lick some doorknobs. I’m sorry, you might have acute amnesia, but I don’t. Maybe you weren’t clued in on what’s happening in December 2019/January 2020, but I was, and I remember the origin of “it’s just a flu, bro” very well.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 30, 2021)

I'm gonna be a bit harsher on Trump as it took him a rather long time to figure out Fauci was untrustworthy.. and let's not forget the stuff about bleach and UV light.


----------



## AncientBoi (Nov 30, 2021)

Omg, I can just see @Alexander1970 's reaction to this. Look out for a nuclear explosion from him on this.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 30, 2021)

AncientBoi said:


> Omg, I can just see @Alexander1970 's reaction to this. Look out for a nuclear explosion from him on this.


Believe me,there are quite more other annoying Things in Austria at the Moment...


----------



## AncientBoi (Nov 30, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> Believe me,there are quite more other annoying Things in Austria at the Moment...




Mien God. You mean my mother is there? Runnnnn!


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 30, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I'm gonna be a bit harsher on Trump as it took him a rather long time to figure out Fauci was untrustworthy.. and let's not forget the stuff about bleach and UV light.


Yes, let’s not forget that he never suggested anyone should be drinking bleach, since that’s the line everyone bought hook, line and sinker, even though his speech was public. I quote:


> “I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do *something like that*, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that (…) So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s *ultraviolet or just very powerful light* — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body”


”Something like that” does not equal “injecting bleach” into a patient, he has never said that or suggested doing so as a method of treatment. He was asking a general question, and he’s not a doctor, so I don’t expect him to use correct terminology. Bronchoalveolar lavage, or bronchoalveolar washing, is an existing medical diagnostic technique which involves filling the lung with a controlled amount of fluid and then collecting it for analysis, it does precisely what the name suggest. It is not “outrageous” to think, off the top of your head, that it might be a potential medicine delivery system. As for UV, we’ve been using UV-A and other bands of ultraviolet in and outside of the body for various purposes for years, it has known antimicrobial purposes. UV-A blood irradiation isn’t practiced anymore and fell out of favour in the 1950’s due to the advent of advanced antibiotics and vaccines, but it used to be performed specifically for the purposes of dealing with pathogens and giving the immune system a boost. Now it has the status of mostly alternative medicine, but some studies show that it remains effective, particularly against pathogens resistant to penicillin. Another similar procedure, photopheresis, is intended to combat T-cell lymphoma and is FDA-approved for that purpose. I don’t expect Trump to know any of that because he’s not a doctor, he operates on “this works outside of the body, can we do something *similar* inside the body”, which is a perfectly reasonable train of thought. “Similar” does not mean “the same”, unless you intend to smear someone, in which case we should all collectively pretend that it does.


----------



## AncientBoi (Nov 30, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Yes, let’s not forget that he never suggested anyone should be drinking bleach, since that’s the line everyone bought hook, line and sinker, even though his speech was public. I quote:
> 
> ”Something like that” does not equal “injecting bleach” into a patient, he has never said that or suggested doing so as a method of treatment. He was asking a general question, and he’s not a doctor, so I don’t expect him to use correct terminology. Bronchoalveolar lavage, or bronchoalveolar washing, is an existing medical diagnostic technique which involves filling the lung with a controlled amount of fluid and then collecting it for analysis, it does precisely what the name suggest. It is not “outrageous” to think, off the top of your head, that it might be a potential medicine delivery system. As for UV, we’ve been using UV-A and other bands of ultraviolet in and outside of the body for various purposes for years, it has known antimicrobial purposes. UV-A blood irradiation isn’t practiced anymore and fell out of favour in the 1950’s due to the advent of advanced antibiotics and vaccines, but it used to be performed specifically for the purposes of dealing with pathogens and giving the immune system a boost. Now it has the status of alternative medicine, but some studies show that it remains effective, particularly against pathogens resistant to penicillin. I don’t expect Trump to know any of that because he’s not a doctor, he operates on “this works outside of the body, can we do something *similar* inside the body”, which is a perfectly reasonable train of thought. Similar does not equal the same, unless you intend to smear someone, in which case we should all collectively pretend that it does.



I stil; say  on tRuMp!


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 30, 2021)

A Vaccination Campaign is not only about the Effectiveness,but also about the ease of Administration and Trust in the Vaccine, in the Manufacturer .... 
It was always the Combination of both that made it possible to achieve the Goal. 
In the 1960s, when the Fight against Polio came down,the ease of administering the Oral Vaccine developed by Albert Sabin was key to Mass Vaccination,although a safer alternative,the intramuscular vaccine developed by Jonas Salk,was available.....

Anyways,1 Billion Vaccine Doses Pfizer/Moderna for 2022 and the Mandatory Vaccination Law from February 1, 2022 will not make it easier for People waiting for the Inactive Vaccines ...


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 30, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Yes, let’s not forget that he never suggested anyone should be drinking bleach, since that’s the line everyone bought hook, line and sinker, even though his speech was public. I quote:
> 
> ”Something like that” does not equal “injecting bleach” into a patient, he has never said that or suggested doing so as a method of treatment. He was asking a general question, and he’s not a doctor, so I don’t expect him to use correct terminology. Bronchoalveolar lavage, or bronchoalveolar washing, is an existing medical diagnostic technique which involves filling the lung with a controlled amount of fluid and then collecting it for analysis, it does precisely what the name suggest. It is not “outrageous” to think, off the top of your head, that it might be a potential medicine delivery system. As for UV, we’ve been using UV-A and other bands of ultraviolet in and outside of the body for various purposes for years, it has known antimicrobial purposes. UV-A blood irradiation isn’t practiced anymore and fell out of favour in the 1950’s due to the advent of advanced antibiotics and vaccines, but it used to be performed specifically for the purposes of dealing with pathogens and giving the immune system a boost. Now it has the status of mostly alternative medicine, but some studies show that it remains effective, particularly against pathogens resistant to penicillin. Another similar procedure, photopheresis, is intended to combat T-cell lymphoma and is FDA-approved for that purpose. I don’t expect Trump to know any of that because he’s not a doctor, he operates on “this works outside of the body, can we do something *similar* inside the body”, which is a perfectly reasonable train of thought. “Similar” does not mean “the same”, unless you intend to smear someone, in which case we should all collectively pretend that it does.


Lol, must be hard for you to breathe so far up his arse? Yeah, I'm sure he meant all that stuff you said but he just lacked the terminology. Anyway, that was an overly defensive response to a fairly non-specific sentence of mine. I meant exactly what you quoted and didn't say anything about drinking bleach, personally I just choose to be less kind about what he might've been thinking. The far more egregious part was appointing that little weasel Fauci.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 30, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Lol, must be hard for you to breathe so far up his arse? Yeah, I'm sure he meant all that stuff you said but he just lacked the terminology. Anyway, that was an overly defensive response to a fairly non-specific sentence of mine. I meant exactly what you quoted and didn't say anything about drinking bleach, personally I just choose to be less kind about what he might've been thinking. The far more egregious part was appointing that little weasel Fauci.


I never said that this is “precisely what he meant”. I don’t know what he meant because I’m not in his head. My assumption is that he knows absolutely nothing about medicine because he’s not a doctor and doesn’t seem to have even a passing interest in the subject. My post was more about the outrage following his statement - everybody got their panties in a bunch as if he suggested something completely outrageous when there is medical precedent for similar therapies. As for Doctor Pinokio, it’s not like he didn’t have the credentials considering his career in the NIH and his achievements in the fight against HIV, he’s not unqualified, he just happens to speak out of both sides of his mouth half the time. I’m pretty confident Trump regretted putting the spotlight on him ever since considering his constant criticism of “the good doctor”. Either way, COVID response wasn’t the work of one man anyway, Anthony Fauci is just a celebrity doctor and a spokesperson for the government.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 30, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I never said that this is “precisely what he meant”. I don’t know what he meant because I’m not in his head. My assumption is that he knows absolutely nothing about medicine because he’s not a doctor and doesn’t seem to have even a passing interest in the subject. My post was more about the outrage following his statement - everybody got their panties in a bunch as if he suggested something completely outrageous when there is medical precedent for similar therapies.


Him not being a doctor was kind of the point, it probably would've been better for the president to not use words like that in any such context regardless of what he was thinking at the time. His poor choice of wording also resulted in a bit of a fuckup on another occasion, although I would stop short of saying incited. Based on that outcome, it wouldn't be a stretch to assume some people did indeed end up drinking disinfectant.


----------



## stanna (Nov 30, 2021)

https://www.banned.video/watch?id=61a62829f3f30172e5ccc249


----------



## wartutor (Nov 30, 2021)

stanna said:


> https://www.banned.video/watch?id=61a2d6e091e3df6cfc414aa1


Holy shit wtf did i just watch. Ok i change my stance shut up and get vaccinated it will not effect your brain in the least bit


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 30, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Him not being a doctor was kind of the point, it probably would've been better for the president to not use words like that in any such context regardless of what he was thinking at the time. His poor choice of wording also resulted in a bit of a fuckup on another occasion, although I would stop short of saying incited. Based on that outcome, it wouldn't be a stretch to assume some people did indeed end up drinking disinfectant.


I can’t think of one confirmed instance, and it would’ve been plastered all over the news if it did happen, although I am open to the idea that someone did because people are stupid. Stupid people do stupid things for a billion stupid reasons, I don’t concern myself with that. It’s the same deal with HCQ, where there was one confirmed instance of someone using it, but as it turns out, it was a homicide according to the police (woman killing husband and pretending she did it “because Trump” when caught, I’ll take Nice Attempt for $500, Alex). But yes, he was a great shit talker, and had a penchant to speak on subjects he knew nothing about with confidence. Hilarious, God bless that man.


----------



## subcon959 (Nov 30, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Hilarious,


That we can agree on, I was never interested in US politics before (or after) but the entertainment value was immense for those few years.

On the Alex Jones video, I'm kinda left without words... Just wow.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 30, 2021)

Greece going in for daily fines for the over 60s without it
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59474808?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA

Now the temptation is to say "oh Greece" and to be fair over 60s have some of the lowest GDP as a group anyway so broke as you like Greece probably wants them to pay their way, however end result is still government force and not even in a manner that will likely bother the jet set class.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 30, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> But yes, he was a great shit talker, and had a penchant to speak on subjects he knew nothing about with confidence. Hilarious, God bless that man.


Awfully nice way of saying he was a narcissistic sociopath willing to sacrifice any number of his cult members in any number of ways so long as he thought it would let him retain power.  And his worst-in-the-world pandemic response unfortunately spread suffering and death to nearly everybody in the US, not just those who supported him.  Just goes to show a coked-out circus clown will always be a coked-out circus clown, no matter how much responsibility you heap on his shoulders.  The role was too big for him.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 30, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> We have a very different recollection of the events, except only one of those is backed up by actual sources. I remember pretty distinctly that “sources”, including the WHO, dismissed the virus to the point that even human-to-human transmission was questioned, until it was too late.
> 
> 
> The people most concerned about the virus, back when it was still called “spontaneous pneumonia”, were exclusively on the “conspiracy theorist” side of the Internet, and the sole reason why they were concerned was because the Chinese government was welding people’s doors shut and at the same time, the WHO was informing the world that “there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission” and we should all chill. The containment actions taken by the Chinese government that people saw with their own eyes thanks to whistleblowers online did not match what we were being told, so doubt was a rather natural reaction. The overwhelming sentiment among the right was “they know something that they’re not telling us”, and this sentiment turned out to be correct.


Not seeing the evidence that they were already welding doors shut while WHO was investigating at the time nor am I sure that's even enough evidence for WHO to make the the call that it was human transmissible. 

Besides, I doubt that the people that was concern when it was “spontaneous pneumonia” are the same people "here", that can't even be bothered to put a mask on.



Foxi4 said:


> Here’s Axios kindly reminding readers that if they’re panicking about the coronavirus, they should be more concerned about the flu:
> 
> https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-i...tes-64311582-2031-40af-8ec3-9ff68341d4f3.html
> 
> ...


I admit I was commenting halfheartedly, but was thinking of the layman. Articles like that made even after being declared "Global Emergency" were dumb and don't excuse the people that still call it "just the flu" until this day.



Foxi4 said:


> As for your quip regarding medical quackery, I’m not entirely sure why you ascribe it specifically to right-wingers considering it’s historically the left that subscribes to all sorts of alternative medicine, from “healing crystals” all the way to homeopathy. Not five minutes ago in historical terms the most wealthy and densely liberal areas of America had the lowest rates of vaccination against small pox etc., comparable to South Sudan - those people are not rabid Trump supporters, they’re as blue as the open sea.
> 
> https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/380252/


Not going to pretend to know how much alternative medicine was used by the two wings before, but that clearly isn't the case now dealing with this pandemic.

You completely sidestep the question of where the middle ground is between vaccines and bioweapons. 




Foxi4 said:


> Regarding Trump, he took immediate action by banning travel from affected areas, he tried to prevent a national panic by downplaying the virus in speeches, but handled the situation fairly well in terms of actions taken, which is completely understandable to me. This conversation is two years out of date. You can have your own opinion on the subject, but last I checked, when banning travel, a perfectly sensible mitigation strategy, was introduced, the left responded with “that’s racist”, and with Nancy Pelosi parading across Chinatown to lick some doorknobs. I’m sorry, you might have acute amnesia, but I don’t.


Putting maskless rallies Trump aside, you actually made me look up what Nancy Pelosi was doing, when I didn't even care at the time. Apparently she was just trying to lessen the growing resentment at Chinatown and wasn't even downplaying the virus.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 1, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Awfully nice way of saying he was a narcissistic sociopath willing to sacrifice any number of his cult members in any number of ways so long as he thought it would let him retain power.  And his worst-in-the-world pandemic response unfortunately spread suffering and death to nearly everybody in the US, not just those who supported him.  Just goes to show a coked-out circus clown will always be a coked-out circus clown, no matter how much responsibility you heap on his shoulders.  The role was too big for him.


The response was fine, comparatively speaking, if the numbers from John Hopkins are to be believed. The rest of your post is hearsay that you can’t possibly back up.


KingVamp said:


> Not seeing the evidence that they were already welding doors shut while WHO was investigating at the time nor am I sure that's even enough evidence for WHO to make the the call that it was human transmissible.
> 
> Besides, I doubt that the people that was concern when it was “spontaneous pneumonia” are the same people "here", that can't even be bothered to put a mask on.


There was plenty of evidence available at the time, if you’re “not seeing it” then perhaps you weren’t looking considering the whistleblower posts were plastered all over Twitter and Reddit, often promptly removed because “conspiracy”. You could easily find videos of various authoritarian countermeasures from doors being welded to people being arrested and placed in forced quarantine in one of the many hastily-built wards with no doorknobs on the inside. The western press didn’t catch on with what was happening until February when everybody realised “it’s not a prank, bro”. One of those whistleblowers famously died from COVID shortly after being admonished by the government for “spreading false rumours on the Internet”. Guess they weren’t false after all. He wasn’t a “conspiracy theorist” either, he was a doctor from the Wuhan province.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Wenliang


> I admit I was commenting halfheartedly, but was thinking of the layman. Articles like that made even after being declared "Global Emergency" were dumb and don't excuse the people that still call it "just the flu" until this day.


I never said that it was an excuse. It is absolutely the same group of people, they simply changed their mind based on the mortality rate, which still sits between 2 and 3% - they expected the virus to be significantly more deadly than that. That’s not to say that it *isn’t* deadly, not to mention that death isn’t the only possible outcome, but that’s precisely how the tides have turned over time.


> Not going to pretend to know how much alternative medicine was used by the two wings before, but that clearly isn't the case now dealing with this pandemic.


Completely irrelevant answer. People who are stupid exist on either side of the aisle, idiocy has no political affiliation.


> You completely sidestep the question of where the middle ground is between vaccines and bioweapons.


I didn’t sidestep anything - I simply ignored it because I’m not easily baited into responding to hyperbolic nonsense. The obvious middle ground I meant was “okay, we’re dealing with a highly contagious virus, let’s make an effort to not spread it around, but at the same time let’s not panic like it’s the end of the world because we’ve narrowed down what makes a person exceptionally at risk - old age and pre-existing conditions. If we work together, maybe we can beat it *and* continue living in conditions about as close to normalcy as possible”. Unfortunately we’re kind of past that point as we approach year 2 of 2 weeks to stop the spread, so the next possible solution is accepting the new normal.


> Putting maskless rallies Trump aside, you actually made me look up what Nancy Pelosi was doing, when I didn't even care at the time. Apparently she was just trying to lessen the growing resentment at Chinatown and wasn't even downplaying the virus.


Of course she did, it wasn’t at all a publicity stunt, just like that time when Kamala Harris explicitly stated that she will not get vaccinated if “Trump tells her to” because… Trump has any influence on how vaccines are manufactured? I don’t know, I didn’t understand it either. I assume we trust the science, unless a president we don’t like is in charge, in which case we don’t trust the science because Trump himself, personally, develops the vaccine in-between golf sessions.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The response was fine, comparatively speaking, if the numbers from John Hopkins are to be believed.


The response was only "fine" if the objective was to kill as many Americans in a single year as possible.  If the objective was anything else, it was an utter and complete failure of leadership on a level rarely seen throughout human history.  A golden retriever as president surely would've done less damage, as the dog wouldn't have undermined medical science experts at every turn along the way, or encouraged an undercurrent of anti-vaxx nutjobs to overtake his party's official policy stance.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 1, 2021)

Xzi said:


> The response was only "fine" if the objective was to kill as many Americans in a single year as possible.  If the objective was anything else, it was an utter and complete failure of leadership on a level rarely seen throughout human history.  A golden retriever as president surely would've done less damage, as the dog wouldn't have undermined medical science experts at every turn along the way, or encouraged an undercurrent of anti-vaxx nutjobs to overtake his party's official policy stance.


Again, specify what you mean using any kind of number. By the end of Trump’s term mortality was in the same neighbourhood as in European countries - between 2 and 3%. We’ve discussed this subject *back in 2020*, and I didn’t hear a salient argument then either, besides the usual “orange man bad”. Everybody fucked up COVID mitigation - no shit, you have a certain government of an Asian superpower to thank for that. The vaccination trajectory hasn’t particularly changed under Biden either - it was slowly accelerating under Trump, and it would’ve accelerated at the same rate regardless of who won the election. As a side note, when Biden was running, I was told he had some kind of magical plan. Is the plan in motion yet? Because I don’t see any major changes - quite the opposite, as the death toll in 2021 has just surpassed that of 2020, a year that started with total confusion and no effective treatment.

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/bidens-covid-death-milestone-biden-administration-trump-11637708781

Apparently he’s not doing any better than Trump, in spite of enormous medical advancements, including widespread vaccination and effective treatments. What do I know though, I just look at numbers and giggle.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The vaccination trajectory hasn’t particularly changed under Biden either - it was slowly accelerating under Trump, and it would’ve accelerated at the same rate regardless of who won the election. As a side note, when Biden was running, I was told he had some kind of magical plan. Is the plan in motion yet? Because I don’t see any major changes - quite the opposite, as the death toll in 2021 has just surpassed that of 2020, a year that started with total confusion and no effective treatment.


Nearly 500,000 died of COVID in the US last year compared to almost 300,000 so far this year.  And that's despite the fact that the anti-vaxx sentiment on the right hasn't gone away, if anything it's only become more prevalent.  It's unreasonable to expect that Biden should be capable of destroying a monster that Trump created, let alone one that's grown too feral for even its master to control.  We'll be dealing with the consequences of the failed response for years to come, they don't just disappear overnight.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 1, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Nearly 500,000 died of COVID in the US last year compared to almost 300,000 so far this year.  And that's despite the fact that the anti-vaxx sentiment on the right hasn't gone away, if anything it's only become more prevalent.  It's unreasonable to expect that Biden should be capable of destroying a monster that Trump created, let alone one that's grown too feral for even its master to control.  We'll be dealing with the consequences of the failed response for years to come, they don't just disappear overnight.


Hilariously inaccurate. Trump has repeatedly stated that people should get vaccinated and that he himself has taken the vaccine in spite of being a COVID survivor with a degree of natural immunity. He continues to do so during his rallies, often in spite of the crowd’s disapproval. The distrust regarding the vaccine is rooted in a more general distrust of the scientific and political establishment, and the belief that their pandemic containment measures are enacted to achieve political goals instead of in the interest of public health. Not that it matters, this is Joe Biden’s term, not Trump’s. I can’t wait to read future news reports using the same scapegoat. “It is the year 2077, we are observing one of the last ice caps melting in real time. 95% of experts agree that this is Trump’s fault. Trump’s preserved head has refused to comment as it was busy golfing with Richard Nixon’s preserved head at his new golf resort located on the moon. Back to you, Alice!”


----------



## Xzi (Dec 1, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Trump has repeatedly stated that people should get vaccinated and that he himself has taken the vaccine in spite of being a COVID survivor with a degree of natural immunity.


He got vaccinated quietly in January and didn't start advocating for vaccinations for his base until several months later, at which point he got booed and pivoted back to a wishy-washy stance.  Prior to that he had already advocated for several different..."alternative" treatments, and he took over health briefings despite having exactly zero medical or scientific knowledge.  If he isn't the father of anti-vaxx, "my ignorance is as good as the experts' knowledge" sentiment in the US, he's at the very least its uncle.



Foxi4 said:


> Not that it matters, this is Joe Biden’s term, not Trump’s.


True, and on the one hand he was called in to clean up Trump's mess, but on the other hand it's hard to look worse by comparison.  Deaths will decline from year-to-year as the virus tears through the anti-vaxx population.  Republicans now believe they have elections rigged enough via gerrymandering and state-level control that they can survive the voting population loss.  Of course if I had my way, the Dems would put up someone more exciting in 2024 regardless, but more exciting necessitates being more progressive, and the party is practically allergic to that.


----------



## weatMod (Dec 1, 2021)

Trump is a fucking  lying sack of shit too

he never had COVID ,  and he never got the vaccine either

at least not the same one he is trying to sell you

anyone  who actually believes  Trump and Barron had COVID and recovered in like 3 days  has a  single digit I.Q.



same goes for anyone who actually believes that  they are getting the same vax as the ruling class

you really have  to have few extra chromosomes to believe there is one vax for  everyone

and that  they  didn't already have their version back in September  before they released the virus
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1932366,00.html




Trump and everyone else on BOTH sides  of the  isle ALL had the REAL vax back in September of 2019

same of the media and big pharma and  the rest of the corporate  class

imagine letting the same people who released  the bioweapon on you after immunizing themselves with  their own special  version  before hand  inject you with something


LOL ,


----------



## Xzi (Dec 1, 2021)

weatMod said:


> he never had COVID , and he never got the vaccine either
> 
> at least not the same one he is trying to sell you
> 
> anyone who actually believes Trump and Barron had COVID and recovered in like 3 days has a single digit I.Q.


He was the president at the time, of course he had all the best treatments and doctors available to him (and his family).  Monoclonal antibody treatments speed the recovery of a lot of COVID-19 patients, but IIRC they're over $10,000 if you're uninsured.  Besides, my symptoms also lasted only about three days when I got infected with COVID-19.  It varies.


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 1, 2021)

Yeah, I'm going to leave it at that, so we can get back on topic.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 1, 2021)

Not to keep the off topic Trump stuff going but I do remember he wanted to close down travel from China and was met with a lot of "that's racist" opposition. The only reason I remember is because my wife was one of those people and I was trying to convince her it was a good idea to shutdown international travel before the numbers exploded.


----------



## Piqua (Dec 1, 2021)

RAHelllord said:


> I'm okay with vaccine mandates as long as they're sensible. For example disallowing nation wide access to public services that put a lot of strangers into tight spaces (public transit, publicly accessible institutions, libraries, schools, etc) unless the person is vaccinated. Then add fines if they try to access those things in person without being vaccinated. Exceptions would need to exist for people that can't get vaccinated, of course. But otherwise just fuck those people, if they can't be arsed to do what they can to protect other people around them no reason to allow them to participate in what society provides to them via taxes from everyone. If they don't want the shot they can just stay at home or in the woods and have their food delivered to them, that's their personal freedom right there.


The social contract would fail under your logic.  What would happen would be nobody would bother with rule of law.  No drivers licenses or insurance.  People would do whatever the hell they wanted when they wanted it.  If your precious vaccine worked you wouldn't need to be bothered or worried by other people and what they do with their bodies.

What you should be asking is how come holistic and alternative treatments have been shunned.  How come you can't sue the manufacturer if you get sick or die taking their crap.  Or why they want to wait 55 years to tell us what's in it?  Play russian roulette out of fear.  My mother took a flu shot in 2019 and it gave her 2 strokes.  No way in hell and I messing with this crap.


----------



## Piqua (Dec 1, 2021)

deinonychus71 said:


> I do keep myself heavily informed, although not exclusively through the news of one country, so I do believe I have a pretty good understanding of the situation in at least Europe and the US where I currently live. Even since Covid started the latter tends to get a repeat of what Europe suffered from a few weeks prior, so we'll see how it works this time.
> Regardless whether it can be fully eradicated or not, non vaccinated people are factually more likely to create a cluster, therefore endangering people.
> 
> Like you said, there's a balance, Europe chose to confine heavily during the first few phases of the pandemic, and while you will never be able to prove that it saved lives, let's just reasonably assume that not all scientists of the planet and not every single person in a government is corrupt and that the numbers are right, and it did save lives.
> ...


If you trust the United States government to give a shit about you, I highly recommend you read Medical Apartheid by Dr. Harriet Washington, who was fired as head of John Hopkins for putting this book out.  Also do yourself a solid and research the Tuskeegee Experiment.

The United states government is NEVER to be trusted.  As long as they can manipulate fear into the population thru "isms" (racism, sexism, etc) fear will rule the roost and the greater majority will commit societal suicide to get their point of political views across than listen and compromise with dissenting opinions.  

The US just loves the smell of bickering in the morning.


----------



## smf (Dec 1, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Greece going in for daily fines for the over 60s without it
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59474808?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA


Why didn't they call it the no vaxx tax?

The government funds the health system, so it's like taxing tobacco and alcohol.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 1, 2021)

smf said:


> I certainly don't want to live in a world full of those retards.


We can all help prevent suicide. The Lifeline provides 24/7, free and confidential support for people in distress, prevention and crisis resources for you or your loved ones, and best practices for professionals in the United States.

1-800-273-8255


----------



## smf (Dec 1, 2021)

Piqua said:


> If your precious vaccine worked you wouldn't need to be bothered or worried by other people and what they do with their bodies.


If you knew how vaccines worked, then you wouldn't make that argument.


----------



## smf (Dec 1, 2021)

tabzer said:


> We can all help prevent suicide. The Lifeline provides 24/7, free and confidential support for people in distress, prevention and crisis resources for you or your loved ones, and best practices for professionals in the United States.
> 
> 1-800-273-8255


You misunderstood, I wouldn't want to live in a world of the conspiracy theorists being right. They aren't, so I'm fine. If I'm wrong, then my 5g magnets will activate in two years time and I'll mercifully be dead.

Either way, by being vaccinated I have the best outcome.

I'm certainly not going to live my life watching some idiot on banned.video telling me how "we've cracked the code".


----------



## smf (Dec 1, 2021)

weatMod said:


> same goes for anyone who actually believes that  they are getting the same vax as the ruling class



Why would they bother?  It would increase the cost of developing the vaccines for no good reason.

They need staff and entire industries to manufacture things for them, it would be no good for them if they have nobody to rule.

It sounds like a paranoid delusion.



Xzi said:


> He got vaccinated quietly in January and didn't start advocating for vaccinations for his base until several months later, at which point he got booed and pivoted back to a wishy-washy stance.



Trump believes firmly, in whichever way the wind is blowing. He wants people to vote for him, he doesn't care what he says to make them want to vote for him.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 1, 2021)

smf said:


> They aren't



If your life depends on conspiracy theorists being wrong, then you are in trouble.  Conspiracies are afoot, but which theory is the most accurate?



smf said:


> Either way, by being vaccinated I have the best outcome.



Well, unless you can somehow factor out the free variable that you introduced into your system, I wouldn't know how to calculate the best outcome.  Here's to hoping for a good one!


----------



## smf (Dec 1, 2021)

tabzer said:


> If your life depends on conspiracy theorists being wrong, then you are in trouble.  Conspiracies are afoot, but which theory is the most accurate?



If the conspiracy theorists are right, then whatever dark powerful force is trying to kill everyone will succeed.

It might give you a sense of power to puff up your chest and think you can beat it, but if the things they imagine are true then there isn't any point at all in trying to stand up to it.

I'm not going to live in fear of the things the conspiracy theorists say, because they have no proof. Once you have proof then it's no longer a conspiracy theory, it's a conspiracy. A conspiracy theory is when you believe that there is a conspiracy so secret that there is no evidence, just clues that can be seen by the delusional.



tabzer said:


> Well, unless you can somehow factor out the free variable that you introduced into your system, I wouldn't know how to calculate the best outcome.  Here's to hoping for a good one!



They introduced a vaccine into my system which taught my immune system how to attack covid 19, that is it. Period.

Every food or drink you consume could have unknown effects in 10, 20, 30 years time. I try to avoid processed foods for health reasons, but I can't know if some pesticide that was used on the vegetables I eat will give me cancer. Same for the vaccine, maybe it's taken a year off all our lives or maybe it's done the opposite. Without proof, I can't form an opinion.

Worrying about it will drive me as crazy as the conspiracy theorists.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 1, 2021)

smf said:


> If the conspiracy theorists are right, then whatever dark powerful force is trying to kill everyone will succeed.
> 
> It might give you a sense of power to puff up your chest and think you can beat it, but if the things they imagine are true then there isn't any point at all in trying to stand up to it.



Well now, the idea in being able to identify a threat is learning how to defend yourself against it.  For every conspiracy theory, there is a countermeasure.  It's a bit disingenuous to lump all conspiracy theorists into one categorization.  Why not take it a step forward and lump all "theorists" together?  Someone on this board might suggest that to being anti-science, if they were an authentic human being.



smf said:


> They introduced a vaccine into my system which taught my immune system how to attack covid 19, that is it. Period.



Yes.  We've all been taking MRNA vaccines for how long now?  We already know pesticides are bad, and their contribution to their health seem to be minimized by your statements in order to boast confidence in something that's even more specialized in telling the human body how to act.


----------



## RAHelllord (Dec 1, 2021)

Piqua said:


> The social contract would fail under your logic.  What would happen would be nobody would bother with rule of law.  No drivers licenses or insurance.  People would do whatever the hell they wanted when they wanted it.  If your precious vaccine worked you wouldn't need to be bothered or worried by other people and what they do with their bodies.
> 
> What you should be asking is how come holistic and alternative treatments have been shunned.  How come you can't sue the manufacturer if you get sick or die taking their crap.  Or why they want to wait 55 years to tell us what's in it?  Play russian roulette out of fear.  My mother took a flu shot in 2019 and it gave her 2 strokes.  No way in hell and I messing with this crap.


Woah buddy, don't break a leg with that mental parkour there. A vaccine mandate snowballing into insurances and driver's licenses no longer being a thing is a hell of a leap.

Also, the vaccine works, you don't understand a thing about the immune system and evolutionary systems in regards to viruses and bacteria. As a US person you can't sue the vaccine manufacturer because all claims like that go through the HSRA in the US, and have been for decades: https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html

Maybe try getting your information from a reputable source first before just regurgitating misinformation.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 1, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Greece going in for daily fines for the over 60s without it
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59474808?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA
> 
> Now the temptation is to say "oh Greece" and to be fair over 60s have some of the lowest GDP as a group anyway so broke as you like Greece probably wants them to pay their way, however end result is still government force and not even in a manner that will likely bother the jet set class.


It confirms today´s Society "Attitude":
If you don not have the Money,to "alter" your Age/Appearance,you should not get old....


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 1, 2021)

Xzi said:


> He was the president at the time, of course he had all the best treatments and doctors available to him (and his family).  Monoclonal antibody treatments speed the recovery of a lot of COVID-19 patients, but IIRC they're over $10,000 if you're uninsured.  Besides, my symptoms also lasted only about three days when I got infected with COVID-19.  It varies.


Aparently Trump had Covid for a lot longer than the public were ever told.

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news...re-biden-debate-chief-staff-mark-meadows-book


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 1, 2021)

AmandaRose said:


> Aparently Trump had Covid for a lot longer than the public were ever told.
> 
> https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news...re-biden-debate-chief-staff-mark-meadows-book


‘Oh spit, you’ve gotta be trucking lidding me’


----------



## weatMod (Dec 1, 2021)

Xzi said:


> He was the president at the time, of course he had all the best treatments and doctors available to him (and his family).  Monoclonal antibody treatments speed the recovery of a lot of COVID-19 patients, but IIRC they're over $10,000 if you're uninsured.  Besides, my symptoms also lasted only about three days when I got infected with COVID-19.  It varies.


may be true about it not lasting   and being bad for some people, but I still think   it's bullshit

 nothing but  part of a viral ( no pun  intended) marketing campaign  for

 remdesivir,  regeneron,  and what ever else he claims to have been given


----------



## weatMod (Dec 1, 2021)

smf said:


> Why would they bother?  It would increase the cost of developing the vaccines for no good reason.
> 
> They need staff and entire industries to manufacture things for them, it would be no good for them if they have nobody to rule.
> 
> ...


"
Why would they bother? It would increase the cost of developing the vaccines for no good reason.

They need staff and entire industries to manufacture things for them, it would be no good for them if they have nobody to rule.

It sounds like a paranoid delusion."



did you look at the Time  article I posted

why wouldn't the same exact logic apply there then?

they did it in Germany  in 2009 for H1N1 so what makes you think  that it is not  SOP by now

 I am sure it wasn't the fist time nor the last time


the politicians ,police, military, and other civil  servants were  given the different  safe vaccine instead of the crap they gave the general public  and they got caught and people were pissed

but that is just the  one time they were caught not the only time it has happened you can be sure of that


----------



## smf (Dec 1, 2021)

weatMod said:


> they did it in Germany  in 2009 for H1N1 so what makes you think  that it is not  SOP by now


No, what happened in 2009 was like giving some people pfizer and some people moderna. There wasn't a special vaccine developed for the ruling class, given to them early and then one developed for the rest that was given later.

Mistakes were made, but that doesn't predict that mistakes will be made again.



tabzer said:


> Yes.  We've all been taking MRNA vaccines for how long now?


First trials were in 2015. All vaccines, medicines, food, etc were new once.

Novavax isn't an mRNA but contains an adjuvant, like the controversial vaccine pandemreix.

The J&J & oxford vaccine aren't mRNA, but are not as effective. Oxford is linked to clots in young people.

We're kinda hitting the limit of what is possible for us to achieve, a pandemic isn't something we can just wish away.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 1, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Yes.  We've all been taking MRNA vaccines for how long now?


The Experts are still "unsure"....
_
Maybe depending on the maybe upcoming 472 Virus Variants in the next Years,maybe...only One....
.......maybe every Month....maybe for the Rest of our Lifes...maybe.....it is good,they say......_


----------



## deinonychus71 (Dec 1, 2021)

Piqua said:


> If you trust the United States government to give a shit about you, I highly recommend you read Medical Apartheid by Dr. Harriet Washington, who was fired as head of John Hopkins for putting this book out.  Also do yourself a solid and research the Tuskeegee Experiment.
> 
> The United states government is NEVER to be trusted.  As long as they can manipulate fear into the population thru "isms" (racism, sexism, etc) fear will rule the roost and the greater majority will commit societal suicide to get their point of political views across than listen and compromise with dissenting opinions.
> 
> The US just loves the smell of bickering in the morning.



Although I live in America I'm not American, and I have access to media and newspaper from European countries as well.
And yes there are significant differences in tone (US media are entirely about emotions and commentary, never about providing the facts "as is" so people can build their own opinion, and I can't think of a single media that regularly sets up the stage for constructive debates between politicians -outside of the president debates-... I digress!), and sometimes delays in information, but generally the core of it matches.

I also refuse to deal in absolutes. I think it's disingenuous to claim that because a government committed atrocities in the past (what country hasn't...) means they are automatically still on with it. We should never blindly believe everything that we're being told, but that doesn't mean reject everything either. The same is true not just for government sources (that's for people who get their news from youtube/twitter lol).
A sane government gets its core information from a council of experts. Now whether it decides to act on it or not is a political matter. At least since Biden I haven't seen significant departures in the US communication versus Europe.

Also as an example doctors/professors aren't always "right" either:
A famous professor Trump based his whole speech about hydroxychloroquine is french professor Didier Raoult and recently appeared before a disciplinary panel for breaking the rules of ethics and making unproven claims. The french government repeated for months that his claims were not substantiated, almost 2 years they're still proven right.


----------



## djpannda (Dec 1, 2021)

Remember when there were people were Rebelling against the Polio, Rubella, Chicken Pox, Malaria, Hep C, and about 10 other Vaccines... funny.. I don't...


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 1, 2021)

djpannda said:


> Remember when there were people were Rebelling against the Polio, Rubella, Chicken Pox, Malaria, Hep C, and about 10 other Vaccines... funny.. I don't...


I do. It’s been a major topic of discussion for the last 20 years, for a variety of reasons - the idea that they cause autism, the misconception regarding mercury content (some contain thimerosal as an anti-fungal agent and preservative, which is an organic compound of mercury, but it *obviously* doesn’t have the toxic properties of metallic mercury, d’uh), aluminium content (see earlier point) and a zillion other silly misconceptions. Jim Carrey’s “Green our Vaccines” march comes to mind. It was actually a really popular movement among the Hollywood super stars, and among rich soccer moms who got the silly idea that pox and measles parties are totally a better way to gain immunity.


----------



## smf (Dec 1, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Well now, the idea in being able to identify a threat is learning how to defend yourself against it.



Defending yourself from an imaginary threat is either a waste of time, or a danger to yourself and others.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 1, 2021)

smf said:


> Defending yourself from an imaginary threat is either a waste of time, or a danger to yourself and others.


I think that's pretty obvious.  I don't think a single person here would generally disagree with that.  "Wasting time" is kind a relative statement though.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 1, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I don't think a single person here would generally disagree with that.


There are a lot of people here actively hurting themselves and others by refusing to get vaccinated, so you are incorrect.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 1, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There are a lot of people here actively hurting themselves and others by refusing to get vaccinated, so you are incorrect.


Agreeing with the statement and accurately assessing real threats are two different things.  This is just another example of you being pretentious.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 1, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Agreeing with the statement and accurately assessing real threats are two different things.  This is just another example of you being pretentious.


There are very real anti-vaxxers in this thread spewing very imaginary threats purported to be associated with the vaccines, and they're hurting themselves and others while doing so by not getting vaccinated. It isn't pretentious to acknowledge this very provable fact.


----------



## Dakitten (Dec 1, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Agreeing with the statement and accurately assessing real threats are two different things.  This is just another example of you being pretentious.


Tabz is so personal with his attacks lately. Shame there aren't any mods participating in this thread to regulate such behavior... for folks on the right, anyways.


----------



## weatMod (Dec 1, 2021)

when the "conspiracy theorists"

predict the  entire agenda right before it happens....



posted September 20th 2019










anyone who was paying attention could have seen this coming they broadcasted  what they were going to do

event 201  ,lockstep ,etc.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 1, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There are very real anti-vaxxers in this thread spewing very imaginary threats purported to be associated with the vaccines, and they're hurting themselves and others while doing so by not getting vaccinated. It isn't pretentious to acknowledge this very provable fact.



You aren't even responding to what I pointed out.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 1, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You aren't even responding to what I pointed out.



@smf said defending yourself from an imaginary threat is either a waste of time, or a danger to yourself and others.
You said this is obvious and that you didn't think "a single person here would generally disagree with that."
There are numerous anti-vaxxers here who are "defending against an imaginary threat" to their own detriment and to the detriment of others.
This shows you were mistaken. I'm not sure how to make it more clear.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 1, 2021)

weatMod said:


> anyone who was paying attention could have seen this coming they broadcasted what they were going to do


Anyone who was paying attention knows that infectious disease experts started warning that we were overdue for another major pandemic around 2012.  The Obama administration took those warnings seriously and established a federal pandemic response team, which the Trump administration then disbanded in 2017.


----------



## weatMod (Dec 1, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Anyone who was paying attention knows that infectious disease experts started warning that we were overdue for another major pandemic around 2012.  The Obama administration took those warnings seriously and established a federal pandemic response team, which the Trump administration then disbanded in 2017.


Event 201 was a lot more specific than that

and  I have family who got  an early warning in September too
they live in NY  and work around these kids of people (goldman sachs ) , have extremely high profile neighbors in the west village 

multi million $ brownstone,  make at least 7 figures 

they knew,  they  were told to prep ,  the told my aunt to prep and bought her supplies 

there is evidence of foreknowledge all over the place , and I know personally   people knew so this was definitely planned


----------



## tabzer (Dec 2, 2021)

Lacius said:


> @smf said defending yourself from an imaginary threat is either a waste of time, or a danger to yourself and others.
> You said this is obvious and that you didn't think "a single person here would generally disagree with that."
> There are numerous anti-vaxxers here who are "defending against an imaginary threat" to their own detriment and to the detriment of others.
> This shows you were mistaken. I'm not sure how to make it more clear.



Something happened between step 2 and step 3 and I pointed it out.  That's what I called pretentious.  Accurately so.  You want to talk over me, that's fine.  I'm sure everyone here would benefit from hearing more from you.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Something happened between step 2 and step 3 and I pointed it out.  That's what I called pretentious.  Accurately so.  You want to talk over me, that's fine.  I'm sure everyone here would benefit from hearing more from you.


If you want to tell me specifically where I was mistaken, instead of lobbing personal attacks, be sure to tag me. I'm not holding my breath.

If a person is so focused on imaginary dangers that they don't protect themselves from real dangers, my point stands.


----------



## Lucaserf (Dec 2, 2021)

weatMod said:


> Event 201 was a lot more specific than that
> 
> and  I have family who got  an early warning in September too
> they live in NY  and work around these kids of people (goldman sachs ) , have extremely high profile neighbors in the west village
> ...


schizo posting time


----------



## Piqua (Dec 2, 2021)

smf said:


> If you knew how vaccines worked, then you wouldn't make that argument.


This isn't a vaccine.  You people acting like this is the same gift from God as polio when its really an experiment from a few devils.  It took the polio vaccine 10 years to come into fruition, a POTUS that suffered and died from it, and a couple hundred willing participants that were given full disclosure on side effects and risks.

Now tell me Rona had the same thing....I'll wait.


----------



## Piqua (Dec 2, 2021)

weatMod said:


> when the "conspiracy theorists"
> 
> predict the  entire agenda right before it happens....
> 
> ...



This was posted September 2019.  This was SPOT ON.  Anybody still believing these vaccines are helping the spread of something with a 99% recovery rate deserves the martial law they get.


----------



## Deleted member 491410 (Dec 2, 2021)

Piqua said:


> This isn't a vaccine.  You people acting like this is the same gift from God as polio when its really an experiment from a few devils.  It took the polio vaccine 10 years to come into fruition, a POTUS that suffered and died from it, and a couple hundred willing participants that were given full disclosure on side effects and risks.
> 
> Now tell me Rona had the same thing....I'll wait.


"Rona" had the same thing, but it jumped through a lot of bureaucracy that would otherwise have slowed the ability to do testing and research. It was developed faster due to being a coronavirus, of which we already had lots of knowledge about as a general group (due to SARS in the mid 2000s). It was developed faster because it is somewhat related to SARS (hence the name SARS-CoV-2) and we had already developed a vaccine for it. It was developed faster because it was realized how incredibly spreadable the virus is compared to SARS and other coronaviruses before it, and the need was recognised to put "all hands on deck" so to speak. It was developed faster because when people were working on the Polio vaccine in the 40s and 50s into the early 60s, technology and scientific advancement was not nearly as far ahead as it is today. The moderna COVID vaccine was initially tested on 120 people as part of phase 1 clinical trials, similar to that of the trials done on various vaccines in the early 1960s for Polio. As the efficacy of the trials were shown to be good, the test subject amount increased, just as any vaccine trial would. They have now conducted three stages of trials on Moderna, with the largest trial having 15,210 participants who recieved the shot. This third stage of trials was in July of 2020. The results continued to show as the first and second stages did that it decreased the severity of symptoms, and reduced the likelihood of catching it altogether to a large degree. I do suggest you read the journal about it, it's quite interesting. I'd link the journal posted by the New England Journal of Medicine about Moderna, but I cannot due to posting restrictions on such a new account. Look it up for me, Moderna has links to the journals and other info on all the trials they completed on their website.

Anyway, y'all who aren't vaccinated because you're scared of the vaccine are just too lazy to believe in the facts provided to you in public scientific journals and other directly reputable sources. Don't believe big media? Fine, then read up on and believe in peer-reviewed, scientific study, provided in public scientific journals. For all the vaccines. I'm only singling out Moderna as I have experience with it, having got both my shots in March and April of 2021, as soon as they were available to me.

Haven't died yet, or become magnetic, or started producing 5G signals, nor has the levels of anything in my blood changed since the shot (I get regular bloodwork as part of other, unrelated medical care). Get vaccinated. Seriously. The benefits to the safety you provide yourself, others, and now even your quality of life, will generally just get better.


----------



## Deleted member 491410 (Dec 2, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> In your risk-reward analysis there is no need to tolerate people, one I might question if it is coloured by your personal perception (you have previously claimed to be especially prone to such things, and maybe have those in your life that are similarly so). For others it can differ. Detrimental is also something that gets to be qualified, though there are detriments.
> I don't see it being a misuse -- it is a fairly trite concept in line with similarly trite notions of free speech, freedom of religion and various other things. Agree with what you have to say is one thing but right to say it and all that. Too many qualifiers and you risk losing the entire thing, and frankly I don't see this as being near any kind of real hardline approach being forced lest humanity fail or something.
> 
> Typing on a phone? Rabid spreading is amusing I take it that means rapid.
> ...


As for you, all I can say is I'm disappointed this is the kind of person GBATemp allows onto the Editorial staff. Anti-Vax, seemingly Anti-Abortion. Żegnam, you dolt.




Your browser is not able to display this video.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 2, 2021)

LunaDook said:


> As for you, all I can say is I'm disappointed this is the kind of person GBATemp allows onto the Editorial staff. Anti-Vax, seemingly Anti-Abortion. Żegnam, you dolt.
> View attachment 287833


Not sure how you came to that conclusion, even with the contents of this thread as a sole source of information. Though roll on the mischaracterisation. That way the best flames lie.


----------



## Deleted member 491410 (Dec 2, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Not sure how you came to that conclusion, even with the contents of this thread as a sole source of information. Though roll on the mischaracterisation. That way the best flames lie.


Then clear it up. That's the way your comments here read to me. When someone makes fun of "My Body, My Choice" they're probably not for abortion. When they consistantly talk about how the vaccine is bad and mandates are bad, they're probably anti-vax.

Or again, as you said, you can just not bother and consider me a speck not worth listening to. Up to you!


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 2, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There are a lot of people here actively hurting themselves and others by refusing to get vaccinated, so you are incorrect.


Not refusing,but not accepting vaccination every 2 -3 Months.....and many other "Side Effects"....
Remember Polio,Tetanus every 9,10 Years ? But ok,this is no Comparison you accept.

And to reassure you, the EMA approvals/permissions of the alternative Vaccines "last" .... probably until AFTER February 1st, 2021 .... but these are not arguments that interest you either ...

Main Thing is:


----------



## Deleted member 491410 (Dec 2, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> Not refusing,but not accepting vaccination every 2 -3 Months.....and many other "Side Effects"....
> Remember Polio,Tetanus every 9,10 Years ? But ok,this is no Comparison you accept.
> 
> And to reassure you, the EMA approvals/permissions of the alternative Vaccines "last" .... probably until AFTER February 1st, 2021 .... but these are not arguments that interest you either ...
> ...


can u plz provide translation


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 2, 2021)

LunaDook said:


> Then clear it up. That's the way your comments here read to me. When someone makes fun of "My Body, My Choice" they're probably not for abortion. When they consistantly talk about how the vaccine is bad and mandates are bad, they're probably anti-vax.
> 
> Or again, as you said, you can just not bother and consider me a speck not worth listening to. Up to you!


Where did I consider people specks not worth listening to? It occasionally happens but I would rather drag people up, or allow others reading a point to contemplate instead.

But if I must be FAST6191, explainer of jokes, ruiner of good humour, spoiler of speedreading (and the generally uninformed) flamebait... Thread has mostly run its course at this point I guess.

Did I make fun of the term? I thought I was contrasting the generally held slogan with the seeming stomping on its head and pissing on its corpse that mandates for something like this take the form of. I do have a long stated opinion on abortion in several threads around here if you really care -- far from the only aspect of the "debate" I generally consider a non one (it really is a handful of Americans, some Polish and some Irish that care) but an important one.

Did I ever say the vaccine, of which there are actually several with their own perks and downsides, is bad? Did I even say people should not get it? If you want to go further my opinions on vaccinations as a general concept do have a fairly long stated version on this site, probably in stark contrast with that you have imagined me as well if this little exchange is anything to go by.

Mandates are a breach of fundamental and unambiguous medical ethics from where I sit and have any number of parallels. Might be a nice one, one of many, at some levels to ponder the breaching of but is utopia ever achieved at the point of a gun? Even if it is then is this really a good call for such drastic action?


----------



## Deleted member 491410 (Dec 2, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> Not refusing,but not accepting vaccination every 2 -3 Months.....and many other "Side Effects"....
> Remember Polio,Tetanus every 9,10 Years ? But ok,this is no Comparison you accept.
> 
> And to reassure you, the EMA approvals/permissions of the alternative Vaccines "last" .... probably until AFTER February 1st, 2021 .... but these are not arguments that interest you either ...
> ...


Trolling aside (we do a little), vaccination status is something you can choose and is selfish in this case to not take. Jews (as an ethno-religious group) didn't have a choice. It's partial ethnicity for many.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 2, 2021)

LunaDook said:


> didn't have a choice. It's partial ethnicity for many.


If you read the Thread please - Februar 1st 2022 Unvaccinated have also no Choice in Austria.


----------



## Deleted member 491410 (Dec 2, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Where did I consider people specks not worth listening to? It occasionally happens but I would rather drag people up, or allow others reading a point to contemplate instead.
> 
> But if I must be FAST6191, explainer of jokes, ruiner of good humour, spoiler of speedreading (and the generally uninformed) flamebait... Thread has mostly run its course at this point I guess.
> 
> ...


You told me to "Though roll on the mischaracterisation." so I assumed you wouldn't be up for discussion. You made that "joke" about the slogan multiple times. It stops being a joke after the first 2 or 3 times.

I'm not happy about the mandates either, let me set the record straight (I wish they didn't exist), but the difference is I see a safe, clear path to those having problems with them to be able to work through them. No mandate has affected me this entire time. I got a vaccination I read into the trials on and deemed safe. Many choose not to due to misinformation they chose to believe. I think anti-vax sentiment is stupid, I think people who take horse paste are stupid, and that... Had more of our populations been vaccinated, these mandates wouldn't be coming into effect to try and protect the vulnerable in a not-yet-reached herd immunity population.

The excuses that COVID kills few is not really true, because the data was skewed by masking and extra sanitation almost immediately. It's impossible to point to numbers when COVID has spread all across the world but people are masking and sanitizing and go "look deaths low". Look at the numbers early on, when we weren't doing anything. They may not be much larger at first but you have to take into account the spread of the virus at the time and the number of potential infections that could take place. Less overall potential infections, less actual infections, less deaths. Needs to be put in context.

In an earlier post you seem to suggest that the side effects of the Vaccine are worse then the disease itself. Please, do some research and look at the 8 billion shots of various COVID vaccines (estimated) given across the world, then compare that to the 2.6 million side effect reports on VigiAccess. Then look into those reports. Oh, 16,000 reported deaths. For a Vaccine that's been given to ~4 billion people.

0.0004%

I could dive deeper into hatred for the mandate but overall, I don't like it either. I just know that it's also not affecting me, because I made the decision to get vaccinated to protect others and myself. The comparisons to Nazi germany and the way the Jews were treated is a bullshit right-wing conspiracy theorist talking point to scare people.

I'm out.


----------



## Deleted member 491410 (Dec 2, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> If you read the Thread please - Februar 1st 2022 Unvaccinated have also no Choice in Austria.


The unvaxxed have a choice to get the vaccine or be denied services. I sincerely do not expect this will lead to killing the unvaxxed, as I've heard spread about mandates all over the internet.

Jews don't have a choice to be Jews. They were gassed for being people of a certain ethno-religious group.

Unvaxxed folks are gonna lose access to some services, I guess. _Poor unvaccinated folk_.


----------



## Piqua (Dec 2, 2021)

LunaDook said:


> "Rona" had the same thing, but it jumped through a lot of bureaucracy that would otherwise have slowed the ability to do testing and research. It was developed faster due to being a coronavirus, of which we already had lots of knowledge about as a general group (due to SARS in the mid 2000s). It was developed faster because it is somewhat related to SARS (hence the name SARS-CoV-2) and we had already developed a vaccine for it. It was developed faster because it was realized how incredibly spreadable the virus is compared to SARS and other coronaviruses before it, and the need was recognised to put "all hands on deck" so to speak. It was developed faster because when people were working on the Polio vaccine in the 40s and 50s into the early 60s, technology and scientific advancement was not nearly as far ahead as it is today. The moderna COVID vaccine was initially tested on 120 people as part of phase 1 clinical trials, similar to that of the trials done on various vaccines in the early 1960s for Polio. As the efficacy of the trials were shown to be good, the test subject amount increased, just as any vaccine trial would. They have now conducted three stages of trials on Moderna, with the largest trial having 15,210 participants who recieved the shot. This third stage of trials was in July of 2020. The results continued to show as the first and second stages did that it decreased the severity of symptoms, and reduced the likelihood of catching it altogether to a large degree. I do suggest you read the journal about it, it's quite interesting. I'd link the journal posted by the New England Journal of Medicine about Moderna, but I cannot due to posting restrictions on such a new account. Look it up for me, Moderna has links to the journals and other info on all the trials they completed on their website.
> 
> Anyway, y'all who aren't vaccinated because you're scared of the vaccine are just too lazy to believe in the facts provided to you in public scientific journals and other directly reputable sources. Don't believe big media? Fine, then read up on and believe in peer-reviewed, scientific study, provided in public scientific journals. For all the vaccines. I'm only singling out Moderna as I have experience with it, having got both my shots in March and April of 2021, as soon as they were available to me.
> 
> Haven't died yet, or become magnetic, or started producing 5G signals, nor has the levels of anything in my blood changed since the shot (I get regular bloodwork as part of other, unrelated medical care). Get vaccinated. Seriously. The benefits to the safety you provide yourself, others, and now even your quality of life, will generally just get better.


I'm not getting vaccinated.  Period.  Why don't you look up the Tuskeegee Experiment.  Or Reagen's handling of AIDS.  I'm old enough to remember that time and nutjobs like the provaxed are now weren't even going that hard on the gays back then.  So you hope for the best and in five years we will see how those S Proteins are doing in your organs and what health issues you've developed from God knows what.  Maybe you'll be lucky and live to see what's in it if Pfizer and Moderna ever give transparency. 

Oh right...https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/wait-what-fda-wants-55-years-process-foia-request-over-vaccine-data-2021-11-18/


----------



## Deleted member 491410 (Dec 2, 2021)

Piqua said:


> I'm not getting vaccinated.  Period.  Why don't you look up the Tuskeegee Experiment.  Or Reagen's handling of AIDS.  I'm old enough to remember that time and nutjobs like the provaxed are now weren't even going that hard on the gays back then.  So you hope for the best and in five years we will see how those S Proteins are doing in your organs and what health issues you've developed from God knows what.  Maybe you'll be lucky and live to see what's in it if Pfizer and Moderna ever give transparency.
> 
> Oh right...https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/wait-what-fda-wants-55-years-process-foia-request-over-vaccine-data-2021-11-18/


Cool story bro.


----------



## Deleted member 491410 (Dec 2, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> quoted post cut to make the post smaller


On top of that, you're just straight up comparing saving people from covid with vaccines to people with extra weight, asking why we don't outlaw them. Interestingly, having extra weight on your body doesn't kill others! What a fun fact. Being overweight isn't contagious! What a fun fact number 2! 

If you want to argue you're not anti-abortion and whatnot and just hate the mandates, I can at least recognize guaranteed fat-phobia and classism. Enough for me to not give a shit about what you have to say.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Dec 2, 2021)

LunaDook said:


> As for you, all I can say is I'm disappointed this is the kind of person GBATemp allows onto the Editorial staff. Anti-Vax, seemingly Anti-Abortion. Żegnam, you dolt.
> View attachment 287833


just wanna say that this is one of the best videos ive ever seen
ight, back to lurking in this thread


----------



## Deleted member 491410 (Dec 2, 2021)

Julie_Pilgrim said:


> just wanna say that this is one of the best videos ive ever seen
> ight, back to lurking in this thread






Your browser is not able to display this video.




Have another


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 2, 2021)

LunaDook said:


> You told me to "Though roll on the mischaracterisation." so I assumed you wouldn't be up for discussion. You made that "joke" about the slogan multiple times. It stops being a joke after the first 2 or 3 times.
> 
> I'm not happy about the mandates either, let me set the record straight (I wish they didn't exist), but the difference is I see a safe, clear path to those having problems with them to be able to work through them. No mandate has affected me this entire time. I got a vaccination I read into the trials on and deemed safe. Many choose not to due to misinformation they chose to believe. I think anti-vax sentiment is stupid, I think people who take horse paste are stupid, and that... Had more of our populations been vaccinated, these mandates wouldn't be coming into effect to try and protect the vulnerable in a not-yet-reached herd immunity population.
> 
> ...


You can try to be humour police. Rarely a good look though.

I am not seeing how mandates or quicker action (assuming it was physically possible -- even if it was a single shot of saline the physical realities of production rates, needles, room to do it... makes it a stretch for first world countries, never mind third world shitholes, which seem to be the main producers of all these fun variants at this point and probably a few more besides that maybe did not make it far yet -- if antibiotics is a big deal to many places there then genetic sequencing and virus isolation is probably not high on the agenda). Given the general nature of such things even the precious immunocompromised population probably ought to cower in fear in their home even in the magical 100% doubled up and I guess boosted now save those immunocompromised/allergic to egg/contradindicated... set.


Care to point me at where I said side effects were worse than the disease? I recall saying in various people's risk reward (which kind of has to be a personal affair when it all comes down to it, outside of truly radical scenarios anyway which this is not even close from where I sit -- wants to be way more contagious and way more deadly for that one) it might rise to that, and offered the popular "tragedy is when I cut my finger, comedy is when you fall down a well and die" notion as an aspect of that. If you somehow savour that statement then I would call it a poor estimate of risk.

Masks as a positive effect to that degree? Maybe if people could wear them then there would have been a real perk. As it stands the greater benefit went to the mask makers and those that enjoyed their little adult safety blanket. Time lags between mask mandates, supplies of hand sanitiser (most of which is probably ill effective by pure chemistry, anti viral being a rather higher concentrate than most used, and poor use -- not so many doing a surgeon scrub really).
Equally positive test rates vs death rates. Paints a bit of a picture there as far as lethality.

"I just know that it's also not affecting me"
Give or take services you rely on being troubled by it then that seems so very close to "if you have nothing to hide you have you have nothing to fear", possibly whilst still having curtains on your house.




LunaDook said:


> On top of that, you're just straight up comparing saving people from covid with vaccines to people with extra weight, asking why we don't outlaw them. Interestingly, having extra weight on your body doesn't kill others! What a fun fact. Being overweight isn't contagious! What a fun fact number 2!
> 
> If you want to argue you're not anti-abortion and whatnot and just hate the mandates, I can at least recognize guaranteed fat-phobia and classism. Enough for me to not give a shit about what you have to say.
> 
> View attachment 287843



Some were all "but if they get it then no treatment for you" and that was mainly for that. They cost a lot of medical services up and down the line (your picture of my post being some of those, had some better ones elsewhere, especially the part where it was noted as making the holy vaccines way less useful which also speaks more to this), and also take up valuable hospital beds that could be used for real accidents what with all their excessive cancers, knee surgeries/back surgeries, blood clots, heart attacks, cardiac care of various forms and the rest (triage not really caring about whether your stupidity caused it as much as limited resources, beds and medic time being prominent among those, and allocation thereof.

Weight is actually contagious -- socially contagious is contagious (and there is a reason suicide is not glorified/widely reported and when people mistake shopping mall for shooting gallery that many trick cyclist types will say maybe don't plaster it on the news as cool), and depending upon what goes for the microbiome (see fecal transplants from fat donors) then in the more classical biological sense as well (though transmission rates for that one are rather lower).

Fat phobia? You say it like it is a bad thing. Fat people should get thin and should be aided in doing so by medics. It is without question to me the greatest medical issue facing the world today, so much stems from it and will be caused by it.

As far as classism? Not sure how you got to that one (afford counts as many more things than that -- if you have not got the time to raise your spawn then you can be billionaire CEO for all I care I will call you stupid -- had more than a few trust fund morons make my life hard, and possibly mroe than I have kids from breeders on the estates, indeed said breeder spawn generally form the basis of most of my workforce as they are ones to have actually done something/learned how to use tools before they come to me). Though if we are having a state the needless thing then I would note poverty (of which having kids you can't afford, they are the price of about half a house over similar timeframes in most cases to raise, is a great aspect of that) as being a far bigger issue than any other ist or ism you care to name. Got that in many posts around here as well if it matters.


----------



## Deleted member 491410 (Dec 2, 2021)

I skimmed over this and read the words "weight is actually contagious" and a weird comparison between being somewhat overweight to suicide and public shootings in the news and I know I don't have to read anything else.

Very high standards for filling editorial roles GBATemp has. Enjoy your restrictions.





Your browser is not able to display this video.




As spunch bob would say, "Aight mr krabs im bout to head out"


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 2, 2021)

LunaDook said:


> The unvaxxed have a choice to get the vaccine or be denied services. I sincerely do not expect this will lead to killing the unvaxxed, as I've heard spread about mandates all over the internet.


If you do not want to get vaccinated after February 1st 2022 you get a Fine (up to over 7000 Euros).
(I am sure,most of the People around the World have such amount of Money....)
If you can´t take the Fine you have to go to Prison.Point.
It will not kill you physically but it mabye "breaks/kills" you psychically,but as I said,Vaccinated People have no other Point of View...



LunaDook said:


> _Poor unvaccinated folk_.


....that is the Way of 1941....very nice.
I wonder if you are so cool,if it comes to a Topic,where you are the "poor" Folk...


----------



## tabzer (Dec 2, 2021)

Lacius said:


> If you want to tell me specifically where I was mistaken, instead of lobbing personal attacks, be sure to tag me. I'm not holding my breath.
> 
> If a person is so focused on imaginary dangers that they don't protect themselves from real dangers, my point stands.



I said, specifically:


tabzer said:


> Agreeing with the statement and accurately assessing real threats are two different things.  This is just another example of you being pretentious.



It is possible for someone to agree with the statement and still be at fault of wasting time and endangering others for incorrectly assessing a threat.

The how of your action, is in insinuating willful malice on behalf of people who don't agree with you.

Feel free to take it personally, but you are attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed.  In case you weren't aware, that's pretentious.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 2, 2021)

LunaDook said:


> I skimmed over this and read the words "weight is actually contagious" and a weird comparison between being somewhat overweight to suicide and public shootings in the news and I know I don't have to read anything else.
> 
> Very high standards for filling editorial roles GBATemp has. Enjoy your restrictions.
> 
> ...


If we are doing the papers to look at
On obesity being socially contagious
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27892501/
https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=statsp
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070725175419.htm

Suicide is often considered socially contagious if we need other examples of the concept, though some have questions on models there, as is mass shooting and often reprisal shootings in general gang scenarios as well.

Seems however you don't want to debate, much less in good faith, so I guess I will continue on.


----------



## Deleted member 491410 (Dec 2, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> If we are doing the papers to look at
> On obesity being socially contagious
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27892501/
> https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=statsp
> ...






Your browser is not able to display this video.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 2, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Tabz is so personal with his attacks lately. Shame there aren't any mods participating in this thread to regulate such behavior... for folks on the right, anyways.


I’ve given up on even trying to moderate this section “live”, there’s too much crap in it, and most mods won’t even touch POLtemp with a 10-foot pole that has a condom on the poking end. All of you are hopeless. If we read through half of this drivel, we would lose any tenuous grasp on sanity we have left. If you find something offensive, you know where the Report button is. If I personally see something, I react, but I don’t have eyeballs on the back of my head. If you don’t draw attention to a specific post, you don’t get to complain and cry crocodile tears that it wasn’t deleted. If nobody’s reporting infringing content then I guess you’re just not that offended by it. Ain’t nobody got the time to read all the nonsense that gets posted here, we’re not masochists.


----------



## XDel (Dec 2, 2021)

So who makes the vaccines that Australians are being FORCED to accept? We these vaccines tested using aborted fetal cells also?


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 2, 2021)

XDel said:


> So who makes the vaccines that Australians are being FORCED to accept? We these vaccines tested using aborted fetal cells also?


If we’re talking about cell line HEK 293, it originates from an abortion that took place in 1973, in the Netherlands (or possibly a miscarriage, which would make ethical concerns completely irrelevant), and was used in manufacturing the Pfizer, Oxford-AstraZeneca and the Moderna vaccines… along with countless other vaccines in the past. You’re… *checks calendar* nearly 50 years late to “save” that one. J&J used a similar cell culture, PER6 C6, which also originated from an elective abortion… that took place in 1985. A little late for that one also. The idea that scientists put fetuses into a grinder, give it a good crank and vaccines come out on the other end is silly - that’s not how a cell culture works. It’s also worth noting that the cells are used in the confirmation phase, the actual vaccines contain no fetal cells whatsoever.


----------



## smf (Dec 2, 2021)

Piqua said:


> This isn't a vaccine.


Thanks for letting me know you have no idea what you're talking about.

It IS a vaccine.



XDel said:


> We these vaccines tested using aborted fetal cells also?



Good luck avoiding anything tested using HEK 293, it's used for development of food, drink, perfume etc.

But you might find this information useful to choose a vaccine if you are someone who works tirelessly to avoid HEK 293.

_Neither the COVID vaccine produced by Pfizer nor the one produced by Moderna contains human fetal tissue, nor was fetal tissue used in the development of those vaccines. Cell lines derived from elective abortions performed decades ago have been used in the manufacture of vaccines, including current vaccines against rubella, chickenpox, hepatitis A, and shingles. At least five of the 130 candidate COVID-19 vaccines in development use one of two human fetal cell lines: HEK-293, a kidney cell line widely used in research that comes from a fetus aborted in 1972; and PER.C6, a cell line owned by Johnson & Johnson, developed from cells from an 18-week-old fetus aborted in 1985. Pfizer and Moderna did not use fetal cell lines._


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 2, 2021)

smf said:


> Thanks for letting me know you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> It IS a vaccine.


The funny thing here is that a lengthy testing period and potential fatal side effects are kind of the reason why we use cell cultures for testing and confirmation. We no longer need hundreds of willing participants to test a vaccine and potentially suffer unexpected side effects, or die, as it was the case in the 50’s - confirmation and testing can be performed on cells of a human that is literally already dead, and has been for half a century. Weighing the pros and cons, testing in cell cultures doesn’t sound half-bad in comparison, given the sheer amount of new vaccines being tested every year.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 2, 2021)

smf said:


> Thanks for letting me know you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> It IS a vaccine.


Well, since the definition has changed (a couple of times, at least) in the last couple of years, I'd bid that inhaling farts now qualifies.

"a preparation or immunotherapy that is used to stimulate the body's immune response against noninfectious substances, agents, or diseases"

So the good news is that anyone that has ridden in an elevator recently is not only pro-vax, in action, but are  already vaccinated.

Yay, the war has been won, and we all are winners.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Well, since the definition has changed (a couple of times, at least) in the last couple of years, I'd bid that inhaling farts now qualifies.
> 
> "a preparation or immunotherapy that is used to stimulate the body's immune response against noninfectious substances, agents, or diseases"
> 
> ...


I’m pretty sure that riding an elevator and licking the button panel with the expectation that it will expose you to a virus you want to immunise yourself against doesn’t qualify as _“exposure to non-infectious substances, agents or diseases”_. I’m afraid that’s just bug chasing. The difference between vaccinations and bug chasing is that a vaccine isn’t going to infect you with the disease it’s supposed to protect you against (unless it’s contaminated with a full-strength live strain, a risk you run when manufacturing attenuated or inactivated vaccines, and a risk that is non-existent with mRNA ones since there is no live virus anywhere in the manufacturing chain), whereas bug chasing is the exact opposite.

In fact, you could argue that out of the four immunisation types, mRNA is *the safest*, for obvious reasons. Attenuated vaccines contain a weakened, but still “live” sample of a pathogen, inactive vaccines contain a destroyed pathogen, bug chasing is literally dealing with a live pathogen at full strength (which is stupid), mRNA vaccines contain instructions on how your body can create one very specific protein from the virus that triggers an immune response. You can get seriously sick bug chasing, there is a potential for getting sick due to manufacturing error with traditional vaccines, there is zero chance of catching COVID from an mRNA vaccine because there’s no virus in it, dead, weakened or live.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 2, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I’m pretty sure that riding an elevator and licking the button panel with the expectation that it will expose you to a virus you want to immunise yourself against doesn’t qualify as exposure to non-infectious substances, agents or diseases. I’m afraid that’s just bug chasing. The difference between vaccinations and bug chasing is that a vaccine isn’t going to infect you with the disease it’s supposed to protect you against (unless it’s contaminated with a live strain, a risk you run when manufacturing attenuated vaccines, and a risk that is non-existent with mRNA ones since there is no live virus anywhere in the manufacturing chain), whereas bug chasing is the exact opposite.


Farts are a contagion.  I didn't know that.  The more you know...

Covid being spread by farts... if we weren't already, we are definitely doomed.

Even if you have 98% efficacy, it will only take 99 farts before you are participating in spreading Covid.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Farts are a contagion.  I didn't know that.  The more you know...
> 
> Covid being spread by farts... if we weren't already, we are definitely doomed.
> 
> Even if you have 98% efficacy, it will only take 99 farts before you are participating in spreading Covid.


You’re EOF-posting at this stage, you know this is not how efficacy is calculated. If you want to be escorted to the EOF, I can help you with that - you can deposit your brain farts there with a large degree of impunity.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 2, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You’re EOF-posting at this stage, you know this is not how efficacy is calculated. If you want to be escorted to the EOF, I can help you with that - you can deposit your brain farts there with a large degree of impunity.


Well, I knew when I introduced farting into the mix, it was obviously satirical, but the point of my doing so was to point out how satirical the definition of a vaccine is becoming (or "evolving" in order to accurately encapsulate and define the current "vaccine") over time.  It's hard to tell when or where the EOF started (Fauci?).  To be fair, you insinuated that I was promoting licking elevator buttons?  You were responding to what I said, so I assumed you were likening inhaling farts to "bug chasing", which to qualify, would require contagion attribution to....  you guessed it; smelling farts.

But you are the boss. Do what you feel you must.


----------



## smf (Dec 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Well, since the definition has changed (a couple of times, at least) in the last couple of years, I'd bid that inhaling farts now qualifies.



The CDC reworded it because people are dumb and misunderstood what immunity means.

_The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”_

Being vaccinated for anything has never given 100% total immunity. In fact the covid 19 vaccines give far more immunity than most other vaccines.

What a vaccine is medically has not changed. That is just something that dumb people claim, it's a good way of identifying them (especially when they resist being educated)

They are obviously all different, because they all need to train your immune system to fight different virus. But we don't redefine what food is just because macdonalds launches a new burger. How they are developed and made change based on progress, we're not shunning progress like the amish.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 2, 2021)

smf said:


> The CDC reworded it because people are dumb and misunderstood what immunity means.
> 
> _The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”_
> 
> ...



Haha, no.  The definition change literally increased the scope of what qualifies as a vaccine.  Before it was immunity, now it is "protection".  In other cultures, it's called shifting goal posts.  I'm not sure if you are familiar with such a term, but to demonstrate an example, it's like like changing the definition of a word in order to draw attention away from shortcomings.


----------



## smf (Dec 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Haha, no.  The definition change literally increased the scope of what qualifies as a vaccine.  Before it was immunity, now it is "protection".  In other cultures, it's called shifting goal posts.  I'm not sure if you are familiar with such a term, but to demonstrate an example, it's like like changing the definition of a word in order to draw attention away from shortcomings.


Haha, yes.

As I tried to inform you, but you continue to resist real facts, the covid 19 vaccines are far more effective than the annual flu vaccines.

_February 26, 2020 10:01 am Chris Crawford -- According to a Feb. 21 CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the current influenza vaccine has been *45% effective overall* against 2019-2020 seasonal influenza A and B viruses._

compared to

_For fully vaccinated individuals, effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infections was 73% (95% CI 72–74) and against COVID-19-related hospital admissions was 90% (89–92). _


As I said, only dumb people didn't understand the old definition. The CDC changed it because you are dumb. I'm not sure why they bothered, it's not possible to overcome how dumb you are.

Maybe you should spend more time thinking about your shortcomings, rather than assuming that it's other people that have it wrong.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 2, 2021)

smf said:


> Haha, yes.
> 
> As I tried to inform you, but you continue to resist real facts, the covid 19 vaccines are far more effective than the annual flu vaccines.
> 
> ...




So they f'd up the definition for decades and you are calling me dumb because of it.  Good play.


----------



## smf (Dec 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> So they f'd up the definition for decades and you are calling me dumb because of it.  Good play.



No, you misunderstood the definition for decades and they are just clarifying it.

It's evident that you can't accept when you are wrong and instead you see that as evidence of foul play.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 2, 2021)

smf said:


> No, you misunderstood the definition for decades and they are just clarifying it.
> 
> It's evident that you can't accept when you are wrong and instead you see that as evidence of foul play.



Wait, point out how I was wrong.  Then we can work together to discover why you are wrong instead.

As far as I have ascertained, the definition was changed to increase scope, not because it was already a perfect definition.  Fixing something that's not broken seems kind of silly.


----------



## AlexMCS (Dec 2, 2021)

smf said:


> In fact the covid 19 vaccines give far more immunity than most other vaccines.



I need some fact-checking for this one.

Also, "immune to something" means "completely impervious to something" in any dictionary.
Vaccination does not always provide immunity, but it does provide some form of protection against a disease.

Some people equate vaccination to immunization, and this is not always true, but it's not their fault since everyone I know have been taught from their early childhood that getting a shot against a disease = being immune to it for at least 10 years (Hep. C, Tetanus) or for life (all others I've taken - polio, measles, whooping cough, rubella etc.).

I've never bothered with flu shots because they are useless to me at this point, since they are not full immunity and I'm not at risk. Though people do die from flu, I've never known nor heard about someone who did over here.

Coincidentally, it's the first case of a vaccine that does not provide full immunity that I've heard about, some 15+ years ago.

The CoViD-19 vaccines are similar, though way more effective: they provide no immunity, just partial protection.
*Assuming they are safe *(and here's the catch), there would be no reason to not take one.

Despite Lacius loving to cite safety data from them, all I've read and seen indicate they are dangerous things to take, especially the mRNA ones.

The whole point of the thread is that it should be up to oneself to measure their own cost/benefit ratio and decide to take the vaccine or not. Mandates are an abuse, as is barring unvaxxed from basic public services.

There should be some form of light coercion, like we have over here, banning unvaccinated from restaurants, bars, closed spaces overall.

Outright forcing people to vaccinate though, if you can't see how this opens a precedent for further abuse you're *all* in for a rude awakening.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 2, 2021)

smf said:


> The CDC reworded it because people are dumb and misunderstood what immunity means.
> 
> _The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”_
> 
> ...


Oddly enough, it seems to me that the original definition was more clear and the new one a little bit vaguer. I'm not sure there is any real difference in what they mean, but apparently there was a good enough reason to change the semantics.. maybe a lawyer's decision rather than a scientist.


----------



## AlexMCS (Dec 2, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Oddly enough, it seems to me that the original definition was more clear and the new one a little bit vaguer. I'm not sure there is any real difference in what they mean, but apparently there was a good enough reason to change the semantics.. maybe a lawyer's decision rather than a scientist.



The difference is clear in my previous post.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 2, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> Not refusing,but not accepting vaccination every 2 -3 Months.....and many other "Side Effects"....
> Remember Polio,Tetanus every 9,10 Years ? But ok,this is no Comparison you accept.


Different diseases work in different ways, and they have different rates of mutation. One should get a tetanus shot about once every ten years, and one should get the flu shot once a year, for example.

Yes, there are people in this thread who are flat out refusing vaccination.

There are possible side effects when getting the COVID-19 vaccine, but a lot of people are posting about side effects that are imaginary.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 2, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Different diseases work in different ways, and they have different rates of mutation. One should get a tetanus shot about once every ten years, and one should get the flu shot once a year, for example.
> 
> Yes, there are people in this thread who are flat out refusing vaccination.
> 
> There are possible side effects when getting the COVID-19 vaccine, but a lot of people are posting about side effects that are imaginary.



I'm really proud of you Lucius.  That was a big step.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 2, 2021)

AlexMCS said:


> I need some fact-checking for this one.
> 
> Also, "immune to something" means "completely impervious to something" in any dictionary.
> Vaccination does not always provide immunity, but it does provide some form of protection against a disease.
> ...



I agree with most everything you said up to the point of "banning unvaccinated from...".  My personal belief is that it should be up to the establishment, not the state.  And even if we agreed on that, we could expect to see the government offering incentives to such establishments to bar the unvaccinated.  To me, that all translates to coercion, which is in bad faith and disrespectful.  If people cannot be convinced by the government's sterling reputation and perfect representation of facts, then perhaps humans are like stupid animals and shouldn't be respected.  Of course that also means that they have already infiltrated the government, too.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Dec 2, 2021)

if only we could get that here starting with Victoria


----------



## weatMod (Dec 2, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Anyone who was paying attention knows that infectious disease experts started warning that we were overdue for another major pandemic around 2012.  The Obama administration took those warnings seriously and established a federal pandemic response team, which the Trump administration then disbanded in 2017.


"Anyone who was paying attention knows that infectious disease experts started warning that we were overdue for another major pandemic around 2012."



Ok but you see the problem with that line of thinking is that they were "predicting" that we were "overdue" for a  NATURALLY OCCURING" pandemic , from a NATURALLY EMERGING   virus

 this  virus  did not emerge naturally  it came from a  lab , this fact  has already  been established now even in the mainstream , but most people with a brain (and who were not bought off ,threatened, or cajoled)  knew it  from day one,  Dr. Luc Montagnier,  and  many others were  saying this since day one


----------



## Lacius (Dec 2, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I'm really proud of you Lucius.  That was a big step.


What did I say that I haven't already said 100 times?


----------



## XDel (Dec 2, 2021)

smf said:


> Good luck avoiding anything tested using HEK 293, it's used for development of food, drink, perfume etc.
> 
> But you might find this information useful to choose a vaccine if you are someone who works tirelessly to avoid HEK 293.
> 
> _Neither the COVID vaccine produced by Pfizer nor the one produced by Moderna contains human fetal tissue, nor was fetal tissue used in the development of those vaccines. Cell lines derived from elective abortions performed decades ago have been used in the manufacture of vaccines, including current vaccines against rubella, chickenpox, hepatitis A, and shingles. At least five of the 130 candidate COVID-19 vaccines in development use one of two human fetal cell lines: HEK-293, a kidney cell line widely used in research that comes from a fetus aborted in 1972; and PER.C6, a cell line owned by Johnson & Johnson, developed from cells from an 18-week-old fetus aborted in 1985. Pfizer and Moderna did not use fetal cell lines._




Well I can say, childhood aside, that I've been good at avoiding all vaccines, though I can't say I've avoided all those foods. Seems junk food is easier to obtain than natural healthy food...

That said I am digging deeper into this now, thank you! More motive to ban abortion all together.
What is screwed up is that Vertitas exposed Planned Parenthood for selling baby flesh a few years back, and since then nothing became of it, and now it's like it has been legalized. Then again I can take weed on a plane now no problem, even if the state I am going to has not legalized it yet. So it's strange that these cells come from so far back when abortions and use of baby flesh to make cures for the diseases we make in labs through Gain of Function research (also see Polio/HIV).


----------



## Lacius (Dec 2, 2021)

XDel said:


> Well I can say, childhood aside, that I've been good at avoiding all vaccines


Vaccines are safe, effective, and highly recommended if you care about avoiding disease, not getting seriously sick or dying if you become infected, and not spreading infection to other people.



XDel said:


> What is screwed up is that Vertitas exposed Planned Parenthood for selling baby flesh a few years back, and since then nothing became of it, and now it's like it has been legalized.


If you're referring to the fake scandal linked below, the videos were found to have been deceptively altered, and Planned Parenthood hadn't actually done anything improper or illegal.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy


----------



## XDel (Dec 2, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Vaccines are safe, effective, and highly recommended if you care about avoiding disease, not getting seriously sick or dying if you become infected, and not spreading infection to other people.
> 
> 
> If you're referring to the fake scandal linked below, the videos were found to have been deceptively altered, and Planned Parenthood hadn't actually done anything improper or illegal.
> ...




Well, I am healthier than most my age, and no, NOTHING about Project Veritas has even been proven in court to be a lie. In fact they have an EXCEPTIONALLY good track record, contrary to the other "journalistic" efforts out there that is backed by BIG MONEY. What you are saying is a LIE.  DO NOT LIE


----------



## XDel (Dec 2, 2021)




----------



## Lacius (Dec 2, 2021)

XDel said:


> Well, I am healthier than most my age,


Again, if you care about not getting, suffering from, and spreading infectious disease, you need to get vaccinated. I'm glad you're healthy, but it's irrelevant to my point.



XDel said:


> and no, NOTHING about Project Veritas has even been proven in court to be a lie. In fact they have an EXCEPTIONALLY good track record, contrary to the other "journalistic" efforts out there that is backed by BIG MONEY. What you are saying is a LIE.  DO NOT LIE


Project Veritas has has been shown to propagate disinformation and conspiracy theories. I'm sorry if the facts are inconvenient for you.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 2, 2021)

If someone still is believing,this mandatory Vaccination Topic in Austria is about Healthcare...

Ex-Chancellor Kurz has completely withdrawn from Politics today and goes into the "Private Sector" (after doing "Business" with Trump and Putin in the Background in recent Years ...)

Still-Chancellor Schallenberg makes his Office of the Federal Chancellor available...

Interior Minister / Security / Police Chief Nehammer is about to take over ..

And we should not forget Gerald Rockenschaub,the new WHO EU Crisis Manager.....

Merry Christmas Austria,we are again on the Way....


----------



## XDel (Dec 2, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Again, if you care about not getting, suffering from, and spreading infectious disease, you need to get vaccinated. I'm glad you're healthy, but it's irrelevant to my point.
> 
> 
> Project Veritas has has been shown to propagate disinformation and conspiracy theories. I'm sorry if the facts are inconvenient for you.


Please provide evidence and I will gladly look at it! If they were part of a deception, I would WANT TO KNOW about that also!!!!


----------



## Lacius (Dec 2, 2021)

XDel said:


> Please provide evidence and I will gladly look at it! If they were part of a deception, I would WANT TO KNOW about that also!!!!


Everything you need, with citations, can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas


----------



## XDel (Dec 2, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Everything you need, with citations, can be found here:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas




So you come back with WIKI, mmm hm.

Anyhow, I somehow managed to talk Youtube into unbanning my latest creation. I hope you all enjoy!!!


----------



## Lucaserf (Dec 2, 2021)

XDel said:


> So you come back with WIKI, mmm hm.
> 
> Anyhow, I somehow managed to talk Youtube into unbanning my latest creation. I hope you all enjoy!!!



Shouldn't be that hard to prove the wiki wrong. Unless you actually can't....


----------



## Xzi (Dec 2, 2021)

weatMod said:


> this virus did not emerge naturally it came from a lab


That's a hard sell for several reasons.  The most obvious being that the US and any number of other nations would jump at the chance to call out China for violating the Geneva Conventions by using biological warfare.  Too many people would have to stay quiet, and without any tangible benefit for them to do so.  Additionally, even a layman can look at microscope images of COVID-19 and see all the notable similarities with other coronaviruses, which are also naturally-occurring.



weatMod said:


> Dr. Luc Montagnier, and many others were saying this since day one


Since day one...you mean like before he had any data to work with at all?  I won't disparage the man too much, but I will say he's nearly 90 and he refuses to let any of his modern research be peer-reviewed.  Seems his best days are well behind him.


----------



## XDel (Dec 2, 2021)

Lucaserf said:


> Don't you guys ever get tired? Like, wtf, it has become a routine for me now, after I get home from job I imme
> 
> Shouldn't be that hard to prove the wiki wrong. Unless you actually can't....


 OK, well instead of leaving me with all the home work just to prove your point right for you, why don't you take at least one or two hard hitting examples to challenge me with instead of posting a freaking wiki link?!?! DUH


----------



## weatMod (Dec 3, 2021)

Xzi said:


> That's a hard sell for several reasons.  The most obvious being that the US and any number of other nations would jump at the chance to call out China for violating the Geneva Conventions by using biological warfare.  Too many people would have to stay quiet, and without any tangible benefit for them to do so.  Additionally, even a layman can look at microscope images of COVID-19 and see all the notable similarities with other coronaviruses, which are also naturally-occurring.
> 
> 
> Since day one...you mean like before he had any data to work with at all?  I won't disparage the man too much, but I will say he's nearly 90 and he refuses to let any of his modern research be peer-reviewed.  Seems his best days are well behind him.


actually the genome was  sequenced early on, he had that data and so did    some virologists in India who found 

HIV insertions and other insertions

 Even D. Robert Redfield conceded that this  came from a lab



have you see event 201?

they were all in on it together  , China and the US both took part in event 201


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 3, 2021)

Xzi said:


> That's a hard sell for several reasons.  The most obvious being that the US and any number of other nations would jump at the chance to call out China for violating the Geneva Conventions by using biological warfare.  Too many people would have to stay quiet, and without any tangible benefit for them to do so.  Additionally, even a layman can look at microscope images of COVID-19 and see all the notable similarities with other coronaviruses, which are also naturally-occurring.


There's no way the US would, have you seen how angry Fauci gets when it's suggested to him? Considering he was in charge of the funding for their GOF research it isn't hard to see why. Remember Fauci IS science.

I remember last year you would get shadow banned on social media for even mentioning the lab leak hypothesis, and now it's considered just as (if not more) creditable than the wet market. There are still plenty of people that don't even believe it came from Wuhan though, because that would somehow be racist.


----------



## weatMod (Dec 3, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> There's no way the US would, have you seen how angry Fauci gets when it's suggested to him? Considering he was in charge of the funding for their GOF research it isn't hard to see why. Remember Fauci IS science.
> 
> I remember last year you would get shadow banned on social media for even mentioning the lab leak hypothesis, and now it's considered just as (if not more) creditable than the wet market. There are still plenty of people that don't even believe it came from Wuhan though, because that would somehow be racist.


I actually don't believe it came from Wuhan either 

it was released there, as well as multiple other places

in the CNN piece with Dr. Redfield  where he says he believes it came from a lab  ,  Dr. Gupta mentioned the "multiple origin theory" only to discredit it  of course 

I believe they released it on multiple continents at  the same time


----------



## smf (Dec 3, 2021)

XDel said:


> OK, well instead of leaving me with all the home work just to prove your point right for you, why don't you take at least one or two hard hitting examples to challenge me with instead of posting a freaking wiki link?!?! DUH


You are being disingenuous, you expect all your links to be proof but don't accept other peoples links.



weatMod said:


> it was released there, as well as multiple other places


Do you have anything resembling evidence of that?


----------



## smf (Dec 3, 2021)

weatMod said:


> actually the genome was  sequenced early on, he had that data and so did    some virologists in India who found
> 
> HIV insertions and other insertions


Well, not exactly.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7033698/

_This clearly shows that these insertion sequences are widely present in living organisms including viruses, but not HIV-1 specific._

You probably should question your bias more.


----------



## XDel (Dec 3, 2021)

smf said:


> You are being disingenuous, you expect all your links to be proof but don't accept other peoples links.
> 
> 
> Do you have anything resembling evidence of that?


My links are to videos I created consisting of documented research, interviews, court hearings, etc. So in short, I did the home work, put it all together, and provided a case. They have not, and this happens all the time. It is non-researches trying to attack a researcher without any research to challenge me with.

Futher more my video should be significant if we are going to lay our trust in the judgement of WIKI, Twitter, Youtube and the like who claim repress and protect us from false info. Why? Because Youtube had my video blocked and I just won an argument with them where in they unblocked my content, so according to Youtube, I am not lying. 


Back to Veritas, here is there latest...


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 3, 2021)

smf said:


> Well, not exactly.
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7033698/
> 
> ...


I'm certain the whole lab leak thing was a result of that paper because they identified it being 96% similar to the bat coronavirus that they were supposedly doing gain of function work on in the Wuhan lab.


----------



## LinkmstrYT (Dec 3, 2021)

XDel said:


> My links are to videos I created consisting of documented research, interviews, court hearings, etc. So in short, I did the home work, put it all together, and provided a case. They have not, and this happens all the time. It is non-researches trying to attack a researcher without any research to challenge me with.
> 
> Futher more my video should be significant if we are going to lay our trust in the judgement of WIKI, Twitter, Youtube and the like who claim repress and protect us from false info. Why? Because Youtube had my video blocked and I just won an argument with them where in they unblocked my content, so according to Youtube, I am not lying.
> 
> ...


And as mentioned a couple of times, Project Veritas is well known for deceptively editing videos and such to discredit and change up stories to fit their agendas. They've also heavily propagated conspiracy theories and disinformation, so your video "proof" is not very convincing.


----------



## smf (Dec 3, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I'm certain the whole lab leak thing was a result of that paper because they identified it being 96% similar to the bat coronavirus that they were supposedly doing gain of function work on in the Wuhan lab.


96% is very different. The lab tested all their samples & it wasn't a match for any of them. If you're saying you don't believe them, well they were the ones that said it was 96%, so why believe that?

We know that sars cov 2 is 96% the same as a bat coronavirus that was found in the wild and sent to a lab. That coronavirus was in the wild mutating, that is the simplest and most likely way we got infected.



subcon959 said:


> There are still plenty of people that don't even believe it came from Wuhan though, because that would somehow be racist.


No, it's racist when you attack another country and blame them when it was a natural event. The term "wet market" probably doesn't mean what you think it does. "Media reports that fail to distinguish between all wet markets and those with live animals or wildlife, as well as insinuations of fostering wildlife smuggling, have been blamed for fueling Sinophobia related to the COVID-19 pandemic."

I am not entirely sure it came from the wet market in wuhan as there were some initial cases that couldn't be explained. I think wuhan may have been a secondary site, that just happened to be more identifiable.


----------



## XDel (Dec 3, 2021)

LinkmstrYT said:


> And as mentioned a couple of times, Project Veritas is well known for deceptively editing videos and such to discredit and change up stories to fit their agendas. They've also heavily propagated conspiracy theories and disinformation, so your video "proof" is not very convincing.



My lord people, do any of you research anything you hear or do you just repeat the news that comforts your world view the most?

I always here these claims in the main stream press, and the main stream press, most especially on the left, has not qualms with lying to your face. Again if you can present me one case where in it can be proven without a doubt that project veritas is up to no good, I will HAPPILY reshare that information on my Youtube and elsewhere. I prefer to know when I am being lied to, but again I have looked into a lot of these claims in the past when I was familiarizing myself with Veritas, and none of them have held up so far. So if you can provide me with something that is not left wing b.s. I will be grateful!


----------



## tabzer (Dec 3, 2021)

smf said:


> No, it's racist when you attack another country and blame them when it was a natural event.



"I blame America for global warming, but not China."

Touch the racist part please.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 3, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> There's no way the US would, have you seen how angry Fauci gets when it's suggested to him?


...You realize that Trump also would've had to have been in on the cover-up, and that man keeping any secret is a statistical impossibility.  Especially after he lost the election, he would've had no reason to keep quiet.  Regardless, the theory is ridiculous as can be...it's a worldwide pandemic, the whole world would need to be in on the conspiracy.  And then the question remains: to what end?  So the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?  That was already happening at an exponential rate, and the working class actually has more bargaining power now as a result of so many people dying/leaving the work force.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 4, 2021)

Xzi said:


> ...You realize that Trump also would've had to have been in on the cover-up, and that man keeping any secret is a statistical impossibility.  Especially after he lost the election, he would've had no reason to keep quiet.  Regardless, the theory is ridiculous as can be...it's a worldwide pandemic, the whole world would need to be in on the conspiracy.  And then the question remains: to what end?  So the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?  That was already happening at an exponential rate, and the working class actually has more bargaining power now as a result of so many people dying/leaving the work force.


Not sure why you're trying to inject a conspiracy into this. It's way more likely it was leaked due to poor practices than some sort of wacky global scheme. We're talking about the same lab that was cited in the past for safety violations.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 4, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Not sure why you're trying to inject a conspiracy into this. It's way more likely it was leaked due to poor practices than some sort of wacky global scheme. We're talking about the same lab that was cited in the past for safety violations.


It's somewhat more believable that the virus was discovered in nature and then contained and subsequently leaked from that lab.  Weatmod's claim, however, is that the virus was entirely man-made, aka a biological weapon.  In which case I'd expect it to be far more targeted and have a much higher mortality rate.  There are nearly infinite ways to go about debunking that theory.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 4, 2021)

Xzi said:


> It's somewhat more believable that the virus was discovered in nature and then contained and subsequently leaked from that lab.  Weatmod's claim, however, is that the virus was entirely man-made, aka a biological weapon.  In which case I'd expect it to be far more targeted and have a much higher mortality rate.  There are nearly infinite ways to go about debunking that theory.


You replied quoting me though, so there's no point addressing someone else's theory which I've never claimed to support. I firmly believe this was all a  result of incompetence rather than planned.


----------



## smf (Dec 4, 2021)

XDel said:


> I always here these claims in the main stream press, and the main stream press, most especially on the left, has not qualms with lying to your face.



Most especially on the right. 


XDel said:


> Again if you can present me one case where in it can be proven without a doubt that project veritas is up to no good, I will HAPPILY reshare that information on my Youtube and elsewhere. I prefer to know when I am being lied to, but again I have looked into a lot of these claims in the past when I was familiarizing myself with Veritas, and none of them have held up so far. So if you can provide me with something that is not left wing b.s. I will be grateful!


The fact you will just dismiss any proof as "left wing b.s" makes it rather pointless.

You don't prefer to know when you are being lied to, you prefer to be told what you already believe.



tabzer said:


> "I blame America for global warming, but not China."
> 
> Touch the racist part please.


I'm not touching you.


----------



## GeekyGuy (Dec 4, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> *Can you provide any peer-reviewed sources* that show those against getting vaccinated have any grounds in reality? You say a lot of words but at the end of day, none of them are changing reality in favor of respecting those against getting vaccinated.


Think of it like this perhaps:

Imagine how many pro-lifers don't want women to have abortions. That's taking away a person's right to choose what happens to their own body. But imagine it in the reverse. Women being forced to have abortions. Now you're actively invading a woman's body. It's one thing to prevent someone from doing something to their body; it's a whole other story when you're actually invading someone's only sacred place: their own body.

Ask yourself that question. Probably don't need to inquire with your peers about that.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 4, 2021)

GeekyGuy said:


> Think of it like this perhaps:
> 
> Imagine how many pro-lifers don't want women to have abortions. That's taking away a person's right to choose what happens to their own body. But imagine it in the reverse. Women being forced to have abortions. Now you're actively invading a woman's body. It's one thing to prevent someone from doing something to their body; it's a whole other story when you're actually invading someone's only sacred place: their own body.
> 
> Ask yourself that question. Probably don't need to inquire with your peers about that.


First, I am not pro-forcing anyone to do anything. That being said, abortion and vaccination are not comparable in their effects on other people. One person getting an abortion does not cause everyone exposed to them to get an abortion. On the other hand, one person not getting vaccinated does effect everyone exposed to them. These are not the same. I don’t agree with the government forcing anyone to do anything but I will die on the hill that anti-vaxxors are dangerous people who harm everyone around them.


----------



## weatMod (Dec 4, 2021)

smf said:


> Well, not exactly.
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7033698/
> 
> ...


the source is bias also though

 you are picking and choosing science as if it exists in a vacuum

9 out of 10 scientists agree with the people who fund them



it has been demonstrated that there is a  cover up effort,  and  a massive attempt at censorship


that was also "predicted" in one of the most lengthy parts of the event 201 "mock scenario"


----------



## GeekyGuy (Dec 4, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> First, I am not pro-forcing anyone to do anything. That being said, abortion and vaccination are not comparable in their effects on other people. One person getting an abortion does not cause everyone exposed to them to get an abortion. On the other hand, one person not getting vaccinated does effect everyone exposed to them. These are not the same. I don’t agree with the government forcing anyone to do anything but I will die on the hill that anti-vaxxors are dangerous people who harm everyone around them.


I agree, they're not the same thing. On the flipside, having an abortion does affect everyone else. How, who knows? But that life is now gone.

I'm not saying forced vaccine is good or bad. Personally, I don't want to be forced to have it. But whether it's right or wrong, well, I'll leave that to a Higher Power to determine. 

Are vaccinated or "anti-vaxxors" dangerous? Hmm... Guess it depends on your point of view, now, doesn't it?


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2021)

smf said:


> I'm not touching you.



Instead of deflecting, please genuinely answer the question.  It appears that you said a stupid thing, that "attacking another country" is racist, and I am genuinely wondering what kind of mental process you undertake when presented with such a phrase.  I am not the phrase, so please try, or concede that you are mistaken in you zeal.



The Catboy said:


> One person getting an abortion does not cause everyone exposed to them to get an abortion


One person, not getting an abortion, exposes everyone to their folly.  You aren't comparing like to like.  It appears intentional.

On top of that, you say that "anti-vaxxors are dangerous people who harm everyone around them."  This is absurd.  Can you explain how an "anti-vaxxor" is harming everyone around them?  The closest semblance of sanity I can conceive of such a notion, is that you think that someone who hasn't taken the vaccine has covid and is willfully spreading it to everyone they come into contact with--but that's not even a sane conclusion.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> One person, not getting an abortion, exposes everyone to their folly.  You aren't comparing like to like.  It appears intentional.
> 
> On top of that, you say that "anti-vaxxors are dangerous people who harm everyone around them."  This is absurd.  Can you explain how an "anti-vaxxor" is harming everyone around them?  The closest semblance of sanity I can conceive of such a notion, is that you think that someone who hasn't taken the vaccine has covid and is willfully spreading it to everyone they come into contact with--but that's not even a sane conclusion.


A person getting an abortion doesn't cause pregnant women around them to miscarriage. Oppositely, a person not getting vaccinated increases the odds they will become infected and infect others, relative to their vaccinated counterparts.


----------



## WiiMiiSwitch (Dec 4, 2021)

Here's how to fix mandates
Mandate the vaccine for non allergic people
So simple


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 4, 2021)

GeekyGuy said:


> I agree, they're not the same thing. On the flipside, having an abortion does affect everyone else. How, who knows? But that life is now gone.
> 
> I'm not saying forced vaccine is good or bad. Personally, I don't want to be forced to have it. But whether it's right or wrong, well, I'll leave that to a Higher Power to determine.
> 
> Are vaccinated or "anti-vaxxors" dangerous? Hmm... Guess it depends on your point of view, now, doesn't it?


The difference is that abortions aren’t a rapid spreading virus and don’t spread to other people. An individual’s abortion does not suddenly cause more abortions or miscarriages. This is also not a matter of right or wrong, anti-vaxxors are provenly dangerous to other people around them. Their choices have already caused outbreaks of fully-preventable disease to start spreading again.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 4, 2021)

GeekyGuy said:


> I agree, they're not the same thing. On the flipside, having an abortion does affect everyone else. How, who knows? But that life is now gone.
> 
> I'm not saying forced vaccine is good or bad. Personally, I don't want to be forced to have it. But whether it's right or wrong, well, I'll leave that to a Higher Power to determine.
> 
> Are vaccinated or "anti-vaxxors" dangerous? Hmm... Guess it depends on your point of view, now, doesn't it?


If you want to convince people of something you can't say who knows. That's not a very good answer. You have to give exact reasons on how it affects everyone else. Because the "who knows" answer can be said to just about anything and be an abused response. That's just like telling someone do as I say because I said so. Both aren't very good responses at convincing people.

Higher Powers should never be the determining factor at deciding for you or for the smaller person. You need to take matters into your own hands. You need full autonomy over yourself and control over these decisions yourself.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> A person getting an abortion doesn't cause pregnant women around them to miscarriage. Oppositely, a person not getting vaccinated increases the odds they will become infected and infect others, relative to their vaccinated counterparts.


You are talking over me again.  I didn't say anything about a person getting an abortion.   It's a false-equivalence to compare getting an abortion to not taking  a vaccine since the vaccine essentially is an attempt to abort the virus.  

If you are going to run these comparisons, you should compare like to like, or you appear disingenuous, or even more so than you already appear. 

An abortion is like taking the vaccine.  You can argue that both aren't affecting others.  And you may also argue that by not doing them will affect others.

Because of your parents' choice to not have an abortion (to get vaccinated from you), we have to deal with the added burden of your existence.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You are talking over me again.  I didn't say anything about a person getting an abortion.   It's a false-equivalence to compare getting an abortion to not taking  a vaccine since the vaccine essentially is an attempt to abort the virus.
> 
> If you are going to run these comparisons, you should compare like to like, or you appear disingenuous, or even more so than you already appear.
> 
> ...


You are really stretching for comparisons by using the word "abort" to compare abortions to vaccination.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You are talking over me again.  I didn't say anything about a person getting an abortion.   It's a false-equivalence to compare getting an abortion to not taking  a vaccine since the vaccine essentially is an attempt to abort the virus.
> 
> If you are going to run these comparisons, you should compare like to like, or you appear disingenuous, or even more so than you already appear.
> 
> ...


Whether or not a person gets an abortion has no real effect on you or anyone else around you. The same cannot be said with regard to vaccination.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Whether or not a person gets an abortion has no real effect on you or anyone else around you.


Based on your refusal, or inability, to measure--but no, not really.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The same cannot be said with regard to vaccination.


If someone got vaccinated, and doesn't spread covid, it should have the same impact of someone not getting vaccinated and not spreading covid.  Should, at least.  Following suit of your prior argument, someone choosing not to get vaccinated doesn't remove someone else's choice to get vaccinated.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Dec 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Whether or not a person gets an abortion has no real effect on you or anyone else around you. The same cannot be said with regard to vaccination.


Hmpf, why are you focusing on the impact of others when it comes to personal healthcare decisions? Most important here is protecting an individuals medical records/history/decisions from a government entity. Abortion shall not be denied, since it denying it would involve legislators 'peering' into someone's medical profile. Vaccination mandate requires the same level of obstruction. Stay out of my medical records. Decisions I make with my doctor and for my own healthcare are a personal and private matter.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Dec 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Whether or not a person gets an abortion has no real effect on you or anyone else around you. The same cannot be said with regard to vaccination.


Furthermore this isn't an adequate argument for abortion rights, since a portion of the population believes you are certainly impacting someone else with your decision: the 'soul' that is taking residence inside a womb. Better argument is that medical decisions between patient/doctor should be kept private. Legislators have no business peering into medical records.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Based on your refusal, or inability, to measure--but no, not really.


I only care about metrics that are actually measurable. The decision of my parents to not have an abortion, for example, affects you in no way that's deserving of moral consideration.



tabzer said:


> If someone got vaccinated, and doesn't spread covid, it should have the same impact of someone not getting vaccinated and not spreading covid.  Should, at least.


Unfortunately, a person who is unvaccinated is significantly more likely to become infected and spread disease. The more people who are unvaccinated, the more the disease spreads to vaccinated and unvaccinated people alike. The more the disease spreads, the higher the rate of mutation and the higher the likelihood of new variants emerging. The fact that there will be unvaccinated people who don't spread the disease is irrelevant.



0x3000027E said:


> Hmpf, why are you focusing on the impact of others when it comes to personal healthcare decisions?


Because these decisions have a significant effect on the health of others.



0x3000027E said:


> Most important here is protecting an individuals medical records/history/decisions from a government entity.


This is important, but so is taking every reasonable measure to reduce the spread of disease. Considering the safety and efficacy of the vaccines, as well as the clear and present danger that is COVID-19, certain privileges should require vaccination in the same way certain privileges require me to be clothed.



0x3000027E said:


> Abortion shall not be denied, since it denying it would involve legislators 'peering' into someone's medical profile.


Abortion should not be denied because it would be a violation of a woman's right to bodily autonomy.



0x3000027E said:


> Vaccination mandate requires the same level of obstruction. Stay out of my medical records. Decisions I make with my doctor and for my own healthcare are a personal and private matter.


Vaccine mandates are the right thing to do, they're effective, there's legal precedent for them, and they aren't a violation of your rights. If you don't want to get vaccinated, don't get vaccinated. If you don't want to provide proof of your vaccination status, don't provide proof of your vaccination status. However, proof of vaccination should be required for certain privileges like entering a public school, getting on a train, etc. Don't like it? Don't do anything that requires proof of vaccination.



0x3000027E said:


> Furthermore this isn't an adequate argument for abortion rights, since a portion of the population believes you are certainly impacting someone else with your decision: the 'soul' that is taking residence inside a womb.



Imaginary souls that only exist in one's religious beliefs are undeserving of consideration as far as the law is concerned.
A woman has a right to bodily autonomy, and the right to end a pregnancy, regardless of what's in her womb.



0x3000027E said:


> Better argument is that medical decisions between patient/doctor should be kept private. Legislators have no business peering into medical records.


I respectfully disagree. The primary consideration is the woman's right to bodily autonomy.


----------



## p1ngpong (Dec 4, 2021)

Very disturbing turn things are taking in the world. Anyone who is celebrating these developments of governments forcing a vaccine onto grown adults is very short sighted and does not know history.

I am saying this as a person who is double jabbed, wears a mask in public and encourages people to be jabbed by the way. 

If it comes to the point where this is forced on people in the UK and peoples abilities to live their lives is restricted if they are not vaccinated I will protest on the streets. 

It is funny, people would mock others who warned about these sort of thing potentially happening years ago as conspiracy theorists. Now, after a couple of years of hardcore scare mongering people are practically willing to shove their fellow citizen onto a train to Auschwitz for not conforming to the regimes rules.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 4, 2021)

p1ngpong said:


> If it comes to the point where this is forced on people in the UK and peoples abilities to live their lives is restricted if they are not vaccinated I will protest on the streets.


I'm wondering if you will protest on the streets for my right to walk around in public naked without having my ability to live my life significantly restricted.

I know certain privileges requiring vaccination are more important than certain privileges requiring me to wear clothes, since my choice to not wear clothes doesn't affect anyone's physical health, but I would still appreciate it. Thank you.



p1ngpong said:


> Now, after a couple of years of hardcore scare mongering people are practically willing to shove their fellow citizen onto a train to Auschwitz for not conforming to the regimes rules.


This kind of tone-deaf hyperbole is as offensive as it is unhelpful.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I only care about metrics that are actually measurable. The decision of my parents to not have an abortion, for example, affects you in no way that's deserving of moral consideration.



It's measurable.  And it doesn't even have to be on a moral level.  Of course your parents not having an abortion has affected me.  If you are here for "moral" reasons, then I fear you were mislead a long time ago, before coming here with your soapbox.




Lacius said:


> Unfortunately, a person who is unvaccinated is significantly more likely to become infected and spread disease. The more people who are unvaccinated, the more the disease spreads to vaccinated and unvaccinated people alike. The more the disease spreads, the higher the rate of mutation and the higher the likelihood of new variants emerging. The fact that there will be unvaccinated people who don't spread the disease is irrelevant.



Unfortunately, not everyone who is vaccinated takes precautions and people who take precautions can be not vaccinated, so the idea that unvaccinated people are hurting people is based on a misapplied statistic.  You kind of have to live your own life. Sucks, doesn't it?


----------



## SG854 (Dec 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> It's measurable.  And it doesn't even have to be on a moral level.  Of course your parents not having an abortion has affected me.  If you are here for "moral" reasons, then I fear you were mislead a long time ago, before coming here with your soapbox.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You could say preventing people from having an abortion does affect society since likely a women wanting to get an abortion because she herself feels unfit to raise a child. 

This could be financial reasons she can't afford, which means she'll need to resort to government programs. Tax dollars that could be be better used for something else now used to take care of a woman's child that she didn't want in the first place. 

Or a women can't be there to raise the kid, which means the kid will be neglected which can lead to problem for the kid and maybe society at large if the kid becomes a criminal from neglect.


----------



## p1ngpong (Dec 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm wondering if you will protest on the streets for my right to walk around in public naked without having my ability to live my life significantly restricted.
> 
> I know certain privileges requiring vaccination are more important than certain privileges requiring me to wear clothes, since my choice to not wear clothes doesn't affect anyone's physical health, but I would still appreciate it. Thank you.
> 
> ...


Wow what a highly ignorant analogy that does not apply to law there.

Firstly, as long as you are not committing a lewd or offensive act, are not harassing anyone or causing distress you can walk around naked if you want to. So yes you are utterly wrong on that one.

Here is some guidance as you are obviously lacking education in what you are talking about https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/nudity-public-guidance-handling-cases-naturism

Secondly, you are literally saying people should show proof of something to get on a bus or train and use public transport. In the 150 years public transport has existed we have never had any requirement to show anything to use the service as long as we are not crossing an international border. If you are actually for a vaccine passport to use a bus or train and this development does not ring alarm bells for you then there is no point talking to you. You obviously have no appreciation of basic freedoms and rights, you are not worth talking to.


----------



## AlexMCS (Dec 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Whether or not a person gets an abortion has no real effect on you or anyone else around you. The same cannot be said with regard to vaccination.



You could not be more wrong.
Think about what you said in the context of the mothers of the ones who made the increasingly great scientific discoveries over the course of humanity.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 4, 2021)

AlexMCS said:


> You could not be more wrong.
> Think about what you said in the context of the mothers of the ones who made the increasingly great scientific discoveries over the course of humanity.


That's not really a solid argument and honestly just put it up just random chance. There's a chance anyone born could be a doctor who makes amazing breakthroughs. There's the same amount of chances that they would also be a mass murder who eats people. But regardless, the person still isn't born and their hypothetical choices have zero effects on the world because they weren't born.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> It's measurable.  And it doesn't even have to be on a moral level.  Of course your parents not having an abortion has affected me.  If you are here for "moral" reasons, then I fear you were mislead a long time ago, before coming here with your soapbox.


It's measurable now, albeit subjectively and qualitatively, but it wasn't measurable when my mother had the option of aborting me. Whether or not I've had an effect on your life, and whether or not that effect has been positive, are undeserving of moral considerations with regard to whether or not my mother should have had the right to terminate her pregnancy if she had wanted to. It's all in hindsight, and the nature of the effect I've had is a matter of opinion. I'd argue your life is substantially better with me in it, but I have a feeling you would disagree. Regardless, I'm apparently living rent-free in your head if you're saying I've had a significant effect on your life. This is probably going to increase my already inflated sense of self-importance.

The effect my existence has had on you in hindsight isn't analogous to the effect the unvaccinated population is having on everyone around them. We should take every reasonable measure to reduce the spread of infectious disease, but moral considerations don't go to those who have had their feelings hurt because some guy on the internet, who wasn't aborted, pointed out the mistakes in their posts.



p1ngpong said:


> Firstly, as long as you are not committing a lewd or offensive act, are not harassing anyone or causing distress you can walk around naked if you want to. So yes you are utterly wrong on that one.


It's generally illegal in most places to walk around naked in public. Where I live in the US, it's second degree sexual misconduct if someone can see certain parts of my body who didn't consent to seeing those parts of me, which is what would happen if I walked around naked in public.

It should also be noted that, per your link and your explanation, it's generally illegal to walk around naked in the UK if "members of the public were... caused harassment, alarm or distress." The point of the page you linked to, as I interpret it, is that the response to public nudity by law enforcement is extremely situation-based, not that it's generally legal. Given my point was about being naked in public spaces, I don't think you and I are in disagreement.

All that said, if a random person on the street objected to me being naked and had me arrested, forced to put on clothes, or forced to leave the public space, would you protest for my right to be able to walk around as nature intended? Please and thank you.



p1ngpong said:


> Secondly, you are literally saying people should show proof of something to get on a bus or train and use public transport. In the 150 years public transport has existed we have never had any requirement to show anything to use the service as long as we are not crossing an international border. If you are actually for a vaccine passport to use a bus or train and this development does not ring alarm bells for you then there is no point talking to you. You obviously have no appreciation of basic freedoms and rights, you are not worth talking to.


You made a tone-deaf comparison to the Holocaust, a situation in which millions of people were sent to literal death camps for immutable characteristics. Oppositely, you're complaining about people who are willfully unvaccinated (not an immutable characteristic) being unable to (*gasp*) get on a bus until after they are vaccinated, all in the interest of public health, just in the same way I would likely be denied access to a bus if I weren't wearing clothes until after I put on clothes (assuming I weren't arrested first).

An argument could be made that a person is not worth talking to after making these sorts of antisemitic comparisons, telling me there's no point talking to me despite the civility with which I've responded to your posts, and saying to me that I "have no appreciation of basic freedoms and rights" because I disagree with you. However, I think you're very much worth talking to. No one is forcing you to respond to me though.



AlexMCS said:


> You could not be more wrong.
> Think about what you said in the context of the mothers of the ones who made the increasingly great scientific discoveries over the course of humanity.


The problem is these sorts of considerations are purely hypothetical when the woman is pregnant, since a fetus could just as easily grow up to be a serial killer. Hypothetical people do not get moral considerations since they don't actually exist. if this is the argument against abortion, then the same argument could be made to force strangers to have sex with each other, all in the interest of the hypothetical person who would be born from their copulation. It's a fair comparison, since denying access to abortion is a violation of bodily autonomy, as is forcing two strangers to have sex.

Even in a magical world where we can scan a pregnant woman and tell her that her baby will likely cure cancer, that doesn't mean she shouldn't have the right to terminate that pregnancy. She has a right to bodily autonomy regardless of who or what is in her womb.

Off topic, since it is neither an argument for or against legal abortion, but it should be noted that there's an argument that legalized abortion is correlated with a significant drop in crime. This could be because, in part, fetuses that are aborted are more likely to be from families with fewer resources and have the ingredients for a higher likelihood of criminality. In other words, the aborted scientist appears less likely than the aborted serial killer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect


----------



## p1ngpong (Dec 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's measurable now, albeit subjectively and qualitatively, but it wasn't measurable when my mother had the option of aborting me. Whether or not I've had an effect on your life, and whether or not that effect as been positive, are undeserving of moral considerations with regard to whether or not my mother should have had the right to terminate her pregnancy if she had wanted to. It's all in hindsight, and the nature of the effect I've had is a matter of opinion. I'd argue your life is substantially better with me in it, but I have a feeling you would disagree. Regardless, I'm apparently living rent-free in your head if you're saying I've had a significant effect on your life. This is probably going to increase my already inflated sense of self-importance.
> 
> The effect my existence has had on you in hindsight isn't analogous to the effect the unvaccinated population is having on everyone around them. We should take every reasonable measure to reduce the spread of infectious disease, but moral considerations don't go to those who have had their feelings hurt because some guy on the internet, who wasn't aborted, pointed out the mistakes in their posts.
> 
> ...


Bitch got schooled hard and comes back with a wall of text nobody will ever read LOL ;O;


----------



## Lacius (Dec 4, 2021)

p1ngpong said:


> Bitch got schooled hard and comes back with a wall of text nobody will ever read LOL ;O;


I disagree. It gives me physical gratification to reread my own posts.


----------



## weatMod (Dec 4, 2021)

WiiMiiSwitch said:


> Here's how to fix mandates
> Mandate the vaccine for non allergic people
> So simple


LOL yeah   that  is hilarious

just like all those retarded big pharma drug ads

 in the disclaimers at the end  they always say some bullshit like

 if you are allergic to this drug then do not take this drug"

how are you  supposed to know   if you are "allergic" to it   until you actually take at which point it is already too late


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 4, 2021)

p1ngpong said:


> Bitch got schooled hard and comes back with a wall of text nobody will ever read LOL ;O;


Rather unbecoming of a member the staff to give such a dickish reply to a member.


----------



## Dakitten (Dec 4, 2021)

AlexMCS said:


> You could not be more wrong.
> Think about what you said in the context of the mothers of the ones who made the increasingly great scientific discoveries over the course of humanity.


Think of the mothers of Stalin, Hitler, and Musk! Seriously, this kind of argument is parodied so often specifically because it appeals only to the emotions of the squeamish. It doesn't even really belong in this thread, but...

1. Abortion isn't the first line of birth control, it is often the last resort. Going down to the basest use, it is to protect a woman from parenthood when they aren't ready. I know the right complains that "the baby could just get donated at a fire station!" but that ignores the months of intense physical toll it takes on the mother in the best of circumstances and how underfunded and understaffed orphanages are... just about everywhere, really. Bad outcome for all parties. Folks on the right love to think of it as "irresponsible birth control", but nobody sane thinks "I'll just get an abortion in a few weeks!" when things happen.
2. In the US, the mortality rate of mothers is stunningly off. There is a literal chance for death for mothers (and, to loop it back to this thread, its higher than the chance for serious vaccine side effects OMG CONNECTIONS MADE!)
3. Sometimes, bad things happen. Alcohol mixed with bad scenarios, men mixed with a lack of empathy and an immunity to the word "no", the full moon mixed with a family member who takes advantage of a minor... in these circumstances, this shouldn't even be a debate. Impregnation wasn't even considered by a mentally sound woman, and shouldn't be forced upon them.

I'm going to go back to being dead with my work schedule now. <3 at my fellow feline and Lacius and others for fighting the good fight!


----------



## smf (Dec 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Instead of deflecting, please genuinely answer the question.  It appears that you said a stupid thing, that "attacking another country" is racist,


That isn't what I said, you thought I said a stupid thing because that is your default stance.

*No, it's racist when you attack another country and blame them when it was a natural event.*

Back in the beginning the racists were saying along the lines of "those dirty chinese, it was those awful wet markets fault, they should ban them". when the evidence isn't strong that it jumped to humans at the wet market.

But I guess that is too nuanced for you to understand.

As for climate change, yes china do produce a lot of the pollution. However we need to accept some of that blame as we've all outsourced most of our manufacturing to there, so singling them out is like a game of "stop hitting yourself".


----------



## plasturion (Dec 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Whether or not a person gets an abortion has no real effect on you or anyone else around you. The same cannot be said with regard to vaccination.


I would say, there's no any other act that bring so massive negative effect to everyone around as murdering innocent people. You want to stop real illnes, just don't support dr. Mengele and genocide.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 4, 2021)

plasturion said:


> I would say, there's no any other act that bring so massive negative effect to everyone around as murdering innocent people. You want to stop real illnes, just don't support dr. Mengele and genocide.



Embryos and fetuses are not people.
Abortion is not murder: It's the termination of a pregnancy.
Obviously, I don't support Mengele, genocide, or anything like them. If you're making an inflammatory and antisemitic comparison between Mengele and Fauci, I'll just quote what the Auschwitz Museum had to say about it. @p1ngpong, you should probably pay attention.



> “Exploiting the tragedy of people who became victims of criminal pseudo-medical experiments in Auschwitz in a debate about vaccines, pandemic and people who fight for saving human lives is shameful. It is disrespectful to victims & a sad symptom of moral and intellectual decline."



It should go without saying that trivializing the atrocities of the Holocaust is shameful and antisemitic, but here we are.


----------



## XDel (Dec 4, 2021)




----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 4, 2021)

p1ngpong said:


> Very disturbing turn things are taking in the world. Anyone who is celebrating these developments of governments forcing a vaccine onto grown adults is very short sighted and does not know history.
> 
> I am saying this as a person who is double jabbed, wears a mask in public and encourages people to be jabbed by the way.
> 
> ...


Thank you.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 4, 2021)

XDel said:


>



Biden is hypocritical. Video made me laugh when he spit on that woman without wearing a mask after he is adamant about wearing a mask.

I didn't laugh at the fact he could cause harm to the woman. I laughed because of his hypocriticalness.



Alexander1970 said:


> Thank you.


I would agree that forcing anyone to do anything about the vaccine is bad. But I don't take seriously anti vaxers and the arguments they present. @p1nglooks like one of those people that supports the vaccine, since he is vaxed, but doesn't support governments forcing it upon people. And I think this is the best approach to take right now.


----------



## XDel (Dec 4, 2021)

Nearly EVERYTHING you need to know...

Does anyone follow the news coming out of the U.N. or World Economic Forum Web sites? That's where these strategies that people call conspiracy theory come from. Eugenics, Population Control, Digital Tracking, Implants, Remote Monitoring, Remote Shut Down of Bio-Organic Systems, etc. For your health... because THEY LOVE YOU, of course!



Spoiler


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 4, 2021)

There are some really weird arguments going on here. The abortion analogy was supposed to be about government intervention/mandates.. not the butterfly effect lol.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 4, 2021)

XDel said:


> Nearly EVERYTHING you need to know...
> 
> Does anyone follow the news coming out of the U.N. or World Economic Forum Web sites? That's where these strategies that people call conspiracy theory come from. Eugenics, Population Control, Digital Tracking, Implants, Remote Monitoring, Remote Shut Down of Bio-Organic Systems, etc. For your health... because THEY LOVE YOU, of course!


There is no evidence that COVID-19 or the vaccines have anything to do with "Eugenics, Population Control, Digital Tracking, Implants, Remote Monitoring, Remote Shut Down of Bio-Organic Systems, etc." These are baseless conspiracy theories. In fact, the vaccines have been demonstrated to be safe and effective.


----------



## Lucaserf (Dec 4, 2021)

man moderation is lacking rn, guy went full paranoia and no one bats an eye. Most of the content here is either taken out of context or not even related to the discussion in hand.


XDel said:


> Nearly EVERYTHING you need to know...
> 
> Does anyone follow the news coming out of the U.N. or World Economic Forum Web sites? That's where these strategies that people call conspiracy theory come from. Eugenics, Population Control, Digital Tracking, Implants, Remote Monitoring, Remote Shut Down of Bio-Organic Systems, etc. For your health... because THEY LOVE YOU, of course!


----------



## XDel (Dec 4, 2021)

Lucaserf said:


> man moderation is lacking rn, guy went full paranoia and no one bats an eye. Most of the content here is either taken out of context or not even related to the discussion in hand.



You watched all that already???? AMAZING!!! I mean, because THEY ARE SAYING IT!!!!


----------



## Lacius (Dec 4, 2021)

XDel said:


> You watched all that already???? AMAZING!!! I mean, because THEY ARE SAYING IT!!!!


I'd be surprised if anybody watched your videos. Why should they?


----------



## Zajumino (Dec 4, 2021)

smf said:


> That isn't what I said, you thought I said a stupid thing because that is your default stance.
> 
> *No, it's racist when you attack another country and blame them when it was a natural event.*
> 
> ...


Blaming a country for something is not racist, regardless of its validity. What is racist is to treat people differently because you associate their race with that country.

I don't know who "the racists" are or what they say, but this is what I think:

The CCP tried to cover up the virus.
There is not enough evidence to show that they created the virus, but it is possible that they might have.
They have tried to punish countries (like Australia) for calling for an investigation into the origin or the virus.
While the virus itself was natural (maybe), China deserves to be blamed for acting selfishly at the expense of everyone else.

Meanwhile, South Africa is punished for doing the right thing.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 4, 2021)

Zajumino said:


> Blaming a country for something is not racist, regardless of its validity. What is racist is to treat people differently because you associate their race with that country.
> 
> I don't know who "the racists" are or what they say, but this is what I think:
> 
> ...


The genetic evidence suggests the virus was naturally occurring, and until the evidence changes, the suggesting it was human-made is no more than a conspiracy theory.


----------



## XDel (Dec 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'd be surprised if anybody watched your videos. Why should they?


 It's called wanting to learn, wanting to think for your self, wanting to know truth. And yes, my channels are slowly growing, so someone is watching.


----------



## Lucaserf (Dec 4, 2021)

XDel said:


> You watched all that already???? AMAZING!!! I mean, because THEY ARE SAYING IT!!!!


Your videos are highly edited, nitpicking small parts of different videos with the purpose of creating an entirely different context of what is or was being discussed. The Pfzier CEO video is a great example of it, he did not say or imply that he profits from emotional manipulation. On the contrary, people like you, who spread misinformation disguised as "help", are trying to profit from the fear and ignorance of others.

Edit: grammar


----------



## Lacius (Dec 4, 2021)

XDel said:


> It's called wanting to learn, wanting to think for your self, wanting to know truth. And yes, my channels are slowly growing, so someone is watching.


Your videos are the antithesis to truth, and all you're doing is posting a barrage of bad videos without context. That isn't how discussion forums work, or we would all be posting videos past each other.

Edit: as for caring about the truth, that requires skepticism, and engaging in conspiratorial thinking isn't skepticism.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 4, 2021)

SG854 said:


> I would agree that forcing anyone to do anything about the vaccine is bad. But I don't take seriously anti vaxers and the arguments they present. @p1nglooks like one of those people that supports the vaccine, since he is vaxed, but doesn't support governments forcing it upon people. And I think this is the best approach to take right now.


The main Problem in Austria is at the moment,the REAL Anti Vaccine/Refuser/Denier People are getting more and more "aggressiv"...

For the over 68% vaccinated Austrian Citizen,the Media (mainly ORF and Kronen Zeitung,both politically "motivated"....) are presenting a totally wrong "View".....

As I said in a previous Post,the near 1 Million unvaccinated People in Austria are mainly confused and unsure,have fear because of really bad misinformations from Politics AND the Medical Side...
And it is really not getting better..now the Children are getting their Shots...and first Cases are "appearing" about "Side Effects" on them....that REALLY not helps for these People.

Also for the "inactivated Vaccines" - suddenly the "Speed of getting the Permissions" are slowed down..now it seems,that the first one will permitted for next Year earliest instead of this Year.....very good for Pfizer/Biontech for Decembers "Vaccination Lottery Games" in Austria....






PLEASE do not throw ALL People in one POT !


----------



## Dakitten (Dec 4, 2021)

Lucaserf said:


> Your videos are highly edited, nitpicking small parts of different videos with the purpose of creating an entirely different context of what is or was being discussed. The Pfzier CEO video is a great example of it, he did not say or imply that he profits from emotional manipulation. On the contrary, people like you, who spread misinformation disguised as "help", are trying to profit from the fear and ignorance of others.
> 
> Edit: grammar


He learned that from project Veritas


----------



## XDel (Dec 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Your videos are the antithesis to truth, and all you're doing is posting a barrage of bad videos without context. That isn't how discussion forums work, or we would all be posting videos past each other.
> 
> Edit: as for caring about the truth, that requires skepticism, and engaging in conspiratorial thinking isn't skepticism.



The difference is that I source that actual sources such as Klaus Schwab, The World Economic Forum, and so forth. 

You on the other hand have so far quoted WIKI. So I mean if your debate must remain within the domain of own and controlled TV media and what WIKI says, then we're never arrive anywhere.


----------



## XDel (Dec 4, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> He learned that from project Veritas



If I were editing to twist something to fit my context I would have learned that from Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, Al Jazeera, BBC, The Guardian, and so forth. You know... those who are owned by those who own the satellites in the sky and those who sell you every consumer product you are addicted to...
...on which note, you aren't one of those kids who's parents bought them an expensive iPhone so you put an anarchy sticker on it are you?!?!

BTW, who ever started this post.... you are welcome for the points!!!


----------



## Lucaserf (Dec 4, 2021)

XDel said:


> If I were editing to twist something to fit my context I would have learned that from Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, Al Jazeera, BBC, The Guardian, and so forth. You know... those who are owned by those who own the satellites in the sky and those who sell you every consumer product you are addicted to...
> ...on which note, you aren't one of those kids who's parents bought them an expensive iPhone so you put an anarchy sticker on it are you?!?!
> 
> BTW, who ever started this post.... you are welcome for the points!!!


You literally posted WION media, no difference between it and something like Fox News, Al Jazeera, RT Today, etc.


XDel said:


> The difference is that I source that actual sources such as Klaus Schwab, The World Economic Forum, and so forth.
> 
> You on the other hand have so far quoted WIKI. So I mean if your debate must remain within the domain of own and controlled TV media and what WIKI says, then we're never arrive anywhere.


The wiki most of the time is well sourced and neutral, unlike what you have posted. Also, you can always open a discussion in the wiki pages about the validity of its claims.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 4, 2021)

XDel said:


> It's called wanting to learn, wanting to think for your self, wanting to know truth. And yes, my channels are slowly growing, so someone is watching.


You vomited a crap ton of videos. If you want to get people to look away that's one way to do it.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 4, 2021)

XDel said:


> The difference is that I source that actual sources such as Klaus Schwab, The World Economic Forum, and so forth.
> 
> You on the other hand have so far quoted WIKI. So I mean if your debate must remain within the domain of own and controlled TV media and what WIKI says, then we're never arrive anywhere.


Not to turn this into a debate about the pros vs. cons of Wikipedia, but you do know the site requires reputable sources for its information, right?


----------



## Zajumino (Dec 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The genetic evidence suggests the virus was naturally occurring, and until the evidence changes, the suggesting it was human-made is no more than a conspiracy theory.


Conspiracy theory? You do realize we are talking about China?

Anyways, its not a conspiracy theory because we do not yet know the origin of the virus. Plus, if you assume that a leak was an accident, there is no conspiracy to begin with.

On the other hand, if you think somebody deliberately engineered and released the virus, then I guess that would qualify.

https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1656


----------



## Lacius (Dec 4, 2021)

Zajumino said:


> Conspiracy theory? You do realize we are talking about China?
> 
> Anyways, its not a conspiracy theory because we do not yet know the origin of the virus. Plus, if you assume that a leak was an accident, there is no conspiracy to begin with.
> 
> ...


Considering the lack of evidence, and the genetic evidence to the contrary, the suggestion the virus was human-made is indeed a conspiracy theory. That's a separate issue from the "lab leak hypothesis."


----------



## Lucaserf (Dec 4, 2021)

Zajumino said:


> Conspiracy theory? You do realize we are talking about China?
> 
> Anyways, its not a conspiracy theory because we do not yet know the origin of the virus. Plus, if you assume that a leak was an accident, there is no conspiracy to begin with.
> 
> ...


If it had enough evidence to qualify it as a purposefuly released man-made virus, we would be dealing with biological warfare. If such thing was confirmed, the US (or any nation in beef with China) would be the first to say so. It would create a huge anti-China sentiment (It already did despite being only a conspiracy theory). Hell, if you want to speculate even further, it could even start a war


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 4, 2021)

I really wonder,why really nobody from our vaccinated Friends and Experts here,quoted or is interested/reacted here in Biontech-Chef Ugur Sahin Statementes yesterday and a few Days ago....


----------



## AlexMCS (Dec 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's a fair comparison, since denying access to abortion is a violation of bodily autonomy, as is forcing two strangers to have sex.



"Hypothetical person" is not the same as a growing embryo, which is a new human individual, with its own DNA and makeup, even if you don't consider it as such.

But you have made your political and personal views clear here, so I get your point of view.



Dakitten said:


> Think of the mothers of Stalin, Hitler, and Musk! Seriously, this kind of argument is parodied so often specifically because it appeals only to the emotions of the squeamish. It doesn't even really belong in this thread, but...



His quote was *verbatim*:
*"Whether or not a person gets an abortion has no real effect on you or anyone else around you."*

Which is completely wrong *even in negative instances. *I should have made it clearer then.
Nevertheless, the killings/massacres in history were all temporary.

*Preserved, publicized knowledge is eternal.* So, even if we'd only get one Carl Friedrich Gauss for every 1000+ street thugs, the whole humanity would profit from it, potentially forever. How can you fail to realize this?

Not to mention the great killers in history only did so because of their power. Great scientists didn't need much for their discoveries.

Likewise, thanks for those fighting the* actual* good fight, against such drivel (abortion + vaccine mandates).

As a *scientist*, you should stop taking discoveries/reports and studies/papers as gospel.
That is even more fanatical zealotry than some religions have.

A good scientist should never accept any discovery as absolute, knowing that science is a sound method, but *not a complete one.* It's a logical circle, mostly based on unverified premises.

Use it as a *tool* to help your decision making, and always keep in mind that your whole theory might be wrong*.*
That is the beauty of science*.*


----------



## Lacius (Dec 4, 2021)

AlexMCS said:


> "Hypothetical person" is not the same as a growing embryo, which is a new human individual, with its own DNA and makeup, even if you don't consider it as such.


Stepping away from the conversation about when personhood begins or whether or not an embryo is a person, the conversation to which you were responding was specifically about whether or not the hypothetical doctor or serial killer is deserving of rights or moral consideration based on their hypothetical lives; they aren't. But thank you for the respectful reply.


----------



## AlexMCS (Dec 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Stepping away from the conversation about when personhood begins or whether or not an embryo is a person, the conversation to which you were responding was specifically about whether or not the hypothetical doctor or serial killer is deserving of rights or moral consideration based on their hypothetical lives; they aren't. But thank you for the respectful reply.



As a scientist, I can't assume I'm right either, just hope for it


----------



## Zajumino (Dec 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Considering the lack of evidence, and the genetic evidence to the contrary, the suggestion the virus was human-made is indeed a conspiracy theory. That's a separate issue from the "lab leak hypothesis."


I am only saying that it is possible, not that it is definitely true. A lack of evidence does not disprove anything, and genetic evidence is not necessarily conclusive. Remember that the lab leak hypothesis was originally dismissed as a conspiracy theory. In order to know for certain that the virus was not human-made, you would need to know about everything that went on in the Wuhan lab, which is impossible.

In the article I linked:
Prominent outlets such as _PolitiFact_ and FactCheck.org have added editor’s notes to pieces that previously “debunked” the idea that the virus was created in a lab or could have been bioengineered—softening their position to one of an open question that is “in dispute.” For almost a year Facebook sought to control misinformation by banning stories suggesting that the coronavirus was man made. After renewed interest in the virus’s origin, Facebook lifted the ban.​


Lucaserf said:


> If it had enough evidence to qualify it as a purposefuly released man-made virus, we would be dealing with biological warfare. If such thing was confirmed, the US (or any nation in beef with China) would be the first to say so. It would create a huge anti-China sentiment (It already did despite being only a conspiracy theory). Hell, if you want to speculate even further, it could even start a war


Which is why I said it would qualify as a conspiracy theory.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 4, 2021)

Zajumino said:


> I am only saying that it is possible, not that it is definitely true. A lack of evidence does not disprove anything, and genetic evidence is not necessarily conclusive.


There is no good evidence that it's true, likely true, or reasonably possible that the virus was human-created.

A lack of evidence for something can indeed discredit a proposition. If I constantly talk about my cat, but there's no evidence of a cat at my house, that suggests I'm wrong or lying about having a cat. Ignoring for a second that the human-created claim has a burden of proof it hasn't met, there is evidence (particularly genetic evidence) we'd expect to find if the virus were human-created. What we do know about the virus's genetic information falls well within what we'd expect from a naturally occurring coronavirus from the area. It isn't like it was a coincidence the lab was there. Scientists have been figuratively screaming from the mountaintops since before I was born about the very real chances of a coronavirus pandemic originating from that rough area.

I must also say the origins of the virus are irrelevant with regard to its infectiousness and mortality. The origins are also irrelevant with regard to the efficacy of masks, vaccines, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, etc.

Edit: Conspiracies often arise when people feel a loss of control. It's easier to think someone with nefarious intent is in control of everything vs. the world is a cold and random place.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I disagree. It gives me physical gratification to reread my own posts.



Everyone is aware of that Locius.




Lacius said:


> It's measurable now, albeit subjectively and qualitatively



You are literally another mouth to feed and an contribution to the carbon footprint.  Come out and say that you approve of population control. 



smf said:


> "those dirty chinese, it was those awful wet markets fault, they should ban them"


China is pretty dirty, and so is America.  I don't see how blaming a country and its policies are the same as blaming people.  You are inserting racism with the extra step of attributing a country's problems to all of its people.



smf said:


> No, it's racist when you attack another country and blame them when it was a natural event.



Despite your attempt to rationalize this with your own racism, this is still stupid.  A country is not a race, even if it is being blamed for a natural event.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You are literally another mouth to feed and an contribution to the carbon footprint.  Come out and say that you approve of population control.



It was my mother's choice to abort me or not (for whatever reason), nobody else's choice.
You seem to be arguing for population control, not me?


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It was my mother's choice to abort me or not (for whatever reason), nobody else's choice.
> You seem to be arguing for population control, not me?



You don't seem to understand that the argument is enforced abortion parallels enforced injection in respect to "my body, my choice."  Or maybe you just forgot or are trying really hard to ignore it; I am uncertain.

"By not getting vaccinated, or an abortion, you are hurting everyone around you.  The government should mandate these."


----------



## Lacius (Dec 5, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You don't seem to understand that the argument is enforced abortion parallels enforced injection in respect to "my body, my choice."  Or maybe you just forgot or are trying really hard to ignore it; I am uncertain.
> 
> "By not getting vaccinated, or an abortion, you are hurting everyone around you.  The government should mandate these."


Requiring proof of vaccination for certain privileges, like buses and public schools, is not a violation of one's right to bodily autonomy like denying a right to an abortion would be. If you want to make the stupid choice to not get vaccinated, don't get vaccinated, and don't make use of the things that require proof of vaccination.

Requiring proof of vaccination for certain privileges is as much a violation of one's right to bodily autonomy as laws requiring me to wear clothes in public.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Requiring proof of vaccination for certain privileges, like buses and public schools, is not a violation of one's right to bodily autonomy like denying a right to an abortion would be. If you want to make the stupid choice to not get vaccinated, don't get vaccinated, and don't make use of the things that require proof of vaccination.
> 
> Requiring proof of vaccination for certain privileges is as much a violation of one's right to bodily autonomy as laws requiring me to wear clothes in public.



You are talking over me again.  You aren't responding to what I said.  You are gratifying your ego in front of everyone while ignoring what I actually said.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 5, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You are talking over me again.  You aren't responding to what I said.  You are gratifying your ego in front of everyone while ignoring what I actually said.


You're the one not listening to me, so I will say it one more time: A woman has a right to bodily autonomy regardless of the circumstances, and the same goes for everyone else. Barring a woman from a legal abortion violates that right. A mandated abortion violates that right. A mandated vaccine punishable by law violates that right. A law requiring me to wear pants at all times violates that right.

The right to bodily autonomy, however, doesn't extend to me wanting to walk around public spaces naked, it doesn't extend to an anti-masker wanting to enter a particular public building without a mask, and it doesn't extend to an anti-vaxxer wanting to ride a train without proof of vaccination.

I'm not the one talking past anybody.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2021)

I'm sorry, I thought you were pro-vaccine mandates.  Maybe I am misunderstanding.



Lacius said:


> it doesn't extend to an anti-vaxxer wanting to ride a train without proof of vaccination.



Lol.  What about "pro-vaxxers"? 

For the majority of what you are spouting about now in regards to rationalizing everyone diverge personal medical history to ride a bus, someone else already had a good enough response:



p1ngpong said:


> Wow what a highly ignorant analogy that does not apply to law there.
> 
> Firstly, as long as you are not committing a lewd or offensive act, are not harassing anyone or causing distress you can walk around naked if you want to. So yes you are utterly wrong on that one.
> 
> ...



But in general, it sounds like you are using your frustration with not being able to be naked wherever you want as a justification for even more oppression.    Kind of weird.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 5, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I'm sorry, I thought you were pro-vaccine mandates.  Maybe I am misunderstanding.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He's not being frustrated about not being naked lol. Those are just examples for arguments sake. Don't be disingenuous.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2021)

SG854 said:


> He's not being frustrated about not being naked lol. Those are just examples for arguments sake. Don't be disingenuous.



Then I'm frustrated about not being allowed to be naked wherever I want.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 5, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Then I'm frustrated about not being allowed to be naked wherever I want.


Maybe join the free the nipples movment with a sign that says free the penis.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 5, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I'm sorry, I thought you were pro-vaccine mandates.  Maybe I am misunderstanding.



You probably shouldn't assume a person's position. If you're ever unsure, just ask. I'm an open book.
I am pro vaccine mandates. If you want to ride a train, present proof of vaccination. If you want to enter most public buildings, present proof of vaccination. If you want to attend public school, present proof of vaccination. If you want to work in healthcare, or most other jobs for that matter, present proof of vaccination. If, however, you don't want to get vaccinated and don't want to make use of privileges that require vaccination by staying the hell away from the rest of us, that's 100% fine with me.



tabzer said:


> Lol.  What about "pro-vaxxers"?
> 
> For the majority of what you are spouting about now in regards to rationalizing everyone diverge personal medical history to ride a bus, someone else already had a good enough response:
> 
> ...


If you don't see the parallels, I'm not sure I can make clearer than I already have. If you think people should be able to do whatever they want without proof of vaccination, then to be logically consistent, you should think I should be able to do whatever I want naked. The only difference is only one of these situations carries the substantial risk of spreading a potentially deadly infectious disease, and it isn't my hypothetical nudity. If you think I should have to wear clothes for certain privileges like walking around a public space, then to be logically consistent, you should have no problem with the same kind of vaccine mandates.

With regard to the post you quoted, you should probably take a look at my response to it.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 5, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Then I'm frustrated about not being allowed to be naked wherever I want.


This is as ridiculous a position as being frustrated that you can't be unvaccinated wherever you want. In fact, the nudity frustration may be less ridiculous.


----------



## K3N1 (Dec 5, 2021)

Honestly it's more redicoulus how people are so cool with getting injected with shots other than pushing medical companies into releasing over the counter drugs you could just walk into any store and buy. How little do we stop and realize how these companies producing vaccines are billion dollar industries that could pull over the counter options but instead govern it by forcing us to get injected with needles. Sure the rona virus isn't as well treated as the common cold but I'm 100% sure they could take the formula and make it into another form factor we could easily acquire. Without going to a doctor for vaccine after vaccine booster after booster etc...


----------



## SG854 (Dec 5, 2021)

KennieDaMeanie said:


> Honestly it's more redicoulus how people are so cool with getting injected with shots other than pushing medical companies into releasing over the counter drugs you could just walk into any store and buy. How little do we stop and realize how these companies producing vaccines are billion dollar industries that could pull over the counter options but instead govern it by forcing us to get injected with needles. Sure the rona virus isn't as well treated as the common cold but I'm 100% sure they could take the formula and make it into another form factor we could easily acquire. Without going to a doctor for vaccine after vaccine booster after booster etc...


What reason would they have for pulling over the counter options? Whether it's needles or over the counter, if their end goal is to get something into your body why favor one over the other if the end result is the same?


----------



## K3N1 (Dec 5, 2021)

SG854 said:


> What reason would they have for pulling over the counter options? Whether it's needles or over the counter, if their end goal is to get something into your body why favor one over the other if the end result is the same?


So you could free up a doctor or nurses time by buying something over the counter that works just as well as a shot? Or we wouldn't have things like ibuprofen. We forget there are other countries with little to no medical advantages that can still acquire covid so a shot isn't the end all to end it imo.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 5, 2021)

KennieDaMeanie said:


> So you could free up a doctor or nurses time by buying something over the counter that works just as well as a shot? Or we wouldn't have things like ibuprofen. We forget there are other countries with little to no medical advantages that can still acquire covid so a shot isn't the end all to end it imo.


You would still need to go to a physician for proper dosage and prescription 

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/9-things-to-know-about-covid-pill


----------



## Lacius (Dec 5, 2021)

KennieDaMeanie said:


> Honestly it's more redicoulus how people are so cool with getting injected with shots other than pushing medical companies into releasing over the counter drugs you could just walk into any store and buy. How little do we stop and realize how these companies producing vaccines are billion dollar industries that could pull over the counter options but instead govern it by forcing us to get injected with needles. Sure the rona virus isn't as well treated as the common cold but I'm 100% sure they could take the formula and make it into another form factor we could easily acquire. Without going to a doctor for vaccine after vaccine booster after booster etc...


The shots are safe and effective, and what they do is train your body so your own natural immune system can take care of itself. I'm not sure why you'd prefer drugs that you take after already getting infected and suffering the associated consequences. To use an analogy, I don't know why you'd prefer bullet-removal surgery over a bullet-proof vest.

The same pharmaceutical companies are also working hard to get COVID-19 treatments out to the public as quickly/safely as possible. We should use all the tools we have available.

Edit: And the existence of a treatment isn't an excuse to not get vaccinated, since the spread of disease is still a concern that the former doesn't mitigate against.


----------



## Zajumino (Dec 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There is no good evidence that it's true, likely true, or reasonably possible that the virus was human-created.
> 
> A lack of evidence for something can indeed discredit a proposition. If I constantly talk about my cat, but there's no evidence of a cat at my house, that suggests I'm wrong or lying about having a cat. Ignoring for a second that the human-created claim has a burden of proof it hasn't met, there is evidence (particularly genetic evidence) we'd expect to find if the virus were human-created. What we do know about the virus's genetic information falls well within what we'd expect from a naturally occurring coronavirus from the area. It isn't like it was a coincidence the lab was there. Scientists have been figuratively screaming from the mountaintops since before I was born about the very real chances of a coronavirus pandemic originating from that rough area.


While it is true that a lack of evidence can indeed discredit a proposition, it does not automatically disprove it completely. If there is no evidence of your cat at your house, then perhaps your cat lives in another house, or maybe you do a very good job of cleaning. Maybe your house is really big, and the part the cat lives in hasn't been inspected. In order to have a better idea of where the virus came from, more investigation is needed. Some of that investigation will never be possible because of interference from the CCP, which makes them look highly suspicious.

Apparently, Fauci agrees/d with me.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/24/politics/fauci-donald-trump-coronavirus/index.html

I'm not really up to date on the latest coronavirus genetic analysis, so maybe there have been some discoveries since then that I am not aware of.



Lacius said:


> I must also say the origins of the virus are irrelevant with regard to its infectiousness and mortality. The origins are also irrelevant with regard to the efficacy of masks, vaccines, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, etc.


If you assume the virus was used for gain of function research, then I suppose it would be somewhat relevant, since the point of that kind of research is to predict new diseases and to develop vaccines and treatments.

I got vaccinated once. The side effects were pretty bad. If I ever get vaccinated again for any disease, I would definitely want to know the risk of side effects.


----------



## K3N1 (Dec 5, 2021)

SG854 said:


> You would still need to go to a physician for proper dosage
> 
> https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/9-things-to-know-about-covid-pill


Okay so that's basically for like anything the point of OTCs is to know it works as well as a shot and most have things called instructions on bottles to tell you how much to take.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 5, 2021)

KennieDaMeanie said:


> So you could free up a doctor or nurses time by buying something over the counter that works just as well as a shot? Or we wouldn't have things like ibuprofen. We forget there are other countries with little to no medical advantages that can still acquire covid so a shot isn't the end all to end it imo.


Certain drugs require prescriptions, and for good reason. A lot of drugs are harmful and/or lethal with the wrong dosages. The overuse and/or improper usage of some drugs like antibiotics can lead to resistance that affects us all.


----------



## K3N1 (Dec 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Certain drugs require prescriptions, and for good reason. A lot of drugs are harmful and/or lethal with the wrong dosages. The overuse and/or improper usage of some drugs like antibiotics can lead to resistance that affects us all.


The vaccine doesn't require a prescription, Tylenol doesn't require a prescription. If we can get it to that level that's the only way I see things calming down not just getting a shot whenever your government tells you to.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 5, 2021)

KennieDaMeanie said:


> The vaccine doesn't require a prescription, Tylenol doesn't require a prescription. If we can get it to that level that's the only way I see things calming down not just getting a shot whenever your government tells you to.


The vaccine is regulated. You still need to see a doctor. And they keep records of your injections.


----------



## K3N1 (Dec 5, 2021)

SG854 said:


> The vaccine is regulated. You still need to see a doctor. And they keep records of your injections.


OTCs are also regulated lol


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Dec 5, 2021)

Funny how even though most people take regular shots, like flu shots and other shots to prevent the disease, but when they don't want to take the experimental coof shot they're anti-vaxxers. Makes sense to me.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> you should think I should be able to do whatever I want naked.


I do think people should be able to be naked wherever they want.  Being able to do whatever you want is another point I'm not trying to focus on.

I think being compelled to provide your vaccine status is just invasive and opens up a bigger can of worms in a supposed attempt of closing the can of worms that's already loosed.   Your "solution" is tyranny disguised as benevolence.



Lacius said:


> With regard to the post you quoted, you should probably take a look at my response to it.



I did.  There was some rationalization, based on things that are subjective to scientific advancement/capability/classifications.  All in all, too much pearl clutching and blindness to the point being made.  We shouldn't wait until a new type of holocaust happens before we say it's sensitively okay to notice the patterns and trends currently observable of history.  That's a poor excuse to feigning ignorance.  You'd sooner march blind into a preventable dystopia--because it's insensitive to attempt to critique our ways based on something that had already happened.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 5, 2021)

KennieDaMeanie said:


> OTCs are also regulated lol


Not as much as some antibiotics or covid vaccines. You can't just walk into a Walmart and buy covid vaccine needles from a store shelf.


----------



## K3N1 (Dec 5, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Not as much as some antibiotics or covid vaccines. You can't just walk into a Walmart and buy covid vaccine needles from a store shelf.


That's the point I'm making until it's in other forms that's the only way I see it calming down and like I said not just having a shot whenever your government tells you to.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 5, 2021)

Zajumino said:


> While it is true that a lack of evidence can indeed discredit a proposition, it does not automatically disprove it completely. If there is no evidence of your cat at your house, then perhaps your cat lives in another house, or maybe you do a very good job of cleaning. Maybe your house is really big, and the part the cat lives in hasn't been inspected. In order to have a better idea of where the virus came from, more investigation is needed. Some of that investigation will never be possible because of interference from the CCP, which makes them look highly suspicious.
> 
> Apparently, Fauci agrees/d with me.
> https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/24/politics/fauci-donald-trump-coronavirus/index.html
> ...


I'm not convinced of any one origin claim, but I acknowledge that there's probably a >99% chance it occurred naturally, and even if it was human-made, it doesn't mean it was nefarious, which to your credit I think you acknowledged. I'm not against investigations into the origins, but to actually believe the virus was human-made at this point is, by definition, baseless conspiratorial thinking. I don't think we're in disagreement.

I'm sorry about your previous experiences with vaccines. The odds of serious side effects with the COVID-19 vaccines are extremely low, and your odds of suffering from the actual disease are significantly higher.



KennieDaMeanie said:


> The vaccine doesn't require a prescription, Tylenol doesn't require a prescription. If we can get it to that level that's the only way I see things calming down not just getting a shot whenever your government tells you to.


You can't just buy vaccinations for yourself. It has to be administered. Tylenol is a specific drug that should require a prescription and probably wouldn't have been FDA approved in 2021. The dosage is not significantly different from a harmful dosage.


----------



## K3N1 (Dec 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'm not convinced of any one origin claim, but I acknowledge that there's probably a >99% chance it occurred naturally, and even if it was human-made, it doesn't mean it was nefarious, which to your credit I think you acknowledged. I'm not against investigations into the origins, but to actually believe the virus was human-made at this point is, by definition, baseless conspiratorial thinking. I don't think we're in disagreement.
> 
> I'm sorry about your previous experiences with vaccines. The odds of serious side effects with the COVID-19 vaccines are extremely low, and your odds of suffering from the actual disease are significantly higher.
> 
> ...


Huh? Why should a harmless drug be prescription required? Psychotic such as Xanax sure prescribe them but what's the harm in something that helps cure the common cold that's been around since the 50s need a prescription for? Let's put it this way if you're constipated and haven't shit in a few days would you rather buy a dollar laxative known it to work or run to your doctor saying you haven't been able to shit for a week. 

Why are we cool with needles and not something you could just buy thats known to work?


----------



## SG854 (Dec 5, 2021)

KennieDaMeanie said:


> That's the point I'm making until it's in other forms that's the only way I see it calming down and like I said not just having a shot whenever your government tells you to.


I don't think it being available in other forms will stop gov mandates if that were to happen. You will still need to show that you've been prescribed by a doctor as proof you are taking pills. Mandates will still be in place.

The pill is only after you get covid to treat it. There is no pill that acts as protection against it.

And if there was one available, how long would we have to take the pill? The pill would only last so long in the body before it dissolves completely. Would a dosage only last 24 hours? Would it be daily dosage you have to take?

If I was a company trying to rip people off and make as much money as possible. I would go for the pill option over the needle option as I can make more profit off of that.


----------



## K3N1 (Dec 5, 2021)

SG854 said:


> I don't think it being available in other forms will stop gov mandates if that we're to happen. You will still need to show that you've been prescribed by a doctor as proof you are taking pills. Mandates will still be in place.
> 
> The pill is only after you get covid to treat it. There is no pill that acts as protection against it.
> 
> ...


Well forgive me for living in a world where I hope to one day be able to hear a doctor say oh it's just covid you can buy this over the counter and it'll be cured within a few days. You don't need to keep seeing us over it.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 5, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I do think people should be able to be naked wherever they want.  Being able to do whatever you want is another point I'm not trying to focus on.
> 
> I think being compelled to provide your vaccine status is just invasive and opens up a bigger can of worms in a supposed attempt of closing the can of worms that's already loosed.   Your "solution" is tyranny disguised as benevolence.
> 
> ...


If you think people should be able to do whatever they want unvaccinated, and whatever they want naked, then I guess you believe a woman should have access to legal abortion.

Being asked to provide your vaccination status isn't an invasion of privacy when you can turn around, go home, and not provide proof of vaccination. Don't want to provide proof of vaccination to fly a plane? Don't fly a plane. The same goes for all of the other documentation you have to provide in the name of safety to fly on a plane.

It isn't pearl-clutching to rightfully condemn the trivialization of the Holocaust.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 5, 2021)

KennieDaMeanie said:


> Huh? Why should a harmless drug be prescription required? Psychotic such as Xanax sure prescribe them but what's the harm in something that helps cure the common cold that's been around since the 50s need a prescription for? Let's put it this way if you're constipated and haven't shit in a few days would you rather buy a dollar laxative known it to work or run to your doctor saying you haven't been able to shit for a week.
> 
> Why are we cool with needles and not something you could just buy thats known to work?


There's a lot to unpack here, and I might not hit everything.

I explained why Tylenol should require a prescription. It isn't harmless. Not all drugs are the same. Some should require prescriptions, and some should not. 

It sounds to me like you're just afraid of needles. They don't make things less safe or less effective. The vaccines are also known to work, and they're a better defense against the disease than a treatment after the fact. Vaccines also help curb the spread of infection, while treatments after infection do not.


----------



## K3N1 (Dec 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There's a lot to unpack here, and I might not hit everything.
> 
> I explained why Tylenol should require a prescription. It isn't harmless. Not all drugs are the same. Some should require prescriptions, and some should not.
> 
> It sounds to me like you're just afraid of needles. They don't make things less safe or less effective. The vaccines are also known to work, and they're a better defense against the disease than a treatment after the fact. Vaccines also help curb the spread of infection, while treatments after infection do not.


Lmao I'm afraid of needles that's why I got my flu shot a couple of months ago.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 5, 2021)

KennieDaMeanie said:


> Well forgive me for living in a world where I hope to one day be able to hear a doctor say oh it's just covid you can buy this over the counter and it'll be cured within a few days. You don't need to keep seeing us over it.


We will probably one day see a world where a COVID diagnosis is similar to a flu diagnosis. However, I'm not sure why you're so focused on a prescription vs. over the counter, particularly when you're already at the doctor's office in this example.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 5, 2021)

KennieDaMeanie said:


> Well forgive me for living in a world where I hope to one day be able to hear a doctor say oh it's just covid you can buy this over the counter and it'll be cured within a few days. You don't need to keep seeing us over it.


There are pills the treat the flu. But the best option handling this virus is still the vaccine and by prevention. I don't think a pill that cures covid would be available.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 5, 2021)

SG854 said:


> There are pills the treat the flu. But the best option at handling this virus is still by prevention from the vaccine. I don't a pill that cures covid would be available.


A pill that's >90% effective against COVID-19 hospitalization/death has been produced and will eventually be released. However, it generally works only if taken soon after a diagnosis or soon after developing mild symptoms. It isn't a substitute for vaccination, the best defense against the virus, and it doesn't prevent the spread of infection.


----------



## K3N1 (Dec 5, 2021)

It's scientific improvements I want a world where hospitals aren't so over ran, just this week my pharmacy was having issues and hold times getting me my prescriptions because they were so overran with boosters and what not.

If we have it controlled enough to where we could just buy something for it things would go back to normal it may not happen tomorrow but that's because everyone is so focused on a shot other than other forms of treatment for covid.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 5, 2021)

KennieDaMeanie said:


> It's scientific improvements I want a world where hospitals aren't so over ran, just this week my pharmacy was having issues and hold times getting me my prescriptions because they were so overran with boosters and what not.
> 
> If we have it controlled enough to where we could just buy something for it things would go back to normal it may not happen tomorrow but that's because everyone is so focused on a shot other than other forms of treatment for covid.


It's going to take as many people as possible getting vaccinated to return things to relative normality.

I hope you aren't an anti-vaxxer, because it would be really hypocritical for someone against the scientific advancement of COVID-19 vaccines to plead for scientific advancements.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> A pill that's >90% effective against COVID-19 hospitalization/death has been produced and will eventually be released. However, it generally works only if taken soon after a diagnosis or soon after developing mild symptoms. It isn't a substitute for vaccination, the best defense against the virus, and it doesn't prevent the spread of infection.


The pill would be excellent in combination with the vaccine.


----------



## K3N1 (Dec 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> It's going to take as many people as possible getting vaccinated to return things to relative normality.
> 
> I hope you aren't an anti-vaxxer, because it would be really hypocritical for someone against the scientific advancement of COVID-19 vaccines to plead for scientific advancements.


Why yes it would be so heartbroken to hear people want other options than just a shot.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 5, 2021)

KennieDaMeanie said:


> Why yes it would be so heartbroken to hear people want other options than just a shot.


We should have more than just the vaccine, but the existence of other treatments for after getting infected is not an excuse to not get vaccinated.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 5, 2021)

KennieDaMeanie said:


> Why yes it would be so heartbroken to hear people want other options than just a shot.


The problem is these other option aren't as effective as the shot. It would be nice to have other option for people afraid of needles. But that just not the case right now.


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 5, 2021)

SG854 said:


> The pill would be excellent in combination with the vaccine.


Just wait until the pill is part of the conspiracy theories too.


----------



## K3N1 (Dec 5, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Just wait until the pill is part of the conspiracy theories too.


Or the ones that start hating on people that won't take it. Damn those Anti-pill poppers!


----------



## Lacius (Dec 5, 2021)

KennieDaMeanie said:


> Or the ones that start hating on people that won't take it. Damn those Anti-pill poppers!


"I just don't trust putting harmful things into my body like vaccines and the anti-COVID pill. That's why I'm ingesting horse dewormer in my Borax bath."


----------



## K3N1 (Dec 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> "I just don't trust putting harmful things into my body like vaccines and the anti-COVID pill. That's why I'm ingesting horse dewormer in my Borax bath."


I obviously trust harmful things inside my body or I would've never spent time around my ex.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> If you think people should be able to do whatever they want unvaccinated, and whatever they want naked, then I guess you believe a woman should have access to legal abortion.



You can guess.



Lacius said:


> Being asked to provide your vaccination status isn't an invasion of privacy when you can turn around, go home, and not provide proof of vaccination.



How many STDs have you had in your lifetime?  How many times have you been to the hospital and prescribed medication.  How reliant are you on the medical institutions?  How sick are you?



Lacius said:


> It isn't pearl-clutching to rightfully condemn the trivialization of the Holocaust.



It wasn't rightful condemnation nor trivialization.  It was pearl clutching at its finest.  You don't like looking like the missing link between an everyday person and a nazi, so you you feign personal offense over something that offended history.


----------



## stanna (Dec 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> "I just don't trust putting harmful things into my body like vaccines and the anti-COVID pill. That's why I'm ingesting horse dewormer in my Borax bath."


In 2015, the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine, in its only award for treatments of infectious diseases since six decades prior, honoured the discovery of ivermectin (IVM), a multifaceted drug deployed against some of the world's most devastating tropical diseases. Since March 2020, when IVM was first used against a new global scourge, COVID-19, more than 20 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have tracked such inpatient and outpatient treatments. Six of seven meta-analyses of IVM treatment RCTs reporting in 2021 found notable reductions in COVID-19 fatalities, with a mean 31% relative risk of mortality vs. controls. During mass IVM treatments in Peru, excess deaths fell by a mean of 74% over 30 days in its ten states with the most extensive treatments. Reductions in deaths correlated with the extent of IVM distributions in all 25 states with p < 0.002. Sharp reductions in morbidity using IVM were also observed in two animal models, of SARS-CoV-2 and a related betacoronavirus. The indicated biological mechanism of IVM, competitive binding with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, is likely non-epitope specific, possibly yielding full efficacy against emerging viral mutant strains.
Ivermevtin Nobel prize winner 2015 for HUMANS, educate your self you dumb fuck.


----------



## GeekyGuy (Dec 5, 2021)

SG854 said:


> If you want to convince people of something you can't say who knows. That's not a very good answer. You have to give exact reasons on how it affects everyone else. Because the "who knows" answer can be said to just about anything and be an abused response. That's just like telling someone do as I say because I said so. Both aren't very good responses at convincing people.
> 
> Higher Powers should never be the determining factor at deciding for you or for the smaller person. You need to take matters into your own hands. You need full autonomy over yourself and control over these decisions yourself.


Not trying to convince anyone of anything, so check there.
And...
I try to let my Higher Power determine EVERYTHING. Check there.
I don't have to take anything into my own hands. Check.
No, not really. Don't need to do any of those things.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 5, 2021)

Do pro-mandate people acknowledge that breakthrough infections are a thing? (especially with new variants, there were spikes for delta and probably will be a similar one for omicron) I'm not talking about the numbers, just that it happens.

Now imagine there are two people wanting to go to the library, one has a vaccine passport because they got jabbed 5 months ago, and the other has not but recovered from Covid recently so has some natural immunity still. Why would you decide which of those people presents the bigger risk based on a piece of paper, when you can instead find out the ACTUAL risk by TESTING both of them there and then? Refuse whoever tests positive, not the one without a piece of paper. Either one of them could be infectious at that point, it doesn't matter what the probability is if it's above zero, if I'm in there I don't want the virus entering via a vaccinated person either.. and It is just plain stupid to deny EITHER of them if they aren't even carrying the virus.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 5, 2021)

....3 Pages later and nobody seems to be interested in Biontech-Chef Ugur Sahin Statement yesterday:

Biontech boss Ugur Sahin assumes the need for a new vaccine in view of the Omikron virus variant. The only question is when this new vaccine will be needed, said Sahin today at the Reuters Next conference.

Biontech expects Omikron to develop as an "escape variant". That means that it can probably also infect people who have been vaccinated. But he is confident that vaccinated people are adequately protected from serious illness.



What makes me really worry:

"Some" People get now their BOOSTER (3rd Vaccination).
Why ?
According to Sahin it is not really effective (unnecessary ??)

Is nobody seeing what Mandatory Vaccination means in the Future ?
It is far,far,far,far away from "Now it is over,when 100% of the People are vaccinated with their 1st/2nd/3rd/4th.......Stitch...."

Are mankind really that blind......?


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 5, 2021)

Finally also VALNEVA is in "Progress" with December 2nd:

Corona dead vaccine from Valneva in the rolling review of the EMA The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has started the rolling review of the COVID-19 vaccine from the French pharmaceutical company Valneva (VLA2001). It is an inactivated whole virus vaccine grown in Vero cells and inactivated with propiolactone.

VLA2001 is currently the only adjuvanted, inactivated whole virus vaccine in Europe.

and

The EU has already signed a contract with Valneva for the delivery of 60 million Doses of VLA2001 vaccines.





Unfortunately,NOVAVAX seems NOT to be the Vaccine we all hoped.....


----------



## smf (Dec 5, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Despite your attempt to rationalize this with your own racism, this is still stupid.  A country is not a race, even if it is being blamed for a natural event.


_race: any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry_

Obviously when I say "blame a country", I mean the people in the country. I'm not saying that people blame the land mass.

But nice to see you're back on trolling.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 5, 2021)

GeekyGuy said:


> I try to let my Higher Power determine EVERYTHING. Check there.
> I don't have to take anything into my own hands. Check.
> No, not really. Don't need to do any of those things.


Professional Loafer


----------



## smf (Dec 5, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Do pro-mandate people acknowledge that breakthrough infections are a thing? (especially with new variants, there were spikes for delta and probably will be a similar one for omicron) I'm not talking about the numbers, just that it happens.
> 
> Now imagine there are two people wanting to go to the library, one has a vaccine passport because they got jabbed 5 months ago, and the other has not but recovered from Covid recently so has some natural immunity still. Why would you decide which of those people presents the bigger risk based on a piece of paper, when you can instead find out the ACTUAL risk by TESTING both of them there and then? Refuse whoever tests positive, not the one without a piece of paper. Either one of them could be infectious at that point, it doesn't matter what the probability is if it's above zero, if I'm in there I don't want the virus entering via a vaccinated person either.. and It is just plain stupid to deny EITHER of them if they aren't even carrying the virus.


You could test people on entry to the library, however putting a covid safe testing center outside every library is going to have a quite considerable cost. I'm happy for that cost to be paid for by those who refuse to be vaccinated.


Some places allow proof of recent covid infection for passports, however there would have to be some way of preventing fraud.

Mail in ballots have a fail safe that the real person will turn up to vote, so fraud would be detected. But if they rely on your word that you took a test then there is no fail safe. There are A LOT of anti vaxxers who would love to be able to say that they got a vaccine passport by getting someone else to take their test, because they are just plain fucked up in the head. A few fraudulent votes won't swing an election, but fraudulent covid recovery could kill your grandma.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2021)

smf said:


> _race: any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry_
> 
> Obviously when I say "blame a country", I mean the people in the country. I'm not saying that people blame the land mass.
> 
> But nice to see you're back on trolling.



Geopolitical landmasses are not people, and they are generally governed by few select people.  Political ideology/policy is not a physical trait.  If you feel the need to remind people that the Chinese people are generally politically oppressed every time someone mentions China, go ahead.  Calling people racist because they blame China for something  misses the mark.


----------



## Cyan (Dec 5, 2021)

Okay, another offtopic, this is not about mandatory vaccination or Austria.

The main purpose of a virus is to live in a host, not kill it ! if the virus kills the host, it's killing itself.
So, these "variation" are mostly adaptation of the virus to be less harmful to its host in order to continue living and duplicate and spread into another host, etc.

Apparently, the Omicron variant is more contagious, but gives less symptoms, effectively preventing its host from dying.
some doctors think Omicron is "the end of the tunnel", a way out of the pandemic, a sign that it's becoming more harmless.

https://www.ladepeche.fr/amp/2021/1...ut-du-tunnel-selon-un-immunologue-9963287.php


			
				Google translated quote said:
			
		

> According to Professor Zvika Granot, immunologist by trade, this is a sign that "as the coronavirus evolves, it will be less and less aggressive".


Omicron, being more contagious, will contaminate more people and will become progressively the main one, superseding Delta, making people less ill.

With the less harmful virus, less people will have symptoms... and all pro-vaccine will get credits for "see, we were right, mass vaccination worked!" while it's just the virus being less a killer to itself.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 5, 2021)

Cyan said:


> Okay, another offtopic, this is not about mandatory vaccination or Austria.
> 
> The main purpose of a virus is to live in a host, not kill it ! if the virus kills the host, it's killing itself.
> So, these "variation" are mostly adaptation of the virus to be less harmful to its host in order to continue living and duplicate and spread into another host, etc.
> ...


This is exactly what I said when covid first came out. It will eventually evolve to be less harmful for its survival. It can't spread itself if the person dies. Only less deadly variants can spread more easily.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 5, 2021)

stanna said:


> In 2015, the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine, in its only award for treatments of infectious diseases since six decades prior, honoured the discovery of ivermectin (IVM), a multifaceted drug deployed against some of the world's most devastating tropical diseases. Since March 2020, when IVM was first used against a new global scourge, COVID-19, more than 20 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have tracked such inpatient and outpatient treatments. Six of seven meta-analyses of IVM treatment RCTs reporting in 2021 found notable reductions in COVID-19 fatalities, with a mean 31% relative risk of mortality vs. controls. During mass IVM treatments in Peru, excess deaths fell by a mean of 74% over 30 days in its ten states with the most extensive treatments. Reductions in deaths correlated with the extent of IVM distributions in all 25 states with p < 0.002. Sharp reductions in morbidity using IVM were also observed in two animal models, of SARS-CoV-2 and a related betacoronavirus. The indicated biological mechanism of IVM, competitive binding with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, is likely non-epitope specific, possibly yielding full efficacy against emerging viral mutant strains.
> Ivermevtin Nobel prize winner 2015 for HUMANS, educate your self you dumb fuck.


I'm not sure why you're posting the abstract from a meta-analysis written by a gynecological oncologist as though it demonstrates that ivermectin is an effective COVID-19 treatment. In reality, the data and methodology this paper (and others) rely on has been discredited.

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news...-in-meta-analysis-methodology/4014477.article

https://www.theguardian.com/science...vid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns

Currently available data does not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19, and taking certain doses of ivermectin (like what's commonly suggested by science-deniers) has been demonstrated to be dangerous.

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consu...-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2021/han00449.asp


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 5, 2021)

smf said:


> You could test people on entry to the library, however putting a covid safe testing center outside every library is going to have a quite considerable cost. I'm happy for that cost to be paid for by those who refuse to be vaccinated.


Most people say you should get vaccinated for others not just for yourself, so if we're being that altruistic then cost shouldn't be an issue. Having a vaccine passport is not 100% guaranteed (isn't it something like 65% effective after 6 months? Boosters would have to be much more often to keep it over 90%) whereas I'm sure a quick pin-prick style blood test could be developed that was both quick and effective - and more importantly actually tell you if you should be allowing a person to be in a public place.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 5, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Do pro-mandate people acknowledge that breakthrough infections are a thing? (especially with new variants, there were spikes for delta and probably will be a similar one for omicron) I'm not talking about the numbers, just that it happens.
> 
> Now imagine there are two people wanting to go to the library, one has a vaccine passport because they got jabbed 5 months ago, and the other has not but recovered from Covid recently so has some natural immunity still. Why would you decide which of those people presents the bigger risk based on a piece of paper, when you can instead find out the ACTUAL risk by TESTING both of them there and then? Refuse whoever tests positive, not the one without a piece of paper. Either one of them could be infectious at that point, it doesn't matter what the probability is if it's above zero, if I'm in there I don't want the virus entering via a vaccinated person either.. and It is just plain stupid to deny EITHER of them if they aren't even carrying the virus.


Natural immunity has been shown to be at least less consistent than vaccine immunity, so if the timing of when each person was exposed (through the vaccine or illness) is the same, I would definitely prefer to be around the vaccinated person.

I don't oppose the mass testing approach, but as you've described it, it's very time and resource intensive, and the fallback should be proof of vaccination. The fallback to proof of vaccination is compulsory mask-wearing.



Cyan said:


> Okay, another offtopic, this is not about mandatory vaccination or Austria.
> 
> The main purpose of a virus is to live in a host, not kill it ! if the virus kills the host, it's killing itself.
> So, these "variation" are mostly adaptation of the virus to be less harmful to its host in order to continue living and duplicate and spread into another host, etc.
> ...


It's complicated, but as long as the virus is as equally infectious as it was before, there's no selective pressure for being more or less deadly, and it could go either way.

We obviously want Omicron to be less deadly, but we don't know yet for sure if that's the case. It might be equally or more deadly. It is also possible that future variants can become more deadly.



subcon959 said:


> Most people say you should get vaccinated for others not just for yourself, so if we're being that altruistic then cost shouldn't be an issue. Having a vaccine passport is not 100% guaranteed (isn't it something like 65% effective after 6 months? Boosters would have to be much more often to keep it over 90%) whereas I'm sure a quick pin-prick style blood test could be developed that was both quick and effective - and more importantly actually tell you if you should be allowing a person to be in a public place.


Even if everyone in a public space were only 65% protected, that makes the odds vanishingly small that there will be an outbreak.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Even if everyone in a public space were only 65% protected, that makes the odds vanishingly small that there will be an outbreak.


We could go a step further and make the odds pretty much zero by testing (assuming an effective test, I'm not convinced by those self-administered lateral flow ones). I could see a future with Covid breathalysers..


----------



## Lacius (Dec 5, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> We could go a step further and make the odds pretty much zero by testing (assuming an effective test, I'm not convinced by those self-administered lateral flow ones). I could see a future with Covid breathalysers..


Sure, I agree with you. However, the existence of mass testing should not be confused with an excuse for not getting vaccinated.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Sure, I agree with you. However, the existence of mass testing should not be confused with an excuse for not getting vaccinated.


I was using it more to suggest a better method than passports rather than instead of vaccinating.

Also, now that I'm not on my phone I wanted to post something about natural immunity since I'm convinced it is deliberately downplayed in the US for some reason. There is some compelling data in this review of studies

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00676-9/fulltext

As I'm sure you will see this as an attack on vaccination I might as well state that it's not meant to be, try to read it as simply additional information. It should be entirely possible to be pro-vaccine without feeling like you have to constantly downplay the effectiveness of natural immunity.. I know the media doesn't see it this way but they aren't burdened with the ability to actually understand scientific evidence.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 5, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I was using it more to suggest a better method than passports rather than instead of vaccinating.
> 
> Also, now that I'm not on my phone I wanted to post something about natural immunity since I'm convinced it is deliberately downplayed in the US for some reason. There is some compelling data in this review of studies
> 
> ...


Natural immunity only works after you're been infected, and it's also after you spread covid to other people. Vaccines reduces the rate of infection and spreading it to other people. Vaccine is better then natural imunity for that reason.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 5, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I was using it more to suggest a better method than passports rather than instead of vaccinating.


It's a potentially better way to prevent specific outbreaks, not a better way to lessen infection overall. Vaccination, and vaccination mandates, are still the best tools in that regard.



subcon959 said:


> Also, now that I'm not on my phone I wanted to post something about natural immunity since I'm convinced it is deliberately downplayed in the US for some reason. There is some compelling data in this review of studies
> 
> https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00676-9/fulltext
> 
> As I'm sure you will see this as an attack on vaccination I might as well state that it's not meant to be, try to read it as simply additional information. It should be entirely possible to be pro-vaccine without feeling like you have to constantly downplay the effectiveness of natural immunity.. I know the media doesn't see it this way but they aren't burdened with the ability to actually understand scientific evidence.


I'm unaware of anyone seriously saying that natural immunity can't be significant. However, there are a few issues that need to be considered:

In order for someone to have natural immunity, they had to contract and potentially spread the virus. It is not something anyone should aim for, since contracting the disease comes with significant risks.
Natural immunity has been demonstrated to be less consistent than vaccine immunity. What that means is someone could suffer a COVID-19 infection and have robust protection for 6+ months, while someone else could suffer a COVID-19 infection and have very little protection afterwards. There are a lot of variables like the nature of the infection that contribute to the quality of the natural immunity. Studies suggest, for example, that an asymptomatic infection results in a lot less of a natural immunity than with someone who suffers severe illness. Oppositely, vaccine immunity is a lot more consistent. It's for this reason that saying "I previously had COVID-19" is not comparable to proof of vaccination.
Natural immunity is not an excuse for not getting vaccinated. A person who relies on natural immunity alone is 2-3 times more likely to suffer another COVID-19 infection than someone who was vaccinated after recovering from the disease.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 5, 2021)

Lacius said:


> A person who relies on natural immunity alone is 2-3 times more likely to suffer another COVID-19 infection than someone who was vaccinated after recovering from the disease.


That's not what the studies I posted show, I'd be interested in reading the studies you're quoting.

Edit: Nevermind, I missed where you said vaccinated AFTER recovering from Covid.



Lacius said:


> Studies suggest, for example, that an asymptomatic infection results in a lot less of a natural immunity than with someone who suffers severe illness.


The duration of viral shedding is shorter in people who remain asymptomatic, so they are probably less infectious than people who develop symptoms anyway.


----------



## XDel (Dec 5, 2021)




----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 5, 2021)

Fuck Austrian Politics....

The first draft law is available and only needs to be "waved through" in the National Council (the majority is there, thanks to our ****** Government). 

According to the draft law, the vaccines from BioNtech / Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson are recognized.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 5, 2021)

And as side Note to all "Mandatory Vaccination Fans":

If the law goes through like this, it will open the door to governments for further mandatory "rules" ... 
The next "compulsory laws" could, for example, affect smokers, overweight people and so on ... 

I really hope then none of those who are now screaming for compulsory vaccination will be there and "complain" ... 

Humanity is too blind to see what is going to happen ...


----------



## Lacius (Dec 5, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> The next "compulsory laws" could, for example, affect smokers, overweight people and so on ...
> 
> I really hope then none of those who are now screaming for compulsory vaccination will be there and "complain" ...
> 
> Humanity is too blind to see what is going to happen ...


Obesity, for example, isn't an infectious disease that affects others around you, so your concerns seem unwarranted.

That being said, higher taxes or health care premiums for conditions like obesity are reasonable. If I were Austria, a country with publicly funded health care, I'd implement the vaccine mandate as something like a tax on those who are unvaccinated (similar to what US private insurance companies do with smokers), and I'd still require proof of vaccination for specific privileges like public transit.


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 5, 2021)

Well, countries are already doing a sugar tax.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 5, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Well, countries are already doing a sugar tax.


There is more than enough moral and legal precedent for a country to tax behaviors that are causing the country extra financial stress (or for any reason really). Cigarettes should be heavily taxed. Sugar should be heavily taxed. Gasoline should be heavily taxed. Being unvaccinated should be heavily taxed.


----------



## Deleted member 568892 (Dec 6, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Obesity, for example, isn't an infectious disease that affects others around you, so your concerns seem unwarranted.
> 
> That being said, higher taxes or health care premiums for conditions like obesity are reasonable. If I were Austria, a country with publicly funded health care, I'd implement the vaccine mandate as something like a tax on those who are unvaccinated (similar to what US private insurance companies do with smokers), and I'd still require proof of vaccination for specific privileges like public transit.


Isn't Singapore already forcing unvaccinated citizens without a medical exemption to pay their own COVID-related medical bills?


----------



## Lacius (Dec 6, 2021)

Mike_Hunt said:


> Isn't Singapore already forcing unvaccinated citizens without a medical exemption to pay their own COVID-related medical bills?


Regardless of whether or not Singapore is doing that, that's how it should be at this point.


----------



## smf (Dec 6, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> whereas I'm sure a quick pin-prick style blood test could be developed that was both quick and effective - and more importantly actually tell you if you should be allowing a person to be in a public place.


I don't know whether it can be, but the loons who don't want the vaccine aren't going to let the government stab them with a 5g magnetic pin prick test.

Plus you've ignored the most important issue, the test would be performed in a public place.


----------



## smf (Dec 6, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Calling people racist because they blame China for something  misses the mark.


Not if you blame them because of misunderstanding of the people of China, due to your racism.

Which for the way you argue, seems definitely to be the case. Even if you are incapable of seeing it.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 6, 2021)

smf said:


> I don't know whether it can be, but the loons who don't want the vaccine aren't going to let the government stab them with a 5g magnetic pin prick test.
> 
> Plus you've ignored the most important issue, the test would be performed in a public place.


How about a breathalyser then? Seems more feasible than blood.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 6, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Obesity, for example, isn't an infectious disease that affects others around you, so your concerns seem unwarranted.


There is the socially contagious aspect (if your friends are/get fat chances are greater that you follow, and it is not just that fat people are so unlikeable that they have to stick together, and that is before we contemplate some of the nonsense coming out of the fat acceptance/healthy at every size world), and if you want a more conventionally biologically contagious thing (though social contagion is a recognised concept in epidemiology) then look up what goes with faecal transplants, albeit that is less coughs and sneezes. Equally if "because it troubles the healthcare system" is a valid reason for mandating such things then obesity is a bigger cause of things there than kung flu ever will be (cancers, heart attacks, joint issues, infections...), not to mention to take it back to the matter at hand then antibody production for fat people is tricky both in positive fighting the virus aspects and in body decides to attack itself aspects.

As far as affecting others around you then it does hurt my eyeballs, and fat people getting sick more often does in turn reduce their productivity in my companies if eyeballs are not enough.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 6, 2021)

smf said:


> Not if you blame them because of misunderstanding of the people of China, due to your racism.
> 
> Which for the way you argue, seems definitely to be the case. Even if you are incapable of seeing it.



What are you talking about?  I made the case that China's government is not a representation of Chinese people, at large--which you should agree with.

Let me reiterate what you seem to think racism is:



smf said:


> No, it's racist when you attack another country and blame them when it was a natural event.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 6, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> There is the socially contagious aspect (if your friends are/get fat chances are greater that you follow, and it is not just that fat people are so unlikeable that they have to stick together, and that is before we contemplate some of the nonsense coming out of the fat acceptance/healthy at every size world), and if you want a more conventionally biologically contagious thing (though social contagion is a recognised concept in epidemiology) then look up what goes with faecal transplants, albeit that is less coughs and sneezes. Equally if "because it troubles the healthcare system" is a valid reason for mandating such things then obesity is a bigger cause of things there than kung flu ever will be (cancers, heart attacks, joint issues, infections...), not to mention to take it back to the matter at hand then antibody production for fat people is tricky both in positive fighting the virus aspects and in body decides to attack itself aspects.
> 
> As far as affecting others around you then it does hurt my eyeballs, and fat people getting sick more often does in turn reduce their productivity in my companies if eyeballs are not enough.


Saying fat people hurts your eyeballs is a non argument that's comparable to the covid vaccine or unvaccinated people.


A fat person can't cough and make other people become fat because of that cough. Not comparable no matter how much you try to twist logic to try to make them the same just to have an argument. 

Not office jobs at a computer, be skinny, fat doesn't matter when all you need is your hands. And I've see overweight people do manual labor type jobs just fine. It's only the ones that can't walk because of their obesity that are unable to achieve these tasks.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 6, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Saying fat people hurts your eyeballs is a non argument that's comparable to the covid vaccine or unvaccinated people.
> 
> 
> A fat person can't cough and make other people become fat because of that cough. Not comparable no matter how much you try to twist logic to try to make them the same just to have an argument.
> ...


In terms of magnitude then yeah I learn to ignore it, to say it has no effect though would not be valid.

They are not the same and I was not trying to. I was drawing a comparison to the health service bills thing that some seem to be going in for.

I said being sick more often. As far as manual labour then being able to move a wheelbarrow full of bricks is one thing, being about to do it at acceptable pace for 3 hours, lunch and then another 4 or so before repeating for the next 5 days and so on is a different matter entirely which any more than a slight beer gut does not happen for. About the only perk is if said fatness kills them early for me then I guess you pay out less in retirement homes/pensions (see also the smoker argument). That is also ignoring that being fat troubles your immunity (and health in general) as it pertains to this whole kung flu antibodies business if self selected lack of immunity is a reason to force things/fine people/financially trouble them -- https://gbatemp.net/threads/austria...vaccine-mandatory.603218/page-18#post-9673220

This is all getting very circular as well. Some seem to find kung flu if not the worstest thing evar then suitably bad to fly in the face of generally accepted medical ethics, or at least make life so unbearable by other means as to force compliance, and that it somehow going to do some good*. Carrot and stick is a fine thing to play with but probably too much stick in this case/those cases proposed, and if mixing food metaphors is this a can you make an omelette without breaking eggs? Not sure how to break this one, especially if people are going with the full weight of fear and self righteousness making their decisions for them.

*combined with a border lock and serious restrictions you might be able to do a local/country level setup, rather costly in terms of both monies and freedoms. Given first world countries could not manage it even with the assumption of a compliant population then no chance third world shitholes that barely have clean bandages and hot water or a medic better than the local witchdoctor are going to manage that any time soon which brings both reintroduction of existing strains and mutations (which simple evolutionary biology tells us will in all probably involve a dodge of existing vaccinations before long, especially as isolation and destruction is unfeasible for reasons covered already, whether it gets weaker in the process only time and all that).


----------



## FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR (Dec 6, 2021)

Humanity stand up for your freedoms!!!


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 6, 2021)

For the Mandatory Vaccination Law,a little Reminder from 1946 (Nuremberg Codex).

_The Nuremberg Code as an ethical guideline with regard to the implementation of experimental treatments on humans is ignored (“The voluntary consent of the test subject is absolutely necessary.”)_

From a so-called “vaccination cut-off date”, all persons registered as resident in Austria must undergo the *experimental gene vaccination* or pay a “fine”.

Leaked Draft Law:


----------



## Lacius (Dec 6, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> There is the socially contagious aspect (if your friends are/get fat chances are greater that you follow, and it is not just that fat people are so unlikeable that they have to stick together, and that is before we contemplate some of the nonsense coming out of the fat acceptance/healthy at every size world), and if you want a more conventionally biologically contagious thing (though social contagion is a recognised concept in epidemiology) then look up what goes with faecal transplants, albeit that is less coughs and sneezes. Equally if "because it troubles the healthcare system" is a valid reason for mandating such things then obesity is a bigger cause of things there than kung flu ever will be (cancers, heart attacks, joint issues, infections...), not to mention to take it back to the matter at hand then antibody production for fat people is tricky both in positive fighting the virus aspects and in body decides to attack itself aspects.
> 
> As far as affecting others around you then it does hurt my eyeballs, and fat people getting sick more often does in turn reduce their productivity in my companies if eyeballs are not enough.


There's a lot to unpack here, so everyone forgive me if I miss something.

Obesity is not contagious. A person is only going to become obese due to their choices and predispositions, not because of any other obese person.
I consider it reasonable for obese people to have to pay higher taxes or healthcare premiums if they are causing a financial strain on the healthcare system.
It would be inappropriate to ban obese people from, for example, entering a public school, since obesity is not a communicable disease.
As respectfully as possible, nobody cares about your delicate little sensibilities with regard to seeing obese people. It's purely subjective.
Assuming you live where obesity isn't considered an immutable characteristic or protected class, don't hire obese people if you're worried about their productivity. If I ran a business, I wouldn't hire anyone unvaccinated, nor should I.
Calling COVID-19 the "kung flu" is actually racist, it's tone-deaf, and it perpetuates several harmful myths. It is becoming more clear to me than it was already that numerous staff members are toxic as hell, and I'm starting to realize that a site that allows staff members' toxicity to go unchecked is probably itself toxic.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Dec 6, 2021)

All I hear is, "Govern me harder daddy~ Protec me from the Kung-Flu~"



Lacius said:


> Calling COVID-19 the "kung flu" is actually racist, it's tone-deaf, and it perpetuates several harmful myths. It is becoming more clear to me than it was already that numerous staff members are toxic as hell, and I'm starting to realize that a site that allows staff members' toxicity to go unchecked is probably itself toxic.


Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, even for a tiny, little bit, you're the toxic person here? Nah, you're the righteous messenger of the vaccine and everyone else is the bad anti-vax bigots who deserve to suffer for not following your line of thinking except for the other sheep- I mean other reasonable people who agree with you.

You got some balls I tell you that much. You're right that some of the staff are toxic though, just not for the reasons you think.


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 6, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There is more than enough moral and legal precedent for a country to tax behaviors that are causing the country extra financial stress (or for any reason really). Cigarettes should be heavily taxed. Sugar should be heavily taxed. Gasoline should be heavily taxed. Being unvaccinated should be heavily taxed.


Well, I feel like it is more like taxing behaviors that affect public health and safety.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 6, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> the bad anti-vax bigots who deserve to suffer for not following your line of thinking


I don't think all anti-vaxxers are bigots; I think anti-vaxxers who say bigoted things are bigots. I also don't think anybody deserves to suffer, not even the bigots. I just think anti-vaxxers should be treated the same way I would be treated if I walked around in public naked.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 6, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There is more than enough moral and legal precedent for a country to tax behaviors that are causing the country extra financial stress (or for any reason really). Cigarettes should be heavily taxed. Sugar should be heavily taxed. Gasoline should be heavily taxed. Being unvaccinated should be heavily taxed.


For the record, smoking and obesity are only “causing the country financial stress” because of the insistence on state-funded healthcare. None of this would’ve been a problem if everybody paid out of pocket for their healthcare. It’s also worth noting that combined duty and tax for tobacco products in the UK, a country with a single payer public healthcare system, total at £9.96 billion. The total NHS expenditure on treating patients who suffer from illnesses related to their smoking is in the neighbourhood of £2.6 billion, or at least that’s what the government reported in 2015. Not only are smokers paying for their own care already, they’re paying into the system more than they “stress it”. In fact, they don’t just pay for their own care, they pay for *other people’s care* to an astonishing degree, and that’s a fact.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...15/cost-of-smoking-to-the-nhs-in-england-2015

https://www.statista.com/statistics/284329/tobacco-duty-united-kingdom-hmrc-tax-receipts/


----------



## tabzer (Dec 6, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I just think anti-vaxxers should be treated the same way I would be treated if I walked around in public naked.



Sounds spiteful.  You should consider that people who are not vaccinated can be "pro-vax" and the whole pro/anti divisive language is harmful itself.  I think the amount of effort you put into pushing the vaccine onto others is plain creepy.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 6, 2021)

Lacius said:


> There's a lot to unpack here, so everyone forgive me if I miss something.
> 
> Obesity is not contagious. A person is only going to become obese due to their choices and predispositions, not because of any other obese person.
> I consider it reasonable for obese people to have to pay higher taxes or healthcare premiums if they are causing a financial strain on the healthcare system.
> ...


Predominantly yes. However what is seen as acceptable tends to track or be perpetuated so good enough for me (plus all those fun studies that note it as being socially contagious and similar social contagions being treated as such).
Fair enough. 
OK.
Care to bet on that across a population grouping?
I prefer a more subtle approach and just to consider it a massive negative and have to be offset by the mad skills, them being unlikely to leave me if I need that (cost of acquisition of new staff and all that) or cost of salary and associated extras.
Hahahaha. Kung flu. You can cry racism if you want (can't remember if you did in the past but it is like boy who cried wolf at this point in that it holds so very little cache), don't see it myself though and can't get remotely close.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 6, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Sounds spiteful.


Considering I don't actually want to walk around without clothes, I'm not sure how it could reasonably be considered spiteful.



tabzer said:


> people who are not vaccinated can be "pro-vax"


By definition, they can't.



tabzer said:


> I think the amount of effort you put into pushing the vaccine onto others is plain creepy.


I think perpetuating anti-vax nonsense is creepier, particularly when the result is a literal loss of life.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 7, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Considering I don't actually want to walk around without clothes, I'm not sure how it could reasonably be considered spiteful.



Considering that walking around in the nude is not the same as being unvaccinated, I don't really see any other rationalization to your attachment to how either are treated. 



Lacius said:


> By definition, they can't.



The definition is whimsical by design.  Would you say that people who haven't had abortions cannot be pro-choice?  I can't get vaccinated but can advocate for its availability and your choice to get it.  



Lacius said:


> I think perpetuating anti-vax nonsense is creepier, particularly when the result is a literal loss of life.



I haven't seen attempts to punish people for getting vaccinated, which I definitely would consider creepy.  It probably exists.    Surprised that you acknowledge that your own actions are creepy.  Didn't think you recognized the duality of human nature or yourself.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 7, 2021)

Lacius said:


> By definition, they can't


Utter nonsense. By that definition you can't be pro anything that you don’t do yourself. Here's me thinking I was pro gay marriage when I can't possibly be since I didn't marry a man.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 7, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Considering that walking around in the nude is not the same as being unvaccinated, I don't really see any other rationalization to your attachment to how either are treated.


You're right. Being unvaccinated is worse. The point, however, was that the government already restricts the choices you make with your body regarding what you're allowed to do in certain public spaces, and it is no different with vaccination. However, neither is a violation of my right to bodily autonomy, since I could opt to stay home if I didn't want to wear clothes. Just as most people would say a person can walk around naked all they want as long as they do it in the privacy of their own home, the same goes for the boneheaded choice to be unvaccinated.



tabzer said:


> The definition is whimsical by design.  Would you say that people who haven't had abortions cannot be pro-choice?


You're confusing pro-choice with pro-abortion. A person can be pro-choice but very much against getting an abortion.



tabzer said:


> I can't get vaccinated but can advocate for its availability and your choice to get it.


You're confusing pro-choice with pro-vaccine. A person can be very much in favor of a person having a choice regarding vaccination while also spreading anti-vax nonsense and refusing to do the intellectually and morally responsible thing and get one.



tabzer said:


> I haven't seen attempts to punish people for getting vaccinated, which I definitely would consider creepy


Agreed.



tabzer said:


> Surprised that you acknowledge that your own actions are creepy.  Didn't think you recognized the duality of human nature or yourself.


Did I?



subcon959 said:


> Utter nonsense. By that definition you can't be pro anything that you don’t do yourself. Here's me thinking I was pro gay marriage when I can't possibly be since I didn't marry a man.





tabzer said:


> The definition is whimsical by design.  Would you say that people who haven't had abortions cannot be pro-choice?  I can't get vaccinated but can advocate for its availability and your choice to get it.


An anti-vax person, by definition, is someone who is opposed to vaccination, whether it's their own vaccination or others', and the opposition is often accompanied by anti-scientific conspiracy theories. By some definitions, it also includes an opposition to vaccine mandates, but that's not how I was using it.

Someone who is anti-LGBT rights, like being against gay marriage, is against the legal right for someone to get married, by definition. A person doesn't have to get gay married to be a supporter of LGBT rights. Y'all seem to be confusing situations that are about choice with a situation that is not. I don't think anyone is arguing here that a person shouldn't be able to get vaccinated if they want to get vaccinated. The problem is people are expressing an opposition to vaccination and not getting vaccinated, which anti-vax and a problem.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 7, 2021)

Lacius said:


> An anti-vax person, by definition, is someone who is opposed to vaccination, whether it's their own vaccination or others', and the opposition is often accompanied by anti-scientific conspiracy theories. By some definitions, it also includes an opposition to vaccine mandates, but that's not how I was using it.
> 
> Someone who is anti-LGBT rights, like being against gay marriage, is against the legal right for someone to get married, by definition. A person doesn't have to get gay married to be a supporter of LGBT rights. Y'all seem to be confusing situations that are about choice with a situation that is not. I don't think anyone is arguing here that a person shouldn't be able to get vaccinated if they want to get vaccinated. The problem is people are expressing an opposition to vaccination and not getting vaccinated, which anti-vax and a problem.


Nice try but the statement wasn't an anti-vax person, it was someone who wasn't vaccinated.

Your reply to tabzer is blatantly wrong here...



			
				tabzer said:
			
		

> people who are not vaccinated can be "pro-vax"





			
				Lacius said:
			
		

> By definition, they can't.



You can be not vaccinated due to allergy and still be pro-vax.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 7, 2021)

subcon959 said:


>


???


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 7, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> ???


It was a screen shot of Lacius' reply to tabzer because I was getting annoyed with the quoting system.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 7, 2021)

Today our new Chancellor Nehammer has decided Lockdown ends for our vaccinated Citizens,not for the Unvaccinated.

For the Mandatory Vaccination Law there are also News.
There will (may!) be no Compulsory Demonstration for Vaccination and also no Custody.

A "Snapshot",as we can probably assume.....the last 2 Chancellors has also promised many,many,many Things....


----------



## tabzer (Dec 7, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You're right. Being unvaccinated is worse. The point, however, was that the government already restricts the choices you make with your body regarding what you're allowed to do in certain public spaces, and it is no different with vaccination. However, neither is a violation of my right to bodily autonomy, since I could opt to stay home if I didn't want to wear clothes. Just as most people would say a person can walk around naked all they want as long as they do it in the privacy of their own home, the same goes for the boneheaded choice to be unvaccinated.
> 
> 
> You're confusing pro-choice with pro-abortion. A person can be pro-choice but very much against getting an abortion.
> ...



Lavius, if someone could make a stroke look good, it would probably be you.  But what would really sell it is if you were to put some myocarditis into it.


----------



## smf (Dec 7, 2021)

tabzer said:


> What are you talking about?  I made the case that China's government is not a representation of Chinese people, at large--which you should agree with.
> 
> Let me reiterate what you seem to think racism is:


What are you droning on about.

That is an example of racism, that isn't what racism is.

Covid 19 is neither the fault of the chinese people or the chinese government.

It might help if you try to make a point, rather than trying to catch someone out with your mental gymnastics


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 7, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Predominantly yes. However what is seen as acceptable tends to track or be perpetuated so good enough for me (plus all those fun studies that note it as being socially contagious and similar social contagions being treated as such).
> Fair enough.
> OK.
> Care to bet on that across a population grouping?
> ...


I don’t know why you’re getting pushback on this - it’s been a well-known fact for many, many years now that obesity is what scientists describe as “socially contagious”. The chances of a given individual becoming overweight increase by an astonishing 57% if they have an obese friend.

https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/PLhSxk

Here’s a NYT article on the matter, with an analysis courtesy of the New England Journal of Medicine. I did everyone a huge solid and bypassed the paywall, since apparently I’m the only person on this website who knows how to do that, given some previous experiences of posting articles from pages with paywalls. Original link for the sake of consistency:

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/health/25cnd-fat.html

Matters look even worse for households - if mom and dad are fat, guess who else is going to be fat? The children. It’s not “glandular”, it’s laziness and ordering take-away 6 days a week. That, and “not moving”. Not really a thread about obesity, just chiming in since it absolutely is contagious, and it spreads through communities just like a contagious pathogen would.


----------



## smf (Dec 7, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Sounds spiteful.  You should consider that people who are not vaccinated can be "pro-vax" and the whole pro/anti divisive language is harmful itself.  I think the amount of effort you put into pushing the vaccine onto others is plain creepy.


Someone who is pro vaccine but unable to be vaccinated, wouldn't find it creepy to recommend that everyone who can be vaccinated should be vaccinated.

On careful consideration, it sounds like someone who is either pretending they can't be vaccinated or is hiding their anti vax stance behind their their inability to be vaccinated.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 7, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Not really a thread about obesity, just chiming in since it absolutely is contagious, and it spreads through communities just like a contagious pathogen would.


I think obesity is a relevant thing to discuss in the context of Covid since it's a huge factor in outcomes. Maybe the government should be promoting losing weight instead of mandating medical procedures. I personally know a few people who see the vaccine as an alternative to a healthier lifestyle.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 7, 2021)

smf said:


> Covid 19 is neither the fault of the chinese people or the chinese government.


The global COVID 19 pandemic is absolutely the fault of the unscrupulous Chinese government that thought it could keep it under wraps long enough to make the problem “go away” unnoticed - they’ve only informed the international community about it once they’ve realised that there’s no stopping this thing, no matter what totalitarian measures they use, and they’ve only shared the bare minimum amount of information until it was too late to contain the virus. You are not going to convince me that they started proactively arresting people or welding apartment building doors shut when their own scientists saw “no evidence of human-to-human transmission”. There is written record of all of this, and no point in arguing about it. Most zoonotic viruses tend to circulate for a short amount of time without causing an epidemic, they’re very localised and die out quickly, that’s what the hope was here. The WHO has already conducted an investigation in the matter and concluded that the virus was circulating through China long before we even heard about it on the news, at least since November 2019, with the upper limit being October.

https://www.businessinsider.com/cor...urope-china-before-wuhan-outbreak-2020-12?amp


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 7, 2021)

Novavax has Production "Issues".....it seems more and more likely - maybe not until next Year.
Valneva is still in "Rolling Review" Process.

The Mandatory Vaccination Law has now the Addition Line:
"New approved Vaccines can be added to the List of Mandatory Vaccines."


----------



## Lacius (Dec 7, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> You can be not vaccinated due to allergy and still be pro-vax.


I agree that a person who is not vaccinated because they cannot medically do so is not necessarily anti-vax, but it should be clear from my previous statements that isn't what anti-vax means, and it isn't what I mean by anti-vax.

If a person willfully refuses to get the COVID-19 vaccine at this point, but they're medically able to do so, they are anti-vax by virtually every definition I'm aware of.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 7, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I agree that a person who is not vaccinated because they cannot medically do so is not necessarily anti-vax, but it should be clear from my previous statements that isn't what anti-vax means, and it isn't what I mean by anti-vax.


Why are you deliberately ignoring what was actually said and choosing to respond to what wasn't said?


----------



## Lacius (Dec 7, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Why are you deliberately ignoring what was actually said and choosing to respond to what wasn't said?


I responded to what was said. I did not alter your post when I quoted it.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 7, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I responded to what was said. I did not alter your post when I quoted it.


I meant in terms of what tabzer said but it's not that important. I just have an issue with these black and white labels being used when convenient to support a particular bias. I recall you saying in the past that you can be vaccinated and anti-vax, so it seemed hypocritical when you said you can't be pro-vax if you're not vaccinated.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 7, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I meant in terms of what tabzer said but it's not that important. I just have an issue with these black and white labels being used when convenient to support a particular bias. I recall you saying in the past that you can be vaccinated and anti-vax, so it seemed hypocritical when you said you can't be pro-vax if you're not vaccinated.


I thought I was clear. If a person is opposed to vaccination, particularly if it's accompanied with unsubstantiated and conspiratorial nonsense, it's anti-vax by definition. I don't know what's confusing about it. Sometimes a black/white issue is a black/white issue.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 7, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I thought I was clear. If a person is opposed to vaccination, particularly if it's accompanied with unsubstantiated and conspiratorial nonsense, it's anti-vax by definition. I don't know what's confusing about it. Sometimes a black/white issue is a black/white issue.


That was something you inserted in response to me saying that someone who hasn't been (can't be) vaccinated can still be pro-vax.  And you said,"by defintion, blah blah," and then you reinvented everyone's pronouns.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 7, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I don’t know why you’re getting pushback on this - it’s been a well-known fact for many, many years now that obesity is what scientists describe as “socially contagious”. The chances of a given individual becoming overweight increase by an astonishing 57% if they have an obese friend.
> 
> https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/PLhSxk
> 
> ...


They are not comparable. One has to do with a physical virus that can be spreads. Another is an area psychology has to tackle and it's mental. Your friend is fat so you find it ok to not take care of yourself either. It says like a virus but its not a virus. It's more metaphorical (this is probably not the right word to use I'm drawing a blank right now but you get what I mean).

Like saying Democrat beliefs & thinking on gun control is like a virus to the population, and must be stopped. Or saying Communism thinking is a virus that spreads and destroys countries. This is not comparable to the covid virus in that its a physical virus that spreads. You can reduce the risk of covid by vaccinating. But how do you reduce the risk of fat people having mental influence on other people. Do we ban fat people from places? Or ban people from having fat friends? Do we inject something into fat people?


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 7, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Do we inject something into fat people?


Surely it would be the opposite.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 7, 2021)

SG854 said:


> They are not comparable. One has to do with a physical virus that can be spreads. Another is an area psychology has to tackle and it's mental. Your friend is fat so you find it ok to not take care of yourself either. It says like a virus but its not a virus. It's more metaphorical (this is probably not the right word to use I'm drawing a blank right now but you get what I mean).
> 
> Like saying Democrat beliefs & thinking on gun control is like a virus to the population, and must be stopped. Or saying Communism thinking is a virus that spreads and destroys countries. This is not comparable to the covid virus in that its a physical virus that spreads. You can reduce the risk of covid by vaccinating. But how do you reduce the risk of fat people having mental influence on other people. Do we ban fat people from places? Or ban people from having fat friends? Do we inject something into fat people?


Gee, who do I trust, a guy on an Internet forum or established and qualified scientists who have tested this hypothesis multiple times and found it repeatable in the course of the last 14-15 years? This one’s a tough nut to crack.

I am perfectly happy with the idea of a “social contagion”. I refer you to the term “human malware” that was recently coined - idiotic ideas that propagate within society to disasterous effects. Obesity is a disease, and it’s a disease that spreads via enabling and complacency. It’s “contagious” if we accept the definition that it spreads from one organism to another, the definition doesn’t specify the means of how it’s supposed to spread.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 7, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Gee, who do I trust, a guy on an Internet forum or established and qualified scientists who have tested this hypothesis multiple times and found it repeatable in the course of the last 14-15 years? This one’s a tough nut to crack.
> 
> I am perfectly happy with the idea of a “social contagion”. I refer you to the term “human malware” that was recently coined - idiotic ideas that propagate within society to disasterous effects. Obesity is a disease, and it’s a disease that spreads via enabling and complacency. It’s “contagious” if we accept the definition that it spreads from one organism to another, the definition doesn’t specify the means of how it’s supposed to spread.


Obesity is a disease but you don't need a Science Degree to know how it spreads is way different then how Covid spread's c'mon.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 7, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Obesity is a disease but you don't need a Science Degree to know how it spreads is way different then how Covid spread's c'mon.


”How it spreads” wasn’t the point of contention. Follow the conversation.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 7, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> ”How it spreads” wasn’t the point of contention. Follow the conversation.


I was since I was part of the conversation that started with Lacius and Fast.

I have no Idea why Fast brought up Obesity or what his angle was. His main point was about mandates. If obesity is a bigger problem for the Health Care system then Covid then we should include mandates for Obesity to stay logically consistent, this what he was trying to get at. But Mandates for Covid would be obviously different then the mandates for Obesity, because the very nature of these diseases are different. And like I said in my previous post. How do we mandate for Obesity? Do we ban fat people so they won't be contagious and bad influence to other people? Do we ban them from markets, from restaurants, from school until they get skinny?  This would be consistent with how we handle covid mandates, on who's vaccinated or not & prevent the negative impact on our health care system from more people getting fat.

Fast was saying he was not drawing comparisons between covid and obesity. But it's obvious he was drawing comparison when it comes to the cost on our health care system. And the two are not comparable because we can't handle them the same. If this wasn't what fast was getting at then I have no idea why he even brought up health care system costs and comparing the two. Or whats the point of bringing it up in a covid debate.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 7, 2021)

tabzer said:


> That was something you inserted in response to me saying that someone who hasn't been (can't be) vaccinated can still be pro-vax.  And you said,"by defintion, blah blah," and then you reinvented everyone's pronouns.


Let's be clear that you've been trying unsuccessfully for some time now to argue that a person who is willfully unvaccinated isn't necessarily anti-vax, and I corrected your mistake. If your position has changed to be that you're only creating exemptions from being anti-vax for people who are not medically able to get vaccinated, then you and I might be in agreement depending on the circumstances.

I don't think I said anything relating to pronouns.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 7, 2021)

SG854 said:


> I was since I was part of the conversation that started with Lacius and Fast.
> 
> I have no Idea why Fast brought up Obesity or what his angle was. His main point was about mandates. If obesity is a bigger problem for the Health Care system then Covid then we should include mandates for Obesity to stay logically consistent, this what he was trying to get at. But Mandates for Covid would be obviously different then the mandates for Obesity, because the very nature of these diseases are different. And like I said in my previous post. How do we mandate for Obesity? Do we ban fat people so they won't be contagious and bad influence to other people? Do we ban them from markets, from restaurants, from school until they get skinny?  This would be consistent with how we handle covid mandates, on who's vaccinated or not & prevent the negative impact on our health care system from more people getting fat.
> 
> Fast was saying he was not drawing comparisons between covid and obesity. But it's obvious he was drawing comparison when it comes to the cost on our health care system. And the two are not comparable because we can't handle them the same. If this wasn't what fast was getting at then I have no idea why he even brought up health care system costs and comparing the two. Or whats the point of bringing it up in a covid debate.


If he was drawing a comparison in terms of total cost as you claim then “not being able to handle them the same way” is like saying that the sun is warm because ice is cold - one has nothing to do with the other. If you really want to fight this windmill you’ve constructed, at least find counter arguments within the same category. A comparison in terms of cost is rooted in numbers, so unless you have some numbers to provide, you have no rebuttal. I’d argue that obesity is costing the public *more* when it comes to cost of treatment, for reasons I will delve into below.

You’re right - the two diseases are not the same. Obesity leads to 4 out of 10 lead causes of death in the U.S. - heart disease (659k annually), cancer (599k annually), stroke (150k annually) and diabetes (87k annually). It’s also a comorbidity in more diseases than I could possibly list, including COVID 19 - it lowers your survival rate of just about anything, even random accidents. Imagine fracturing a bone when you’re 400lbs, Jesus wept. It costs billions every single year, and it’s not going away because there’s no vaccine for being fat.

The contention was made that obesity is not contagious because it’s not caused by a pathogen, but rather by greedily chomping through enough calories to feed a platoon. Science disproves that notion by outlining behavioural mechanisms that make it contagious, much like many other self-destructive behaviours. A lot of young people start smoking because their peers are smoking - it’s the exact same “thought virus”, if you will. I came in to make that point, and that point stands, as you’ve provided no evidence to disprove it (not that you could, the phenomenon is pretty well-established). Obesity puts an enormous strain on public healthcare by directly leading to a myriad of diseases that require long-term care and are often not curable - insulin-dependent diabetes isn’t going away just because you saw the light and changed your diet, you’re stuck with it.

If you *wanted* to issue a mandate against obesity, all you really need is a set of scales in front of every McDonald’s and hand out weight passports. How is that any different than officers with thermometers and vaccine passports, as seen in China? There are people driving around right now with breathalysers in their cars, if you can’t imagine similar measures being waged in the fight against excessive consumption of grease, your imagination isn’t very vivid. Should we do that? No, because that’s an invasive limitation of people’s inherent freedom to do whatever they fancy with their bodies, even if it is self-destructive… kind of like refusing to get vaccinated in spite of overwhelming evidence that the vaccines are safe and effective, and will protect you against a given pathogen to a large extent.

Fat people stay fat because they have fat on their brain, and unless they have a sudden epiphany and realise that breathing has gotten much harder compared to what they remember from their youth, they will continue to overeat, and their mere existence in society will propagate obesity in their social circle. People who refuse to vaccinate because they think vaccines have heavy metals in them or some such nonsense, have lead on their brain. They will not vaccinate regardless of what measures you propose and they will continue to be at an elevated risk of infection, propagating the pathogen in their circle if they do become infected. Both of those groups have the freedom to do so, whether you like it or not.


----------



## AlexMCS (Dec 7, 2021)

@Lacius - anti-vax are those who are against any form of vaccination whatsoever. Your definition is wrong.
Most people arguing here against vaccine mandates are even in favor of inactivated virus vaccines.
And even those who reject all CoViD-19 vaccines, aren't fighting against vaccines to prevent polio, tetanus etc.

You are indeed making a grey issue into a black/white one.

Here are some excerpts. Pay attention to the lack of quantifiers, which means *all*, not *some* in first order logic:

If a person denies all vaccines but one, they do not fall into the complete definition of anti-vaxxer.
It's a fuzzy set.

"A vaccine denier or anti-vaxxer will be defined in this study as someone who believes vaccines do not work, are not safe or refuse vaccines for themselves and their children if applicable." - https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-021-12114-8

"a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination" - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer

"*Vaccine hesitancy* is a delay in acceptance, or refusal of vaccines despite the availability of vaccine services. The term covers outright refusals to vaccinate, delaying vaccines, accepting vaccines but remaining uncertain about their use, or using certain vaccines but not others.[1][2][3][4] "*Anti-vaccinationism*" refers to total opposition to vaccination; in more recent years, anti-vaccinationists have been known as "*anti-vaxxers*" or "*anti-vax*"." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_hesitancy


----------



## Lacius (Dec 7, 2021)

AlexMCS said:


> @Lacius - anti-vax are those who are against any form of vaccination whatsoever. Your definition is wrong.
> Most people arguing here against vaccine mandates are even in favor of inactivated virus vaccines.
> And even those who reject all CoViD-19 vaccines, aren't fighting against vaccines to prevent polio, tetanus etc.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the reply, since I can tell you worked hard on it, but people who are opposed to the COVID-19 vaccines are indeed anti-vaxxers, per just about every definition I'm aware of (including ones you have posted). If you want to make a distinction between "anti-vaxxers" and those who are "vaccine-hesitant," you're free to do that, but it isn't how most people are using the terms, the distinction doesn't appear particularly useful, and I don't think it changes any substantive point I've made about vaccines in this thread and others.

A racist only has to be opposed to one race, and an anti-vaxxer only has to be opposed to one reputable vaccine.

Language is descriptive, not prescriptive, and it should be telling that the anti-vaxxers on this site would rather argue about semantics than talk about the vaccines.

Edit: I also don't agree with you that a lack of qualifiers defaults to "all" in colloquial language, but I'm about done with these semantic arguments that don't really matter to me.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 7, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Let's be clear that you've been trying unsuccessfully for some time now to argue that a person who is willfully unvaccinated isn't necessarily anti-vax, and I corrected your mistake. If your position has changed to be that you're only creating exemptions from being anti-vax for people who are not medically able to get vaccinated, then you and I might be in agreement depending on the circumstances.
> 
> I don't think I said anything relating to pronouns.


I agree that a person who is willfully unvaccinated isn't necessarily anti-vax, and I know you don't agree, but that definitely was not the argument.



Lacius said:


> an anti-vaxxer only has to be opposed to one reputable vaccine



That's a nice way to keep the definition subjective for your arbitrary use of it. 

When people stop getting their fourth and fifth booster shots, they will be labelled as both unvaccinated and anti-vax.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 7, 2021)

tabzer said:


> When people stop getting their fourth and fifth booster shots, they will be labelled as both unvaccinated and anti-vax.


If the science supports fourth or fifth booster shots, then yes, they will be anti-vaxxers, as are those who already willfully refuse the annual flu vaccine.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 7, 2021)

Lacius said:


> If the science supports fourth or fifth booster shots, then yes, they will be anti-vaxxers, as are those who already willfully refuse the annual flu vaccine.


imo there is a difference between antivaxxers and those who don't want a vaccine themselves

I think to be called anti-vax you should be actively against the vaccine or vaccines in general

Personally I have still only gotten two doses of pfizer but I am still overwhelmingly pro-vaccine - I just don't want to get the 3rd shot myself at this time


----------



## AlexMCS (Dec 7, 2021)

Lacius said:


> but people who are opposed to the COVID-19 vaccines are indeed anti-vaxxers, per just about every definition I'm aware of (including ones you have posted).


Clearly not.



Lacius said:


> I also don't agree with you that a lack of qualifiers defaults to "all" in colloquial language, but I'm about done with these semantic arguments that don't really matter to me.


Wrong as well. Lack of quantifiers = all in any high order logic.

Colloquial language is full of quirks, including subjectivity, which is why we don't use it when having a serious discussion.

But since logic/semantics isn't the focus of the talk, let us agree to disagree.



Lacius said:


> If the science supports fourth or fifth booster shots, then yes, they will be anti-vaxxers, as are those who already willfully refuse the annual flu vaccine.



And once again, science is not the ultimate answer to everything. It's a nice tool, not a source of truth.
What is true to science right now, and has been such for millenia, can be false in the very next second.
That is the nature of science.

It's a great way to analyze trends, and an excellent orientation tool, but it is not a way to get definitive answers. Decisions dictated by science *alone* with no intuition on some sort of external verification method are akin to blind faith, and a dumb one, since science is liable to change.

Science has determined Covid-19 mRNA vaccines are safe, based on experimental statistical sampling methods (I'm majored in Computer Science and post-grad. in Mathematical Modeling), which by themselves are subject to error.

As a matter of indisputable fact/truth, no mathematical model has correctly predicted the outcome of the pandemic, since there is only so much the tool called science can do for you, since one of the main drawbacks of scientific research is that
knowledge itself is limited: you can't know everything you need to study a certain subject.

Not to mentions the limits of "nature": there is a point where you just have to stop asking "why?".

"Why gravity exists?"
"Why negative and positive attract each other?"

And so on.
Every question begets another one in an endless cycle.

Sorry for the philosophical digression, but it's sad to see someone take science as a religion.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 7, 2021)

AlexMCS said:


> Clearly not.
> 
> 
> Wrong as well. Lack of quantifiers = all in any high order logic.
> ...


It's not that science is a religion, but generally it's a good way to decide which path to take when several are afforded to you

I mean let's say you want to decrease infection and there are multiple options - I would rather pick the option with numbers and logic behind it - even if as you say there is always room for error


----------



## Lacius (Dec 7, 2021)

x65943 said:


> imo there is a difference between antivaxxers and those who don't want a vaccine themselves


I see little to no difference between someone who is against vaccines and someone who doesn't get the vaccine because of opposition to the vaccine.



x65943 said:


> I think to be called anti-vax you should be actively against the vaccine or vaccines in general


I don't think a person can be willfully unvaccinated at this point without being actively against the vaccine.



AlexMCS said:


> Colloquial language is full of quirks, including subjectivity, which is why we don't use it when having a serious discussion.


Except the conversation was literally about colloquial language and nothing else.



AlexMCS said:


> And once again, science is not the ultimate answer to everything. It's a nice tool, not a source of truth.
> What is true to science right now, and has been such for millenia, can be false in the very next second.
> That is the nature of science.
> 
> ...


I don't think anybody claims science to be a source of absolute truth. It is, however, the best (and only) tool we have. When our scientific understanding changes, it's because the evidence changes, not because the methodology changed.

The fact that our scientific understanding about things has changed is a feature of science, not a bug.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 7, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I see little to no difference between someone who is against vaccines and someone who doesn't get the vaccine because of opposition to the vaccine.
> 
> 
> I don't think a person can be willfully unvaccinated at this point without being actively against the vaccine.
> ...


"I don't think a person can be willfully unvaccinated at this point without being actively against the vaccine."

But we were talking about 3rd and 4th doses - which honestly I haven't gotten and a few other doctors I work with haven't gotten yet either

and it's dumb to say we are against the vaccine when we are giving it to people (including 3rd doses)


----------



## Lacius (Dec 7, 2021)

x65943 said:


> "I don't think a person can be willfully unvaccinated at this point without being actively against the vaccine."
> 
> But we were talking about 3rd and 4th doses - which honestly I haven't gotten and a few other doctors I work with haven't gotten yet either
> 
> and it's dumb to say we are against the vaccine when we are giving it to people (including 3rd doses)


The thing about third and fourth doses was hypothetical, and I said if the science (and situation at the time) supported them. For example, if Omicron ended up needing a new booster tailored to that variant.

Edit: I'm getting turned around when talking about 4th/5th and 3rd/4th. You get what I mean.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 7, 2021)

x65943 said:


> imo there is a difference between antivaxxers and those who don't want a vaccine themselves
> 
> I think to be called anti-vax you should be actively against the vaccine or vaccines in general
> 
> Personally I have still only gotten two doses of pfizer but I am still overwhelmingly pro-vaccine - I just don't want to get the 3rd shot myself at this time


Only the Sith deal in absolutes. There’s large swathes of people that are perfectly okay with the idea of vaccines and have vaccinated against other diseases in the past, but have very specific concerns in regards to the COVID vaccine given the fact that they’ve never received an mRNA vaccine before. It’s definitely a hard sell for young people who simply don’t suffer from the disease in large swathes - they’d have to do it out of sense of obligation, because their odds of death or hospitalisation (25/6000 in year one in England, since that figure is handy to me atm) are infinitesimally small. I think it’s unfair to call people who are hesitant or uncertain “anti-vaxxers” unless they actively dissuade other people from taking it, being anti-anything implies some form of action. It’s no different than calling an independent a “liberal” or a “conservative” based on who they voted for in a recent election, it eliminates any nuance from the debate.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 7, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The thing about third and fourth doses was hypothetical, and I said if the science (and situation at the time) supported them. For example, if Omicron ended up needing a new booster tailored to that variant.


RIght, personally the reason I haven't gotten dose 3 yet is because the protection from 2 doses is still good

and I honestly think it's selfish for 1st world nations to be double dipping before helping third world nations with initial doses - but I do support older and immunocompromised patients getting dose 3



Foxi4 said:


> Only the Sith deal in absolutes. There’s large swathes of people that are perfectly okay with the idea of vaccines and have vaccinated against other diseases in the past, but have very specific concerns in regards to the COVID vaccine given the fact that they’ve never received an mRNA vaccine before. It’s definitely a hard sell for young people who simply don’t suffer from the disease in large swathes - they’d have to do it out of sense of obligation, because their odds of death or hospitalisation (25/6000 in year one in England, since that figure is handy to me atm) are infinitesimally small. I think it’s unfair to call people who are hesitant or uncertain “anti-vaxxers” unless they actively dissuade other people from taking it, being anti-anything implies some form of action. It’s no different than calling an independent a “liberal” or a “conservative” based on who they voted for in a recent election, it eliminates any nuance from the debate.


I can agree, opposition to one vaccine doesn't make you an antivaxxer in general - although in my personal experience there is some real overlap there


----------



## AlexMCS (Dec 7, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I don't think anybody claims science to be a source of absolute truth. It is, however, the best (and only) tool we have. When our scientific understanding changes, it's because the evidence changes, not because the methodology changed.
> 
> The fact that our scientific understanding about things has changed is a feature of science, not a bug.



Don't treat it as the only tool you have, even if it is the best. It's not the only one.
Or do you really think humanity never progressed until the scientific method was established?
Be aware of the limitations of it - namely those regarding time and predictions.

And knowing that it changes, when analyzing things with inherent uncertainty (Statistical models), don't get attached to the (subjective, laced to p-value, based on a gaussian model) scientific conclusion. I've seen a lot of studies/papers dismissing certain drugs used for covid treatment because they had no "significant" difference from no drugs, despite every graph showing minor improvements on those who took them.

The """scientists""" got so attached to the math that they lacked the vision to see the truth in front of their eyes!


----------



## Lacius (Dec 7, 2021)

AlexMCS said:


> Don't treat it as the only tool you have, even if it is the best. It's not the only one.


The sciences are the only tools I have that actually work. That isn't to say they are without limitations.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 7, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The sciences are the only tools I have that actually work. That isn't to say they aren't without limitations.


there is something to say for logic and reasoning which don't necessarily utilize the scientific method. Masks were a good example. Although we didn't have good data, empiric logic and reasoning led us to believe they were likely still effective and helpful. 

Just because you can't prove something scientifically (at the time) doesn't mean it isn't true - and I think there is something to be said about philosophy laying the groundwork for a lot of the modern world


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 7, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The sciences are the only tools I have that actually work. That isn't to say they aren't without limitations.


Work? Yes. Are correct 100% of the time? No. Science is a process of repeatedly being wrong until you’re right - old theories are disproven and replaced with new ones all the time, that’s the explicit function of peer review. It’s the best method we have, but a healthy dose of criticism and skepticism is a pre-requisite as far as science goes.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 7, 2021)

x65943 said:


> there is something to say for logic and reasoning which don't necessarily utilize the scientific method.


Yes, I agree, but these are colloquially known as the formal sciences, so I include them when talking about the sciences broadly.



x65943 said:


> Just because you can't prove something scientifically (at the time) doesn't mean it isn't true - and I think there is something to be said about philosophy laying the groundwork for a lot of the modern world


I don't disagree with this, but the time to believe it is when we have demonstrated it scientifically.


----------



## x65943 (Dec 7, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Yes, I agree, but these are colloquially known as the formal sciences, so I include them when talking about the sciences broadly.
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with this, but the time to believe it is when we have demonstrated it scientifically.


eh I think we should be more clear with our speech, if by science you include logic and reasoning - then you should just say logic and reasoning

most people think of science as meaning the scientific method

and anyhow if that's how you've been defining it then I think a great deal of the disagreement on the last few pages is just misunderstanding and a failure to clearly define terms

the older I get the more I realize how many disagreements are simply two people using terms they define differently


----------



## LinkmstrYT (Dec 7, 2021)

x65943 said:


> there is something to say for logic and reasoning which don't necessarily utilize the scientific method. Masks were a good example. Although we didn't have good data, empiric logic and reasoning led us to believe they were likely still effective and helpful.
> 
> Just because you can't prove something scientifically (at the time) doesn't mean it isn't true - and I think there is something to be said about philosophy laying the groundwork for a lot of the modern world


To be fair, masks have been used against illnesses way before COVID-19. So we have plenty of data and such of them working (to an extent) and still are a recommended layer of protection to use for oneself and others. While it's obviously not some big protection to have, it's still better than having no protection.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 7, 2021)

x65943 said:


> eh I think we should be more clear with our speech, if by science you include logic and reasoning - then you should just say logic and reasoning
> 
> most people think of science as meaning the scientific method
> 
> ...


If we aren't including the formal sciences in the sciences, which is fair, then my statement should have been "logic and the sciences are the only tools we have."


----------



## x65943 (Dec 7, 2021)

Lacius said:


> If we aren't including the formal sciences in the sciences, which is fair, then my statement should have been "logic and the sciences are the only tools we have."


I just want to be clear because I think that other guy was specifically arguing against the scientific method and p values <0.05 being the only source of truth

Which I agree to some extent with that

and if we can all agree on that front then there is no room to argue anyway


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Dec 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> A racist only has to be opposed to one race, and an anti-vaxxer only has to be opposed to one reputable vaccine.


That's really stretching. While yes, you may be a racist if you don't like one particular race, you can't be an anti-vaxxer if you take every other flu and cold shot, and shots to prevent measles and such, but if you don't want to take this still very experimental shot, you're against all vaccines. It's not the same thing, not by any stretch of any miles.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 8, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> That's really stretching. While yes, you may be a racist if you don't like one particular race, you can't be an anti-vaxxer if you take every other flu and cold shot, and shots to prevent measles and such, but if you don't want to take this still very experimental shot, you're against all vaccines. It's not the same thing, not by any stretch of any miles.


If you take other vaccines, but still cry about the COVID-19 vaccine making people magnetic or whatever, for example, you're an anti-vaxxer.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 8, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> If he was drawing a comparison in terms of total cost as you claim then “not being able to handle them the same way” is like saying that the sun is warm because ice is cold - one has nothing to do with the other. If you really want to fight this windmill you’ve constructed, at least find counter arguments within the same category. A comparison in terms of cost is rooted in numbers, so unless you have some numbers to provide, you have no rebuttal. I’d argue that obesity is costing the public *more* when it comes to cost of treatment, for reasons I will delve into below.
> 
> You’re right - the two diseases are not the same. Obesity leads to 4 out of 10 lead causes of death in the U.S. - heart disease (659k annually), cancer (599k annually), stroke (150k annually) and diabetes (87k annually). It’s also a comorbidity in more diseases than I could possibly list, including COVID 19 - it lowers your survival rate of just about anything, even random accidents. Imagine fracturing a bone when you’re 400lbs, Jesus wept. It costs billions every single year, and it’s not going away because there’s no vaccine for being fat.
> 
> ...


Wasn't trying to disprove that obesity mindset is contagious. So not going to provide evidence.


I'm not for Vaccine mandates either

I know obesity affects more people and costs more to our health care system. 


Don't know how obesity fits in the covid debate. People smoke because their peers smoke because it makes them look cool, peer pressure. People don't catch covid on purpose because it makes them look cool. People don't get fat because it makes them look cool.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 8, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Wasn't trying to disprove that obesity mindset is contagious. So not going to provide evidence.
> 
> I'm not for Vaccine mandates either
> 
> ...


Nobody becomes a land whale on purpose, unless they have a very specific feeding/eating fetish, in which case they also offer from a mental disorder. Not that any of this matters, my point was that obesity is in fact contagious, and I’ve made that point already - there’s plenty of studies to support that, and I’ve really lost the interest in arguing about it any further.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 8, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Nobody becomes a land whale on purpose, unless they have a very specific feeding/eating fetish, in which case they also offer from a mental disorder. Not that any of this matters, my point was that obesity is in fact contagious, and I’ve made that point already - there’s plenty of studies to support that, and I’ve really lost the interest in arguing about it any further.


And the study shows it contagious. But this is a covid debate. I lost interest also last 2 posts ago. I have no idea where this is going.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 8, 2021)

SG854 said:


> And the study shows it contagious. But this is a covid debate. I lost interest also last 2 posts ago. I have no idea where this is going.


It’s not my fault that you misinterpreted my post. FAST was getting some pushback on the idea that obesity isn’t just a personal choice, but rather a contagious phenomenon. I came in to say that social contagions are very much real and that obesity is one such contagion. It has measurable effects, and they’re repeatable. That, and that only, was my 2 cents added to the exchange.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 8, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It’s not my fault that you misinterpreted my post. FAST was getting some pushback on the idea that obesity isn’t just a personal choice, but rather a contagious phenomenon. I came in to say that social contagions are very much real and that obesity is one such contagion. It has measurable effects, and they’re repeatable. That, and that only, was my 2 cents added to the exchange.


If you wanna look at it as a social contagion if mama is fat and the kid is fat likely the crap she is eating herself she's feeding to her kids. Since food is social, that's where a lot of the bonding happens, the two or more people will be eating the same meals or same place.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Dec 8, 2021)

Lacius said:


> If you take other vaccines, but still cry about the COVID-19 vaccine making people magnetic or whatever, for example, you're an anti-vaxxer.


No, no you're not.


----------



## Deleted member 568892 (Dec 8, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> No, no you're not.


If you have concerns about the speed the COVID vaccine was developed in, bloodclots or something like that then you're not an antivaxxer.

If you believe the vaccine makes your arm magnetic, makes you infertile or some other bullshit then you are an antivaxxer.


----------



## Dakitten (Dec 8, 2021)

Mike_Hunt said:


> If you have concerns about the speed the COVID vaccine was developed in, bloodclots or something like that then you're not an antivaxxer.
> 
> If you believe the vaccine makes your arm magnetic, makes you infertile or some other bullshit then you are an antivaxxer.


Correction: Those concerns make you anti-vax with a healthy dose of misinformation colouring your world view. Carry on~


----------



## Chaosta (Dec 8, 2021)

yeah, this will never happen in the usa, we werent stupid enough to give up our arms.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 8, 2021)

SG854 said:


> If you wanna look at it as a social contagion if mama is fat and the kid is fat likely the crap she is eating herself she's feeding to her kids. Since food is social, that's where a lot of the bonding happens, the two or more people will be eating the same meals or same place.


…we just had that conversation.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 8, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> …we just had that conversation.


Not exactly how I described it


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 8, 2021)

Mike_Hunt said:


> If you have concerns about the speed the COVID vaccine was developed in, bloodclots or something like that then you're not an antivaxxer.


It's more general than that. If you say anything that doesn't fit a particular strict narrative then you will be labelled a term that is used to easily dismiss you. It's clear from the discussion here how much reluctance there is to acknowledge any sort of nuance.

Also, I was amused that I'm now not the only one that brought up the Sith analogy.

Edit: I also feel sorry for @Alexander1970 as this topic was meant to be about what was happening in Austria and has become yet another general discussion thread.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 8, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Also, I was amused that I'm now not the only one that brought up the Sith analogy.


Indeed lol. To me, it’s a bizarre us versus them scenario that should never be a thing as far as medicine is concerned. What people do with their own bodies and for what reason is their business, and that’s that. People can criticise those choices, which is entirely fair, but the group mentality around the issue is odd to me.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 8, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> It's more general than that. If you say anything that doesn't fit a particular strict narrative then you will be labelled a term that is used to easily dismiss you. It's clear from the discussion here how much reluctance there is to acknowledge any sort of nuance.
> 
> Also, I was amused that I'm now not the only one that brought up the Sith analogy.
> 
> Edit: I also feel sorry for @Alexander1970 as this topic was meant to be about what was happening in Austria and has become yet another general discussion thread.



I brought up the sith analogy too. I think I was the first one. There was a guy in this thread named @sith. But he was against mandates. So I guess that makes him a sith to the vaccinated.


----------



## smf (Dec 8, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> It's more general than that. If you say anything that doesn't fit a particular strict narrative then you will be labelled a term that is used to easily dismiss you.


Right, which is why if you are a decent human being nowadays you're called liberal left, snowflake, or woke.

The irony is that it's the same people complaining about their views not being respected that have zero respect for anyone elses views. Karma is a bitch.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 8, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Edit: I also feel sorry for @Alexander1970 as this topic was meant to be about what was happening in Austria and has become yet another general discussion thread.


Thank you,my Friend.

But that is ok,our Society worldwide is already "broke" into 2 Halves.....Goal reached...


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Dec 8, 2021)

smf said:


> Right, which is why if you are a decent human being nowadays you're called liberal left, snowflake, or woke.
> 
> The irony is that it's the same people complaining about their views not being respected that have zero respect for anyone elses views. Karma is a bitch.


Oh man, the irony of it all here....


----------



## tabzer (Dec 8, 2021)

Imagine referring to yourself as "woke" unironically.  It's one thing to attempt to do good, but to want to wear the label of "good" in spite of others really drives the soapbox home.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 8, 2021)

smf said:


> Right, which is why if you are a decent human being nowadays you're called liberal left, snowflake, or woke.
> 
> The irony is that it's the same people complaining about their views not being respected that have zero respect for anyone elses views. Karma is a bitch.


It's not irony, it's just something that works both ways. It's just a tool people have developed to "win" arguments rather than honestly discuss things.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 8, 2021)

smf said:


> Right, which is why if you are a decent human being nowadays you're called liberal left, snowflake, or woke.
> 
> The irony is that it's the same people complaining about their views not being respected that have zero respect for anyone elses views. Karma is a bitch.


So you have two groups of people not respecting each other's views.

Maybe they don't respect your views as a counter because you don't respect theirs. That's not karma, thats a counter fight.



Let's be real. If they see people walking around unvacinated with higher risk at infecting other people and their goal is to reduce risk then you have no respect for the lefts views either. And you wonder why they are on the offensive not respecting your views.


There's also a nuance of respecting your choice to not get vaccinated for whatever reason. But not respecting unvaccinated people in public places risking infecting others. And everytime you fight for your right to be in public places unvaccinated. You are also not respecting the lefts views. And you expect them to respect yours? You are dreaming.


----------



## SkyPioneer (Dec 8, 2021)

While there is undoubtedly a question of individual liberty versus a benefit for the greater good, I think this is ultimately for the best.

We've had more than a few countries achieve a 90%+ double dose vaccination rate, and while cases have continued to rise, hospitalisations and have been significantly less prevalent. I hope that this trend continues and we can ride out COVID and all its variants.


----------



## smf (Dec 8, 2021)

SG854 said:


> So you have two groups of people not respecting each other's views.
> 
> Maybe they don't respect your views as a counter because you don't respect theirs. That's not karma, thats a counter fight.


It is karma, because the whole "woke" shit has been going on long before covid. The people banging on about magnetism and 5g were arseholes before covid, being an arsehole is what draws you to being an anti vaxxer.

So maybe this is the counter fight, but you might not be on the right side. Like when the nazi's thought they were the good guys.  That isn't to say the ally's didn't make some mistakes while fighting the nazi's of course.

I'm not sure how I feel about mandatory vaccinations, they aren't being pushed on me here and I willingly was vaccinated. If I was in a job that made vaccination necessary or I was being told I couldn't go to certain public areas without being vaccinated, then I think I'd do the decent thing and accept that my choice was not more important than the choice of the people around me. That isn't what an arsehole would do.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 8, 2021)

smf said:


> It is karma, because the whole "woke" shit has been going on long before covid. The people banging on about magnetism and 5g were arseholes before covid, being an arsehole is what draws you to being an anti vaxxer.
> 
> So maybe this is the counter fight, but you might not be on the right side. Like when the nazi's thought they were the good guys.  That isn't to say the ally's didn't make some mistakes while fighting the nazi's of course.
> 
> I'm not sure how I feel about mandatory vaccinations, they aren't being pushed on me here and I willingly was vaccinated. If I was in a job that made vaccination necessary or I was being told I couldn't go to certain public areas without being vaccinated, then I think I'd do the decent thing and accept that my choice was not more important than the choice of the people around me. That isn't what an arsehole would do.


Let's just take out the whole woke situation for a sec and look at the behaviors between the 2 groups.


Even without mandates you will still enforce mandate like conditions onto yourself if you were to respect others opinions. A common courtesy if someone is not vaccinated is to stay the hell away from other people. Stay the hell away from public places like schools, grocery stores and so on. Order grocery delivery online. Wear mask, social distance when you happen to be in a public place.

If they are not vaccinated then don't bitch how the left isn't respecting your opinions when you are not willing to extend that same respect onto others and walking around willy nilly in public places when they know full well how vaccinated people feel about unvaxed in public places and the risk of infection.

These people expect to have their opinions respected but when it comes to others opinions they say fuck you. This is hypocritical. And really who's the asshole in this situation.

When someone's opinion is not respected it makes them go to drastic measures to have it respected by others who contantly shit on you and don't give a fuck about you or your concerns or your opinions while at the same time demanding their views to be respected by you, and gov mandates is one of them. They are being pushed into a corner and become desperate. Desperate people go to ridiculous lengths.

For me I am not for gov mandates. I don't like gov involved in this.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 8, 2021)

Information about VALNEVA and their Vaccines.

https://www.valneva.at/en/general-public

VLA2001 seems to be in the final Process for the Permission.
Now is about Politics to get the Vaccine....what an Irony...finally an (Half)Austrian Covid Vaccine.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 8, 2021)

SMF sharing insights on how not to be an asshole.  I didn't think this was a comedy club.

Can we pretend, for a moment, that there are more than two kinds of people.  I really don't understand the kind of English that this couple are using.


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 9, 2021)

Chaosta said:


> yeah, this will never happen in the usa, we werent stupid enough to give up our arms.


Just stupid enough to have so many guns that there seem to be mass shootings every single week.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 9, 2021)

tabzer said:


> SMF sharing insights on how not to be an asshole.  I didn't think this was a comedy club.
> 
> Can we pretend, for a moment, that there are more than two kinds of people.  I really don't understand the kind of English that this couple are using.


Obviously there is more then 2 kinds of people


----------



## Dakitten (Dec 9, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Obviously there's is more then 2 kinds of people


Usually, this is true, but insofar as covid is concerned, there are certainly two clear camps. Those who at least passively accept the idea of handling the virus with science and community efforts, and those who throw ignorant tissy-fits about "da guberment!" actually doing what it is supposed to do because of *insert excuse like "bodily autonomy before all else!" or "hitler would have totes hashtagged virus mandates!"*


----------



## SG854 (Dec 9, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Usually, this is true, but insofar as covid is concerned, there are certainly two clear camps. Those who at least passively accept the idea of handling the virus with science and community efforts, and those who throw ignorant tissy-fits about "da guberment!" actually doing what it is supposed to do because of *insert excuse like "bodily autonomy before all else!" or "hitler would have totes hashtagged virus mandates!"*


I know exactly what he's trying to do. They always go what about people with medical issues that can't take vaccines. Which obviously we all know and why the fuck would they be part of the conversation when we talk about the two major camps. We're not stupid. We're obviously not talking about them. And obviously there is exceptions. The fact that I have to explain that I am aware of this is fuckin retarded. How long has this debate been on going? We didn't start debating this just yesterday.


----------



## Dakitten (Dec 9, 2021)

SG854 said:


> I know exactly what he's trying to do. They always go what about people with medical issues that can't take vaccines. Which obviously we all know and why the fuck would they be part of the conversation when we talk about the two major camps. We're not stupid. We're obviously not talking about them. And obviously there is exceptions. The fact that I have to explain that I am aware of this is fuckin retarded. How long has this debate been on going? We didn't start debating this just yesterday.


For what its worth, I was more or less posting this in reply to tabzer, but your post doesn't require backtracking pages. Apologies!


----------



## SG854 (Dec 9, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> For what its worth, I was more or less posting this in reply to tabzer, but your post doesn't require backtracking pages. Apologies!


This is what they do instead of paying attention to the overarching message they instead try to find a small hole they can try to exploit. A word or a sentence.

The main point is don't go bitching about not having your opinion to not be vaccinated respected if you yourself are not respecting others and walking around maskless and unvaccinated. Stay away from people if you choose to be unvacinated. Respect others opinions and concerns if you want yours of being unvacinated to be respected.

For whatever their reason to stay unvacinated because if they think pharmaceutical companies is manipulating people to get the vaccine for financial gain or the science behind it or whatever.


----------



## Chaosta (Dec 9, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Just stupid enough to have so many guns that there seem to be mass shootings every single week.


lmao. at least we're not being hunted down by our gov. yall are a bunch of defenseless sheep . but keep on ignoring the knives sprees and rental truck plowing in other countries.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 9, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Obviously there is more then 2 kinds of people


Yep, and this is a thread about a government making vaccines mandatory.  I fail to see how this is an exclusive "anti-vax vs pro-vax" issue.

In respect to your polarization, you present two decisions someone can make and then suggest that the two outcomes make people incompatible with each other.  In my world, so far, the two do coexist and are aware of personal choices, because they are allowed to have them.  We don't have CNN, MSNBC, or any of those kinds of polarizing media outlets/narratives, so that may have a lot of influence.

In respect to making valid concerns sound dumb as possible in attempt to gaslight people, you look as stupid as you try to make others appear.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Dec 9, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Just stupid enough to have so many guns that there seem to be mass shootings every single week.


And yet it seems to happen more in democrat controlled places with strict gun laws more than anywhere else, as if the criminals don't follow the law and the people are defenseless in defending themselves. Weird, huh? Probably a coincidence.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 9, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> And yet it seems to happen more in democrat controlled places with strict gun laws more than anywhere else, as if the criminals don't follow the law and the people are defenseless in defending themselves. Weird, huh? Probably a coincidence.


I really don't want to go off topic here so maybe start a new thread if you're interested in debating this, but I will say it's weird to me that you see the solution to a bad person having a gun is for a good person to also have a gun to cancel it out.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Dec 9, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I really don't want to go off topic here so maybe start a new thread if you're interested in debating this, but I will say it's weird to me that you see the solution to a bad person having a gun is for a good person to also have a gun to cancel it out.


Because if a good person has a gun and knows how to use it and shoots the bad person, then the number of bad persons will get scared and decrease.


----------



## Dakitten (Dec 9, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> And yet it seems to happen more in democrat controlled places with strict gun laws more than anywhere else, as if the criminals don't follow the law and the people are defenseless in defending themselves. Weird, huh? Probably a coincidence.





BitMasterPlus said:


> Because if a good person has a gun and knows how to use it and shoots the bad person, then the number of bad persons will get scared and decrease.


https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-deaths-per-capita-by-state






I am aware that the issue is a bit more complicated (there are a lot of suicides via gun deaths in rural areas), but this sort of talking point is extremely common with folks who are anti-vax, and is often completely rooted in ignorance or convenient lies. What a shock.


----------



## djpannda (Dec 9, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> And yet it seems to happen more in democrat controlled places with strict gun laws more than anywhere else, as if the criminals don't follow the law and the people are defenseless in defending themselves. Weird, huh? Probably a coincidence.


maybe because it does not matter if a state has sensible gun laws that require Comprehensive Background Checks. When you can go to 30min to a 1 hour across state lines and purchase unlimited Guns same day by a "private Gun Collector " at a trade show which just requires a hand shake and cash.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 9, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Because if a good person has a gun and knows how to use it and shoots the bad person, then the number of bad persons will get scared and decrease.


I'm not convinced of that, plus you still have the slightly serious issue of people shooting each other. Much easier to take all the guns away. I also don't buy the excuse that there are too many of them so it's not worth trying.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Dec 10, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I'm not convinced of that, plus you still have the slightly serious issue of people shooting each other. Much easier to take all the guns away. I also don't buy the excuse that there are too many of them so it's not worth trying.


You'd be surprised how crime would go down if criminals know they'd get their ass blasted away if they try to rob a house. A few stupid ones may try, but most know if they try, good bye life. There might be quite a few shootings at first, and that's a maybe, but it'd go down fast instead of happening every single day like in Chicago for example. It's always worth trying to protect yourself and the people you care about. The second amendment is the only reason why we haven't become like most European countries and Australia, the government bullying the citizens and controlling them like in China, because the moment all bets are off, it'll be a huge gun fight. That's why they're trying to take the 2nd amendment so hard, and even if you don't agree, me and a whole lot of other people aren't gonna let that happen as long as we breathe. If you don't like guns, that's fine, but I do and I do not intent to give any of mine up for no reason whatsoever.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Dec 10, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm
> https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-deaths-per-capita-by-state
> 
> 
> ...


Whenever you and others talk your nonsensical BS that's not true in the reality we're living in, this is all I hear really because that's what it basically is:


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Dec 10, 2021)

So come back with something with substance then we'll talk.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 10, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Whenever you and others talk your nonsensical BS that's not true in the reality we're living in, this is all I hear really because that's what it basically is:





BitMasterPlus said:


> So come back with something with substance then we'll talk.


Not on topic, but @Dakitten literally provided evidence that more guns are correlated with more gun violence, lol.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Dec 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Not on topic, but @Dakitten literally provided evidence that more guns are correlated with more gun violence, lol.


That's not evidence, that's horseshit bias from liberal punks spreading more lies and bullshit. I know you like to believe in the fake science and believe its true and try to discredit people who see through the bullshit, but I don't play that way


----------



## Lacius (Dec 10, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> That's not evidence, that's horseshit bias from liberal punks spreading more lies and bullshit. I know you like to believe in the fake science and believe its true and try to discredit people who see through the bullshit, but I don't play that way


The sources provided were not biased, and one of them was the CDC.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Dec 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The sources provided were not biased, and one of them was the CDC.


So.....biased, because the CDC are biased as heck, especially with Covid as with most "reputable" organizations.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 10, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> So.....biased, because the CDC are biased as heck, especially with Covid as with most "reputable" organizations.


The CDC is not considered to be a biased source of information. I think you are confusing the word "biased" with "something I disagree with."

As far as I'm aware, the CDC hasn't put out any information about COVID-19 that wasn't verifiable fact.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Dec 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I think you are confusing the word "biased" with "something I disagree with."


You mean like you and 85% of the people here? Yeah, ok.



Lacius said:


> As far as I'm aware, the CDC hasn't put out any information about COVID-19 that wasn't verifiable fact.


https://townhall.com/columnists/way...e-and-ivermectin-the-question-is-why-n2595312
You mean like this? Or how it was oh so true that the vaccine was better than natural immunity? (spoiler alert: it isn't) Oh yes, I so trust the CDC and the honest government.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 10, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> You mean like you and 85% of the people here? Yeah, ok.


I can't speak for anybody else, but I use "biased" the way the word is intended to be used. I don't consider something to be biased just because I disagree with it.



BitMasterPlus said:


> https://townhall.com/columnists/way...e-and-ivermectin-the-question-is-why-n2595312
> You mean like this? Or how it was oh so true that the vaccine was better than natural immunity? (spoiler alert: it isn't) Oh yes, I so trust the CDC and the honest government.


This website you posted is biased. It's a right-wing website that used to be run by the Heritage Foundation. You don't have to go far to find laughably biased headlines. Do you see the irony in decrying bias before posting biased sources? Probably not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Townhall

The vaccine is better than natural immunity. If not for any other reason, vaccine immunity is more consistent than natural immunity. In addition, getting vaccinated after recovering from an infection offers much more protection than natural immunity alone.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Dec 10, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I can't speak for anybody else, but I use "biased" the way the word is intended to be used. I don't consider something to be biased just because I disagree with it.


Yes you do, almost all the time.


Lacius said:


> This website you posted is biased. It's a right-wing website that used to be run by the Heritage Foundation. You don't have to go far to find laughably biased headlines. Do you see the irony in decrying bias before posting biased sources? Probably not.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Townhall
> 
> The vaccine is better than natural immunity. If not for any other reason, vaccine immunity is more consistent than natural immunity. In addition, getting vaccinated after recovering from an infection offers much more protection than natural immunity alone.


And others post sources run by left wing foundations and government who are biased and post straight up lies in their headlines alone, so what's the difference? And natural immunity is stronger, it's based on the science you and others like to preach so much. If you truly listen to the science and believe it, then you don't get to pick and choose what you want to hear or not, it doesn't work both ways.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 10, 2021)

I thought we already established the CDC is literally funded by Pfizer and other such corporations via their non profit wing. I've never heard of the Townhall but I'm sure it's probably biased too since there are almost no objective sources of news anymore.


----------



## Dakitten (Dec 10, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> So come back with something with substance then we'll talk.


Says would-be conspiracy Rambo with conservative talk show radio clips for "sources".  As far as my sources go...


subcon959 said:


> I thought we already established the CDC is literally funded by Pfizer and other such corporations via their non profit wing. I've never heard of the Townhall but I'm sure it's probably biased too since there are almost no objective sources of news anymore.


We did nothing of the sort, as the CDC is a federal agency funded by the federal government as part of the US Department of Health and Human Services. This is exactly the foot in mouth sort of thing I was talking about elsewhere. If you want to go after individuals with conflicts of interests under their roof, you MIGHT be able to at least make a case, but stating that the CDC is "literally funded by Pfizer" is to "literally" display you don't understand what you're talking about. They're paid regardless of what political party is in power, have a strict code about not displaying bias, and their paychecks don't revolve around fealty to the left or right or pharma.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 10, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Says would-be conspiracy Rambo with conservative talk show radio clips for "sources".  As far as my sources go...
> 
> We did nothing of the sort, as the CDC is a federal agency funded by the federal government as part of the US Department of Health and Human Services. This is exactly the foot in mouth sort of thing I was talking about elsewhere. If you want to go after individuals with conflicts of interests under their roof, you MIGHT be able to at least make a case, but stating that the CDC is "literally funded by Pfizer" is to "literally" display you don't understand what you're talking about. They're paid regardless of what political party is in power, have a strict code about not displaying bias, and their paychecks don't revolve around fealty to the left or right or pharma.


This is so naive that it's almost cute. I don't really want to go over this whole thing again as some of us discussed it at length already. The CDC Foundation has it's list of donors on it's website (forced to disclose after some pressure). If you don't see the conflict of interest with them getting millions from Merck and Pfizer then there's really no point in going any further with this.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 10, 2021)

Lol, someone was talking about "foot in mouth" and then got served.   Someone else said "I don't consider something to be biased just because I disagree with it." and then turned around to call something biased because it was "right wing".  

Who will publish the complete, unadulterated truth, for free?


----------



## Halbour (Dec 10, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> All because some people believe in garage they read on Facebook.


Yep, Thats my poor parents. I'm vaccined.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 10, 2021)

I just checked the list of corporate donors again and this time I noticed AstraZeneca, J&J and Novavax are also there.


----------



## AlexMCS (Dec 10, 2021)

While partially off-topic, let's address the gun topic, since it relates to governments overstepping their boundaries.

Regardless of the reliability of the data sources, it is just common sense (defined here as applied logic, experience and intuition) that unarmed people are easier to control.
*Criminals do not care about the law*. They will just get their guns from corrupt police/army officers.
What actually happens is that we just die without having the means to fight back, whether it is against crime or tyranny.

Compare the US (permissive gun laws) with our country (restrictive gun laws, #1 in the world in firearms homicides):

https://www.statista.com/statistics/249803/number-of-homicides-by-firearm-in-the-united-states/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/867779/number-homicides-firearms-brazil/

If anything, this shows that more than control, people need proper education, (actual) culture and a good social standing to reduce firearm related deaths.



tabzer said:


> Who will publish the complete, unadulterated truth, for free?


Someone who has their ethical and moral standards preserved.
In summary, it's impossible to find a completely unbiased source.
In the best case scenario, you'd have to deal with the bias from the journalist/owners.
Media Bias Fact Check actually helps a lot in this regard, but you'd have to be at least minimally wary of that site itself as well.

You have to filter news, and scientific studies/reports as well, again, using common sense.
You have to research: check the sources, the backers, the authors, the methodology, the premises, the citations, the conclusions.
Check the news/work itself for loaded language, subtle bias, erroneous conclusions (these are more frequent than you'd think).

That Townhall site looks pretty biased.
Even if they are/were telling the truth, they'd need more citations and a more neutral language overall.
Their columnists are stating outright lies there.

That said, I wouldn't outright disregard the CDC.
They are completely based on science, so they are at least superficially credible.
They have a guideline to prevent possible conflict of interests from the foundation.
Potential issues _could_ arise from which scientific results they favor.

As I've learned in academy recently (last 2 years), *there is no space for failed studies in science.*
You either publish positive outcomes, even with marginal gains, compared to the state of the art, or your work is useless.
That in itself is the first big failure of the scientific community: *You can't even warn others that their potentially years-long work is going to result in no gain.*

From what I'm hearing in the local medical community,* there has been a great pressure to avoid the publishing in the great media outlets of anything challenging the status quo of CoViD-19* treatment, vaccination or not.

For instance, *there is scientific evidence that ivermectin reduces SARS-CoV-2 viral load*:
-https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30464-8/fulltext#seccesectitle0019

And a review study that confirms it (the viral load reduction) while assessing that the current (as of May/2021) status of ivermectin for treating CoViD-19 is at least inconclusive:
-https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full

And here's for those willing to deeply investigate the matter:
https://c19ivermectin.com/


----------



## RichardTheKing (Dec 10, 2021)

The Catboy said:


> Except those against getting vaccinated are a harm to those around them. It’s not just their body being effected, it’s their household, neighborhood, schools, and so on. All because some people believe in garage they read on Facebook. The choice to not get vaccinated continues the spread of viruses and harms more than just the individual.


Yes, I also believe in garage I read on Facebook. Wonderful garage, I see often.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 10, 2021)

All the People who cried "Mandatory Vaccination" will have the same Enthusiasm and Mettle in the Future with

"other mandatory" Vaccinations,I am pretty sure.....

Surprise,surprise,what ever the Future brings...


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 10, 2021)

Please be so kind and please read this with Carefulness:

https://www.krone.at/2577119

I will try to translate it as good as I can:

Unvaccinated people stay in lockdown - only a stitch helps

He personally, according to Nehammer in the Ö3 “Wecker”, is not a big fan of the compulsory vaccination. 
“I would prefer it if we don't need any.” But at some point you will be at the point “where there are not only rights, but also obligations”. 
Only the vaccination can bring us a normal life again, so the following applies: If you get vaccinated, you can end the lockdown immediately from next week, according to Nehammer. For the unvaccinated, it continues.

The Chancellor therefore asked again that unvaccinated persons seek advice from a doctor they trust: “Find a conversation with the doctor you trust and confront him with your questions, he will give you security.”

*"The nicest thing about the vaccination is, “ that we can all live with her in our freedom ”.
*
Personally,I am speechless...


----------



## Lacius (Dec 10, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Lol, someone was talking about "foot in mouth" and then got served.   Someone else said "I don't consider something to be biased just because I disagree with it." and then turned around to call something biased because it was "right wing".
> 
> Who will publish the complete, unadulterated truth, for free?


It's the point of view of a site that makes it biased, not the fact that I personally disagree with the information. If a site doesn't have a neutral point of view, it's very likely biased.

I know you've been struggling lately with the basic spelling of my username, but please make sure to tag me if you're going to address me. You can also hit the quote button and respond directly to my posts so you don't have to worry about spelling my name correctly.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 10, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> Unvaccinated people stay in lockdown - only a stitch helps


Can you clarify what "only a stitch helps" means in this context?


----------



## Lacius (Dec 10, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> And natural immunity is stronger, it's based on the science you and others like to preach so much. If you truly listen to the science and believe it, then you don't get to pick and choose what you want to hear or not, it doesn't work both ways.


I've already explained the science regarding natural immunity, and I'm not the only selectively choosing to hear only what I want to hear.

Natural immunity can result in an immune response comparable to vaccine immunity, but I've explained that vaccine immunity is more consistent, and getting the vaccine after getting sick results in a much more robust immune response than relying on natural immunity on its own.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 10, 2021)

@Alexander1970 Is this a correct translation for what he said:

"Furthermore, 3G - vaccinated, recovered or tested - applies at the workplace."

Does that mean, you are allowed at work even if you aren't vaccinated *as long as you test negative*? Because that seems like a good common sense rule to me.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 10, 2021)

Thank you for reading.



subcon959 said:


> Can you clarify what "only a stitch helps" means in this context?


ONLY ONE Stich..as it says.You see,very unlogical.....



subcon959 said:


> @Alexander1970 Is this a correct translation for what he said:
> 
> "Furthermore, 3G - vaccinated, recovered or tested - applies at the workplace."
> 
> Does that mean, you are allowed at work even if you aren't vaccinated *as long as you test negative*? Because that seems like a good common sense rule to me.



Yes,that is correct.
You have the Responsiblity,to *DAILY* submit a negative PCR Test on Time.
Then you are allowed to do your Work ...

You maybe see it clearly,we are fully tested from Monday 0:00 to Sunday 24:00 (12 P.M.)
So I cannot really see a "Threat "to the vaccinated Society"....and why we MUST get vaccinated.

We are safe,we are tested daily ! Sorry,I do not understand that endless broken Record 
"You must Vaccinate,you must vaccinate,you must vaccinate......"


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 10, 2021)

Ah I think stich means jab/shot. That was the part I didn't understand the translation.

Yes, I've been saying all along that testing should be one of the priorities.. even for vaccinated people. But I recently discovered tests aren't free in USA like here, so maybe that's why it's not as common.


----------



## smf (Dec 10, 2021)

tabzer said:


> SMF sharing insights on how not to be an asshole.  I didn't think this was a comedy club.
> 
> Can we pretend, for a moment, that there are more than two kinds of people.  I really don't understand the kind of English that this couple are using.



You act like an arse hole in every thread, on purpose, for fun. And now you get upset because of my language.

Well, maybe stop acting like an arse hole?


----------



## smf (Dec 10, 2021)

SG854 said:


> A common courtesy if someone is not vaccinated is to stay the hell away from other people.



This is the problem, up until now the anti vaxxers weren't complaining that they are being forced to be vaccinated. They were complaining that they are expected to have common courtesy and stay away from certain places if they aren't vaccinated.



SG854 said:


> For me I am not for gov mandates. I don't like gov involved in this.



I don't particularly like government intervention.

However when you have a group of people who don't have common courtesy, then the government feels they have to step in. Like for example murder wouldn't be a crime, if nobody had every thought to kill someone.

The reason why we have government mandates is because people have no common courtesy & they bang on about all their delusions in response to any kind of discussion. I'm fed up with being told that bill gates is trying to kill me.


----------



## smf (Dec 10, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> https://townhall.com/columnists/way...e-and-ivermectin-the-question-is-why-n2595312
> You mean like this? Or how it was oh so true that the vaccine was better than natural immunity? (spoiler alert: it isn't) Oh yes, I so trust the CDC and the honest government.


Any crank can post allegations on the internet. I made it to this point.

_First, are you aware that anyone who dies within 14 days of getting vaccinated is considered "unvaccinated"? No wonder they claim everyone who is dying is unvaccinated. If you die from COVID-19, whether you're vaccinated or unvaccinated, they just call you unvaccinated._

I am not going to subject my brain to any more of that bullshit.

It's no secret that you are fully vaccinated two weeks after the second dose, they put it on their website https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.html

You obviously aren't unvaccinated in the 14 days of your second vaccine though, because you've received the first vaccine.

The conclusion that "_No wonder they claim everyone who is dying is unvaccinated. If you die from COVID-19, whether you're vaccinated or unvaccinated, they just call you unvaccinated." _is a lie, a classic bait and switch. On purpose, he is trying to deceive you.

The title of that article should really be "I am lying about covid19 vaccine and ivermectin the question is why"

If you read the article and thought it was making reasonable points, then I truly feel sorry for you.


----------



## smf (Dec 10, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> You maybe see it clearly,we are fully tested from Monday 0:00 to Sunday 24:00 (12 P.M.)
> So I cannot really see a "Threat "to the vaccinated Society"....and why we MUST get vaccinated.


My understanding is that vaccination reduces the time between being infectious and it showing up on a PCR test.

So someone who is vaccinated will get a negative PCR and they are safe for a few days, but someone unvaccinated who has a negative PCR may be infectious by the time they get the result.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 10, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Ah I think stich means jab/shot. That was the part I didn't understand the translation.
> 
> Yes, I've been saying all along that testing should be one of the priorities.. even for vaccinated people. But I recently discovered tests aren't free in USA like here, so maybe that's why it's not as common.


Before the Mandatory Law comes up,most of the Government "People" also wants to have the Tests with costs.
Also People "claim" the right to get a "Bed" on the Intensive Station before
an Unvaccinated...

Funny,in Austria we ALL pay for our Healthsystem a Tax,we all pay for our Work a Tax,but when it comes to Corona,suddenly we are different....

The Vaccines costs alot more than the PCR Tests,a lot.
Also,our "fine" Government (Chancellor Kurz and Company) bought Antigen Tests last Year,they cost 3 Times MORE than usual....




smf said:


> My understanding is that vaccination reduces the time between being infectious and it showing up on a PCR test.
> 
> So someone who is vaccinated will get a negative PCR and they are safe for a few days, but someone unvaccinated who has a negative PCR may be infectious by the time they get the result.



We have to make an PCR Test daily.Because of the Analysis Time,so most of the time we are DOUBLE Tested for one,two Days in the Week,because of the Test Result is not on time (it needs 24h and more in Austria,do not ask me why !),and for that we have to make an Antigen Test too PLUS an Antigen Test at Work 3 Times the Week (required by the employer).

So please do not tell me about this "unvaccinated" Infectious Topic.And I think you are a smart Guy,
an Infection comes not from one Day to another if you are permantly,daily and "seamless" tested.


----------



## smf (Dec 10, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> So please do not tell me about this "unvaccinated" Infectious Topic.And I think you are a smart Guy,
> an Infection comes not from one Day to another if you are permantly,daily and "seamless" tested.


You could be exposed, then have a PCR test and then become infectious before you receive the test result. Which depending on the timing from the exposure to the PCR test may even show negative.

It doesn't matter that you perform the test every day, there will be a delay to receiving the positive result back.

Putting it into gaming terminology, it's like network lag. If you have a really high latency, then you could have been shot before you even see the gun flash.

It's quite amazing that they can get PCR tests done in 24 hours.


----------



## smf (Dec 10, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> Also,our "fine" Government (Chancellor Kurz and Company) bought Antigen Tests last Year,they cost 3 Times MORE than usual....


Supply and demand. That is what capitalism gives you.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 10, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Yep, and this is a thread about a government making vaccines mandatory.  I fail to see how this is an exclusive "anti-vax vs pro-vax" issue.
> 
> In respect to your polarization, you present two decisions someone can make and then suggest that the two outcomes make people incompatible with each other.  In my world, so far, the two do coexist and are aware of personal choices, because they are allowed to have them.  We don't have CNN, MSNBC, or any of those kinds of polarizing media outlets/narratives, so that may have a lot of influence.
> 
> In respect to making valid concerns sound dumb as possible in attempt to gaslight people, you look as stupid as you try to make others appear.


In my attempt to gas light people I succeeded pretty well. The two cannot coexist in the same location at the same time if one is vaccinated and the other is not. They can co-exist if they are separate.

And I also connected how these two groups and the behavior of anti vaxxers causes the other one to enforce gov mandates because many anti vax are not showing common courtesy. If you were to pay attention to my post which shows you aren't. And again in my post I also showed that anti vax can have/allowed freedom of choice/personal choice to not be vaxxed, for whatever reason & also I'm against mandates. It just shows you weren't paying attention to anything I said.

But the problem is they many aren't self isolating and showing common courtesy. And not respecting the vaxxers concerns and opinions of social distancing. But demand that their views to be respected to stay unvaxxed. And my proposal is to stay away from other people since you are risking to spread the corona virus to other people. Doesn't seem like that hard of a request? Unless they lack common decency.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 10, 2021)

Maybe that Theranos woman could've developed a better test for Covid if she wasn't going to prison.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Dec 10, 2021)

Look at all these anti-vaxx white supremecists not waning to take experimental jabs and wear paper plate masks and then have the audacity to stand up to the over-bearing government who has their "best interests" at heart. They must be stopped REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## djpannda (Dec 10, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Look at all these anti-vaxx white supremecists not waning to take experimental jabs and wear paper plate masks and then have the audacity to stand up to the over-bearing government who has their "best interests" at heart. They must be stopped REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!



cool random youtube video Bro.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 10, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Look at all these anti-vaxx white supremecists not waning to take experimental jabs and wear paper plate masks and then have the audacity to stand up to the over-bearing government who has their "best interests" at heart. They must be stopped REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!


The Senate didn't actually succeed in blocking the vaccine mandate. Also, the vaccine mandate gives people an out: regular testing.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 10, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Look at all these anti-vaxx white supremecists not waning to take experimental jabs and wear paper plate masks and then have the audacity to stand up to the over-bearing government who has their "best interests" at heart. They must be stopped REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!



Anti Vax and White Supremacists have nothing to do with each other,

And paper plate masks? Are you stupid or something? Or a fucked up person or both? If you are going to be unvaccinated then you better be wearing a fucking mask. The fact that you believe some bullshit that masks don't work. It's dumbasses like you the reason why anyone tries to push for vaccine mandates.

The problem is not that you don't get vaccinated. If you don't want to get vaccinated that's fine. Because of your concerns of the vaccine. But what makes you an evil fucked up person, that does not give a shit about their fellow man, is that you don't wear masks or take extra precautions to not spread a virus to other people that could potentially harm them. That's what's fucked up about you.


----------



## djpannda (Dec 10, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Anti Vax and White Supremacists have nothing to do with each other,
> 
> And paper plate masks? Are you stupid or something? Or a fucked up person or both? If you are going to be unvaccinated then you better be wearing a fucking mask. The fact that you believe some bullshit that masks don't work. It's dumbasses like you the reason why anyone tries to push for vaccine mandates.
> 
> The problem is not that you don't get vaccinated. If you don't want to get vaccinated that's fine. Because of your concerns of the vaccine. But what makes you an evil fucked up person, that does not give a shit about their fellow man, is that you don't wear masks or take extra precautions to not spread a virus to other people that could potentially harm them. That's what's fucked up about you.


its funny, ONLY IN American... Asian Countries have been using the mask protocol for illness for like 50years+... its proven to work.. and oh yea 100+ years of the SAME Masks in the medical field.. but What the f#$K do DR know compared to "Random youtubers"


----------



## SG854 (Dec 10, 2021)

djpannda said:


> its funny, ONLY IN American... Asian Countries have been using the mask protocol for illness for like 50years+... its proven to work.. and oh yea 100+ of the SAME Mask in the medical field.. but What the f#$K do DR know compared to "Random youtubers"


And you know what's bullshit. These so called medical experts bunch of random's on the internet go say masks don't work.

What if they're wrong?
I say masks work, they say they don't work.

Lets take a scenario where I'm wrong. What's the harm of wearing a mask? There is no harm in walking around with masks other then some stupid pride thing.

Lets take a scenario where they are wrong. What's the harm of not wearing a mask. Possible spreading a deadly virus that can harm or kill people.


Of the two scenarios which is the better of the 2, the lesser of two evils? One that is the least harmful if the person is wrong about their beliefs. It's obviously wearing masks that is the least harmful. It's always better to be safe then sorry. Yet anti mask people are so confident in their own bullshit that they don't take extra precautions. This is what's fucked up about them and don't give a shit about other people. And go around calling it face diapers or some crap like that.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 10, 2021)

LOL what the hell is a paper plate mask?


----------



## djpannda (Dec 10, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> LOL what the hell is a paper plate mask?






Wait do you mean the THE WHOLE ANTI-Mask movement is because they are wearing this.. and saying it does not work against  COVID....


----------



## tabzer (Dec 10, 2021)

smf said:


> You act like an arse hole in every thread, on purpose, for fun. And now you get upset because of my language.



You don't upset me.  I think your language is generally self-contradictory drivel.



SG854 said:


> The two cannot coexist in the same location at the same time if one is vaccinated and the other is not. They can co-exist if they are separate.



That's incorrect.  You also say that you aren't for government mandates yet you are rationalizing government mandates, so I'm getting mixed messaging.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 10, 2021)

I'm not antivaxx in any sense of the word, but forced government mandates are bullshit. Let science do the work, not governments.


----------



## djpannda (Dec 10, 2021)

the_randomizer said:


> I'm not antivaxx in any sense of the word, but forced government mandates are bullshit. Let science do the work, not governments.


but thats like saying "F$%K Stop signs or traffic lights , seat Belts " let the auto indistury figure it out,
Public safety has and still is the Job of the Government.
Public safety law are created to stop DUMBASs People from Hurting themselves and others.
I mean if people were not driving 80mph and flying thru the windshield, we would have not needed Traffic laws.
Same Concepts. IF people were staying 6 feet and wearing mask( PROPERLY ) and getting vaccinated, Public safety mandates would not be needed.


----------



## doom95 (Dec 10, 2021)

Wonder how this will affect tourism in the long term. Probably gonna have quite some impact on the skiing season. But if we ever leave Covid behind us, will regulations be relaxed?


----------



## smf (Dec 10, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You don't upset me.  I think your language is generally self-contradictory drivel.



And you continue being an arsehole.

I'm not trying to upset you.


----------



## smf (Dec 10, 2021)

tabzer said:


> That's incorrect.  You also say that you aren't for government mandates yet you are rationalizing government mandates, so I'm getting mixed messaging.



That is because you believe in black and white thinking & are incapable of seeing any body elses point of view.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 10, 2021)

djpannda said:


> IF people were staying 6 feet and wearing mask( PROPERLY ) and getting vaccinated, Public safety mandates would not be needed.


I truly wish that could've been the case so we could know for sure. My intuition tells me things would still be going in the same direction though. It would be nice if the powers that be could show how genuinely concerned they are by waiving patents and allowing developing countries to have access to all the vaccines too.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 10, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I truly wish that could've been the case so we could know for sure. My intuition tells me things would still be going in the same direction though. It would be nice if the powers that be could show how genuinely concerned they are by waiving patents and allowing developing countries to have access to all the vaccines too.


Stop putting "powers that be" on a pedestal.  This shit's been studied way outside of any fat-cat rooms you clowns keep going on about.

Vaccinations and airborne viruses aren't a new thing.  Jesus christ.  We've already been down this road in previous pandemics, with the SAME fucking arguments.  You can read the articles yourselves.  It's pretty embarrassing that we're going through the same song and dance in today's age.

And no, your intuition is wrong, dude.  There were countries who took measures properly and didn't suffer like dumbasses around the rest of the world did.  It's not just the U.S., a lot of the world dropped the ball on this because people are too fucking stubborn to read every now and then.


----------



## smf (Dec 10, 2021)

doom95 said:


> Wonder how this will affect tourism in the long term. Probably gonna have quite some impact on the skiing season. But if we ever leave Covid behind us, will regulations be relaxed?



We don't get to "leave covid behind us", it's here all the time it wants to be.

If it chooses to go then democracies will relax regulations. 



subcon959 said:


> I truly wish that could've been the case so we could know for sure. My intuition tells me things would still be going in the same direction though. It would be nice if the powers that be could show how genuinely concerned they are by waiving patents and allowing developing countries to have access to all the vaccines too.



All the time we live under capitalism then you'll struggle to get people to give their stuff away.



appleburger said:


> There were countries who took measures properly and didn't suffer like dumbasses around the rest of the world did.  It's not just the U.S., a lot of the world dropped the ball on this because people are too fucking stubborn to read every now and then.



Everyone who thought they'd got it right, had their arses handed to them. Just maybe not quite as badly.


----------



## djpannda (Dec 10, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I truly wish that could've been the case so we could know for sure. My intuition tells me things would still be going in the same direction though. It would be nice if the powers that be could show how genuinely concerned they are by waiving patents and allowing developing countries to have access to all the vaccines too.


THAT COMMUNIST SPEAK COMRAD!! .. lol you think the a Money Hungry Captialist Society will give away Billons?? (patents not the Shots itself)
We are lucky enough Most Countries already provide the vaccines at no Direct cost to the People.
and By the Way the US has already *DONATED* 275 millions vaccine doses already and pledged 1.1 billion to 3rd world countries. infact multiple South American countries have almost all the vaccines they have donated by Either the US or China.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 10, 2021)

djpannda said:


> THAT COMMUNIST SPEAK COMRAD!! .. lol you think the a Money Hungry Captialist Society will give away Billons?? (patents not the Shots itself)
> We are lucky enough Most Countries already provide the vaccines at no Direct cost to the People.
> and By the Way the US has already *DONATED* 275 millions vaccine doses already and pledged 1.1 billion to 3rd world countries. infact multiple South American countries have almost all the vaccines they have donated by Either the US or China.


Still, it seems like allowing a few to hold the patents hostage wasn't the right thing to do here. We're up to our 3rd shots and some people could be waiting another year just to get their first. It would be difficult to find many people to agree that making huge profits off the pandemic was anything but distasteful.. it could've even gone a long way to mending some of the bad image these pharm companies have.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 10, 2021)

smf said:


> And you continue being an arsehole.
> 
> I'm not trying to upset you.


You know, if you read everything with a whiny inner voice, everything can sound like complaining.  I won't hold it against you.



smf said:


> That is because you believe in black and white thinking & are incapable of seeing any body elses point of view.


Lol.  No matter how hard I try, I cannot imagine away the reality of unvaccinated people and vaccinated people already living together.   We don't get CNN telling us that unvaccinated people are assaulting our grandparents, or have a president telling us that the people he is trying to govern are at fault for his failed promises.

It's more peaceful.


----------



## smf (Dec 11, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You know, if you read everything with a whiny inner voice, everything can sound like complaining.  I won't hold it against you.


My inner voice isn't whiny, it's your attitude that is clear from your posts all the time.

You don't want to figure out why you don't understand someones point, you love to misunderstand on purpose and twist others words for comedy as you think that helps you win an argument.

But again, thanks for proving me right again about you being an arsehole.


----------



## smf (Dec 11, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Lol.  No matter how hard I try, I cannot imagine away the reality of unvaccinated people and vaccinated people already living together.   We don't get CNN telling us that unvaccinated people are assaulting our grandparents, or have a president telling us that the people he is trying to govern are at fault for his failed promises.
> .


The reality is quite grim in some places, laughing out loud at the situation is in poor taste.

I'm not sure what the rest of your point is.


----------



## smf (Dec 11, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Still, it seems like allowing a few to hold the patents hostage wasn't the right thing to do here. We're up to our 3rd shots and some people could be waiting another year just to get their first. It would be difficult to find many people to agree that making huge profits off the pandemic was anything but distasteful.. it could've even gone a long way to mending some of the bad image these pharm companies have.


Giving the patents for free won't necessarily allow all the countries to make them still. Someone still has to have the expertise/money to make them.

People who think poorly of the companies, will do so whether they give everything away or not because they are broken.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 11, 2021)

smf said:


> We don't get to "leave covid behind us", it's here all the time it wants to be.
> 
> If it chooses to go then democracies will relax regulations.
> 
> ...



No shit. “Not quite as badly” meaning avoiding thousands upon thousands of deaths. This isn’t even up for debate. Again, embarrassing that you guys can’t bother yourselves to check your own sources. 

You can bet your ass I’d rather have my family be in New Zealand than the us in 2020. Wouldn’t have lost as many family members. It’s right in fucking front of you and you retards keep arguing behind completely ignorant echo chambers. 
If so many lives weren’t at stake I wouldn’t be so dramatic, but fuck you guys. Stupid people and egos have made a bad situation so much worse.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 11, 2021)

smf said:


> My inner voice isn't whiny



I don't believe you.



smf said:


> laughing out loud at the situation is in poor taste.



_You _are not _the situation._


----------



## smf (Dec 11, 2021)

appleburger said:


> You can bet your ass I’d rather have my family be in New Zealand than the us in 2020.


Sure, over 200 times the deaths in the US after taking into account the population size.

That doesn't mean it would be transferable to the US.


----------



## smf (Dec 11, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I don't believe you.


You don't have a great track record for believing things that are real though, so I'll let you off.

You clearly don't take it seriously

_"Lol. No matter how hard I try, I cannot imagine away the reality of unvaccinated people and vaccinated people already living together."_

The reality is that unvaccinated people are dying because they aren't taking other precautions and they are the cause of the new variants. Some people can't be vaccinated and that is fine, but those people aren't arseholes on forums about it. No matter how funny you think it is that someone can see reality.

If you weren't so busy roflmao yourself into a state of stupor, then you might have a clue. But arseholes be arseholes.

You come across more like https://nymag.com/intelligencer/202...-theory-vaccines-turns-you-into-a-magnet.html rather than Trevor Noah.

You might not understand why that is, which is why you behave in the way you do.


----------



## Deleted member 568892 (Dec 11, 2021)

This thread is fucked.


----------



## bazamuffin (Dec 11, 2021)

Mike_Hunt said:


> This thread is fucked.


This thread doesn't belong on this site at all in my opinion.  Its become far too much of a political platform, and politics divides us when we should really be united.  After all, the reason we all signed up to GBATemp was for gaming forums.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 11, 2021)

smf said:


> You don't have a great track record for believing things that are real though, so I'll let you off.
> 
> You clearly don't take it seriously
> 
> ...


It is more likely that someone with a strengthened immune system would become a host of and spreader to  a surviving mutation of the disease.

If you think I was laughing at "the situation" instead of something you said, then you need a reality check--if that wasn't the first cue.

If calling other people "arseholes" makes you feel like less of an "arsehole", then good for you.  I don't mind.  I've never made a claim.  You did, LOL.

Also, you aren't real.


----------



## smf (Dec 11, 2021)

tabzer said:


> It is more likely that someone with a strengthened immune system would become a host of and spreader to  a surviving mutation of the disease.


The omicron variant came from a country with low covid immunisation and high levels of hiv. Break through infections from vaccinated are, unfortunately you for your argument, much rarer.

Not that I expect you'll accept that your view is wrong, because why start now? You're invested in your wrong opinion, because they protect your self esteem.

You're always wrong and then bully people trying to twist their words, I'm just standing up to you & I can continue standing up to you all the time you act like this. It's fine.


----------



## smf (Dec 11, 2021)

bazamuffin said:


> Its become far too much of a political platform, and politics divides us when we should really be united.



It appears anti vaxxers aren't interested in being united, they mostly spend their days telling vaccinated people they are going to die soon. Going so far as to tell children coming out of school that they or their parents will die if they get vaccinated.

I don't know how we deprogram them.


----------



## bazamuffin (Dec 11, 2021)

smf said:


> It appears anti vaxxers aren't interested in being united, they mostly spend their days telling vaccinated people they are going to die soon. Going so far as to tell children coming out of school that they or their parents will die if they get vaccinated.
> 
> I don't know how we deprogram them.


I'm not anti vax, just believe in medical freedom.  I have a mix of unvaxxed/vaxxed among friends and family.  We refuse to let our personal choices come between us.  I've seen many threads on here about "are you vaxxed" etc and it just results in persecution from both sides.  I don't like how divisive its all become.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 11, 2021)

smf said:


> Sure, over 200 times the deaths in the US after taking into account the population size.
> 
> That doesn't mean it would be transferable to the US.


Lol no it’s not you dumb fuck.  Did you even bother looking it up first?  Do you possess common sense?  Have you ever done math?

My fault for even participating in this "conversation" on a fucking gaming forum.  What a joke.  We need to just stick to talking about video games.  I'm out.


----------



## bazamuffin (Dec 11, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Lol no it’s not you dumb fuck.  Did you even bother looking it up first?  Do you possess common sense?  Have you ever done math?
> 
> My fault for even participating in this "conversation" on a fucking gaming forum.  What a joke.  We need to just stick to talking about video games.  I'm out.


Case in point, these threads don't belong on this site and just result in dividing us.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 11, 2021)

smf said:


> The omicron variant came from a country with low covid immunisation and high levels of hiv. Break through infections from vaccinated are, unfortunately you for your argument, much rarer.
> 
> Not that I expect you'll accept that your view is wrong, because why start now? You're invested in your wrong opinion, because they protect your self esteem.
> 
> You're always wrong and then bully people trying to twist their words, I'm just standing up to you & I can continue standing up to you all the time you act like this. It's fine.




The first case we had, here, of Omicron was from a breakthrough infection of double-vaxxed person.

In an unvaccinated person, it is unlikely for a mutation to overrun the current strain, as it is in competition with it, and vastly outnumbered.  In a vaccinated person, the least resistant strain is targeted as the mutant strain is allowed all the room to grow and incubate.

It's how "super-bugs" are created.

Anyway, you are the hero.  Gg, hf.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Dec 11, 2021)

Listen pigs. If you want to get vaccinated do so, if you don't then don't. Stop imposing each others opinions on one another.

Daddy pig out.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 11, 2021)

bazamuffin said:


> Case in point, these threads don't belong on this site and just result in dividing us.


If people want to ask questions regarding this stuff, then I’m all for it.  Educate yourselves by asking questions. That’s okay.  But when people try to argue with their ignorance on a subject that involves the deaths of so many people, I just find that inexcusable and beyond shitty. 

That being said, I do apologize for coming in here and adding to the problem. You guys are stronger than me lol.


----------



## Dakitten (Dec 11, 2021)

bazamuffin said:


> I'm not anti vax, just believe in medical freedom.  I have a mix of unvaxxed/vaxxed among friends and family.  We refuse to let our personal choices come between us.  I've seen many threads on here about "are you vaxxed" etc and it just results in persecution from both sides.  I don't like how divisive its all become.


It is sadly only divisive because some people are wrong. There's kinda a clear divide between fact and fiction, and all it can do is divide folks, particularly when there is an anti science/anti fact subculture (often tied to zealotry). Some people are clearly doing harm to others (and themselves, really) and... a lot of folks with this problem tend to enjoy video games, go figure. On that note...



subcon959 said:


> Allow me to fill in the gaps then..
> 
> "The CDC Foundation is an independent nonprofit and the sole entity created by Congress to mobilize philanthropic and private-sector resources to support the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s critical health protection work."
> https://www.cdcfoundation.org/our-story
> ...





subcon959 said:


> This is so naive that it's almost cute. I don't really want to go over this whole thing again as some of us discussed it at length already. The CDC Foundation has it's list of donors on it's website (forced to disclose after some pressure). If you don't see the conflict of interest with them getting millions from Merck and Pfizer then there's really no point in going any further with this.


The CDC Foundation is NOT the CDC, but an outside group that takes donations to help make up... less than 1% of their budget this year. They aren't funded by the CDC Foundation, they aren't in bed at large with Pfizer, and their work doesn't do much more than possibly tip their stocks one way or another when a vaccine gets cleared. When a vaccine gets cleared, they don't all get bonuses or bribes, but hey, prove me wrong and win a Pulitzer. Speaking of those, I saw you linked a children's health defense site earlier, written by the very same Jeremy R. Hammond who is... wait for the drumroll... Anti-Vax and not a winner of a Pulitzer. Go figure.

https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2017...wapo-says-theres-nothing-to-debate-hes-wrong/

I'm sure your foot tastes great, but you're going to need an anti-fungal for your gums at this rate.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Dec 11, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Anti Vax and White Supremacists have nothing to do with each other,
> 
> And paper plate masks? Are you stupid or something? Or a fucked up person or both? If you are going to be unvaccinated then you better be wearing a fucking mask. The fact that you believe some bullshit that masks don't work. It's dumbasses like you the reason why anyone tries to push for vaccine mandates.
> 
> The problem is not that you don't get vaccinated. If you don't want to get vaccinated that's fine. Because of your concerns of the vaccine. But what makes you an evil fucked up person, that does not give a shit about their fellow man, is that you don't wear masks or take extra precautions to not spread a virus to other people that could potentially harm them. That's what's fucked up about you.


Well if we're just going to do just insults, it takes a fucked up person to know an even more fucked up person, you evil mothefuckng cocksucker. Calling me evil and dumb when you're on another league on your own. Take all the vaccines mandates and shove them up your ass and die angry for all I care. You're the reason why more and more people are getting sick of this shit all over the world, and whether you realize it or not, you're shrinking more and more in the angry minority and sooner or later, you and all these morons who think it's ok to trample on other's freedom and rights will get their just desserts twice as hard.



djpannda said:


> its funny, ONLY IN American... Asian Countries have been using the mask protocol for illness for like 50years+... its proven to work.. and oh yea 100+ years of the SAME Masks in the medical field.. but What the f#$K do DR know compared to "Random youtubers"


I'm pretty sure it wasn't mandatory for 50+ years for them to wear masks. It's more of a personal choice for them, not forced on them by the government. But of course you'd rather have big daddy government violate your ass more with needles and shitty made masks.


----------



## LinkmstrYT (Dec 11, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> Listen pigs. If you want to get vaccinated do so, if you don't then don't. Stop imposing each others opinions on one another.
> 
> Daddy pig out.


Well, it's that sort of attitude that isn't helping people who don't want to get vaccinated and are getting sick, taking up most hospital beds, suffering, and potentially die.

I just don't see why it's not obvious that people that are asking others to get vaccinated are trying to help protect others and themselves.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 11, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> It is sadly only divisive because some people are wrong. There's kinda a clear divide between fact and fiction, and all it can do is divide folks, particularly when there is an anti science/anti fact subculture (often tied to zealotry). Some people are clearly doing harm to others (and themselves, really) and... a lot of folks with this problem tend to enjoy video games, go figure. On that note...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, the Jeremy Hammond link was my bad, but I stand by everything I said about the CDC Foundation.


----------



## Dakitten (Dec 11, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Yeah, the Jeremy Hammond link was my bad, but I stand by everything I said about the CDC Foundation.


That's the thing though, comrade, the CDC Foundation isn't the CDC. They're a non-profit fundraising group that doesn't even make up a two digit fraction of their annual income. They're a way for big pharma to get some very inexpensive street cred for helping out an unbiased separate organization. If you had any proof of it going deeper, you'd be a journalist's wet dream, but until then you're just falling for some discredited wet farts.

I am going to take a step back and apologize for being abrasive at you at this point, since I appreciate your recognition of Jeremy Hammond being a bad source. However, this does hit the root of the issue, that you're using bad sources and vague inferences for your world view that you are actively sharing. People who tend to follow and thumbs up your posts are often extreme right wing vidposters and grifters who may have their own extreme right wing content and agenda. I encourage you to practice what you've preached, and take a hard look at how you might be able to do better at making a sound argument.

On this note, I'll end my civility as I drag myself back down to the crazy with...



BitMasterPlus said:


> Well if we're just going to do just insults, it takes a fucked up person to know an even more fucked up person, you evil mothefuckng cocksucker. Calling me evil and dumb when you're on another league on your own. Take all the vaccines mandates and shove them up your ass and die angry for all I care. You're the reason why more and more people are getting sick of this shit all over the world, and whether you realize it or not, you're shrinking more and more in the angry minority and sooner or later, you and all these morons who think it's ok to trample on other's freedom and rights will get their just desserts twice as hard.
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure it wasn't mandatory for 50+ years for them to wear masks. It's more of a personal choice for them, not forced on them by the government. But of course you'd rather have big daddy government violate your ass more with needles and shitty made masks.


Did you just admit to being evil? You may want to get that worked on, since you obviously just believe someone else is evil but you outright just confessed to being evil yourself, and you padded your rant with threats and hostility just to sweeten the pot! Ironically, you'd actually make a pretty good case for why mandates are important, since behavior like yours in defiance of public safety could lead to any number of tragedies, such as gun violence or hate crimes, to say nothing of public health issues like vaccinations and distancing with masks.



tabzer said:


> Lol, someone was talking about "foot in mouth" and then got served.   Someone else said "I don't consider something to be biased just because I disagree with it." and then turned around to call something biased because it was "right wing".
> 
> Who will publish the complete, unadulterated truth, for free?


The truth is simple, and many people with a moral center (or more likely an obligation to integrity that their field mandates) will tell it to the world at large. It might be for a personal salary, but it tends to be free for folk to witness. To be blunt, I have a bias against the right because their policies have a track record that speaks for itself insofar as failures and misinformation, but I would never lie or troll for the left because I don't have a need to. Facts exist independent of bias. Your comments, however, drip with toxicity and demagoguery, which is why your presence in places like these is more off-putting than constructive. Please grow up.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 11, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Your comments, however, drip with toxicity and demagoguery, which is why your presence in places like these is more off-putting than constructive. Please grow up.



Okay "comrade", or is it Lacius jr. ?  Not interested in what you have to say.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 11, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> That's the thing though, comrade, the CDC Foundation isn't the CDC. They're a non-profit fundraising group that doesn't even make up a two digit fraction of their annual income. They're a way for big pharma to get some very inexpensive street cred for helping out an unbiased separate organization. If you had any proof of it going deeper, you'd be a journalist's wet dream, but until then you're just falling for some discredited wet farts.
> 
> I am going to take a step back and apologize for being abrasive at you at this point, since I appreciate your recognition of Jeremy Hammond being a bad source. However, this does hit the root of the issue, that you're using bad sources and vague inferences for your world view that you are actively sharing. People who tend to follow and thumbs up your posts are often extreme right wing vidposters and grifters who may have their own extreme right wing content and agenda. I encourage you to practice what you've preached, and take a hard look at how you might be able to do better at making a sound argument.


Appreciate the sentiment, and I'll reciprocate as I'm probably guilty of being less than civil in the past.

I did come to my own conclusions though way before I ever posted that bad link. It just seems like Occam's Razor to me as far as conflict of interest, but since there is no way to prove or disprove it I'm fine with anyone drawing a different conclusion to mine.


----------



## Dakitten (Dec 11, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Okay "comrade", or is it Lacius jr. ?  Not interested in what you have to say.


Honestly, I suspect I'm to the left of even Lacius... but if he's as sexy as he is informed and diligent with schooling scoundrels on this forum, I'd happily call him "daddy". He has earned respect!


----------



## Lacius (Dec 12, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Honestly, I suspect I'm to the left of even Lacius... but if he's as sexy as he is informed and diligent with schooling scoundrels on this forum, I'd happily call him "daddy". He has earned respect!


If you want to come over, you can find me living rent-free in @tabzer's head apparently.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 12, 2021)

One of you is enough.


----------



## LinkmstrYT (Dec 12, 2021)

Nah, we need someone like @Lacius more often. Someone who actually knows what they're talking about, has a forward-thinking mind, logical, keeps a calm and consistent attitude, doesn't mess around (unlike some folks here...), and doesn't go with conspiracy theories.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 12, 2021)

So I take it you are pro-government authoritarianism as long as it's in the name of the promise of eradicating covid?  There's only a couple of people whose arguments I entertain, and you haven't really qualified anything.  If you think you are involved in some party inside my head, you got it wrong.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Dec 12, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Did you just admit to being evil? You may want to get that worked on, since you obviously just believe someone else is evil but you outright just confessed to being evil yourself, and you padded your rant with threats and hostility just to sweeten the pot! Ironically, you'd actually make a pretty good case for why mandates are important, since behavior like yours in defiance of public safety could lead to any number of tragedies, such as gun violence or hate crimes, to say nothing of public health issues like vaccinations and distancing with masks.


I didn't say I was evil, maybe a little crazy, but not evil if you actually read my comment. He called me evil, and I told him he's on another league of his own, but I didn't say I was evil, I was telling him off since he decided to insult me first. And from I've also seen from you, I'm guessing you'll see some evil yourself each time you look in the mirror.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Dec 12, 2021)

LinkmstrYT said:


> Well, it's that sort of attitude that isn't helping people who don't want to get vaccinated and are getting sick, taking up most hospital beds, suffering, and potentially die.
> 
> I just don't see why it's not obvious that people that are asking others to get vaccinated are trying to help protect others and themselves.


This is the issue with entitled and oppressive mentality. You are convinced you know what is going on and whatever opinion you impose on others is for THEIR BENEFIT. 

Do you know what the Nazis used to think? Exactly the same.

Every human has a right to choose what to do concerning their health and if its the wrong decision then so be it. Being part of a society that is free requires others to live with your choices.

Much the same as as western society started getting more and more africans, carribeans, latinos, lifestyles changed, health service adjusted to make allowances for it, social aid started being used up more and more and invested into more and more. Illigitimite children started being born in a MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH higher capacity. Crime rates soared (not saying there wasn't crime before but this is a universal fact you can't deny).

My point is, view society as a unit and allow other peoplke the right to have an opinion you shout from the rooftops every hour of every day. Every minite and literal second.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 12, 2021)

LinkmstrYT said:


> Nah, we need someone like @Lacius more often. Someone who actually knows what they're talking about, has a forward-thinking mind, logical, keeps a calm and consistent attitude, doesn't mess around (unlike some folks here...), and doesn't go with conspiracy theories.


You could replace all that with someone who agrees with everything you think. Scepticism is an extremely important part of society and filling the population with drones would lead to very bad things.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 12, 2021)

Sorry,but......







Maybe remember the Thread Title ?​Austria first country to make Covid vaccine mandatory​​


----------



## AlexMCS (Dec 12, 2021)

LinkmstrYT said:


> Someone who actually knows what they're talking about, has a forward-thinking mind, logical, keeps a calm and consistent attitude, doesn't mess around (unlike some folks here...), and doesn't go with conspiracy theories.



So much wrong here, but let's not derail the thread further.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Dec 13, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> Maybe remember the Thread Title ?​


Oh yeah, something about root beer right?


----------



## tabzer (Dec 13, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> Sorry,but......
> 
> View attachment 289350
> 
> ...


Does everyone have a vaccine ID that needs to be updated monthly?  Do you have to show it when buying groceries or getting on a bus?  Do people get stopped randomly for ID checks?  Are offenders rounded up and put into camps?  Or is that next month?

Australia is already doing that, from what I understand.

On the subject, do people throw caution into the wind and spray all over each other's faces when they decide that they are on the right side of history?


----------



## smf (Dec 14, 2021)

bazamuffin said:


> I'm not anti vax, just believe in medical freedom.  I have a mix of unvaxxed/vaxxed among friends and family.  We refuse to let our personal choices come between us.  I've seen many threads on here about "are you vaxxed" etc and it just results in persecution from both sides.  I don't like how divisive its all become.


I agree in medical freedom.

But during a pandemic, if I come across someone who says they have done their own research or they know their own body and don't need a vaccine or mask then I also agree in freedom to make sure they don't come anywhere near me as they are obviously not capable of looking after themselves let alone be considerate to me.

People who claim to be so medically vulnerable that they can't wear a mask or be vaccinated, can't even see the irony.

My friend got covid bad recently from one of these geniuses.



MadonnaProject said:


> Being part of a society that is free requires others to live with your choices.


No, otherwise we wouldn't have laws to protect innocent people from people committing crimes.

Freedom comes with limits.


----------



## smf (Dec 14, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> This is the issue with entitled and oppressive mentality. You are convinced you know what is going on and whatever opinion you impose on others is for THEIR BENEFIT.
> 
> Do you know what the Nazis used to think? Exactly the same.


You've just described every society and every religion.

The nazi's were mostly known for extinguishing people they thought were inferior, rather than imposing opinions. It seems like you mentioned nazi's as some kind of "winning move" more than making a valid comparison.


----------



## bazamuffin (Dec 14, 2021)

smf said:


> I agree in medical freedom.
> 
> But during a pandemic, if I come across someone who says they have done their own research or they know their own body and don't need a vaccine or mask then I also agree in freedom to make sure they don't come anywhere near me as they are obviously not capable of looking after themselves let alone be considerate to me.
> 
> ...



I have had Covid, was more like flu that lasted 3 days and tested negative after that.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 14, 2021)

smf said:


> I agree in medical freedom.
> 
> But during a pandemic, if I come across someone who says they have done their own research or they know their own body and don't need a vaccine or mask then I also agree in freedom to make sure they don't come anywhere near me as they are obviously not capable of looking after themselves let alone be considerate to me.



Would you consider the leaflet that comes in the vaccine packaging as a good source for research? Let's say you're a parent trying to decide if your teen son should get vaccinated, it would probably be responsible to read the information that the manufacturer themselves provided. Here's a quote from one section (Pfizer-BioNtech):



> Postmarketing data demonstrate increased risks of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly within 7 days following the second dose. The observed risk is higher among males under 40 years of age than among females and older males. The observed risk is highest in males 12 through 17 years of age. Although some cases required intensive care support, available data from short-term follow-up suggest that most individuals have had resolution of symptoms with conservative management. Information is not yet available about potential longterm sequelae.



It seems to me that going from that information alone, it's not an unreasonable conclusion for a parent to decide they aren't going to take the risk harming their son. There are no statistics provided, just a rather scary (if you're a parent) ending that says they don't know about long term effects yet. I wonder how many parents were even aware of this when signing the consent forms, and how many would reconsider if they were told first.


----------



## Dakitten (Dec 14, 2021)

tabzer said:


> So I take it you are pro-government authoritarianism as long as it's in the name of the promise of eradicating covid?  There's only a couple of people whose arguments I entertain, and you haven't really qualified anything.  If you think you are involved in some party inside my head, you got it wrong.


Personally, I'd say I'm pro-government action when it comes to public health and safety, like how if a sewer line were broken I'd call the city. It is kinda the function of government to impose law and standards so that we don't have crazy people lynching everybody they don't like or streaking across school playgrounds. Also, we're totally having a leftist orgy in your brain, sorry you can't unsee it.



BitMasterPlus said:


> I didn't say I was evil, maybe a little crazy, but not evil if you actually read my comment. He called me evil, and I told him he's on another league of his own, but I didn't say I was evil, I was telling him off since he decided to insult me first. And from I've also seen from you, I'm guessing you'll see some evil yourself each time you look in the mirror.


I suppose I was a bit too generous assuming you'd take my question in good faith. You actually did reply by calling yourself evil by proxy. Do with that what you will, comrade. I just enjoy watching you be wrong and silly... which is often.


MadonnaProject said:


> This is the issue with entitled and oppressive mentality. You are convinced you know what is going on and whatever opinion you impose on others is for THEIR BENEFIT.
> 
> Do you know what the Nazis used to think? Exactly the same.
> 
> ...


Do you know what else the Nazis used to think? That the sky was blue and that breathing was essential to their continued existence. Thanks for playing, please stop using this kind of perverse rhetoric to spread useless opinions.

Lets play something else, and see if you can follow along. We all would like to enjoy the freedom of eating in restaurants and  going to movies without masks AND without possibly getting an illness that can lead to death. To promote this, we ask that people take a vaccine that is offered freely and rapidly in this country. Due to a targeted propaganda campaign by a party that promotes the status quo, many people are fed misinformation and refuse to volunteer for the vaccine AND refuse to quarantine or take safety precautions. Should the population at large suffer due to the selfish acts of the misinformed? Are the unobtrusive vaccinations a step too far for the freedoms of everyone to be restored safely?

Now, I'm willing to wager that, like several people in this thread, you'd say yes because my body my choice, but... well, for the greater good, I'm happy to say I don't care about your bodily autonomy if it can hurt or kill me or/and my loved ones and countrymen in tandem with irresponsible behavior. A cop can arrest an arsonist, so by all means, they should be able to arrest a bio-terrorist.



Alexander1970 said:


> Sorry,but......
> 
> View attachment 289350
> 
> ...


Sadly, this is a political topic that drags in a lot of other baggage. Comparisons get made, other factors get brought up, and the right wing viewpoints are 95% dead wrong. Sucks, but so it goes.



bazamuffin said:


> I have had Covid, was more like flu that lasted 3 days and tested negative after that.


Congratulations, you were fortunate. Nobody likes to gamble on their health, however, and a vaccine will still do you good even after catching the virus.



subcon959 said:


> Would you consider the leaflet that comes in the vaccine packaging as a good source for research? Let's say you're a parent trying to decide if your teen son should get vaccinated, it would probably be responsible to read the information that the manufacturer themselves provided. Here's a quote from one section (Pfizer-BioNtech):
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that going from that information alone, it's not an unreasonable conclusion for a parent to decide they aren't going to take the risk harming their son. There are no statistics provided, just a rather scary (if you're a parent) ending that says they don't know about long term effects yet. I wonder how many parents were even aware of this when signing the consent forms, and how many would reconsider if they were told first.


For gods sake, please link your sources. Also, you missed the bit about how many cases per million there were of issues. Don't worry, I've got you covered. It sounds a lot less scary when you hear it is less than a percent of a percent chance, and for the record... I heard the warnings when I got my shot, as did my son.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiF5dPSreT0AhVXCTQIHS-cDUIQFnoECAkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fda.gov%2Fmedia%2F154406%2Fdownload&usg=AOvVaw0F7O0pHKZvfqnjBjgViBWa

"Myocarditis reporting rates were 40.6 cases per million second doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines administered to males aged 12-29 years and 2.4 per million second doses administered to males aged ≥30 years; reporting rates among females in these age groups were 4.2 and 1.0 per million second doses, respectively. The highest reporting rates were among males aged 12-17 years and those aged 18-24 years (62.8 and 50.5 reported myocarditis cases per million second doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine administered, respectively)."


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 14, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> For gods sake, please link your sources. Also, you missed the bit about how many cases per million there were of issues. Don't worry, I've got you covered. It sounds a lot less scary when you hear it is less than a percent of a percent chance, and for the record... I heard the warnings when I got my shot, as did my son.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiF5dPSreT0AhVXCTQIHS-cDUIQFnoECAkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fda.gov%2Fmedia%2F154406%2Fdownload&usg=AOvVaw0F7O0pHKZvfqnjBjgViBWa
> 
> "Myocarditis reporting rates were 40.6 cases per million second doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines administered to males aged 12-29 years and 2.4 per million second doses administered to males aged ≥30 years; reporting rates among females in these age groups were 4.2 and 1.0 per million second doses, respectively. The highest reporting rates were among males aged 12-17 years and those aged 18-24 years (62.8 and 50.5 reported myocarditis cases per million second doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine administered, respectively)."


I literally stated it's from the leaflet that comes with the vaccine. I didn't miss anything because that's all that is stated in the leaflet and I even pointed that out. Why aren't you actually reading what is being written?

Here's the insert: https://www.fda.gov/media/151707/download

And this is what the insert points you to from that particular section I already quoted: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/myocarditis.html

My assertion was that it wasn't unreasonable to make the decision based on that information. But then, I strongly disagree that getting Covid-19 is a much worse risk for a 12-15 year old boy.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 14, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Personally, I'd say I'm pro-government action when it comes to public health and safety, like how if a sewer line were broken I'd call the city.



I find it to be a little too authentic of you to be likening the treatment of people to government subsidization of waste processing.

I can't imagine "a leftist orgy".  Is that like a circus performance?


----------



## Lacius (Dec 15, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I strongly disagree that getting Covid-19 is a much worse risk for a 12-15 year old boy.


Getting COVID-19 is a much worse risk for a 12-15 year old boy.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html



> Should I Still Get Myself or My Child Vaccinated?​Yes. *CDC continues to recommend that everyone ages 5 years and older get vaccinated for COVID-19*. The known risks of COVID-19 illness and its related, possibly severe complications, such as long-term health problems, hospitalization, and even death, far outweigh the potential risks of having a rare adverse reaction to vaccination, including the possible risk of myocarditis or pericarditis.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 15, 2021)

It's anyone's choice to believe the CDC.

But for some reason, they just really want to get children hooked.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Dec 15, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> I suppose I was a bit too generous assuming you'd take my question in good faith. You actually did reply by calling yourself evil by proxy. Do with that what you will, comrade. I just enjoy watching you be wrong and silly... which is often.


Ok psychopath, whatever helps you sleep better at night which I'm not sure if you sleep at all.


----------



## Dakitten (Dec 15, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I literally stated it's from the leaflet that comes with the vaccine. I didn't miss anything because that's all that is stated in the leaflet and I even pointed that out. Why aren't you actually reading what is being written?
> 
> Here's the insert: https://www.fda.gov/media/151707/download
> 
> ...


That is precisely why I said to cite your source, since I had to look something up... and I actually like your source better, because it shows in even more detail how harmless the vaccine is and how implausible side effects are to happen when used. My counterpoint to you is that the number of instances per MILLION is insignificant compared to how many people have contracted the virus and the damage it has wrought... and that my doctor was pretty up front about the vaccine's possible side effects when I got it. Heck, just today, my son got his second jab, and they went over possible side effects and what to look out for prior to the injection AGAIN, just to be sure. Also, Lacius stole the words right out of my mouth in regards to the hazards of covid on young teen boys.



tabzer said:


> I find it to be a little too authentic of you to be likening the treatment of people to government subsidization of waste processing.
> 
> I can't imagine "a leftist orgy".  Is that like a circus performance?


Wow. Poop and government is all you take from that, eh? Do grow up.


tabzer said:


> It's anyone's choice to believe the CDC.
> 
> But for some reason, they just really want to get children hooked.


Speaking of the sewer, I see you dug up some sweet filth from the bogs beneath from another discredited hack. Even your peers gave a hand wave on that fellow's work just a page ago, so maybe dig a little deeper next time.


BitMasterPlus said:


> Ok psychopath, whatever helps you sleep better at night which I'm not sure if you sleep at all.


It's important to get a lot of sleep, leftist orgies require a lot of stamina! Thanks for contributing.


----------



## stanna (Dec 15, 2021)

Why are you vaccinated lot not as happy as a puff with a bag of dicks, your all immune now , why would you care if I don't wear a mask or get a fake vaccine, you are all safe and sound, or does that experimental sess pool of shit fake vaccine you've all been stupid enough to inject not work ?


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 15, 2021)

Another funny Austrian Vaccination Story:

As maybe some of you know,Austria has many Workers in Hungary,the so called "Pendler" (Commuters).
Many of them got their 3 Doses correctly (with the mandatory breaks) in Hungary (AstraZeneca).Also they have the Charge IDs/Numbers from their Shots.Also the international (EU) Vaccination Documents.

Since the Treatment took place abroad,he regularly receives reminders to get vaccinated,in Austria he is officially still “unvaccinated”.

You have to go to an Austrian Doctor, only this Doctor makes the "official" entry (but the Doctor doesn't HAVE to do that if he doesn't want to ...)

Same for People working in Russia and that Countries,they have the other "Problem" that Sputnik/Sinovac are still not "accepted" in Austria....from the Doctors....I think....or so....

By the Way,we have an (half) Austrian Vaccine on the Way (VALNEVA) but getting first Priority to get NOVAVAX first......
No,it has absolutely surely nothing to do with Money,no...I am pretty sure....

As you maybe see,in Austria (and also thanks to the EU,a very nice Club...) many,many,many "bureaucratic" Things are not so "well" working.....


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 15, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> Another funny Austrian Vaccination Story:
> 
> As maybe some of you know,Austria has many Workers in Hungary,the so called "Pendler" (Commuters).
> Many of them got their 3 Doses correctly (with the mandatory breaks) in Hungary (AstraZeneca).Also they have the Charge IDs/Numbers from their Shots.Also the international (EU) Vaccination Documents.
> ...


Easy way to fix all the confusion with documents is to create a microchip implant...


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 15, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> my doctor was pretty up front about the vaccine's possible side effects when I got it. Heck, just today, my son got his second jab, and they went over possible side effects and what to look out for prior to the injection


I'm all for one-to-one consultations with actual doctors and being able to ask questions. It wouldn't really be ethical for them to advise one way or another but they could at least provide some information to help most parents make an informed decision. But that doesn't apply to the situation I was talking about with mass vaccinations here at school.

Btw, I was searching the VAERS database earlier and there are an awful lot of reports on there for this. Unfortunately, they don't tell you which ones are from actual health professionals as opposed to regular people so it's difficult to know how useful that information is.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Dec 15, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Personally, I'd say I'm pro-government action when it comes to public health and safety, like how if a sewer line were broken I'd call the city. It is kinda the function of government to impose law and standards so that we don't have crazy people lynching everybody they don't like or streaking across school playgrounds. Also, we're totally having a leftist orgy in your brain, sorry you can't unsee it.
> 
> 
> I suppose I was a bit too generous assuming you'd take my question in good faith. You actually did reply by calling yourself evil by proxy. Do with that what you will, comrade. I just enjoy watching you be wrong and silly... which is often.
> ...


Read upto the bit where you started saying sh*t like "Let's play something else". I suddenly realised "this is some sassy, entitled, female", and naturally, as if automatically I chose to deal with you as one ought to with any sassy female (or male). I ignored everything else you said because the way you speak makes any point irrelevant.

P.s: I'm not playing. Bark down to your cats instead.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Dec 15, 2021)

smf said:


> You've just described every society and every religion.
> 
> The nazi's were mostly known for extinguishing people they thought were inferior, rather than imposing opinions. It seems like you mentioned nazi's as some kind of "winning move" more than making a valid comparison.


I have travelled most of Asia, quite a lot of USA and South America, most of the middle east also.

I can categorically educate you that MOST countries and cultures do NOT exhibit such behaviour. This is a cancer afflicting the western societies, and certain sort of individuals in those societies.

A conversation is not about winning, its sharing of opinions. Opinions can differ. Its quite tragic that you probably don't know this.


----------



## Dakitten (Dec 15, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> Read upto the bit where you started saying sh*t like "Let's play something else". I suddenly realised "this is some sassy, entitled, female", and naturally, as if automatically I chose to deal with you as one ought to with any sassy female (or male). I ignored everything else you said because the way you speak makes any point irrelevant.
> 
> P.s: I'm not playing. Bark down to your cats instead.


I could say the same of you and "You know who else believes in x? Nazis!"  You're my favorite kind of trash~



subcon959 said:


> I'm all for one-to-one consultations with actual doctors and being able to ask questions. It wouldn't really be ethical for them to advise one way or another but they could at least provide some information to help most parents make an informed decision. But that doesn't apply to the situation I was talking about with mass vaccinations here at school.
> 
> Btw, I was searching the VAERS database earlier and there are an awful lot of reports on there for this. Unfortunately, they don't tell you which ones are from actual health professionals as opposed to regular people so it's difficult to know how useful that information is.


It is a troubled time, and getting a chance to have a one-on-one with a doctor can be tough, but nothing worth doing ever seems to be easy. As for the VAERS database, you kinda hit the nail on the head. Don't jump to conclusions before something gets thoroughly studied and peer reviewed.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Dec 16, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> I could say the same of you and "You know who else believes in x? Nazis!"  You're my favorite kind of trash~
> 
> 
> It is a troubled time, and getting a chance to have a one-on-one with a doctor can be tough, but nothing worth doing ever seems to be easy. As for the VAERS database, you kinda hit the nail on the head. Don't jump to conclusions before something gets thoroughly studied and peer reviewed.


At least I am your favourite. You don't even matter enough in my reality to qualify as trash, that would be lending your existence some value.


----------



## AlexMCS (Dec 16, 2021)

People, please don't be disrespectful while disagreeing... I'd say both sides should try to exert more empathy.
Even if I don't agree on this matter with Lacius, Dakitten et al, I wouldn't attack them as people for their views, that's petty.

As for the topic itself, any news on other countries following that "Vaccine Mandate" logic?


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 16, 2021)

Next "mandatory" Standard for Austria:

3G "Rule" at Work stays after Mandatory Vaccination in February 2022.

3G:

G eimpft (vaccinated)
G enesen (recovered)
G etested (tested)

So,what´s next "mandatory" Thing ?

Also,before the "surprisly" Covid Wave (Omicron) in Austria,if infected,Government wants longer Isolition Time (14 Days) and for K1 (Contact 1) Persons a FFP2 Mask INDOOR at HOME......maybe....

But,of course,not for Vaccinated People,they can,of course,get "Freitesten - Freetested" if the first PCR Test after the Infection is negative....not for unvaccinated People......of course....

Of Course,next Lockdown is coming after Christmas (I hope,the Virus is wating so long....)

Oh damn,I forget,unvaccinated People are already STILL in Lockdown...err....so hard......


----------



## smf (Dec 16, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> I have travelled most of Asia, quite a lot of USA and South America, most of the middle east also.
> 
> I can categorically educate you that MOST countries and cultures do NOT exhibit such behaviour. This is a cancer afflicting the western societies, and certain sort of individuals in those societies.
> 
> A conversation is not about winning, its sharing of opinions. Opinions can differ. Its quite tragic that you probably don't know this.



Well it seems you do think it's about winning.

You try to put yourself forward as some kind of expert to shut down conversation.

You tried to compare people to nazi's to shut down conversation, but just succeeded in trivializing nazi's.

Someone who was just sharing opinions wouldn't act the way you do.

Each society and religion have ideas that they impose on people, or punish them if they don't follow them. All of the countries you visited have different things they impose, I'm surprised you didn't come across any of them.


----------



## smf (Dec 16, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> So,what´s next "mandatory" Thing ?


Whatever is deemed necessary, one thing for certain is that we can't just choose to live outside the pandemic.


----------



## smf (Dec 16, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Btw, I was searching the VAERS database earlier and there are an awful lot of reports on there for this.


There are a lot of reports because a lot of people have been vaccinated.

VAERS doesn't distinguish between people who have had a reaction to the vaccine and those who have had an unrelated health condition after being vaccinated.

It's essentially worthless information to you. Just believing that searching the VAERS database is worthwhile is enough to invalidate any conclusion.


----------



## ieatpixels (Dec 16, 2021)

doublepost


----------



## ieatpixels (Dec 16, 2021)

Human rights violation by the country that brought you the holocaust. It shows they haven't really changed.


smf said:


> I agree in medical freedom.
> 
> But during a pandemic, if I come across someone who says they have done their own research or they know their own body and don't need a vaccine or mask then I also agree in freedom to make sure they don't come anywhere near me as they are obviously not capable of looking after themselves let alone be considerate to me.
> 
> ...


So you're afraid of the virus even if you've had the vaccine.
Please realise, vaccinated can and do still spread the virus. If anything, they're more likely to because they don't show symptoms, it goes undetected with them.
The vax can cause harm.
None of this is freedom, you're talking about the opposite of freedom.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 16, 2021)

ieatpixels said:


> Human rights violation by the country that brought you the holocaust. It shows they haven't really changed.
> 
> So you're afraid of the virus even if you've had the vaccine.
> Please realise, vaccinated can and do still spread the virus. If anything, they're more likely to because they don't show symptoms, it goes undetected with them.
> ...


A vaccinated person is less likely to spread the virus because they are less likely to contract the virus in the first place.

If you care about not contracting the virus, not spreading the virus, not being hospitalized by the virus, and not dying from the virus, vaccination is the single best thing you can do.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 16, 2021)

smf said:


> we can't just choose to live* outside* the pandemic.


The Opposite is possible.....Learn to live with it and accept it.
The Pandemic is never over,if some "People with Decision Power" won´t let it end......


----------



## Lacius (Dec 16, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> The Opposite is possible.....Learn to live with it and accept it.
> The Pandemic is never over,if some "People with Decision Power" won´t let it end......


The pandemic would largely be over by now if everybody would have or could have gotten vaccinated.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The pandemic would largely be over by now if everybody would have or could have gotten vaccinated.








Please,excuse my emotional Eruption,my Friend.....
Of course,you are right.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The pandemic would largely be over by now if everybody would have or could have gotten vaccinated.


You have zero evidence of this.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 16, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> You have zero evidence of this.


We have ample evidence with regard to the efficacy of the vaccines and how herd immunity works.

An example of something we don't have evidence for is the claim that kids are somehow at greater risk for rare vaccine side effects than they are at risk of dying from COVID-19, a claim you made recently. 535 American children between the ages of 5-18 have died from COVID-19, while I struggled to find a single example of a child in that age range dying of a COVID-19 vaccine.

I'm sorry if that came out of nowhere, but I wanted to be clear that nobody should take you or your posts at all seriously. I'd consider you a joke if it weren't so unfunny.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 16, 2021)

Lacius said:


> We have ample evidence with regard to the efficacy of the vaccines and how herd immunity works.
> 
> An example of something we don't have evidence for is the claim that kids are somehow at greater risk for rare vaccine side effects than they are at risk of dying from COVID-19, a claim you made recently. 535 American children between the ages of 5-18 have died from COVID-19, while I struggled to find a single example of a child in that age range dying of a COVID-19 vaccine.
> 
> I'm sorry if that came out of nowhere, but I wanted to be clear that nobody should take you or your posts at all seriously. I'd consider you a joke if it weren't so unfunny.


Weird, I thought we were talking about your claim not mine but I guess it makes sense since you can't back up what you said.

You are nothing but a corporate drone and propagandist @Lacius. I'm pretty much done with extending you any courtesies not to mention get absolutely no value from any discourse with you. I won't be replying to any of your posts from now on so consider that a Christmas gift from me to you.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 16, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Weird, I thought we were talking about your claim not mine but I guess it makes sense since you can't back up what you said.


If you get to (incorrectly) point out that I don't have evidence to back up a claim, I certainly get to correctly point out that you don't have evidence to back up a claim. In addition to making an important point about how your claim isn't backed up by scientific evidence nor shared by the scientific community, it demonstrates your hypocrisy.



subcon959 said:


> You are nothing but a corporate drone


I work in the public sector, lol.



subcon959 said:


> I'm pretty much done with extending you any courtesies not to mention get absolutely no value from any discourse with you. I won't be replying to any of your posts from now on so consider that a Christmas gift from me to you.


If you paid more attention to my posts, and applied some skepticism and scientific inquiry to your ideas, you'd make a lot fewer posts that were foolish.


----------



## Dakitten (Dec 16, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> The Opposite is possible.....Learn to live with it and accept it.
> The Pandemic is never over,if some "People with Decision Power" won´t let it end......


Isn't that the whole idea of why the world needs a mandate and why Austria is showing positive leadership in this regard?



subcon959 said:


> Weird, I thought we were talking about your claim not mine but I guess it makes sense since you can't back up what you said.
> 
> You are nothing but a corporate drone and propagandist @Lacius. I'm pretty much done with extending you any courtesies not to mention get absolutely no value from any discourse with you. I won't be replying to any of your posts from now on so consider that a Christmas gift from me to you.


Comrade, you're the one making a bold claim, so the burden of proof kinda falls on you. You can call people naieve and stupid, but unless you've got numbers to back it up, this just further kills your credibility. Lacius, on the other hand, has a lovely track record which lends to his reputation, regardless of if you appreciate his efforts.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 16, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Isn't that the whole idea of why the world needs a mandate and why Austria is showing positive leadership in this regard?
> 
> 
> Comrade, you're the one making a bold claim, so the burden of proof kinda falls on you. You can call people naieve and stupid, but unless you've got numbers to back it up, this just further kills your credibility. Lacius, on the other hand, has a lovely track record which lends to his reputation, regardless of if you appreciate his efforts.


@subcon959 very recently posted something that was nonsense, and he comes after me for making a statement proven by studies that demonstrate the efficacy of the vaccines, lol.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

This thread is a dumpster fire - which is why I devolved into calling people morons on this thread after trying to keep a decent conversation in previous, similar threads.

This really doesn't belong on this site.  We need to just let these conversations go onto sites where discussing medical science is actually productive, and the "medical freedom" retards will get slaughtered with logic, deny it, and continue running in circles.

This truly is not up for debate in the medical field, and it's sad some people here really think they have a foothold when it's so obvious they still haven't looked up how a vaccines or air born viruses work.  You live in the internet age.  There's no excuse.

And the "opinions" you degenerates are using to argue with us here actually do affect people.  Lives are at stake.  Saying "omg why can't I just state a completely ignorant non-educated opinion without getting flamed" is hilariously stupid, because in case you folks didn't notice *a lot of people are dying * and we know that misinformation/lack of education has made the problem worse.  You're part of the problem and should absolutely be ashamed and get flamed.  Not sorry about that one bit.

If you want to argue with people on a subject involving the deaths of all your comrades, do your fucking research first or you'll get called out.  Which has already happened multiple times on these threads involving the same core people.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 16, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Comrade, you're the one making a bold claim, so the burden of proof kinda falls on you. You can call people naieve and stupid, but unless you've got numbers to back it up, this just further kills your credibility. Lacius, on the other hand, has a lovely track record which lends to his reputation, regardless of if you appreciate his efforts.


I think I've made it clear before that building rep isn't something I'm even remotely interested in. I only come here to discuss ideas and occasionally when I feel particularly strongly about something I'll throw a passionate comment out there. I have no issues with you as you've always been pretty reasonable and at least it feels like I'm talking to a real person with you as opposed to some sort of A.I that's been poorly  programmed. It gets tiring dealing with moving goal posts and straw men all the time, so I've chosen to break my no-censorship policy and put the first person ever on my ignore list.. and I've spoke to jimbo so that says something.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

Maybe go here: https://www.scienceforums.net/forum/22-medical-science/


----------



## Lacius (Dec 16, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I think I've made it clear before that building rep isn't something I'm even remotely interested in. I only come here to discuss ideas and occasionally when I feel particularly strongly about something I'll throw a passionate comment out there. I have no issues with you as you've always been pretty reasonable and at least it feels like I'm talking to a real person with you as opposed to some sort of A.I that's been poorly  programmed. It gets tiring dealing with moving goal posts and straw men all the time, so I've chosen to break my no-censorship policy and put the first person ever on my ignore list.. and I've spoke to jimbo so that says something.


I guess some people can't take the heat, and by heat, I mean science.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 16, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> You have zero evidence of this.


The idea that COVID would just magically go poof and vanish if people in what is broadly considered as “the civilised world” just got the jab is utopian and nonsensical. There’s billions of people in the third world who have limited or non-existent access to vaccines and they would perpetuate the virus, creating more mutations in the process and passing them right back with every crate of bananas or other exotic goods you buy - sailors exist, pilots exist. It’s an utterly ridiculous statement supported by nothing. Most people in civilised countries are already vaccinated, multiple times, and that didn’t stop squat. In fact, if we’re talking about science, it is statistically *extremely unlikely* that COVID will *ever* be completely eradicated, and waiting for that is a fool’s errand. That ship has long since sailed, COVID is present on every single continent on the planet, with plenty of carriers to go around. At some point we will simply become immune to it as a population, and it will enter the sizeable family of what we call “seasonal viruses”, just like swine flu, bird flu and other diseases that were referred to as pandemics.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The idea that COVID would just magically go poof and vanish if people in what is broadly considered as “the civilised world” just got the jab is utopian and nonsensical. There’s billions of people in the third world who have limited or non-existent access to vaccines and they would perpetuate the virus, creating more mutations in the process and passing them right back with every crate of bananas or other exotic goods you buy - sailors exist, pilots exist. It’s an utterly ridiculous statement supported by nothing. Most people in civilised countries are already vaccinated, multiple times, and that didn’t stop squat. In fact, if we’re talking about science, it is statistically *extremely unlikely* that COVID will *ever* be completely eradicated, and waiting for that is a fool’s errand. That ship has long since sailed, COVID is present on every single continent on the planet, with plenty of carriers to go around. At some point we will simply become immune to it as a population, and it will enter the sizeable family of what we call “seasonal viruses”, just like swine flu, bird flu and other diseases that were referred to as pandemics.


You don't know what you're talking about.  See the spanish flu and polio maybe for starters.

And nobody is perpetuating COVID magically going away.  You goofed.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 16, 2021)

appleburger said:


> You don't know what you're talking about.  See the spanish flu and polio maybe for starters.
> 
> And nobody is perpetuating COVID magically going away.  You goofed.


Polio did not spread like COVID. At this stage, with this many carriers, the most likely scenario is that COVID will become endemic. The likelihood of eradication is almost nil.

EDIT: For the record, we didn’t eradicate the Spanish Flu either. The specific strain that caused it became an ever-present but manageable threat - it was one of the many variants of H1N1. *You* don’t know what you’re talking about. Polio also continues to exist, although cases in the civilised world are few and far between - fallen by over 99% thanks to immunisation. Nevertheless, you get cases of Polio even today, mostly in the third world.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Polio did not spread like COVID. At this stage, with this many carriers, the most likely scenario is that COVID will become endemic. The likelihood of eradication is almost nil.


That was in response to your vaccine comments.

By the way, COVID's insane spread is what makes it a pandemic.  Which is why your comment that seasonal viruses were considered pandemics is factually just wrong.  They were never declared pandemics.  Spanish flu was the last one, according to Google.

You have no idea what the likelihood of eradication is, and neither does anybody else, yet.  Jury is still out on that.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The idea that COVID would just magically go poof and vanish if people in what is broadly considered as “the civilised world” just got the jab is utopian and nonsensical. There’s billions of people in the third world who have limited or non-existent access to vaccines and they would perpetuate the virus, creating more mutations in the process and passing them right back with every crate of bananas or other exotic goods you buy - sailors exist, pilots exist. It’s an utterly ridiculous statement supported by nothing. Most people in civilised countries are already vaccinated, multiple times, and that didn’t stop squat. In fact, if we’re talking about science, it is statistically *extremely unlikely* that COVID will *ever* be completely eradicated, and waiting for that is a fool’s errand. That ship has long since sailed, COVID is present on every single continent on the planet, with plenty of carriers to go around. At some point we will simply become immune to it as a population, and it will enter the sizeable family of what we call “seasonal viruses”, just like swine flu, bird flu and other diseases that were referred to as pandemics.


That's right. At this stage, most resources should be going towards treatments for those that end up hospitalised. So much more is known now than back when everyone was watching people in Italy on ventilators. There are protocols that have shown very promising results involving mabs, prednisolone and various anti-virals.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 16, 2021)

appleburger said:


> That was in response to your vaccine comments.
> 
> By the way, COVID's insane spread is what makes it a pandemic.  Which is why your comment that seasonal viruses were considered pandemics is factually just wrong.  They were never declared pandemics.  Spanish flu was the last one, according to Google.
> 
> You have no idea what the likelihood of eradication is, and neither does anybody else, yet.  Jury is still out on that.


Leading experts are leaning towards endemic. My comment was correct. Hate to quote Nature, but you have Google too if you want more specific data.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00396-2


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Dec 16, 2021)

In reference to comments further above:
A communist and a propagandist lecturing others on not following the science and calling them dumb, it'd almost make for a set up for a sitcom if it wasn't so sad that people like these are the possible future of the USA.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Polio did not spread like COVID. At this stage, with this many carriers, the most likely scenario is that COVID will become endemic. The likelihood of eradication is almost nil.
> 
> EDIT: For the record, we didn’t eradicate the Spanish Flu either. The specific strain that caused it became an ever-present but manageable threat - it was one of the many variants of H1N1. *You* don’t know what you’re talking about. Polio also continues to exist, although cases in the civilised world are few and far between - fallen by over 99% thanks to immunisation. Nevertheless, you get cases of Polio even today, mostly in the third world.


I didn't claim we eradicated it.  You're making assumptions.  It was in response to your vaccine comments, like I said.  The whole point of vaccinating is to prevent spread.  We did that with Spanich flu and polio.  I'm well aware they still exist.  That's not the point.

You're right about the experts now leaning towards COVID becoming an endemic - I goofed on that.  Last I bothered looking it up, it was still up in the air.  I'll take that hit.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> That's right. At this stage, most resources should be going towards treatments for those that end up hospitalised. So much more is known now than back when everyone was watching people in Italy on ventilators. There are protocols that have shown very promising results involving mabs, prednisolone and various anti-virals.


Hospitals filling up is still an issue.   Vaccination is a very effective stop-gap to help alleviate the hospital burden.  Are anti-virals helping those out with breathing issues?  Like, cases where ventilators would be needed are now prevented largely by anti-virals?  I haven't heard about this, yet.


----------



## bazamuffin (Dec 16, 2021)




----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 16, 2021)

appleburger said:


> I didn't claim we eradicated it.  You're making assumptions.  It was in response to your vaccine comments, like I said.  The whole point of vaccinating is to prevent spread.  We did that with Spanich flu and polio.  I'm well aware they still exist.  That's not the point.
> 
> You're right about the experts now leaning towards COVID becoming an endemic - I goofed on that.  Last I bothered looking it up, it was still up in the air.  I'll take that hit.


I’ll take the concession. Obviously vaccination will reduce spread and is highly recommended, I never claimed otherwise and I’m a strong proponent of vaccines - they work, everyone should choose to take them in order to boost their own immunity, thus protecting their own health and the health of others. My comment was strictly referencing people who think we will one day live in a “COVID-free” world, and that’s just not realistic, even if we all vaccinate tomorrow. There will always be new strains to contend with, but the disease will also gradually become less and less of a threat, with the odd crazy mutations being exceptions.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I’ll take the concession. Obviously vaccination will reduce spread and is highly recommended, I never claimed otherwise and I’m a strong proponent of vaccines - they work, everyone should choose to take them in order to boost their own immunity, thus protecting their own health and the health of others. My comment was strictly referencing people who think we will one day live in a “COVID-free” world, and that’s just not realistic, even if we all vaccinate tomorrow. There will always be new strains to contend with, but the disease will also gradually become less and less of a threat, with the odd crazy mutations being exceptions.


Gotcha - I don't think that's a popular opinion - that anyone thinks COVID eradication is likely.  History has shown that these diseases tend to stick around, and the goal is typically to reduce the spread until it's not longer a pandemic and we can manage it.

So, I made some assumptions about your post, myself.  Sorry about that.  You're not among the pack of folks on here who are trying to argue from random crap they've pulled out of their ass, and I appreciate that.


----------



## Cyan (Dec 16, 2021)

we now have covid for 2 years, and (french at least) government still complain about filled hospital, no more bed available, no more equipement, no more workers etc.
2 years....
what did they do in 2 years ? they limited and decreased the number of beds (doing that for past 10 years), they let workers out, they didn't replace them, they didn't anticipate any new waves of covid or mutation.
They are limiting the number of medical equipment and wonder why hospital are full ?

THEY DIDN'T WORK ON EQUIPPING HOSPITALS TO TREAT THE PATIENTS !
and they complain they can't treat people and put the cause on unvaccinated people, even though France has more than 90% 18yo+ fully vaccinated. but, no, the issue is the unvaccinated ones, not the fact they didn't work on improving their system.


so, my question is, what did they do in two years to prevent that ??
why don't they mention their lack of work or organization ?
no, that's people's fault if they can't treat enough people.

edit:
they are maintaining the sentiment of overflowing cases by not increasing (if not decreasing) the medical care.


----------



## bazamuffin (Dec 16, 2021)

Cyan said:


> we now have covid for 2 years, and (french at least) government still complain about filled hospital, no more bed available, no more equipement, no more workers etc.
> 2 years....
> what did they do in 2 years ? they limited the number of beds, they let workers out, they didn't replace them, they didn't anticipate any new waves of covid or mutation.
> They are limiting the number of medical equipment and wonder why hospital are full ?
> ...


The whole thing is lies, bullshit and contradictory figures.  Nothing more than a control mechanism


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

Cyan said:


> we now have covid for 2 years, and (french at least) government still complain about filled hospital, no more bed available, no more equipement, no more workers etc.
> 2 years....
> what did they do in 2 years ? they limited the number of beds, they let workers out, they didn't replace them, they didn't anticipate any new waves of covid or mutation.
> They are limiting the number of medical equipment and wonder why hospital are full ?
> ...


You're right in that the world was not prepared for a pandemic, and there were a lot of people calling this out before COVID hit - Bill Gates being the notorious one with his Ted Talk.

That being said, the most effective stop-gap, given our unprepared state, is still vaccinations.  And this is a proven observation - not a guess or theory.  It's the best option currently available to us.

If you want to place the blame on any individuals for the current state of the pandemic, you could come up with a pretty massive list, but the unvaccinated ARE among them.  There's really no way around that.  And we had this exact same issue with the spanish flu pandemic.  You can find news articles making the same "arguments" people have made today against getting vaccinated.  

At least back then they had the excuse of not having the internet.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

bazamuffin said:


> The whole thing is lies, bullshit and contradictory figures.  Nothing more than a control mechanism


You're pure cringe, dude.  I can only hope you're a troll.


----------



## bazamuffin (Dec 16, 2021)

appleburger said:


> You're pure cringe, dude.  I can only hope you're a troll.


Entitled to my opinion, just as every other fucker in here is.  I stand by what I say


----------



## Cyan (Dec 16, 2021)

appleburger said:


> If you want to place the blame on any individuals for the current state of the pandemic


I'm not blaming anyone, there are already people and world's entities who do that better than me.
I only wonder why the current state of medical hasn't improved in 2 years. (it has a little compared to the first days when nobody knew how to treat people, but they are still missing workers and equipment !)
I'm not arguing about the vaccine itself nor its effect or its help in preventing hospital from filling.

 We know pandemics last for years, it can mutate (and no, they don't know that future mutation will be fine with current vaccine, maybe they won't and it will be worse), so they will need to care about the patients, but they don't replace people leaving. they remove beds instead.

of course it costs money, I don't ask to build new hospital everywhere, but they could work on improving the medical system little by littleinstead of complaining. it's not like it's been only 2 month, it's been 2 years and still counting.
If they need space, they take Olympic stadiums, they fill them with tents and medical equipment, etc.
no need to build an hospital. just some "covid treatment center" instead of complaining they don't have enough.
didn't china do that 2 years ago ? they built an entire facility for covid patient in few weeks ! How many other countries did that ?


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

bazamuffin said:


> Entitled to my opinion, just as every other fucker in here is.  I stand by what I say


Right - just pointing out that your "opinions" are regurgitated drivel that neckbeard, basement dwelling types who get wrapped into the youtube alt-right community are notorious for saying.  Like, to a key.  It's cringey.

I feel like a concerned parent when I see your posts.


----------



## Dakitten (Dec 16, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> That's right. At this stage, most resources should be going towards treatments for those that end up hospitalised. So much more is known now than back when everyone was watching people in Italy on ventilators. There are protocols that have shown very promising results involving mabs, prednisolone and various anti-virals.


And yet, medical professionals still endorse the vaccination first and foremost, since prevention is the best means of handling the issue. Swinging it back around, this is why a mandate is a good idea, so that everyone can be assured that the most effective method of handling the situation is being used and they can live their lives a little less worried about contracting the virus. Otherwise, you deal with folk like...


bazamuffin said:


> View attachment 290015





bazamuffin said:


> The whole thing is lies, bullshit and contradictory figures.  Nothing more than a control mechanism


The call is coming from inside your house! The deep state snuck 5g into your vaccine, but since they missed you, now they're slipping the mind control into your taco meat! Tin foil hats are no longer enough, you have to swallow silver until your blood gets blue, which doubles as camo with the enemy! Good work, cringelord soldier, on your initial observation and reporting!


Cyan said:


> we now have covid for 2 years, and (french at least) government still complain about filled hospital, no more bed available, no more equipement, no more workers etc.
> 2 years....
> what did they do in 2 years ? they limited and decreased the number of beds (doing that for past 10 years), they let workers out, they didn't replace them, they didn't anticipate any new waves of covid or mutation.
> They are limiting the number of medical equipment and wonder why hospital are full ?
> ...


My question is how this pertains to the topic, particularly since the best way to keep those beds less full would likely be... a vaccine mandate. If you've got issues with the government's handling of the pandemic, I got a country to endorse with a very bold push towards a solution you might want to look in to! 



Foxi4 said:


> I’ll take the concession. Obviously vaccination will reduce spread and is highly recommended, I never claimed otherwise and I’m a strong proponent of vaccines - they work, everyone should choose to take them in order to boost their own immunity, thus protecting their own health and the health of others. My comment was strictly referencing people who think we will one day live in a “COVID-free” world, and that’s just not realistic, even if we all vaccinate tomorrow. There will always be new strains to contend with, but the disease will also gradually become less and less of a threat, with the odd crazy mutations being exceptions.


"COVID-Free" MIGHT be impossible, but doing everything we can to manage such a scenario should still be done. I don't mean to rain on your parade, but picking at comments like that does nothing but feed the crazies, such as...


BitMasterPlus said:


> In reference to comments further above:
> A communist and a propagandist lecturing others on not following the science and calling them dumb, it'd almost make for a set up for a sitcom if it wasn't so sad that people like these are the possible future of the USA.


What is with the Lacius propagandist claims? I happily wear the title of communist, but propagandist would require a bit of proof to sling around. Also, public enemies to grammar checkers ought naught sling stones from inside their glass houses?


----------



## bazamuffin (Dec 16, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Right - just pointing out that your "opinions" are regurgitated drivel that neckbeard, basement dwelling types who get wrapped into the youtube alt-right community are notorious for saying.  Like, to a key.  It's cringey.
> 
> I feel like a concerned parent when I see your posts.


You're entitled to your opinion, not trying to take that from you.


----------



## Dakitten (Dec 16, 2021)

bazamuffin said:


> You're entitled to your opinion, not trying to take that from you.


Their opinion seems to be that your posts show a concerning point of view. Their observation is that you spew a lot of factually incorrect information and bile. Sorry for breaking up the back and forth, just figured you might need the clarification to break the loop.


----------



## bazamuffin (Dec 16, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> Their opinion seems to be that your posts show a concerning point of view. Their observation is that you spew a lot of factually incorrect information and bile. Sorry for breaking up the back and forth, just figured you might need the clarification to break the loop.


Again, your opinion. I'm not trying to change yours in any way or take it from you.  You're entitled to it.  Just voicing mine.


----------



## Cyan (Dec 16, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> My question is how this pertains to the topic,


the link to the topic was that vaccination is being made mandatory to prevent people from having bad "symptoms" and filling hospitals. Not for your health, they care only about hospitals being full and not being able to treat other people and diseases, which is admirable too, I'm not complaining about that.
We all know the vaccine is not curing you from covid, but just not having symptoms, they are pushing people to get vaccinated in order to make some place in the hospitals because they are full.


There is another way to prevent hospital being full, by not firing workers, and equipping them with beds and specialized equipment, or they could put covid people not on hospital but in specifically equipped centers, with hired people formed especially for covid (no need of surgeons!), to make room for other diseases and surgical operations.
How to have free beds : either everyone is vaccinated and don't need beds, or you add beds which could also help in case of future problem!
There is not only one solution, but one at each end of the problem. But government seems to focus only on one and blame the 10% remaining unvaccinated people for that. *if you create a shortage on purpose, you can put the blame on others for anything.*


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

bazamuffin said:


> Again, your opinion. I'm not trying to change yours in any way or take it from you.  You're entitled to it.  Just voicing mine.


Your "opinions" are based on obvious falsehoods, so your dealing with a cesspool of baseless opinions founded on faulty logic.  It's not like you're sharing something you like or don't like.  You're saying something *is * when it in fact - is *not*.  That sort of thing.  Which makes it embarrassing.


----------



## bazamuffin (Dec 16, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Your "opinions" are based on obvious falsehoods, so your dealing with a cesspool of baseless opinions founded on faulty logic.  It's not like you're sharing something you like or don't like.  You're saying something *is * when it in fact - is *not*.  That sort of thing.  Which makes it embarrassing.


I'm not embarrassed one bit.  I voiced my opinion and I stand by it.  How you interpret that is totally up to you


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

bazamuffin said:


> I'm not embarrassed one bit.  I voiced my opinion and I stand by it.  How you interpret that is totally up to you


The "interpretation" is pretty outstandingly that you're wrong.  It's not matter of opinion, but moreso reality.  Glad you can stalwartly stand by complete ignorance, but if you ever want to talk to the big kids in the room, I'd start with some light googling on the topics you're trying to "debate".


----------



## bazamuffin (Dec 16, 2021)

Your opinion is I'm wrong.  There's a difference


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

bazamuffin said:


> Your opinion is I'm wrong.  There's a difference


Good one.


----------



## Dakitten (Dec 16, 2021)

bazamuffin said:


> Your opinion is I'm wrong.  There's a difference


No, his opinion is that you're embarrassing yourself. You are, in truth, quite wrong on many of your posts. Fact, not opinion.


----------



## bazamuffin (Dec 16, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> No, his opinion is that you're embarrassing yourself. You are, in truth, quite wrong on many of your posts. Fact, not opinion.


Again, your opinion.  You seem more arsed about mine than I am about yours.  To me, that's embarrassing.


----------



## chrisrlink (Dec 16, 2021)

appleburger said:


> The "interpretation" is pretty outstandingly that you're wrong.  It's not matter of opinion, but moreso reality.  Glad you can stalwartly stand by complete ignorance, but if you ever want to talk to the big kids in the room, I'd start with some light googling on the topics you're trying to "debate".


gee wish you could be banned for stupidity in this subform


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

bazamuffin said:


> Again, your opinion.  You seem more arsed about mine than I am about yours.  To me, that's embarrassing.


Do you know the difference between an educated opinion and a non-educated opinion?  Or do you think everything anyone says only falls into the category of non-touchable "opinion" and "non-opinion"?

The fact I have to ask this is what makes your posts so cringe, by the way.  You seem to lack understanding of how logic or reality works.  Almost every post you've made can be easily, and I mean EASILY disproven.  That's why I assumed you're likely a troll.


----------



## XDel (Dec 16, 2021)

So it's been a while... how's this working out for ya'll?!?!? You cured yet? Society back to normal? Are those who NEED help finally getting it, or are ya all still jerking each other off like we do over here?


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

XDel said:


> So it's been a while... how's this working out for ya'll?!?!? You cured yet? Society back to normal? Are those who NEED help finally getting it, or are ya all still jerking each other off like we do over here?


Lol, a select few of us are squabbling in circles about medical science on GBAtemp for some reason.  God help us.


----------



## bazamuffin (Dec 16, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Do you know the difference between an educated opinion and a non-educated opinion?  Or do you think everything anyone says only falls into the category of non-touchable "opinion" and "non-opinion"?
> 
> The fact I have to ask this is what makes your posts so cringe, by the way.  You seem to lack understanding of how logic or reality works.  Almost every post you've made can be easily, and I mean EASILY disproven.  That's why I assumed you're likely a troll


No, not a troll.  I have an opinion that I stand by, just as you stand by yours.  I don't have a problem with that


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

bazamuffin said:


> No, not a troll.  I have an opinion that I stand by, just as you stand by yours.  I don't have a problem with that


You ignored the whole educated vs. non-educated opinion bit.  No surprise there.  Your opinions on Science are baseless, stupid, and cringey my friend. 

I understand you did your fact vs. opinion worksheet in 3rd grade, but there's a bit more nuance past a 4th grade reading level to discussions that you seemed to have missed out on.  We're not talking about "but I like cake, and you don't - matter of opinion".  You're trying to discredit science, which involves facts and observations, not simply opinions.  You're doing a really shitty job of making any sort of sense.  Godspeed.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 16, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Hospitals filling up is still an issue.   Vaccination is a very effective stop-gap to help alleviate the hospital burden.  Are anti-virals helping those out with breathing issues?  Like, cases where ventilators would be needed are now prevented largely by anti-virals?  I haven't heard about this, yet.


No, unfortunately once someone gets to the ventilator stage the prognosis is quite poor. The protocols are mostly effective if administered before that stage (usually in an outpatient setting) but because people are told to isolate and stay home it is unlikely they will ever be able to take advantage of these treatments before it's too late. Unless you are in a privileged position and have access to a private doctor of course.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> No, unfortunately once someone gets to the ventilator stage the prognosis is quite poor. The protocols are mostly effective if administered before that stage (usually in an outpatient setting) but because people are told to isolate and stay home it is unlikely they will ever be able to take advantage of these treatments before it's too late. Unless you are in a privileged position and have access to a private doctor of course.


So, I've looked this up.  The only drug currently approved for treating COVID is remdesivir: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases...expert-answers/coronavirus-drugs/faq-20485627

And it's primary purpose seems to be speeding up recovery, so it looks at a glance like this is to make recovery more comfortable for patients, but it isn't being used to improve symptoms otherwise.  Anti-inflammatories seem to be effective in aiding breathing issues, but that's a given.  We've already done this for just about any illness where inflammation comes into play, so no surprise there.

Other anti-virals are being tested, but we don't have any solid leads, yet.

So, vaccines are still the most effective tool for dampening COVID for folks that catch it, so far it seems.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

Cyan said:


> I'm not blaming anyone, there are already people and world's entities who do that better than me.
> I only wonder why the current state of medical hasn't improved in 2 years. (it has a little compared to the first days when nobody knew how to treat people, but they are still missing workers and equipment !)
> I'm not arguing about the vaccine itself nor its effect or its help in preventing hospital from filling.
> 
> ...


It's a fair point, although you totally did mention the unvaccinated being blamed, so that's why I brought it up 

And to add to what you're saying, COVID may obviously not be the last pandemic we face in our lifetimes.  Hospitals haven't been given the attention they've needed to prepare for serious disease.  The US has overprepared when it comes to war, but hasn't done the same for medical threats.  Which, as we all know, bio weapons are real and could be an issue for us or a future generation.  It's a real concern to be addressed.


----------



## bazamuffin (Dec 16, 2021)

appleburger said:


> You ignored the whole educated vs. non-educated opinion bit.  No surprise there.  Your opinions on Science are baseless, stupid, and cringey my friend.
> 
> I understand you did your fact vs. opinion worksheet in 3rd grade, but there's a bit more nuance past a 4th grade reading level to discussions that you seemed to have missed out on.  We're not talking about "but I like cake, and you don't - matter of opinion".  You're trying to discredit science, which involves facts and observations, not simply opinions.  You're doing a really shitty job of making any sort of sense.  Godspeed.


If you say so, not like your opinion affects me in any way is it? I don't feel I have to protest or justify my opinion to anyone who disagrees with me.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 16, 2021)

appleburger said:


> So, I've looked this up.  The only drug currently approved for treating COVID is remdesivir: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases...expert-answers/coronavirus-drugs/faq-20485627
> 
> And it's primary purpose seems to be speeding up recovery, so it looks at a glance like this is to make recovery more comfortable for patients, but it isn't being used to improve symptoms otherwise.  Anti-inflammatories seem to be effective in aiding breathing issues, but that's a given.  We've already done this for just about any illness where inflammation comes into play, so no surprise there.
> 
> ...


If we're talking about USA specifically (I wasn't) then the protocols I mentioned are being used by (mostly) private doctors to treat patients. They aren't officially approved and won't be offered to anyone visiting a hospital that's for sure. For that, people will have to wait (tough luck if you're dying right now) for the sanctioned drugs from the wonderful people at Merck et al to arrive.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

bazamuffin said:


> If you say so, not like your opinion affects me in any way is it? I don't feel I have to protest or justify my opinion to anyone who disagrees with me.


Not talking about our opinions, you big dummy lmao.  Starting to question if you're literate.  And if you don't want to justify or back up what you say, then nobody is going to listen.  Plus, you're clearly stupid so it's kinda pointless (got 'em)

Alright, I'll leave you alone buddy.  You go do you.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> If we're talking about USA specifically (I wasn't) then the protocols I mentioned are being used by (mostly) private doctors to treat patients. They aren't officially approved and won't be offered to anyone visiting a hospital that's for sure. For that, people will have to wait (tough luck if you're dying right now) for the sanctioned drugs from the wonderful people at Merck et al to arrive.


Interesting - do you have a source on this?  I'm not finding it on my own over here


----------



## bazamuffin (Dec 16, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Not talking about our opinions, you big dummy lmao.  Starting to question if you're literate.  And if you don't want to justify or back up what you say, then nobody is going to listen.  Plus, you're clearly stupid so it's kinda pointless (got 'em)
> 
> Alright, I'll leave you alone buddy.  You go do you.


Same to you, have fun


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

bazamuffin said:


> Same to you, have fun


*hug


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 16, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Interesting - do you have a source on this?  I'm not finding it on my own over here


I didn't read it anywhere, it's from conversations with med school friends who are now practicing in various countries. It's quite interesting, the one's in India seem to swear by Ivermectin, which is in stark contrast to how it is portrayed over here in the West.


----------



## AlexMCS (Dec 16, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Other anti-virals are being tested, but we don't have any solid leads, yet.



Like I typed a few posts back (and no one bothered reading or countering it, not even the science buffs, for whatever reason) there is Ivermectin, which me and my wife used when I got CoViD-19 in March.

BTW, while I got sick for a month, she felt nothing at all.

And there are plenty of studies to back up its effect in reducing viral charge on the onset of the disease:
https://c19ivermectin.com/


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

AlexMCS said:


> Like I typed a few posts back (and no one bothered reading or countering it, not even the science buffs, for whatever reason) there is Ivermectin, which me and my wife used when I got CoViD-19 in March.
> 
> BTW, while I got sick for a month, she felt nothing at all.
> 
> ...


Ivermectin has been shown to not cure COVID.  I read through all that when Joe Rogan got under fire bringing it up.  That's been pretty handily debunked now.  Or, at least I thought - or am I misinterpreting something?

EDIT: here's a quick article summing up the Ivermectin situation: https://www.reuters.com/article/fac...-prove-its-efficacy-on-covid-19-idUSL1N2QB2XA

I've only checked a handful of sources, but it seems the consensus is it shouldn't be used to treat COVID.

DOUBLE EDIT: (sorry) okay, I'm looking through those studies you linked to.  There's conflicting information.  Some are saying it's effective, while others aren't drawing the same conclusion.  Which, I had no idea there was this much discourse among scientists on this.  I'll have to keep digging.  Thanks for sharing


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I didn't read it anywhere, it's from conversations with med school friends who are now practicing in various countries. It's quite interesting, the one's in India seem to swear by Ivermectin, which is in stark contrast to how it is portrayed over here in the West.


Everything I've read on Ivermectin is that it should NOT be used to treat COVID.

After looking through the articles in @AlexMCS's post, I'm not even sure how Ivermectin is going.  I can't find a solid consensus, and some studies are concluding it's effective against COVID symptoms, while others aren't.  So that's going to take some more research.  I don't get it.

EDIT: and if your only source is from word of mouth from med school friends, and it's literally not being documented by anybody... that doesn't leave a thread for anyone to pull on.  Guess we'll just have to wait to see if you're right, but I find it hard to believe that's happening without anyone writing about it.  Unless one of your friends can describe one of these procedures you're talking about?  And what kind of sample size are we talking about?  That's all very shaky.


----------



## AlexMCS (Dec 16, 2021)

I literally linked you over a hundred studies proving it does reduce viral charge, and works as an early treatment option.
You linked me a Reuters' (mass media) article/report "debunking" it by saying the CDC does not recommend using the animal version, in overdose, for treatment on all stages.

This is not "a friend's" PoV. My personal doctor, who is a 75y.o. Infectologist, prescribed me and his 8k+ patients with Ivermectin, *all* with positive results.

It should NOT be used as a preventive treatment, in the animal version, or in excessive dosage, but it does work in fighting CoViD-19. That is literally not even a point of discussion anymore.

Check actual sources: the studies, not third parties.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

AlexMCS said:


> I literally linked you over a hundred studies proving it does reduce viral charge, and works as an early treatment option.
> You linked me a Reuters' (mass media) article/report "debunking" it by saying the CDC does not recommend using the animal version, in overdose, for treatment on all stages.
> 
> This is not "a friend's" PoV. My personal doctor, who is a 75y.o. Infectologist, prescribed me and his 8k+ patients with Ivermectin, *all* with positive results.
> ...


No, you're totally right - I was only finding a quick and dirty summary quickly explaining what reflected what I had heard.  Once I finished doing some reading through your link I edited my post.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 16, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Everything I've read on Ivermectin is that it should NOT be used to treat COVID.
> 
> EDIT: and if your only source is from word of mouth from med school friends, and it's literally not being documented by anybody... that doesn't leave a thread for anyone to pull on.  Guess we'll just have to wait to see if you're right, but I find it hard to believe that's happening without anyone writing about it.  Unless one of your friends can describe one of these procedures you're talking about?  And what kind of sample size are we talking about?  That's all very shaky.


They aren't epidemiologists, they're just doctors treating patients. I'm more inclined to trust them than some institution just like I'm more inclined to believe a soldier on the ground than some politician. I'm sure you could probably find something about the Ivermectin use in India as I've seen that mentioned around here before. Personally, I thought it looked promising at first but then didn't see any compelling studies and the most favourable one was inconclusive at best. But again, who am I to argue with the doctor actually saving lives and saying it adds something of value to the protocol. My money is on the mabs and prednisolone being the main heroes.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 16, 2021)

*Ivermectin* (in Austria called "Pferdewurmmittel/Medikament") is "recommended" by a few People/Doctors BUT
not as "Holy Grail" against Covid 19.
...also only in Combination with Vitamin D and very Important the wrong Dosage makes it very dangerous for People who "do not know what they do"...


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> They aren't epidemiologists, they're just doctors treating patients. I'm more inclined to trust them than some institution just like I'm more inclined to believe a soldier on the ground than some politician. I'm sure you could probably find something about the Ivermectin use in India as I've seen that mentioned around here before. Personally, I thought it looked promising at first but then didn't see any compelling studies and the most favourable one was inconclusive at best. But again, who am I to argue with the doctor actually saving lives and saying it adds something of value to the protocol. My money is on the mabs and prednisolone being the main heroes.


The link @AlexMCS posted actually has quite a few that reference India, specifically.  And the deeper I dig, the more I see recent studies showing that it's helping patients quite a bit.  I wonder why it's created so much discourse (I didn't listen to the Joe Rogan episode and am not 100% on the claims thrown around involving this drug)


----------



## AlexMCS (Dec 16, 2021)

appleburger said:


> No, you're totally right - I was only finding a quick and dirty summary quickly explaining what reflected what I had heard.  Once I finished doing some reading through your link I edited my post.


The latest article (peer review, released today, in pre-print) has a huge amount of info on it, and the one table that makes it glaringly obvious that people are not using it correctly, for some reason:






By the way, I've used Vitamin D (50k UI), Budesonide and Prednisolone as well when I was sick.

Those (Budesonide and especially Prednisolone) needed to be delayed to the early-mid stage due to increasing the odds of opportunistic infections, according to my physician, while some other doctors were prescribing their usage as soon as the patient got his RT-PCR test as positive, which I got 1 week after my initial symptoms (lower back pain -> throat inflammation -> gastric chaos - which was the actual worst part of CoViD for me, worse than breathing issues).


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

Alexander1970 said:


> *Ivermectin* (in Austria called "Pferdewurmmittel/Medikament") is "recommended" by a few People/Doctors BUT
> not as "Holy Grail" against Covid 19.
> ...also only in Combination with Vitamin D and very Important the wrong Dosage makes it very dangerous for People who "do not know what they do"...


Well, that makes perfect sense.  Anyone claiming there's a Holy Grail against Covid is obviously climbing a big mountain of bs considering... you know... how it's going.  Seems obvious.

But the studies showing that it's effective in treating COVID is pretty interesting.  That's a big deal.  The articles we're mentioning do specify that larger sample sizes are needed, obviously, and that vaccinations + masks are still much more important since they focus on prevention, but even still - if this drug is effective at treating the illness then I'd think that's a pretty big deal.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

AlexMCS said:


> The latest article (peer review, released today, in pre-print) has a huge amount of info on it, and the one table that makes it glaringly obvious that people are not using it correctly, for some reason:
> 
> View attachment 290033
> 
> ...


Well, my friend - you're a rare breed.  Reading and properly interpreting a scientific article is sadly out of a lot of folks' wheelhouse.  This is good stuff.  I wonder if more info will spill out into the general public soon on this.  I've only heard about all the hubbub surrounding Joe Rogan and the guest that brought this drug up.


----------



## Dakitten (Dec 16, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> They aren't epidemiologists, they're just doctors treating patients. I'm more inclined to trust them than some institution just like I'm more inclined to believe a soldier on the ground than some politician. I'm sure you could probably find something about the Ivermectin use in India as I've seen that mentioned around here before. Personally, I thought it looked promising at first but then didn't see any compelling studies and the most favourable one was inconclusive at best. But again, who am I to argue with the doctor actually saving lives and saying it adds something of value to the protocol. My money is on the mabs and prednisolone being the main heroes.


I was a soldier on the ground AND a nurse~ And, in my experience, doctors are almost always in agreement with the scientific community at large and nobody takes https://c19ivermectin.com/ seriously due to their history of posting the most dubious of studies on their website. If you take a look at actual peer-reviewed studies, ivermectin in DOCTOR REGULATED SITUATIONS can be used to treat some symptoms, but it is not a cure or a substitute for many of the new targeted treatments being released. I know @AlexMCS believes that they're a smart guy scientist, but they're just another in a long line of right wing grifters with easily debunked information and demagoguery.

Always look for peer-reviewed studies, folks. Any rando can submit a paper, and any doctor can leverage their experience for a quick boost of street cred, but peer review means any other doctor can recreate the study circumstances and shoot it to hell in a heartbeat if something doesn't hold true~

I'm sure that, being Vox, some folks will auto-disregard the site, but for additional reading for the curious~

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22663127/ivermectin-covid-treatments-vaccines-evidence


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> I was a soldier on the ground AND a nurse~ And, in my experience, doctors are almost always in agreement with the scientific community at large and nobody takes https://c19ivermectin.com/ seriously due to their history of posting the most dubious of studies on their website. If you take a look at actual peer-reviewed studies, ivermectin in DOCTOR REGULATED SITUATIONS can be used to treat some symptoms, but it is not a cure or a substitute for many of the new targeted treatments being released. I know @AlexMCS believes that they're a smart guy scientist, but they're just another in a long line of right wing grifters with easily debunked information and demagoguery.
> 
> Always look for peer-reviewed studies, folks. Any rando can submit a paper, and any doctor can leverage their experience for a quick boost of street cred, but peer review means any other doctor can recreate the study circumstances and shoot it to hell in a heartbeat if something doesn't hold true~


Are there sources debunking these studies on https://c19ivermectin.com/ ?  Even though the sample size is still really small and could be attributed to chance with these numbers, at a glance I thought this was a decent sign that it was helping with symptoms.  The studies I looked through were still mostly concluding that prevention is wayyyy more effective, and that this was only helping with symptoms in those who were already in critical condition.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 16, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> I was a soldier on the ground AND a nurse~ And, in my experience, doctors are almost always in agreement with the scientific community at large and nobody takes https://c19ivermectin.com/ seriously due to their history of posting the most dubious of studies on their website. If you take a look at actual peer-reviewed studies, ivermectin in DOCTOR REGULATED SITUATIONS can be used to treat some symptoms, but it is not a cure or a substitute for many of the new targeted treatments being released. I know @AlexMCS believes that they're a smart guy scientist, but they're just another in a long line of right wing grifters with easily debunked information and demagoguery.
> 
> Always look for peer-reviewed studies, folks. Any rando can submit a paper, and any doctor can leverage their experience for a quick boost of street cred, but peer review means any other doctor can recreate the study circumstances and shoot it to hell in a heartbeat if something doesn't hold true~


Did you mean to quote me? Cause I pretty much said I didn't find the Ivermectin studies to be compelling.


----------



## AlexMCS (Dec 16, 2021)

Contrary to what Dakitten implies, I have 2 ongoing master's degree in statistics + math modeling and comp. Sci., so yes, I'm an actual scientist, and yes, correctly interpreting articles is a PITA if you don't know a thing about random variables.

I'm not even right-wing either. So there goes another error to add to your list.

You can check how valid an article is by screening the publisher's reputation. They teach this on the first semester of any good Master's course, as well as not to publish on any rando site/magazine.

@appleburger - using it for prevention is not a good idea, even if the studies support it, due to possible liver damage.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

AlexMCS said:


> Contrary to what Dakitten implies, I have 2 ongoing master's degree in statistics + math modeling and comp. Sci., so yes, I'm an actual scientist, and yes, correctly interpreting articles is a PITA if you don't know a thing about random variables.
> 
> I'm not even right-wing either. So there goes another error to add to your list.
> 
> ...


Yeah, everyone seems to be on board with this not being a prevention medication.  I'm wondering why there's discourse on the treatment side of things.  And, with the previous drama, were there people saying it should be used for prevention, or something?  I'm new to this side of the conversation.  I haven't looked into this drug much until today.

And that makes sense.  I'm also a Comp Sci and started my masters earlier this year, so I've had to suffer through research, as well.  It's good for ya.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 16, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Gotcha - I don't think that's a popular opinion - that anyone thinks COVID eradication is likely.  History has shown that these diseases tend to stick around, and the goal is typically to reduce the spread until it's not longer a pandemic and we can manage it.
> 
> So, I made some assumptions about your post, myself.  Sorry about that.  You're not among the pack of folks on here who are trying to argue from random crap they've pulled out of their ass, and I appreciate that.


In my experience it’s an extremely popular opinion because the population is grossly uninformed in regards to how vaccines work and what they actually do. The average Joe or Jane think they’re magical force fields and that vaccinating everybody will solve the problem - it won’t, reducing Polio down to the level we see now took a global effort and a decade of consistent vaccinations. The expectation that “we’ll open up when people stop catching COVID” is stupid - people won’t stop catching COVID for years to come. That’s just the reality, and we’ll all have to accept it at some point rather than live in a constant state of fear.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 16, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> In my experience it’s an extremely popular opinion because the population is grossly uninformed in regards to how vaccines work and what they actually do. The average Joe or Jane think they’re magical force fields and that vaccinating everybody will solve the problem - it won’t, reducing Polio down to the level we see now took a global effort and a decade of consistent vaccinations. The expectation that “we’ll open up when people stop catching COVID” is stupid - people won’t stop catching COVID for years to come. That’s just the reality, and we’ll all have to accept it at some point rather than live in a constant state of fear.


A lot of people are very scared so it's only natural to want to cling to some sort of perceived saviour.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

@AlexMCS this site also sums up a large quantity of studies: https://journals.lww.com/americanth...mectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx

And surmised that Ivermectin is effective is helping us survive COVID - so treatment for those who have it.  I know that's somebody else digging through and summarizing for me, but I've only got so much time at the moment to look into this lol.

But as it stands... looks to me like Ivermectin studies are gathering evidence that it works, and I'm not seeing much that's directly debunking these as I click around.  But if somebody has any sources that do, I'd be happy to check 'em out.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 16, 2021)

appleburger said:


> But as it stands... looks to me like Ivermectin studies are gathering evidence that it works, and I'm not seeing much that's directly debunking these as I click around.  But if somebody has any sources that do, I'd be happy to check 'em out.


From what I gathered, the whole horse de-wormer thing is why most people have a negative view of Ivermectin. If you try to dig into it too much you get labelled conspiratorial but it's a fact that it was propagated by news media who just happened to be sponsored by Pfizer. I should add that back then certain people were touting it as preventative so it may have been seen as a threat to the vaccine.


----------



## AlexMCS (Dec 16, 2021)

Dakitten said:


> I was a soldier on the ground AND a nurse~ And, in my experience, doctors are almost always in agreement with the scientific community at large and nobody takes https://c19ivermectin.com/ seriously due to their history of posting the most dubious of studies on their website. If you take a look at actual peer-reviewed studies, ivermectin in DOCTOR REGULATED SITUATIONS can be used to treat some symptoms, but it is not a cure or a substitute for many of the new targeted treatments being released. I know @AlexMCS believes that they're a smart guy scientist, but they're just another in a long line of right wing grifters with easily debunked information and demagoguery.
> 
> Always look for peer-reviewed studies, folks. Any rando can submit a paper, and any doctor can leverage their experience for a quick boost of street cred, but peer review means any other doctor can recreate the study circumstances and shoot it to hell in a heartbeat if something doesn't hold true~
> 
> ...



This article, though subtly, is also very biased in tone against Ivermectin, so it can't be taken that seriously.
It does reinforce what we all *actual scientists* (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00874-8) have been saying in the last few years though: over-reliance on p-value < 5%  as the only indicator of a hypothesis non-rejection is a terrible idea.

It is evidenced in the Vox article by this excerpt, I've bolded the warning words there: "_Careful, large, well-conducted studies tend to find modest benefits or no *statistically significant* benefits for Covid-19 patients who took ivermectin"._

Even while disagreeing, the article has to concede that benefits exist. If we ever get the dosage and administration method/timing right, Ivermectin might be a good tool to help mitigate CoViD-19.

As I've also said before in this topic, science is a closed logical loop. Sound, but not complete. Even more so for experiments such as these, where the samples themselves react wildly different every time (each person reacts to CoViD-19 differently. Some people feel absolutely nothing - my wife. Some almost die - me. We need to correctly identify and stratify these groups first).* You need intuition and common sense to help your studies.*

It's a great tool to grasp trends, not to assert truth. *If you're a scientist, you know it.*

A LOT of research is necessary to know if some unmeasurable variable tends to some value, *especially when everyone assumes unknown variables as gaussian*.

As an ending note, there is not going to be a miracle drug against CoViD-19. And even drugs released today with very high efficiency might be useless to a new mutation a couple months down the road, that's the nature of the virus.

And that's why, *as of right now,* I don't want to be vaccinated without knowing what the long term effects of the vaccine actually are. That's what my risk/reward ratio, as someone who has already almost died from CoViD-19, based on multiple studies, intuition and personal feeling lead me to choose.

And that's why I'm against vaccine mandates, but OK with restrictions - I barely leave home anyway.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

AlexMCS said:


> This article, though subtly, is also very biased in tone against Ivermectin, so it can't be taken that seriously.
> It does reinforce what we all *actual scientists* (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00874-8) have been saying in the last few years though: over-reliance on p-value < 5%  as the only indicator of a hypothesis non-rejection is a terrible idea.
> 
> It is evidenced in the Vox article by this excerpt, I've bolded the warning words there: "_Careful, large, well-conducted studies tend to find modest benefits or no *statistically significant* benefits for Covid-19 patients who took ivermectin"._
> ...


I still think your odds with COVID are far worse than vaccine effects.  You and I both know long term vaccine effects with the current vaccines are highly unlikely, due just to how the vaccines work.  The mechanism is pretty well understood at this point.  If it were a live vaccine or something, I could see being wary, but I just don't see the odds being in your favor without it.

But, if you wanna stay home to prevent catching it again, that's your prerogative.

EDIT: To add on to your point with studies - yes, studies are very useful for gathering data.  Showing demonstrably that something is true, works, is effective, etc. takes a *lot *of work, and unfortunately - time.  Science is great at weeding out bias, that's kind of the whole point, but the level of intuition you attach to it has to be dialed in, as well.  The focus should always be gathering data and then letting the community decide how to use that data.  When you get enough opinions weighed on data, you get closer to the truth, statistically (I don't remember the name of the phenomena, maybe @AlexMCS does and I'm too lazy to look it up ).

So, we're working with the best we've got.  Masks and vaccines are the best bet.  But, there's clearly still a lot for us all to learn when it comes to effectively battling this virus, especially for those that are in the hospital that have already caught it.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 16, 2021)

appleburger said:


> I still think your odds with COVID are far worse than vaccine effects.  You and I both know long term vaccine effects with the current vaccines are highly unlikely, due just to how the vaccines work.  The mechanism is pretty well understood at this point.  If it were a live vaccine or something, I could see being wary, but I just don't see the odds being in your favor without it.


It might be possible to have the opposite situation, where the vaccine derived spike protein levels are much higher than those from the live virus, therefore it may have been less severe for the individual to get a natural infection than be vaccinated. Speculation on my part, but it seems like it could be plausible to me. My only concern with the vaccines has always been undisclosed side-effects (wouldn't be the first time - I speak from personal experience) and unknown long term effects.


----------



## AlexMCS (Dec 16, 2021)

appleburger said:


> I still think your odds with COVID are far worse than vaccine effects.  You and I both know long term vaccine effects with the current vaccines are highly unlikely, due just to how the vaccines work.  The mechanism is pretty well understood at this point.  If it were a live vaccine or something, I could see being wary, but I just don't see the odds being in your favor without it.
> 
> But, if you wanna stay home to prevent catching it again, that's your prerogative.



I'd definitely take the vaccine if I had to leave home more than once a week to visit my family, or for an occasional emergency trip to the University Datacenter. (Happened a grand total of 6 times this year). I wouldn't want to endanger those around me.

And for such occasions, I use one of my 21 N95 masks and alcohol for my hands, and take all the necessary precautions which by themselves already ensure over a very high protection against the virus itself.

I wouldn't even have gotten CoViD-19 if not for the dentist...

That's my point, and the point of the topic: Mandates.
I don't mind restrictions, they make sense. Mandates is where I draw the line.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> It might be possible to have the opposite situation, where the vaccine derived spike protein levels are much higher than those from the live virus, therefore it may have been less severe for the individual to get a natural infection than be vaccinated. Speculation on my part, but it seems like it could be plausible to me. My only concern with the vaccines has always been undisclosed side-effects (wouldn't be the first time - I speak from personal experience) and unknown long term effects.


That's going to certainly be covered in the trials when creating these vaccines.  I don't think spiked protein levels are going to "whoopsie" their way into these with the whole world watching.

The adverse reactions to vaccines are almost always because of how certain individuals react to vaccines.  I've known people that get severe reactions to *most *vaccines.  They do exist, but they all found out when they were kids, since we already have to get vaccines for school.  And even then, these reactions are almost never deadly.  You're far, far, far more likely to be murdered by your cat, or accidentally strangle yourself in your bedsheets once you get into those numbers. 

I wouldn't call those side effects nondisclosed.  And if they were not disclosed... you wouldn't be aware of them.  Everything worthwhile is documented when you visit the doctor.  It's not in anyone's interest to keep it hidden.  The medical field is a community of people trying to understand everything as best as possible.  And my friend's sister (who gets severe vaccine reactions) has had it all documented in her visits.  She just has an immune system that's a bit unique and attacks foreign bodies more aggressively than most.  To the point that she's been hospitalized from them.  Any time I've visited a doctor and ask for documentation, I get it, and it's pretty robust stuff.  They're happy to hand it out.  Everything that happened is on there.

Unkown long term effects could be applied to literally anything that hasn't been around long enough.  There's no reason to assume there are any to begin with.  You could say the same thing about any medication that's come out in the past 80 years, and long term side effects from vaccines, medications, etc. are rare - much more rare than your odds of dying from COVID.  Like, not even close.  It's a dice roll, but an easy one imo.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Dec 16, 2021)

Sometimes I wonder, like when people love to hear themselves talk, they like to see the long ass posts they typed and revel in their supposed righteousness? Like, it's okay to debate, but damn, some of these posts are filled with BS or just people who refuse to either face facts or the other side's views?


----------



## AlexMCS (Dec 16, 2021)

appleburger said:


> the name of the phenomena



Law of Large Numbers


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Sometimes I wonder, like when people love to hear themselves talk, they like to see the long ass posts they typed and revel in their supposed righteousness? Like, it's okay to debate, but damn, some of these posts are filled with BS or just people who refuse to either face facts or the other side's views?


Got bad news for you - I think you're gonna run into BS and people not being willing to challenge their own view until the day you die.  There is at least some decent discourse in here, now.  Had to sort through a few idiots to finally get there, but then again we ARE on GBAtemp discussing COVID for some reason.  The expectations are low to begin with.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 16, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Got bad news for you - I think you're gonna run into BS and people not being willing to challenge their own view until the day you die.  There is at least some decent discourse in here, now.  Had to sort through a few idiots to finally get there, but then again we ARE on GBAtemp discussing COVID for some reason.  The expectations are low to begin with.


TBF you are part idiotic and part reasonable.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> TBF you are part idiotic and part reasonable.


Eh, go fuck yourself.  Idiotic and reasonable aren't even on the same spectrum, jackass.  

I might be wrong sometimes, but that's why I participate in conversation, to better understand things from others.  It's part of the process.

You, on the otherhand, are just being an asshole.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 16, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Eh, go fuck yourself.  Idiotic and reasonable aren't even on the same spectrum, jackass.
> 
> I might be wrong sometimes, but that's why I participate in conversation, to better understand things from others.  It's part of the process.
> 
> You, on the otherhand, are just being an asshole.


Idiotic and reasonable_ is _the spectrum, and the full range is succinctly demonstrated by your own admission.


appleburger said:


> we ARE on GBAtemp discussing COVID for some reason


Don't get too offended.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Idiotic and reasonable_ is _the spectrum, and the full range is succinctly demonstrated by your own admission.
> 
> Don't get too offended.


Uh, no it's not, and that's not how an admission works.  You can call me an asshole if you want, that's fine.  I'll take that.  But if you want to pull the word idiot out without actually refuting anything, then you're the one standing there with your thumb up your ass looking like a jackass, not me.

And of course I'm going to tell you to go fuck yourself.  That's a consequence of you being an asshole.  Fuck you.  You can act like that's me being neurotic all you want.  Somebody calls me stupid without anything to back it up, I tell them to go fuck themselves.  Simple.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 16, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Uh, no it's not, and that's not how an admission works.  You can call me an asshole if you want, that's fine.  I'll take that.  But if you want to pull the word idiot out without actually refuting anything, then you're the one standing there with your thumb up your ass looking like a jackass, not me.
> 
> And of course I'm going to tell you to go fuck yourself.  That's a consequence of you being an asshole.  Fuck you.  You can act like that's me being neurotic all you want.  Somebody calls me stupid without anything to back it up, I tell them to go fuck themselves.  Simple.


Oh.  So you don't agree.  

Please tell me. How does one refute the _action_ of idiocy?


----------



## appleburger (Dec 16, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Oh.  So you don't agree.
> 
> Please tell me. How does one refute the _action_ of idiocy?


Oh, God. Allow me to explain how to properly call somebody stupid. 

1. You need an example.  Idiotic is a vague term. So nobody even knows specifically what you’re referencing. Here’s an example: the opposite of idiotic would be intelligent - not reasonable. I’m fortunate enough to be fluent in the English language, so this is an easy one for me

2.  You don’t then say “hurr durr how can you refute an action”? Because that makes you look like a fucking idiot.  I’m not refuting whatever the hell it is you’re talking about, because you’ve failed to even make that clear. I’m just calling you an asshole and telling you to go fuck your self for labeling me as stupid without anything to actually add to the conversation. You could at least specify what you’re referencing instead of hiding behind vagueness and straight up bad logic.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 16, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Oh, God. Allow me to explain how to properly call somebody stupid.
> 
> 1. You need an example.  Idiotic is a vague term. So nobody even knows specifically what you’re referencing. Here’s an example: the opposite of idiotic would be intelligent - not reasonable. I’m fortunate enough to be fluent in the English language, so this is an easy one for me
> 
> 2.  You don’t then say “hurr durr how can you refute an action”? Because that makes you look like a fucking idiot.  I’m not refuting whatever the hell it is you’re talking about, because you’ve failed to even make that clear. I’m just calling you an asshole and telling you to go fuck your self for labeling me as stupid without anything to actually add to the conversation. You could at least specify what you’re referencing instead of hiding behind vagueness and straight up bad logic.



I find your responses to be both disproportionate and satiating.  I was using reasonable as a synonym of intelligent, hence the pairing;--but if you don't want that, that's fine with me.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 17, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I find your responses to be both disproportionate and satiating.  I was using reasonable as a synonym of intelligent, hence the pairing;--but if you don't want that, that's fine with me.


You can be reasonable and stupid. I’d say you are, but your reason is pretttttty shaky. Words are hard, I get it, but dude - come on. 

If you want to give me something to refute, then go for it. So far you haven’t. You said that I’m an idiot in a vacuum, and then go to say that me telling you to go fuck yourself is fulfilling whatever the hell it is you’re trying to get to. Glad you’re satisfied - you looked like an idiot pulling it off.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 17, 2021)

appleburger said:


> You can be reasonable and stupid. I’d say you are, but your reason is pretttttty shaky. Words are hard, I get it, but dude - come on.
> 
> If you want to give me something to refute, then go for it. So far you haven’t. You said that I’m an idiot in a vacuum, and then go to say that me telling you to go fuck yourself is fulfilling whatever the hell it is you’re trying to get to. Glad you’re satisfied - you looked like an idiot pulling it off.


You can be idiotic and intelligent.  I think you are demonstrating it.  I find words to be interesting, not particularly frustrating.  If you want to recap what happened, feel free to read from the top.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 17, 2021)

tabzer said:


> You can be idiotic and intelligent.  I think you are demonstrating it.  I find words to be interesting, not particularly frustrating.  If you want to recap what happened, feel free to read from the top.


Okay my intellectual sage - use those words to elaborate and actually make a point before throwing “stupid” my way and then telling me that reasonable is a synonym for intelligence. You can use doorknob as a synonym for intelligence for all I care - doesn’t make it the case. 

Again, you threw that my way vaguely and then hid behind that when I told you to fuck off. You haven’t actually made a point. I have. You’re an asshole and failing at trying to call me stupid, which is kind of hilarious. 

If you think my reaction to you calling me an idiot is what makes me stupid, then so be it. That’s literally circular logic. Feel free to actually join the conversation if you want to flex those big brain muscles and show us that sweet “curiosity” of yours.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 17, 2021)

appleburger said:


> That's going to certainly be covered in the trials when creating these vaccines.  I don't think spiked protein levels are going to "whoopsie" their way into these with the whole world watching.
> 
> The adverse reactions to vaccines are almost always because of how certain individuals react to vaccines.  I've known people that get severe reactions to *most *vaccines.  They do exist, but they all found out when they were kids, since we already have to get vaccines for school.  And even then, these reactions are almost never deadly.  You're far, far, far more likely to be murdered by your cat, or accidentally strangle yourself in your bedsheets once you get into those numbers.
> 
> ...


The problem is that this process is susceptible to corruption. The specific example I had in mind was Vioxx as that is the one that affected me personally and is the reason I'm conveying information from med school friends rather than what would've been my own experience of being a doctor for the last 20 plus years. Merck didn't disclose the known side effects of that drug (gen, rofecoxib) which ended up causing fatal cardiac events in many people, as well as strokes and other non-fatal injuries in others including yours truly. Trials and peer-review aren't bullet proof unfortunately.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 17, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> The problem is that this process is susceptible to corruption. The specific example I had in mind was Vioxx as that is the one that affected me personally and is the reason I'm conveying information from med school friends rather than what would've been my own experience of being a doctor for the last 20 plus years. Merck didn't disclose the known side effects of that drug (gen, rofecoxib) which ended up causing fatal cardiac events in many people, as well as strokes and other non-fatal injuries in others including yours truly. Trials and peer-review aren't bullet proof unfortunately.


And I think that’s totally fair to point out. There HAVE been mishaps in the medical field. Severe ones. 

But, I’d expect that to be far less likely specifically for covid vaccines, because of the sheer drive the entire human race is going to have to make sure this is done effectively. I think there’s too much skin in the game. Where there’s corruption, there’s whistleblowers. And I’d find it incredibly difficult to keep shenanigans involving covid under wraps. Bill Clinton couldn’t even handle a minor case of infidelity, ya know?  

I think the corruption is more likely to be placed where there will be less eyes on it. So, I’m not denying your fears, but if I were to bet I would think your fears are highly unlikely to be manifested in the case of covid vaccines.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 17, 2021)

appleburger said:


> And I think that’s totally fair to point out. There HAVE been mishaps in the medical field. Severe ones.
> 
> But, I’d expect that to be far less likely specifically for covid vaccines, because of the sheer drive the entire human race is going to have to make sure this is done effectively. I think there’s too much skin in the game. Where there’s corruption, there’s whistleblowers. And I’d find it incredibly difficult to keep shenanigans involving covid under wraps. Bill Clinton couldn’t even handle a minor case of infidelity, ya know?
> 
> I think the corruption is more likely to be placed where there will be less eyes on it. So, I’m not denying your fears, but if I were to bet I would think your fears are highly unlikely to be manifested in the case of covid vaccines.


It's funny you mentioned whistleblowers as I recently read something about Pfizer lobbying to try and block legislation that would make it easier for whistleblowers to report fraud.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 17, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> It's funny you mentioned whistleblowers as I recently read something about Pfizer lobbying to try and block legislation that would make it easier for whistleblowers to report fraud.


And I’ll bet people are all over Pfizer if that’s the case. But if whatever shenanigans they’re up to are bad enough to seriously impact you, me and everyone else that gets the vaccine, that will go against their own interests. It would also require an amazing amount of collusion that the government normally can’t even pull off with top secret documents. People are pretty good at sniffing that stuff out. We love us some drama. 

I personally have no idea what everyone is up to, obviously. But I like my odds with the vaccinations vs. the virus itself. It’s not even close.  Although if you’re simply stating that you aren’t comfortable with the possibility of any kind of corruption, regardless of those odds - I get it.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 17, 2021)

appleburger said:


> And I’ll bet people are all over Pfizer if that’s the case. But if whatever shenanigans they’re up to are bad enough to seriously impact you, me and everyone else that gets the vaccine, that will go against their own interests. It would also require an amazing amount of collusion that the government normally can’t even pull off with top secret documents. People are pretty good at sniffing that stuff out. We love us some drama.
> 
> I personally have no idea what everyone is up to, obviously. But I like my odds with the vaccinations vs. the virus itself. It’s not even close.  Although if you’re simply stating that you aren’t comfortable with the possibility of any kind of corruption, regardless of those odds - I get it.


I'm definitely just stating my concerns and nothing more as I've had my vaccinations plus a booster shot.

Btw, it's not a collusion issue, the way the law is set up any fraud case would be dismissed from court simply because the government was continuing to pay the contractor. You might find this article about "materiality" as shocking as I did.. https://theintercept.com/2021/11/29/pfizer-whistleblower-reform-corporate-fraud/


----------



## appleburger (Dec 17, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I'm definitely just stating my concerns and nothing more as I've had my vaccinations plus a booster shot.
> 
> Btw, it's not a collusion issue, the way the law is set up any fraud case would be dismissed from court simply because the government was continuing to pay the contractor. You might find this article about "materiality" as shocking as I did.. https://theintercept.com/2021/11/29/pfizer-whistleblower-reform-corporate-fraud/


Ah, yeah Pfizer and 4 other pharmas are spending tons to lobby against that.  I was going to say we shouldn't derail the thread further, but I already helped in destroying that a long time ago lol

I wonder what the pharmaceutical companies are saying in response to this.  Not even to help justify it, I just wonder what they're attempting to say to justify it, because that doesn't look good.  Multiple articles are reporting that they passed medications too quickly in the past.  But, hey - at least they're getting called out and clearly have a magnifying glass on them, despite going through third parties to help hide this lobbying, right?


----------



## Reiten (Dec 17, 2021)

appleburger said:


> The link @AlexMCS posted actually has quite a few that reference India, specifically.  And the deeper I dig, the more I see recent studies showing that it's helping patients quite a bit.  I wonder why it's created so much discourse (I didn't listen to the Joe Rogan episode and am not 100% on the claims thrown around involving this drug)


I think the discourse mostly boils down to doctors not wanting to prescribe medicine they are not sure works, or might even cause harm. Of course, they might make exceptions for heavy cases but won't use it until proper studies have been done. It makes sense that you wouldn't claim something works until you have definite proof for it.
Another reason to downplay it is that people are stupid. We've already seen people trying to self medicate, which can cause a number of problems:

Using the wrong dose and causing harm;
Using the animal medicine, again not a great idea;
 People depleting the stock, so it's not available for the legitimate use cases;
Other reasons may also be possible, but most of those are speculations without proof, so I'll refrain from those.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Dec 17, 2021)

Valneva explained.

Unfortunately in German,Herr Lingelbach is really "refreshing".
He is vaccinated/boostered with Pfizer and had Side Effects...but he do not "damn" the mRNA Vaccines.

https://www.krone.at/2582924


----------



## MadonnaProject (Dec 17, 2021)

smf said:


> Well it seems you do think it's about winning.
> 
> You try to put yourself forward as some kind of expert to shut down conversation.
> 
> ...



1. Omicron has infected people who are double jabbed. In quite high numbers.
2. Omicron is a VARIATION.
3. Oxford research has shown Pfizer and Astra Zenca vaccines are far less effective against omicron because ITS A VARIANT.

How, then, getting another "top up" of the same vaccine would be effective against this variant in any significant capacity? Simple answer is no one knows. Not the labs, not the specialists not the experts. They are just saying get the third jab in hopes to "boost" your immune system a notch so that it MIGHT be effective.

This is similar to eating 5 bowls extra of chicken soup when you have a cold, especially when most people can't decide if you starve a cold and feed a fever or the other way around.

I do hate capitalising but have to when speaking to the meek minded. Fact remains, forcing anyone to do anything is wrong.

P.s: The rest of what you said is BS. I don't care about psycho-analysis babble by keyboard experts.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 17, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> 1. Omicron has infected people who are double jabbed. In quite high numbers.
> 2. Omicron is a VARIATION.
> 3. Oxford research has shown Pfizer and Astra Zenca vaccines are far less effective against omicron because ITS A VARIANT.
> 
> ...


Studies have shown that having a vaccine booster offers significant protection against the omicron variant.

Forcing someone to do something is often warranted and reasonable. Forcing parents to provide basic levels of stewardship for their children is warranted and reasonable. Forcing people to wear clothes in public is warranted and reasonable. Forcing people to get vaccinated before being able to have certain privileges is warranted and reasonable.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Dec 17, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Studies have shown that having a vaccine booster offers significant protection against the omicron variant.
> 
> Forcing someone to do something is often warranted and reasonable. Forcing parents to provide basic levels of stewardship for their children is warranted and reasonable. Forcing people to wear clothes in public is warranted and reasonable. Forcing people to get vaccinated before being able to have certain privileges is warranted and reasonable.


Care to name these studies? At least I pointed to the oxford research.

Since we're comparing ostriches to oranges, by your logic forcing people to work in slavery as long as it creates fertile harvest, or build a tall building would be reasonable too? Let's not stop there what do you think about forcing people into sexual contact? As long as the other person is good looking it might produce a beautiful child right?

NO. Forcing another sentient being to do anything against their will is nothing but wrong.

Sort of nice to see how the american moral fibre has collapsed over the past 20 years. Penance for invading other countries and destroying them.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 17, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> Care to name these studies? At least I pointed to the oxford research.
> 
> Since we're comparing ostriches to oranges, by your logic forcing people to work in slavery as long as it creates fertile harvest, or build a tall building would be reasonable too? Let's not stop there what do you think about forcing people into sexual contact? As long as the other person is good looking it might produce a beautiful child right?
> 
> ...


I think that's a bit black & white thinking.  "Force" vs. "no force" is a gross oversimplification.  

Mandates are not a new concept.  I feel like your comments are beginning to lean towards anarchy, which I can't see benefiting us very well.  Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

Mandates are useful in a society, and I think there's plenty of evidence to support that.  If the collective feels a mandate will protect the majority, then I think it's wise to lend some credence to that mandate.

The idea of never "forcing" anyone to do anything sounds like an anarchist, utopian concept to me.  And I feel like a pandemic is about appropriate of a time as ever to have a mandate if it means keeping more of us alive.

I understand the whole "foot in the door" concept with mandates, but I personally think the Patriot Act was far more of a breach in that realm than a vaccine mandate, given that the vaccine mandate would actually save lives.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 17, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Studies have shown that having a vaccine booster offers significant protection against the omicron variant.
> 
> Forcing someone to do something is often warranted and reasonable. Forcing parents to provide basic levels of stewardship for their children is warranted and reasonable. Forcing people to wear clothes in public is warranted and reasonable. Forcing people to get vaccinated before being able to have certain privileges is warranted and reasonable.


Coercion has never been an acceptable part of medicine, but that aside, I would have to hear what you consider to be a privilege. If by that you mean walking around in public and operating in civil society then I’m afraid that’s a right, not a privilege. Access to public transport, if provided by the state, might be considered a privilege - it’s not an enumerated right, nobody is born with the right to get a lift on the state’s dime. Walking down a public road unimpeded without being harassed? That’s not a privilege, that’s just normal. Reclassifying inherent rights as privileges in order to slide authoritarianism under the table only works on the stupid, most people with a level of intelligence higher than that of a kumquat will have a few issues with your train of thought.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 17, 2021)

In an effort to return to the topic, I just googled new cases in Austria and got this..







That actually surprised me as I expected there to be a continuing upward trend.

Edit: Silly me, I forgot they went through a lockdown so it makes sense.


----------



## djpannda (Dec 17, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> In an effort to return to the topic, I just googled new cases in Austria and got this..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


..wait are you saying Mandating the Vaccine is  *working*


----------



## appleburger (Dec 17, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> In an effort to return to the topic, I just googled new cases in Austria and got this..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you look at 2020, Austria had the same bump (smaller numbers, but the bell curve there is very close and almost to the day).


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 17, 2021)

I added an edit to my post after I realised what the cause was.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 17, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I added an edit to my post after I realised what the cause was.


Did they have a lockdown in 2020 as well?  Because it looks like a very similar distribution of cases happened this exact time last year, as well.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 17, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Did they have a lockdown in 2020 as well?  Because it looks like a very similar distribution of cases happened this exact time last year, as well.


It's possible, I know we were in UK.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 17, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> It's possible, I know we were in UK.


I googled, and they did have a lockdown in November of 2020


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 17, 2021)

Yeah, so all that graph tells us is that lockdowns work.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 17, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Yeah, so all that graph tells us is that lockdowns work.


Yeah, no surprise there.  I'd expect numbers affected from vaccines to take some time to catch up.  That should naturally be delayed from the lockdown, and you'll need some time to pass for new infections to hit the population, get recorded, and then show up on these graphs.  Even then it's all obviously correlative, so you need some time to let it cook before you can start making educated guesses.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 17, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> Care to name these studies? At least I pointed to the oxford research.


https://www.who.int/news-room/event...vading-immunity-and-what-are-the-implications

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/12/15/world/covid-omicron-vaccines

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...-vaccine-too-study-suggests-but-boosters-help

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...ose-vaccine-protects-omicron-variant-rcna7970



MadonnaProject said:


> Since we're comparing ostriches to oranges, by your logic forcing people to work in slavery as long as it creates fertile harvest, or build a tall building would be reasonable too? Let's not stop there what do you think about forcing people into sexual contact? As long as the other person is good looking it might produce a beautiful child right?
> 
> NO. Forcing another sentient being to do anything against their will is nothing but wrong.


The examples you provided are, of course, immoral. However, just because these things are bad doesn't mean other unrelated things are also bad.

If you want to go out in public, you generally have to wear clothes. If you want to have children, you generally can't be negligent (particularly when it comes to the health and safety of the child). If you want to ride a plane, go to a restaurant, etc., you should have to be vaccinated.

Slavery and forced copulation, to use your odd examples, are immoral because they're violations of one's right to autonomy. However, a vaccine mandate is no more a violation of one's right to autonomy than a clothes mandate. You have a right to be unvaccinated, but that doesn't mean you should have the right to be unvaccinated in a public space. I have a right to be naked, but it doesn't mean I have a right to be naked in a public space.

This isn't rocket science.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 17, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Coercion has never been an acceptable part of medicine, but that aside, I would have to hear what you consider to be a privilege. If by that you mean walking around in public and operating in civil society then I’m afraid that’s a right, not a privilege. Access to public transport, if provided by the state, might be considered a privilege - it’s not an enumerated right, nobody is born with the right to get a lift on the state’s dime. Walking down a public road unimpeded without being harassed? That’s not a privilege, that’s just normal. Reclassifying inherent rights as privileges in order to slide authoritarianism under the table only works on the stupid, most people with a level of intelligence higher than that of a kumquat will have a few issues with your train of thought.


I have a right to free speech; I generally don't have the right to recklessly shout "fire" in a crowded room where there isn't one.

I have a right walk down a public road; I generally don't have the right to walk down a public road naked.

I have a right to enter a place of business like a restaurant. That doesn't mean I can or should have the right to enter the restaurant naked, unmasked, and/or unvaccinated.

Only a kumquat thinks rights are unlimited or without restrictions.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 17, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I have a right to free speech; I generally don't have the right to recklessly shout "fire" in a crowded room where there isn't one.


Horrible example from a case that’s been long since overturned. It was also penalising a citizen for his opposition to the draft, in case you’re unaware, which was in fact his civil right. The actual legal standard was set in Brandenburg v. Ohio and only includes speech likely to incite immediate lawless action. Nice attempt, but your camp really needs to refresh their copy pastas, they don’t reflect reality.


> I have a right walk down a public road; I generally don't have the right to walk down a public road naked.


Liberals opposing the sexual revolution, we really do live in perpetual Opposite Day. The actual legal standard broadly is indecent exposure, as in parading naked in public where one can be easily seen by others, although it differs wildly depending on states. Many areas are rather accepting of some degree of public nudity, and if I’m not mistaken, it is the political left that advocates for freeing the nipple, so you’re cutting the branch you’d otherwise comfortably sit on.


> I have a right to enter a place of business like a restaurant. That doesn't mean I can or should have the right to enter the restaurant naked, unmasked, and/or unvaccinated.


Since a restaurant is a private establishment, all of those things are actually up to the owner of the property. If you feel like opening a nudist restaurant, legally speaking there is nothing prohibiting you from doing so.


> Only a kumquat thinks rights are unlimited or without restrictions.


Rights are unlimited and without restriction, that’s what makes them rights, as opposed to privileges, which are granted by the state. Privileges are selective and conditional, rights are inherent and unconditional.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 17, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Horrible example from a case that’s been long since overturned. It was also penalising a citizen for his opposition to the draft, in case you’re unaware, which was in fact his civil right. The actual legal standard was set in Brandenburg v. Ohio and only includes speech likely to incite immediate lawless action. Nice attempt, but your camp really needs to refresh their copy pastas, they don’t reflect reality.
> Liberals opposing the sexual revolution, we really do live in perpetual Opposite Day. The actual legal standard broadly is indecent exposure, as in parading naked in public where one can be easily seen by others, although it differs wildly depending on states. Many areas are rather accepting of some degree of public nudity, and if I’m not mistaken, it is the political left that advocates for freeing the nipple, so you’re cutting the branch you’d otherwise comfortably sit on.
> Since a restaurant is a private establishment, all of those things are actually up to the owner of the property. If you feel like opening a nudist restaurant, legally speaking there is nothing prohibiting you from doing so.
> Rights are unlimited and without restriction, that’s what makes them rights, as opposed to privileges, which are granted by the state. Privileges are selective and conditional, rights are inherent and unconditional.


Honestly, rights don't really exist, imo.  They're all privileges, and the US is no stranger to taking those away.  Patriot Act, slavery and imprisoning Japanese americans all come to mind.  You can be drafted into a war where you're far more likely to be killed than you would by any medicine, as well.  These took/take place regardless of the rights people were said to have.

It's just American marketing, in my eyes.  But regardless of those semantics, vaccine mandates already exist for schools.  That's all small potatoes in the "rights" or "privilege" department.  And opting to not save lives in the vain of "freedom" is an easy target for calling people irresponsible, in my book.  It's only a matter of discussion due to how dangerous it is.

I think the freedom/rights/privilege angle is just a bunch of hot air when it comes to this argument.  People are free to feel it's not *fair* - but having a right?  Yeah, that doesn't mean much in this context.  There are a lot of people dying, and the collective best minds we have agree that vaccinating will save many lives.  Due to there being enough stupid people to hinder this, I don't blame folks for arguing for a mandate that will save lives.  I don't think it will be a foot in the door for total authoritarianism like some people seem to be fantasizing about.


----------



## BitMasterPlus (Dec 17, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Honestly, rights don't really exist, imo.  They're all privileges, and the US is no stranger to taking those away.  Patriot Act, slavery and imprisoning Japanese americans all come to mind.  You can be drafted into a war where you're far more likely to be killed than you would by any medicine, as well.  These took/take place regardless of the rights people were said to have.
> 
> It's just American marketing, in my eyes.  But regardless of those semantics, vaccine mandates already exist for schools.  That's all small potatoes in the "rights" or "privilege" department.  And opting to not save lives in the vain of "freedom" is an easy target for calling people irresponsible, in my book.  It's only a matter of discussion due to how dangerous it is.
> 
> I think the freedom/rights/privilege angle is just a bunch of hot air when it comes to this argument.  People are free to feel it's not *fair* - but having a right?  Yeah, that doesn't mean much in this context.  There are a lot of people dying, and the collective best minds we have agree that vaccinating will save many lives.  Due to there being enough stupid people to hinder this, I don't blame folks for arguing for a mandate that will save lives.  I don't think it will be a foot in the door for total authoritarianism like some people seem to be fantasizing about.


Basic human rights do exist and we are entitled to happiness when we work for it. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yes, the US has hit many bumps in the road, have had our good and bad times, but we're much better than we were in the pass, even though we have more assholes now, and no country is without it's faults. We're certainly not the first country in history to make mistake and we won't be the last. In the end though, there is a difference from making rules to prevent crime vs. forcing someone to take a experimental vaccine to make others "feel better".


----------



## appleburger (Dec 17, 2021)

BitMasterPlus said:


> Basic human rights do exist and we are entitled to happiness when we work for it. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yes, the US has hit many bumps in the road, have had our good and bad times, but we're much better than we were in the pass, even though we have more assholes now, and no country is without it's faults. We're certainly not the first country in history to make mistake and we won't be the last. In the end though, there is a difference from making rules to prevent crime vs. forcing someone to take a experimental vaccine to make others "feel better".


Sure, I'll grant you that rights as an idea technically exist - but I'm saying that in the context of what the government actually grants us, it's really just privileges, _effectively._

Rules for preventing crime is one category - there are more categories.  You and I both know this.

The vaccines aren't experimental.  Their functions are well understood and documented, and that's not a matter of opinion.  Vaccines have been experimental and riddled with issues in the past, but it's all very well documented for you to look over.  The only issues that come from them at this point are extremely rare, and often due to immune responses, not due to the contents of the vaccine itself.

If I were to steelman your argument, I'd instead say that vaccinations come with a risk - now _that _is true.  You just need to understand that the point of issue typically comes from people's immune responses - not the vaccine itself.  Same thing happens with, say, peanuts.

So, we know they come with a risk.  So why mandate that?  Kinda scary, right?  Because the risk with COVID is very extreme.  We haven't lost this many lives on the planet in a very long time.  We have now surpassed World War II with deaths.

And our fix for World War 2?  It was sending Americans into battlezones.  Talk about some serious risk.  And the US banded together to make that fight happen.  We were willing to take the odds on, because we knew it was the better of the 2 poisons.

Now, for some reason when we're fighting an "invisible" enemy, we see people wanting to ignore the risk.  It's somehow not as obvious as the Nazis were.  I think that's due to survivorship bias, personally.  It's easy to mentally flip a switch to wanting to be left alone and carry on when you can't actually see bodies dropping.

But - that's the reality.  You are suggesting we don't march on the soil, and instead take our chances with an enemy that's far more dangerous than the Nazi party ever was.  If we don't actively fight COVID, then you're looking at one of the worst human massacres in history.

I'm honestly shocked there are even people around that don't see this the way I do.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 17, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Horrible example from a case that’s been long since overturned. It was also penalising a citizen for his opposition to the draft, in case you’re unaware, which was in fact his civil right. The actual legal standard was set in Brandenburg v. Ohio and only includes speech likely to incite immediate lawless action. Nice attempt, but your camp really needs to refresh their copy pastas, they don’t reflect reality.


I have a right to free speech. I generally cannot lie and shout "fire" in a crowded room. I generally cannot incite a riot. I generally cannot violate laws relating to libel and slander. Demonstrably, my right to free speech is not without restrictions. Why are you wasting my time with irrelevant drivel?



Foxi4 said:


> Liberals opposing the sexual revolution, we really do live in perpetual Opposite Day. The actual legal standard broadly is indecent exposure, as in parading naked in public where one can be easily seen by others, although it differs wildly depending on states. Many areas are rather accepting of some degree of public nudity, and if I’m not mistaken, it is the political left that advocates for freeing the nipple, so you’re cutting the branch you’d otherwise comfortably sit on.


I haven't said anything about whether or not I'm in favor of laws against public nudity, nor do I care about exceptions to what's generally the rule, so I suggest you focus on my point instead of continuing to waste my fucking time.



Foxi4 said:


> Since a restaurant is a private establishment, all of those things are actually up to the owner of the property. If you feel like opening a nudist restaurant, legally speaking there is nothing prohibiting you from doing so.


At least this part isn't wasting my time.

Restaurants have laws they also have to follow, particularly if the restaurant is open to the public. For example, some restaurants might not be able to allow indoor smoking regardless of whether or not they want to. Restaurants generally cannot discriminate against customers. I can't continue to try to incite a riot, even if I'm in a restaurant and the owners agree with me. Restaurants have health code laws they have to follow, whether they want to or not. Depending on the particular zoning laws, a restaurant might not even be allowed to offer nude dining either.



Foxi4 said:


> Rights are unlimited and without restriction, that’s what makes them rights, as opposed to privileges, which are granted by the state. Privileges are selective and conditional, rights are inherent and unconditional.


If you read what I said above, you'll see how laughably ridiculous you're being.


----------



## FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR (Dec 17, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Sure, I'll grant you that rights as an idea technically exist - but I'm saying that in the context of what the government actually grants us, it's really just privileges, _effectively._
> 
> Rules for preventing crime is one category - there are more categories.  You and I both know this.
> 
> ...


You are totally under trauma based mind control.


----------



## Zajumino (Dec 17, 2021)

Lacius said:


> However, a vaccine mandate is no more a violation of one's right to autonomy than a clothes mandate.


I disagree with this. Clothes can be taken off. Vaccinations are more permanent and can be painful.



appleburger said:


> Sure, I'll grant you that rights as an idea technically exist - but I'm saying that in the context of what the government actually grants us, it's really just privileges, _effectively._


This is why in the US we have a bill of rights. The government is literally required to protect certain rights. Sometimes it is difficult to protect every person's rights all at the same time, which is a reason why the judicial system exists.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 17, 2021)

Zajumino said:


> I disagree with this. Clothes can be taken off. Vaccinations are more permanent and can be painful.
> 
> 
> This is why in the US we have a bill of rights. The government is literally required to protect certain rights. Sometimes it is difficult to protect every person's rights all at the same time, which is a reason why the judicial system exists.


I'm aware of that.  I'm also aware that they have been broken in the past.  If the situation calls for it, rights can be taken away.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 17, 2021)

FAKEdemicBioPYSCHONANOWAR said:


> You are totally under trauma based mind control.


Great, well thought out response.  Either say something useful, attempt to actually combat anything I said, or we can all continue assuming you're a retard.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 17, 2021)

Zajumino said:


> I disagree with this. Clothes can be taken off. Vaccinations are more permanent and can be painful.


Many anti-vaxxers think you can undo a vaccine with a Borax bath, for example, so it's difficult to take these kinds of concerns seriously.

Also, none of the vaccine stays in the body after a few days or weeks after the last dose.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 17, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I have a right to free speech. I generally cannot lie and shout "fire" in a crowded room. I generally cannot incite a riot. I generally cannot violate laws relating to libel and slander. Demonstrably, my right to free speech is not without restrictions. Why are you wasting my time with irrelevant drivel?


There’s no legal standard that specifies you cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre - in fact, chances are you would cause more confusion than panic. You cannot incite a riot because it’s immediate unlawful action. That’s not a limitation on your freedom to speak, that’s a limitation on you causing direct harm by means of forming a mob with the intent to cause damage. Slander and libel are not limitations on speech - what’s actually illegal, and prosecuted, is causing damages, which the injured party has to demonstrate in court. I can call you “completely unqualified” for instance, regardless of your level of qualifications - you’re welcome to sue if your fee fees got hurt, but you cannot demonstrate damages, so you’ll be laughed out of court. The only person wasting other people’s time is you, you’re the one posting complete nonsense that does not exist in law.


> I haven't said anything about whether or not I'm in favor of laws against public nudity, nor do I care about exceptions to what's generally the rule, so I suggest you focus on my point instead of continuing to waste my fucking time.


I can’t focus on your point since you didn’t make one. There is no legal standard that prevents you from being naked.


> At least this part isn't wasting my time.


Anything I post should be considered educational, particularly to people who don’t know the law, and yet still speak with confidence about it.


> Restaurants have laws they also have to follow, particularly if the restaurant is open to the public. For example, some restaurants might not be able to allow indoor smoking regardless of whether or not they want to. Restaurants generally cannot discriminate against customers. I can't continue to try to incite a riot, even if I'm in a restaurant and the owners agree with me. Restaurants have health code laws they have to follow, whether they want to or not. Depending on the particular zoning laws, a restaurant might not even be allowed to offer nude dining either.


Sure, government overreach exists on every level of government, but there is no such federal standard. You’re more than welcome to dine naked on my private property, as long as you bring a towel - I don’t know where you’ve been.


> If you read what I said above, you'll see how laughably ridiculous you're being.


Slightly less than someone doubling down on being wrong regarding the difference between rights and privileges, and the associated legal distinction between the two. The Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, is a set of principles that the government *cannot* violate. This document can be amended if the overwhelming majority of states agree to ratify a specific change, but it cannot be violated - it is the supreme law of the land. The government doesn’t get to violate any of the rights enumerated within, and that’s that.


----------



## smf (Dec 17, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> How, then, getting another "top up" of the same vaccine would be effective against this variant in any significant capacity? Simple answer is no one knows. Not the labs, not the specialists not the experts. They are just saying get the third jab in hopes to "boost" your immune system a notch so that it MIGHT be effective.


You're confused. You assume that because it doesn't seem obvious to you, that it couldn't be true.
I heard a good scientific explanation of it the other day and it made sense to me.

They know, you don't know.


----------



## smf (Dec 17, 2021)

Zajumino said:


> I disagree with this. Clothes can be taken off. Vaccinations are more permanent and can be painful.


Vaccinations are unfortunately not permanent.

Clothes can be painful.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 17, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Honestly, rights don't really exist, imo.  They're all privileges, and the US is no stranger to taking those away.  Patriot Act, slavery and imprisoning Japanese americans all come to mind.  You can be drafted into a war where you're far more likely to be killed than you would by any medicine, as well.  These took/take place regardless of the rights people were said to have.
> 
> It's just American marketing, in my eyes.  But regardless of those semantics, vaccine mandates already exist for schools.  That's all small potatoes in the "rights" or "privilege" department.  And opting to not save lives in the vain of "freedom" is an easy target for calling people irresponsible, in my book.  It's only a matter of discussion due to how dangerous it is.
> 
> I think the freedom/rights/privilege angle is just a bunch of hot air when it comes to this argument.  People are free to feel it's not *fair* - but having a right?  Yeah, that doesn't mean much in this context.  There are a lot of people dying, and the collective best minds we have agree that vaccinating will save many lives.  Due to there being enough stupid people to hinder this, I don't blame folks for arguing for a mandate that will save lives.  I don't think it will be a foot in the door for total authoritarianism like some people seem to be fantasizing about.


”Rights don’t exist” is the equivalent of saying “might makes right”. We absolutely have inherent rights which continue to function even in the absence of government. For instance, you have a right to life. If someone wants to deprive you of life, you can demonstrate damage to your person. From that you can derive your right to self-defense - since you have a right to life, you automatically have a right to protect yourself from harm. This is a bit philosophical and beyond the scope of this conversation, but the broader point here is that just because a given party doesn’t have the power to defend their rights does not mean that said party is not aggrieved if their rights are violated.


----------



## smf (Dec 17, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> Care to name these studies? At least I pointed to the oxford research.


https://www.npr.org/sections/health...dy-suggests-but-boosters-help?t=1639781856196

The oxford vaccine is not used as a booster in the UK, only moderna and pfizer are being used. Which is kinda embarrassing for the government, so I believe they are doing it based on science.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 17, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> ”Rights don’t exist” is the equivalent of saying “might makes right”. We absolutely have inherent rights which continue to function even in the absence of government. For instance, you have a right to life. If someone wants to deprive you of life, you can demonstrate damage to your person. From that you can derive your right to self-defense - since you have a right to life, you automatically have a right to protect yourself from harm. This is a bit philosophical and beyond the scope of this conversation, but the broader point here is that just because a given party doesn’t have the power to defend their rights does not mean that said party is not aggrieved if their rights are violated.


I agree with you.  I had said in another comment that while I understand there is a point to be made about rights existing (and you're right about this being a philosophical point), I was attempting to point out that the government _effectively _makes privileges that can be taken away, and has done so in the past.

The only reason I bring that up, is because people are saying the government _can't_ make you get vaccinations.  And I'm over here saying that if they can make you go to war and tap your phone without you knowing it, then we can concede those "rights" have already been breached.


----------



## Zajumino (Dec 17, 2021)

appleburger said:


> I'm aware of that.  I'm also aware that they have been broken in the past.  If the situation calls for it, rights can be taken away.


What exactly was broken in the past?

Rights enumerated in the Constitution cannot be taken away without an amendment, which does not happen often. There are unenumerated rights protected by the 9th Amendment, but I don't really know how that works.

For clarification, privileges are granted, while rights are protected. You cannot really give or take rights, because a right is an idea. You can however, deny them (by not giving certain privileges), which is what I think you mean.
I agree with your statement that what the government effectively grants us are privileges, because that is what it does. I was pointing out that there are certain rights that the government cannot deny, which means, basically, that there are certain privileges that are required.




Lacius said:


> Many anti-vaxxers think you can undo a vaccine with a Borax bath, for example, so it's difficult to take these kinds of concerns seriously.
> 
> Also, none of the vaccine stays in the body after a few days or weeks after the last dose.


But your body is (semi-)permanently changed in at least one way, one of which is the point of a vaccine.



smf said:


> Vaccinations are unfortunately not permanent.
> 
> Clothes can be painful.


more

Not all clothes are painful.


----------



## smf (Dec 17, 2021)

Zajumino said:


> Sometimes it is difficult to protect every person's rights all at the same time, which is a reason why the judicial system exists.


And any mandates that you disagree with should be handled in court.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 17, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> There’s no legal standard that specifies you cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre - in fact, chances are you would cause more confusion than panic. You cannot incite a riot because it’s immediate unlawful action. That’s not a limitation on your freedom to speak, that’s a limitation on you causing direct harm by means of forming a mob with the intent to cause damage. Slander and libel are not limitations on speech - what’s actually illegal, and prosecuted, is causing damages, which the injured party has to demonstrate in court. I can call you “completely unqualified” for instance, regardless of your level of qualifications - you’re welcome to sue if your fee fees got hurt, but you cannot demonstrate damages, so you’ll be laughed out of court. The only person wasting other people’s time is you, you’re the one posting complete nonsense that does not exist in law.
> I can focus on your point since you didn’t have one. There is no legal standard that prevents you from being naked.
> Anything I post should be considered educational, particularly to people who don’t know the law, and yet still speak with confidence about it.
> Sure, government overreach exists on every level of government, but there is no such federal standard. You’re more than welcome to dine naked on my private property, as long as you bring a towel - I don’t know where you’ve been.
> Slightly less than someone doubling down on being wrong regarding the difference between rights and privileges, and the associated legal distinction between the two. The Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, is a set of principles that the government *cannot* violate. This document can be amended if the overwhelming majority of states agree to ratify a specific change, but it cannot be violated - it is the supreme law of the land. The government doesn’t get to violate any of the rights enumerated within, and that’s that.


You don't seem to understand that if I'm not allowed to cause you financial damages with my speech, then my right to free speech is limited. Lol.

There is definitely a legal standard that prevents me from being naked, generally, in most public places, and since you've decided to give up on reading, my point was that this is precedent for people being prevented from entering certain public spaces without being vaccinated.

I agree one of us is doubling down on being wrong, but it should be pretty obvious it isn't me.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 17, 2021)

appleburger said:


> I agree with you.  I had said in another comment that while I understand there is a point to be made about rights existing (and you're right about this being a philosophical point), I was attempting to point out that the government _effectively _makes privileges that can be taken away, and has done so in the past.
> 
> The only reason I bring that up, is because people are saying the government _can't_ make you get vaccinations.  And I'm over here saying that if they can make you go to war and tap your phone without you knowing it, then we can concede those "rights" have already been breached.


The existence of unjust law does not justify it. People have an inherent right to bodily autonomy and if they do not wish to ingest or otherwise introduce a substance into their body, for whatever dumbass reason, strapping them to a chair and forcing them to do so, or otherwise coercing them by prohibiting their otherwise lawful activity, is a violation of their rights. The government isn’t God, it’s just a bunch of old folks people voted in to work as janitors of the state. The land belongs to the people, not the government - the rule of a government is conditional on the support of the people. If a government becomes authoritarian, it is encumbent on the people to remove it from power, and there are appropriate mechanisms to do so in most democracies. Failing that, it can also be done by force, and has been done that way in the past. There can be no tolerance of tyranny.


----------



## Zajumino (Dec 17, 2021)

smf said:


> And any mandates that you disagree with should be handled in court.


either that or in Congress


----------



## Lacius (Dec 17, 2021)

Zajumino said:


> But your body is (semi-)permanently changed in at least one way, one of which is the point of a vaccine.


Assuming that's true, it doesn't really matter.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 17, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The existence of unjust law does not justify it. People have an inherent right to bodily autonomy and if they do not wish to ingest or otherwise introduce a substance into their body, for whatever dumbass reason, strapping them to a chair and forcing them to do so, or otherwise coercing them by prohibiting their otherwise lawful activity, is a violation of their rights. The government isn’t God, it’s just a bunch of old folks people voted in to work as janitors of the state. The land belongs to the people, not the government - the rule of a government is conditional on the support of the people. If a government becomes authoritarian, it is encumbent on the people to remove it from power, and there are appropriate mechanisms to do so in most democracies. Failing that, it can also be done by force, and has been done that way in the past. There can be no tolerance of tyranny.


Is it your opinion I should be able to walk around as naked as I want wherever I want (without forcing myself on anyone else's private property)?


----------



## appleburger (Dec 17, 2021)

Zajumino said:


> What exactly was broken in the past?
> 
> Rights enumerated in the Constitution cannot be taken away without an amendment, which does not happen often. There are unenumerated rights protected by the 9th Amendment, but I don't really know how that works.
> 
> ...


This is why I had said earlier that I'm really getting into semantics here, but an example I provided was the imprisonment of Japanese americans.

The semantic aspect is that I'm addressing what some here have _called_ rights - like mandating a vaccine.  I'm saying that's falling in line with other "rights" that have been breached.  You can be sent to war, have your phone tapped, be imprisoned for your race (in the past), and that's a larger breach than mandated vaccines, imo.

When we get into the weeds of what rights vs. privileges really are, and the Bill of Rights, how they all work, etc. I think that's all fair to bring up, but I'd like to level the playing field and roll this back to the original point - which is that mandating a vaccine, at least in my opinion, does not fall into a category or rights that cannot be touched by government.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 17, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You don't seem to understand that if I'm not allowed to cause you financial damages with my speech, then my right to free speech is limited. Lol.


You are not allowed to cause me damages by whatever means. Hitting me with your car being illegal is not a violation of your right to travel, it’s protection of my right to life. Lol.


> There is definitely a legal standard that prevents me from being naked, generally, in most public places, and since you've decided to give up on reading, my point was that this is precedent for people being prevented from entering certain public spaces without being vaccinated.


There is a legal standard concerning indecent exposure. Indecent exposure requires a third party you are exposing yourself to without their consent. Nakedness is not illegal, nakedness is your natural state of being. Not that it matters, this funny digression doesn’t forward the discussion.



> I agree one of us is doubling down on being wrong, but it should be pretty obvious it isn't me.


I’m sure it is, to you, considering you’re parroting outdated talking points like “fire in a crowded theatre”.



Lacius said:


> Is it your opinion I should be able to walk around as naked as I want wherever I want (without forcing myself on anyone else's private property)?


I don’t have a problem with it, I don’t care about what you do. As long as you don’t shove that shlong anywhere near me, you can do helicopter spins to your heart’s content - that’s not my penis and not my business.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 17, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> You are not allowed to cause me damages by whatever means. Hitting me with your car is not a violation of your right to travel, it’s protection of my right to life. Lol.


Sounds like a restriction regardless.



Foxi4 said:


> Indecent exposure requires a third party you are exposing yourself to without their consent.


Being naked in a public space generally involves an unconsenting third party.



Foxi4 said:


> I don’t have a problem with it, I don’t care about what you do. As long as you don’t shove that shlong anywhere near me, you can do helicopter spins to your heart’s content - that’s not my penis and not my business.


At least you're consistent. Most people who are against vaccine mandates cannot say the same.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 17, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> The existence of unjust law does not justify it. People have an inherent right to bodily autonomy and if they do not wish to ingest or otherwise introduce a substance into their body, for whatever dumbass reason, strapping them to a chair and forcing them to do so, or otherwise coercing them by prohibiting their otherwise lawful activity, is a violation of their rights. The government isn’t God, it’s just a bunch of old folks people voted in to work as janitors of the state. The land belongs to the people, not the government - the rule of a government is conditional on the support of the people. If a government becomes authoritarian, it is encumbent on the people to remove it from power, and there are appropriate mechanisms to do so in most democracies. Failing that, it can also be done by force, and has been done that way in the past. There can be no tolerance of tyranny.


Yeah, I don't think a vaccine mandate falls into the category you're claiming it does.  It's not like a mandate involves sending people into your house and holding you down while you scream.  I'm talking about what we already do for children before they go to school.  They have to be vaccinated - and you have to let your children be educated.  

And considering how many lives it'll save, especially - seems completely reasonable.  And like I pointed out earlier, we sent people to die in WWII and had less deaths than we do right now, so I'm surprised we have more resistance to this than we did the draft.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 17, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Sounds like a restriction regardless.


A subtle distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.


> Being naked in a public space generally involves an unconsenting third party.


Didn’t stop many countries from allowing women to walk around topless if that is their fancy.


> At least you're consistent. Most people who are against vaccine mandates cannot say the same.


I am consistently pro liberty and against tyranny, particularly the worst kind of tyranny - government tyranny.



appleburger said:


> Yeah, I don't think a vaccine mandate falls into the category you're claiming it does.  It's not like a mandate involves sending people into your house and holding you down while you scream.  I'm talking about what we already do for children before they go to school.  They have to be vaccinated - and you have to let your children be educated.
> 
> And considering how many lives it'll save, especially - seems completely reasonable.  And like I pointed out earlier, we sent people to die in WWII and had less deaths than we do right now, so I'm surprised we have more resistance to this than we did the draft.


If you force individuals to undergo a medical procedure in order to continue their employment, you are taking away their income unless they bend to your will, which is no different then taking away their livelihood - it’s violence against the non-compliant. You may as well just take their food away - you’re removed by one degree of separation, but the result is exactly the same. Nobody should be forced to undergo unwanted medical procedures in order to participate in civil society.


----------



## smf (Dec 17, 2021)

Zajumino said:


> either that or in Congress


Well that is up to congress, not you. If you have a problem then you need to go to court.



appleburger said:


> Yeah, I don't think a vaccine mandate falls into the category you're claiming it does.  It's not like a mandate involves sending people into your house and holding you down while you scream.  I'm talking about what we already do for children before they go to school.  They have to be vaccinated - and you have to let your children be educated.
> 
> And considering how many lives it'll save, especially - seems completely reasonable.  And like I pointed out earlier, we sent people to die in WWII and had less deaths than we do right now, so I'm surprised we have more resistance to this than we did the draft.


We have more snowflakes now that have been brain washed by their twitter and facebook feed to think that bill gates is trying to do something to them.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 17, 2021)

smf said:


> Well that is up to congress, not you. If you have a problem then you need to go to court.
> 
> 
> We have more snowflakes now that have been brain washed by their twitter and facebook feed to think that bill gates is trying to do something to them.


Once again, you aren't making a point in response to anything I actually said.  You're the jackass if you completely ignore what I said and act like I'm some sort of SJW twitter warrior.  I don't even have a twitter, and I don't identify with half of the stuff peddled US "left" media, so you're barking up the wrong tree in a field leagues away from me, buddy.

Maybe try actually participating in the conversation with the big kids and I'll then do my best to actually respond to you without resorting to showing how stupid and ignorant you're being.  Use your head.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 17, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> A subtle distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.
> Didn’t stop many countries from allowing women to walk around topless if that is their fancy.
> I am consistently pro liberty and against tyranny, particularly the worst kind of tyranny - government tyranny.
> 
> If you force individuals to undergo a medical procedure in order to continue their employment, you are taking away their income unless they bend to your will, which is no different then taking away their livelihood - it’s violence against the non-compliant. You may as well just take their food away - you’re removed by one degree of separation, but the result is exactly the same. Nobody should be forced to undergo unwanted medical procedures in order to participate in civil society.


I think you can make that same waterfall argument for many other mandates.  Not being able to drive can ruin lives, too - and that can easily be taken away.  Being sent to war sure as hell can be life threatening, too.  Even if you come back alive you may not have a job anymore.

I do understand your point, but I don't think the gravity of it compares to other mandates we've gone through, and I think the reward for this greatly, greatly outweighs any decision we've had to make since World War II.  Again, we're dealing with deaths that outnumber three major wars combined.  That's not *made up.  *That's reality.

I'll give in a little, though - there are many different ways to mandate the vaccine.  Denying employment is not something I'd agree with, unless it's a job where you're working around a bunch of people physically.

But, honestly, if you're in that situation - just get the damn shot.  It's safe.  We know it is.  That's not up for debate.  You are quite literally more likely to be killed by your house cat or bed sheets by mistake than the vaccine.  So my empathy for those that want to protect their "medical freedom" only goes so far.

Like I said - we were cool with going to actual war, but are fighting a vaccine mandate with more fervor.  Doesn't add up to me.  I think there's way more ignorance at play here, even though I *do* see your point.  It's just not enough for me to overlook saving as many people as the mandate would.  So I'm on board with it.

The plane is crashing, and we need to land it.

EDIT: Also thanks to @Foxi4 for being capable of having a debate and being able to use his brain - it's fun and a breath of fresh air


----------



## smf (Dec 17, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Once again, you aren't making a point in response to anything I actually said.


I did make a point in response to something you actually said, you're a jackass for not understanding that and instead being triggered by it. Maybe it's time to sort out your meds.

Whatever that "big kids" nonsense is, you're welcome to it.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 17, 2021)

smf said:


> I did make a point in response to something you actually said, you're a jackass for not understanding that and instead being triggered by it. Maybe you need to sort out your meds.


No, dumbass - do you know what addressing a point means?  You didn't address anything I said, and then attempted to put me in the wrong box.  Check back with me when your reading comprehension gets you through the Harry Potter books, maybe.

Me calling you a dumb fuck on here does not mean I'm triggered, but if you want to revel in that image, go ahead.  Your idiocy is on full display for others to laugh at, and that brings me joy.


----------



## Zajumino (Dec 17, 2021)

appleburger said:


> This is why I had said earlier that I'm really getting into semantics here, but an example I provided was the imprisonment of Japanese americans.
> 
> The semantic aspect is that I'm addressing what some here have _called_ rights - like mandating a vaccine.  I'm saying that's falling in line with other "rights" that have been breached.  You can be sent to war, have your phone tapped, be imprisoned for your race (in the past), and that's a larger breach than mandated vaccines, imo.
> 
> When we get into the weeds of what rights vs. privileges really are, and the Bill of Rights, how they all work, etc. I think that's all fair to bring up, but I'd like to level the playing field and roll this back to the original point - which is that mandating a vaccine, at least in my opinion, does not fall into a category or rights that cannot be touched by government.


At the end of the day, it depends on what people are willing to accept. The government does whatever they can get away with until people get angry. If we want to talk about what can be touched by government, then it depends on which government. In the case of the US, the constitutionality of mandates at the federal level is disputed.



smf said:


> Well that is up to congress, not you. If you have a problem then you need to go to court.


You do realize that (some) people vote for representatives and write letters and stuff?


----------



## appleburger (Dec 17, 2021)

Zajumino said:


> At the end of the day, it depends on what people are willing to accept. The government does whatever they can get away with until people get angry. If we want to talk about what can be touched by government, then it depends on which government. In the case of the US, the constitutionality of mandates at the federal level is disputed.
> 
> 
> You do realize that (some) people vote for representatives and write letters and stuff?


Exactly.  And that's why I bring up those other examples.  When we compare the outcomes of a vaccine mandate to the other (very extreme, imo) ones that I just mentioned, I feel like ignorance of how vaccines work must be at play.  It's very difficult to imagine why else people would think these shots have more potential danger than going to a war that didn't even manage to kill half the amount of people COVID has.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 17, 2021)

appleburger said:


> I think you can make that same waterfall argument for many other mandates.  Not being able to drive can ruin lives, too - and that can easily be taken away.  Being sent to war sure as hell can be life threatening, too.  Even if you come back alive you may not have a job anymore.


That’s precisely why the draft was retired - nobody should be forced into combat unwillingly. Regarding the “right to drive” (no such right exists, you have a right to travel unimpeded, the means of travel are not specified), that’s more a matter of demonstrating qualifications rather than an outright restriction. You are more than welcome to learn how to drive and operate a motor vehicle on the road - the state doesn’t prevent you from doing so, it merely creates a structured system of measuring said qualifications. In fact, you can own a motor vehicle and have no idea how to operate it. By the same token, everybody should have the right to bear arms (worldwide, not just in America, but we don’t live in a perfect world), but that right is qualified - one needs to know how to operate a weapon in order to bear it. Moreover, the right to bear arms doesn’t equate the right to brandish a weapon in a purposefully threatening manner - that’s assault. These matters are nuanced.


> I do understand your point, but I don't think the gravity of it compares to other mandates we've gone through, and I think the reward for this greatly, greatly outweighs any decision we've had to make since World War II.  Again, we're dealing with deaths that outnumber three major wars combined.  That's not *made up.  *That's reality.


When you give your rights away, it doesn’t matter if you’ve lost an inch or a mile. The “reward” is subjective - it benefits *you* at the cost of another. I can think of a number of things that would benefit the world, not all of them would be to your liking - your rights guarantee that I won’t be able to step on you, even if I have the majority behind me.


> I'll give in a little, though - there are many different ways to mandate the vaccine.  Denying unemployment is not something I'd agree with, unless it's a job where you're working around a bunch of people physically.


Risk mitigation is up to the employer - they’re the ones who pay the pay checks and, in the event of unscheduled absences or sickness, bear the responsibility of filling in the blanks. That’s the employer’s risk management problem, it has nothing to do with the state. I have no problem with an employer requiring their employees to vaccinate, that is their prerogative and their business, in the metaphorical and literal sense. What I do have a problem with is the government strong-arming citizens.


> But, honestly, if you're in that situation - just get the damn shot.  It's safe.  We know it is.  That's not up for debate.  You are quite literally more likely to be killed by your house cat or bed sheets by mistake than the vaccine.  So my empathy for those that want to protect their "medical freedom" only goes so far.


People should take the shot at their earliest convenience, just not at the point of a gun.


> Like I said - we were cool with going to actual war, but are fighting a vaccine mandate with more fervor.  Doesn't add up to me.  I think there's way more ignorance at play here, even though I *do* see your point.  It's just not enough for me to overlook saving as many people as the mandate would.  So I'm on board with it.


You can shoot an enemy combatant, you can’t shoot a virus - one thing is easier to visualise than the other. That, and certain segments of the population are simply not threatened by the virus, statistically speaking. They’d have to take it out of sense of obligation to their fellow man, and threats don’t get those kinds of people on your side. I know some people who outright refuse to take the jab not because it’s unsafe, but because they’re being constantly berated to “convince them to take it”. A stupid form of protest, but not an incomprehensible one.


> The plane is crashing, and we need to land it.


No, we’re all flying individual planes, our bodies, and we’ve suffered a catastrophic failure of our navigation systems. Some of us will land with some outside help, others will glide to safety and some will crash. You can give people instructions in earnest from the tower, but you can’t grab their controls from behind - you’ll just cause a struggle and land in the nearest mountain, either due to confusion or out of spite.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 17, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> That’s precisely why the draft was retired - nobody should be forced into combat unwillingly. Regarding the “right to drive” (no such right exists, you have a right to travel unimpeded, the means of travel are not specified), that’s more a matter of demonstrating qualifications rather than an outright restriction. You are more than welcome to learn how to drive and operate a motor vehicle on the road - the state doesn’t prevent you from doing so, it merely creates a structured system of measuring said qualifications. In fact, you can own a motor vehicle and have no idea how to operate it. By the same token, everybody should have the right to bear arms (worldwide, not just in America, but we don’t live in a perfect world), but that right is qualified - one needs to know how to operate a weapon in order to bear it. Moreover, the right to bear arms doesn’t equate the right to brandish a weapon in a purposefully threatening manner - that’s assault. These matters are nuanced.
> When you give your rights away, it doesn’t matter if you’ve lost an inch or a mile. The “reward” is subjective - it benefits *you* at the cost of another. I can think of a number of things that would benefit the world, not all of them would be to your liking - your rights guarantee that I won’t be able to step on you, even if I have the majority behind me.
> Risk mitigation is up to the employer - they’re the ones who pay the pay checks and, in the event of unscheduled absences or sickness, bear the responsibility of filling in the blanks. That’s the employer’s risk management problem, it has nothing to do with the state. I have no problem with an employer requiring their employees to vaccinate, that is their prerogative and their business, in the metaphorical and literal sense. What I do have a problem is the government strong-arming citizens.
> People should take the shot at their earliest convenience, just not at the point of a gun.
> ...


Alright, I think we've boiled our sides down to a philosophical difference.  

So, the fat man trolley problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

I'm going to guess that you would *not* push the fat man, right? (or it might be a lever pull; there's different versions).  Because I'm on camp "push the fat man" or "push the lever".

I think this will address our fundamental difference, but I'm curious to see what you say.


----------



## smf (Dec 17, 2021)

Zajumino said:


> In the case of the US, the constitutionality of mandates at the federal level is disputed.


The constitutionality of all mandates is disputed, but that doesn't mean they are right.



Zajumino said:


> You do realize that (some) people vote for representatives and write letters and stuff?


What your representative already believes has more of a bearing than any letters they receive.  Of course they will talk about the letters and how important it is that they do what the voters want, if they agree with them. If they don't agree with them then good luck.

But the majority voted for the representative, usually you vote for the person with as many similar views as you do. So it kinda works out.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 18, 2021)

appleburger said:


> EDIT: Also thanks to @Foxi4 for being capable of having a debate and being able to use his brain - it's fun and a breath of fresh air


Thank you.

I am very fresh. 



appleburger said:


> Alright, I think we've boiled our sides down to a philosophical difference.
> 
> So, the fat man trolley problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
> 
> ...


I am technically not obligated to help anyone in this scenario. I would like to, because I am kind, and I might elect to do so, but I am not obligated to intervene, particularly not in an immoral way. The ends don’t justify the means - pushing the fatso is still murder, even if it saves more lives in totality. The fat man has the same right to life as anybody else in this scenario and, in the absence of a solution that would save everybody, I am not justified in taking his life. I might ask him if he’d care to sacrifice himself, but the onus is on him to make that sacrifice, it’s not my choice. Sorry guys, that trolley’s heading your way, and there’s nothing I can do about it.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 18, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I am technically not obligated to help anyone in this scenario. The ends don’t justify the means - pushing the fatso is still murder, even if it saves more lives in totality. The fat man has the same right to life as anybody else in this scenario and, in the absence of a solution that would save everybody, I am not justified in taking his life. Sorry guys, that trolley’s heading your way, and there’s nothing I can do about it.


Ah, bingo.  I thought you'd say something like that.  So, you and I have fundamentally different ways of weighing out what is and isn't ethical.  I feel like both options aren't ideal, but that the "best" outcome is the one that saves more lives.

But, this just highlights that when you can effectively communicate your point on an issue, you should be able to boil it down to a philisophical difference, which @Foxi4 and I have.  You did a good job of addressing everything I said, backing up your points, and using a logical argument rather than just picking a team and sticking to it no matter what. That shows good critical thinking.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 18, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Ah, bingo.  I thought you'd say something like that.  So, you and I have fundamentally different ways of weighing out what is and isn't ethical.  I feel like both options aren't ideal, but that the "best" outcome is the one that saves more lives.
> 
> But, this just highlights that when you can effectively communicate your point on an issue, you should be able to boil it down to a philisophical difference, which @Foxi4 and I have.  You did a good job of addressing everything I said, backing up your points, and using a logical argument rather than just picking a team and sticking to it no matter what. That shows good critical thinking.


That’s new. Is this still POLTemp? Am I on pod planet? Are you a pod person?

Jokes aside, I will say that I see a distinction between the pushing scenario and the lever scenario, even though it is very subtle.

I would be more keen on pulling the lever rather than pushing the man, the two scenarios are not alike, even though they seem the same on the surface, and even if the result is the same. I can rationalise one, but not the other. One has a justification, the other doesn’t, in my opinion. Let me explain.

In my eyes, the lever-pulling scenario is removed and dehumanised. I am the operator of a system and I must choose between the death of one versus the death of many. As the person responsible for the system, the operator of the lever, it is encumbent on me to save as many as I can. All the people on the tracks are *actively in harm’s way* - they’re on the tracks, a restricted area, and they shouldn’t be. In a manner of speaking, they’ve chosen their fate and risk was accepted, or forced upon them. At some point they themselves, or a third party, put them in harm’s way, and I am not responsible for that. I am only responsible for making a decision, and as the operator the decision I make should be saving more lives rather than less - we’ll call it the mantle of responsibility, because I’m playing Halo right now and it’s a cool way to put it.

In the pushing scenario *I* am the one pushing the innocent person in harm’s way. I am moving a man from a position of perfect safety to a position of risk, certain death even. That’s murder - causing the death of another, intentionally, by assaulting them. The man didn’t choose to be on the tracks, I’m putting him on the tracks because sacrificing him will lead to what I consider the greater good at that moment.

The first scenario concerns casualties, which is still death, but unintentional. The latter concerns murder, the intentional taking of a life. It’s a very subtle difference, and not everyone will agree that this difference even exists since the second track, without my intervention, cannot be reached by the trolley, but it is a track nonetheless - an area where a trolley *may* travel across. The danger is there, regardless of my actions. The station’s edge is *not* the track, it is safe - the person making it unsafe would be me.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 18, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> That’s new. Is this still POLTemp? Am I on pod planet? Are you a pod person?
> 
> Jokes aside, I will say that I see a distinction between the pushing scenario and the lever scenario, even though it is very subtle.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I agree - and that's why I usually bring this up with the pushing version, rather than the lever.  Most people I've talked to about this that take your side mention something similar, where pushing is a direct murder and that goes against their values.  The other answer I often get is that they should let fate decide, and that by interfering with murder, they are trampling on fate.

For me it's a "lesser of two evils" where I go for the most desirable outcome, and I have no reason to believe that fate is something that actually exists, so that's not an issue for me, personally.  The question for me does require that I have no idea why the people are on the cart - all I know is that I can save them by killing the fat guy.  And with that knowledge, in this hypothetical scenario, I take the push.

Lol, was that a Body snatchers reference?


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 18, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Yeah, I agree - and that's why I usually bring this up with the pushing version, rather than the lever.  Most people I've talked to about this that take your side mention something similar, where pushing is a direct murder and that goes against their values.  The other answer I often get is that they should let fate decide, and that by interfering with murder, they are trampling on fate.
> 
> For me it's a "lesser of two evils" where I go for the most desirable outcome, and I have no reason to believe that fate is something that actually exists, so that's not an issue for me, personally.  The question for me does require that I have no idea why the people are on the cart - all I know is that I can save them by killing the fat guy.  And with that knowledge, in this hypothetical scenario, I take the push.
> 
> Lol, was that a Body snatchers reference?


It wasn’t, but I’ll take it.  Be very careful with your line of thinking - sacrificing a few for the good of the many has filled a good couple of (mass) graves in the past, and has never led to anything good. Remember, once you push your first fat man, everyone looks like they could lose 20lbs. Accepting the role of judge and executioner can turn real nasty real quick. When you’re fighting monsters, be careful not to become a monster yourself.

EDIT: Oh, you mean pod people? Yes, that is a body snatchers reference.  Don’t mind me, it’s late, and it’s been a long day. I thought you meant “I am the danger”.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 18, 2021)

I love that people are still referencing the trolley dilemma and still considering themselves as "oh, so deep."  What extraneous circumstances led you into the the convoluted situation of playing god in the first place?  Maybe you are already morally complicit in allowing the situation to happen.  Maybe you should stay indoors and watch more sitcoms instead.  Wouldn't want to stumble into a trolley dilemma--or wait, it does appear you do.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 18, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I love that people are still referencing the trolley dilemma and still considering themselves as "oh, so deep."  What extraneous circumstances led you into the the convoluted situation of playing god in the first place?  Maybe you are already morally complicit in allowing the situation to happen.  Maybe you should stay indoors and watch more sitcoms instead.  Wouldn't want to stumble into a trolley dilemma--or wait, it does appear you do.


Nobody said they considered themselves deep - we were getting to the bottom of our disagreement.  That's the entire point of the dilemma.  Not sure why your dumb ass thinks it's a tool to look smart, mr. "I find words interesting".

Again, fuck off with your holier-than though attitude.  You're an asshole and we don't want to play with you anymore.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 18, 2021)

Right back at you, corndog.  Let us know when you find the bottom.


----------



## appleburger (Dec 18, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Right back at you, corndog.  Let us know when you find the bottom.


Yeah, if you haven't noticed I'm in here having conversations and you've only served to come in and throw insults without directly addressing anything.  You know, the whole purpose of a forum.

The whole reason I brought up the trolley dilemma is because it's something we all go over in middle school, so it's a pretty simple and easy way to see where somebody stands on their values.  And you're over here like "er meh gerd, people think that's deep", like what?  Why on earth do you think anyone finds that a "sooper deep" topic?  lmao.  Meanwhile you literally tried to sound smart with your "I find werds interesting" comment.  That's gold, dude.  

Same goes to you regarding your "finding the bottom" comment.  I'm having fun at this point.  But you're clearly also invested - look at your comment history.  Don't act like I'm the only one participating in this circus act.

It's like you handed me a claymore and then started swinging at me with a butter knife.  Too easy, my friend...


----------



## MadonnaProject (Dec 18, 2021)

appleburger said:


> I think that's a bit black & white thinking.  "Force" vs. "no force" is a gross oversimplification.
> 
> Mandates are not a new concept.  I feel like your comments are beginning to lean towards anarchy, which I can't see benefiting us very well.  Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
> 
> ...


No.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Dec 18, 2021)

smf said:


> https://www.npr.org/sections/health...dy-suggests-but-boosters-help?t=1639781856196
> 
> The oxford vaccine is not used as a booster in the UK, only moderna and pfizer are being used. Which is kinda embarrassing for the government, so I believe they are doing it based on science.


You read this particular paper right? It echoes what I said.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Dec 18, 2021)

smf said:


> You're confused. You assume that because it doesn't seem obvious to you, that it couldn't be true.
> I heard a good scientific explanation of it the other day and it made sense to me.
> 
> They know, you don't know.


"They" being your cousins? friends? "The scientists"? Harkening to some abstract authority to prove one's point is cluthing at straws.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Dec 18, 2021)

Lacius said:


> https://www.who.int/news-room/event...vading-immunity-and-what-are-the-implications
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/12/15/world/covid-omicron-vaccines
> 
> ...


Someone googled research quickly.  BTW all the above links say what I said. Current vaccine boosters might help.

This is why indulging ignorant people is such a waste of time. I actually read the links you provided and it didn't move your argument in any way at all.

Furthermore you're so deluded in your own self righteousness and correctness you are utterly against the notion someone else might be right, if not, at least be allowed to their opinion.

The accepting benevolent left eh?

As I said, this is exactly, to the blueprint of how the nazi movement got going.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Dec 18, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Honestly, rights don't really exist, imo.  They're all privileges, and the US is no stranger to taking those away.  Patriot Act, slavery and imprisoning Japanese americans all come to mind.  You can be drafted into a war where you're far more likely to be killed than you would by any medicine, as well.  These took/take place regardless of the rights people were said to have.
> 
> It's just American marketing, in my eyes.  But regardless of those semantics, vaccine mandates already exist for schools.  That's all small potatoes in the "rights" or "privilege" department.  And opting to not save lives in the vain of "freedom" is an easy target for calling people irresponsible, in my book.  It's only a matter of discussion due to how dangerous it is.
> 
> I think the freedom/rights/privilege angle is just a bunch of hot air when it comes to this argument.  People are free to feel it's not *fair* - but having a right?  Yeah, that doesn't mean much in this context.  There are a lot of people dying, and the collective best minds we have agree that vaccinating will save many lives.  Due to there being enough stupid people to hinder this, I don't blame folks for arguing for a mandate that will save lives.  I don't think it will be a foot in the door for total authoritarianism like some people seem to be fantasizing about.


ABSOLUTELY. These people think they're entitled to rights by birth. Well, if the government doesn't deem those freedoms to be a right then who will you go and complain to? God? Come on.

Just an utter delusion of how the world works.

You are so correct. Amerian markering, american delusion, american ignorance, american mediocrity.

As I said before, I have traveled most of the globe, extensively. Its been a blessing and a harsh eye opener. Nowhere would you hear the unoppressed complain about being oppressed as much as america and west. Nowhere would you see the most morally corrupt and criminal, as in the USA and now europe (mostly influenced by "black culture" the corruption of which is widely accepted if not promoted by the left - simply for one reason, votes).

These people simply do not understand the shockingly harsh reality we live in, but it would be a huge task asking them to see reality when they can't see beyond their own noses.

Freedoms. Right to pursuit of happiness. Hahahahahaha what bullshit.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 18, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Yeah, if you haven't noticed I'm in here having conversations and you've only served to come in and throw insults without directly addressing anything.  You know, the whole purpose of a forum.
> 
> The whole reason I brought up the trolley dilemma is because it's something we all go over in middle school, so it's a pretty simple and easy way to see where somebody stands on their values.  And you're over here like "er meh gerd, people think that's deep", like what?  Why on earth do you think anyone finds that a "sooper deep" topic?  lmao.  Meanwhile you literally tried to sound smart with your "I find werds interesting" comment.  That's gold, dude.
> 
> ...


You say insults, I say critique--which wasn't without compliment, btw.  Your short essay and awkward analogy underpin that idiocy I've attempted to point out.


----------



## stanna (Dec 18, 2021)

https://www.banned.video/watch?id=61ba373c666e7e21ac4ceadd


Try telling sergio agüero the vaccine is safe, he can't play football anymore it's fucked his heart up.


----------



## smf (Dec 18, 2021)

stanna said:


> Try telling sergio agüero the vaccine is safe, he can't play football anymore it's fucked his heart up.


Nothing is 100% safe, you can't live your life in fear about rare accidents.

More people die crossing the road every year than have died from vaccination, yet anti vaxxers still cross the road.
More people die from covid in a year because they haven't been vaccinated, than have died from vaccination.

So I find the argument rather disingenuous.


----------



## smf (Dec 18, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> Someone googled research quickly.  BTW all the above links say what I said. Current vaccine boosters might help.


No, the research is that current vaccine boosters do help.

You argued that they hoped that they hoped boosters helped but nobody knew, which is incorrect.


----------



## smf (Dec 18, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> "They" being your cousins? friends? "The scientists"? Harkening to some abstract authority to prove one's point is cluthing at straws.


"They" being the people you mentioned.

"Not the labs, not the specialists not the experts. They are just saying get the third jab in hopes to "boost" your immune system a notch so that it MIGHT be effective."

You appear to have forgotten that you also used the word "they". Your triggered outburst was quite funny though.



MadonnaProject said:


> You read this particular paper right? It echoes what I said.



No, it's the opposite of what you said. Either you don't want to admit you're wrong, or you can't understand what words mean and so can't see that you're wrong. I'm not interested in helping someone rude figure out which it is, if you were more polite then I would.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 18, 2021)

smf said:


> Nothing is 100% safe, you can't live your life in fear about rare accidents.
> 
> More people die crossing the road every year than have died from vaccination, yet anti vaxxers still cross the road.
> More people die from covid in a year because they haven't been vaccinated, than have died from vaccination.
> ...


Actually, it's a great argument in the face of mandates. That should be rather obvious.


----------



## smf (Dec 18, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> Actually, it's a great argument in the face of mandates. That should be rather obvious.


Not really.

Children can die at school, but are mandated to be there because the risk of them dying is small compared to the risk of large numbers of uneducated children. You can't avoid being fined for not sending your child to school, by pointing out a death of a child in another country.

Saying something is a great argument or obvious, doesn't make it a great argument or obvious. It just means you agree with it, but that has no value as the majority of people in austria support mandatory vaccines.

If you have an argument why they are wrong then feel free to put it forward.

It's not even a new thing to have mandatory vaccines. https://navigator.health.org.uk/theme/united-kingdom-vaccination-act-1853

It's a desperate measure, much like drafting men into the armed services. The reason why there will never be another draft is not because of the moral implications but because we are unlikely to ever have an armed conflict that requires large numbers of infantry. It ended because it was no longer deemed necessary, it would definitely happen again if the circumstances required it.

Nobody ever thought our freedom would be curtailed with a lockdown, until it was necessary.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Dec 18, 2021)

smf said:


> "They" being the people you mentioned.
> 
> "Not the labs, not the specialists not the experts. They are just saying get the third jab in hopes to "boost" your immune system a notch so that it MIGHT be effective."
> 
> ...


Do you even know how research works? How on earth could they demonstrably, statistically, categorically conclude the current vaccines help against the new variant when the new variant has been out a few weeks to month.

Go ahead, educate me, I dare you. Answer this question - if the current vaccines were effective, then why would people who already have two loads of antibodies in their system need yet another jab "top up" to counter the new variant? Would the original premise not be that top ups are needed as the orignal two jabs are NOT EFFECTIVE? So something is not effective, and you keep on overdosing on it expecting it to be effective. Do you know what the definitition of madness is?

Right? Wrong? I thought this wasn't about winning. As for calling me names, psychoanalysing me, notice I haven't made it personal and done the same to you?

Its called coming from a higher ground and a place of maturity.

Yeah I don't understand what words mean. Bleaargh waaehgh nadfhe geeeaaahhh.

*massive eyeroll*


----------



## MadonnaProject (Dec 18, 2021)

appleburger said:


> Yeah, if you haven't noticed I'm in here having conversations and you've only served to come in and throw insults without directly addressing anything.  You know, the whole purpose of a forum.
> 
> The whole reason I brought up the trolley dilemma is because it's something we all go over in middle school, so it's a pretty simple and easy way to see where somebody stands on their values.  And you're over here like "er meh gerd, people think that's deep", like what?  Why on earth do you think anyone finds that a "sooper deep" topic?  lmao.  Meanwhile you literally tried to sound smart with your "I find werds interesting" comment.  That's gold, dude.
> 
> ...


Hahahahahah. Done with class. I think you're fighting a pointless battle here though. Ask yourself, do you really want to argue with someone from china, or moreso someone using a VPN pretending to be from china?


----------



## smf (Dec 18, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> Do you even know how research works? How on earth could they demonstrably, statistically, categorically conclude the current vaccines help against the new variant when the new variant has been out a few weeks to month.
> 
> Go ahead, educate me, I dare you. Answer this question - if the current vaccines were effective, then why would people who already have two loads of antibodies in their system need yet another jab "top up" to counter the new variant?


It appears you don't know how research works

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59639973

I'm not interested in educating someone so rude & arrogant, you'd be a nightmare student. That took two minutes to google, if you don't believe it then go through medical school, attain the same level of qualifications as the people quoted & perform the same studies that they did. Then contribute to the research, rather than asking stupid questions on a gaming forum.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 18, 2021)

smf said:


> Not really.
> 
> Children can die at school, but are mandated to be there because the risk of them dying is small compared to the risk of large numbers of uneducated children. You can't avoid being fined for not sending your child to school, by pointing out a death of a child in another country.
> 
> ...


I said Sergio Aguero was a great argument, but if you're going to dismiss that then there's really no point. I also think your crossing the road analogy was disingenuous since it's not mandatory and there are no invisible cars so I guess we're at a stalemate.


----------



## smf (Dec 18, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> I said Sergio Aguero was a great argument, but if you're going to dismiss that then there's really no point. I also think your crossing the road analogy was disingenuous since it's not mandatory and there are no invisible cars so I guess we're at a stalemate.


Why does it being mandatory make a difference? The people who have refused to be vaccinated have done so while it was not mandatory. My point is that have a poor ability to assess risk, not whether taking the risk is mandatory or not.

Your invisible car argument is irrelevant, the evidence is that pedestrians get hit by cars. I'm sure that the majority are not done on purpose therefore in most cases neither saw each other despite neither of them being invisible.

I know you are saying Sergio Aguero was a great argument, I'm saying that it's not a great argument & gave the analogy of it being mandatory for children to go to school despite the risk of dying on the way to school or at school (which you then ignored) & pointed out that vaccination has less risk than contracting covid without being vaccinated (which you also ignored). 

You haven't given any new argument about why Sergio Aguero is a better argument, so we aren't at stalemate. You have merely refused to offer anything to back up your statement & instead just blindly restated your position.

If you could give a reason why you think Sergio Aguero is a great argument, then please go ahead.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 18, 2021)

smf said:


> Why does it being mandatory make a difference? The people who have refused to be vaccinated have done so while it was not mandatory. My point is that have a poor ability to assess risk, not whether taking the risk is mandatory or not.
> 
> Your invisible car argument is irrelevant, the evidence is that pedestrians get hit by cars. I'm sure that the majority are not done on purpose therefore in most cases neither saw each other despite neither of them being invisible.


It's relevant in the context of mandates, because the person it not being pushed into the road to save the lives of those around them.



smf said:


> I know you are saying Sergio Aguero was a great argument, I'm saying that it's not a great argument & gave the analogy of it being mandatory for children to go to school despite the risk of dying on the way to school or at school (which you then ignored). You haven't given any new argument about why Sergio Aguero is a better argument, so we aren't at stalemate. You have merely refused to offer anything to back up your statement & instead just blindly restated your position.
> 
> If you could give a reason why you think Sergio Aguero is a great argument, then please go ahead.


Of course someone who is in favour of mandates will need to quickly dismiss a case like Sergio Aguero as it's not only a perfect example of why people are concerned or hesitant, but also of why any medical procedure should require consent and not be mandated. You're not really going off script by downplaying it,

Who is liable for his loss of earnings now? It's not the vaccine manufacturers because they have an exemption. I'm not saying we should feel bad for the millionaire but I'm sure there are people in less fortunate situations with similar outcomes.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Dec 18, 2021)

smf said:


> It appears you don't know how research works
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59639973
> 
> I'm not interested in educating someone so rude & arrogant, you'd be a nightmare student. That took two minutes to google, if you don't believe it then go through medical school, attain the same level of qualifications as the people quoted & perform the same studies that they did. Then contribute to the research, rather than asking stupid questions on a gaming forum.


Spolier alert. I did go to medical school. You sad creature. Haha.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 18, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> Spolier alert. I did go to medical school. You sad creature. Haha.


If it was anything like mine then it's nothing to brag about as all we did was get wasted for 3 years and then walk around in a white coat for 18 months being made to look stupid by nurses and actual doctors.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Dec 18, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> If it was anything like mine then it's nothing to brag about as all we did was get wasted for 3 years and then walk around in a white coat for 18 months being made to look stupid by nurses and actual doctors.


Whose bragging? It was alright.

I didn't get wasted though, as I don't smoke, never have, never done any drugs, it's not my thing. I do have the occasional cider but half a bottle and I am anybody's.


----------



## smf (Dec 18, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> Spolier alert. I did go to medical school. You sad creature. Haha.


I'd ask for a refund. You clearly learned nothing there.

Or you're lying, which is more likely based on your previous posts.

Either way, you give off a general lack of knowledge on the subject. Run along now.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Dec 18, 2021)

smf said:


> I'd ask for a refund. You clearly learned nothing there.
> 
> Or you're lying, which is more likely.


Girl, bye.


----------



## AlexMCS (Dec 18, 2021)

smf said:


> go through medical school, attain the same level of qualifications as the people quoted & perform the same studies that they did. Then contribute to the research, rather than asking stupid questions on a gaming forum.



Just as an addendum, you need no medical knowledge whatsoever to do research regarding vaccine or treatment effectiveness.
You do need *a lot* of statistical knowledge (and many researchers in all fields aren't that good at it), since that is the basis for any conclusion regarding unclear outcomes.

A physician would only be possibly required to attest whether there was an improvement or not, and only in cases it wasn't glaringly obvious.

We currently have AI systems producing better diagnosis than most human physicians.

If not for the social aspect of it, the medical field would have been replaced by bots already in places that can afford their usage.

BTW, that's my current area of research: computing/AI applied to the medical field, focusing on early disease detection, security and data privacy.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 18, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> Someone googled research quickly.  BTW all the above links say what I said. Current vaccine boosters might help.


If you had read my post, you would have seen my entire point was about the boosters.



Lacius said:


> Studies have shown that having a vaccine booster offers significant protection against the omicron variant.


----------



## smf (Dec 18, 2021)

AlexMCS said:


> Just as an addendum, you need no medical knowledge whatsoever to do research regarding vaccine or treatment effectiveness.


Collecting the data & checking that the analysis was valid would require some.

But sure, AI (and even pigeons) are more effective than humans at analyzing data.


----------



## smf (Dec 18, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


> Girl, bye.


I am glad you've given up, I don't have time to deal with such levels of wrongness.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Dec 18, 2021)

smf said:


> I am glad you've given up, I don't have time to deal with such levels of wrongness.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 18, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I love that people are still referencing the trolley dilemma and still considering themselves as "oh, so deep."  What extraneous circumstances led you into the the convoluted situation of playing god in the first place?  Maybe you are already morally complicit in allowing the situation to happen.  Maybe you should stay indoors and watch more sitcoms instead.  Wouldn't want to stumble into a trolley dilemma--or wait, it does appear you do.


Hey, speak for yourself, I enjoyed it. It’s better than talking about communism again. Anything is better than communism again, including (but not limited to) a lobotomy.


----------



## smf (Dec 18, 2021)

MadonnaProject said:


>


oh no, not emoji's. Only really clever people communicate with emoji's, you must be right about everything

ps. this is sarcasm.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Dec 18, 2021)

smf said:


> oh no, not emoji's. Only really clever people communicate with emoji's, you must be right about everything
> 
> ps. this is sarcasm.


----------



## DoubleDate (Dec 18, 2021)

All the people nitpicking here about the vaccine Yet when they feel sick they go to the doctor to be attended to. People are waay over thinking this with the idea the governemnt put something in the vaccine to annihilate people. If that was the case, they (Government) would say yeah screw them no vaccine, people will still moan about it. If the government wants to kill people all they have to do is release a far more deadly virus in the atmosphere and we will drop like flies. All those conspiracy stuff is not helping. Now we havea  Omikron, a variant and the chance of another one developing is there since people will not get vaccinated, giving the virus the chance to get more resistant to the new vaccines. If we all just followed the rules we wouldn't havent had so many variants. Now we have a new Lockdown here in The Netherlands People will get a vaccine boost but things will repeat itself again. Unless we all are one, this virus will keep going on for a few years im afraid. People dont think about the consequences what it can bring to others. Yeah your choice not to get vaccinated, but you are also signing a death sentence to people who are less resistant. I pray that a far more deathly virus doesnt find the surface cuz it will not look good.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 18, 2021)

DoubleDate said:


> If we all just followed the rules..


..then none of us would be on a forum like this in the first place.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 18, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> ..then none of us would be on a forum like this in the first place.


I'm an honorable law-abiding citizen who would never do anything wrong.


----------



## linuxares (Dec 19, 2021)

Okey, y'all need to fucking shill.


----------



## SaberLilly (Dec 19, 2021)

As someone in the US who lives with an elderly person more susceptible to illness, I can't help but agree with the mandate. The world is on its 2nd covid mutation and if governments maintain a "hands off" approach, then this isn't going to slow down and we need to get people vaccinated to stop it from spreading. 
On the topic of "my body, my choice" i can see why people wouldn't want to get the vacciene, but when people use claims like "oh the government just wants to track me using their microchips" or "oh I'll get autism from it" those kind of people won't get much sympathy from me if they were to catch it.


----------



## smf (Dec 19, 2021)

SaberLilly said:


> "oh the government just wants to track me using their microchips" or "oh I'll get autism from it" those kind of people won't get much sympathy from me if they were to catch it.


And they are unlikely to give you any sympathy if they wanted to impose something on you either.

The people who have those kinds of views tend to have quite extreme views on how to treat immigrants, unemployed, non binary, addicts etc etc.


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 19, 2021)

linuxares said:


> Okey, y'all need to fucking shill.


What are you selling that you want us to shill?


----------



## linuxares (Dec 19, 2021)

subcon959 said:


> What are you selling that you want us to shill?


A hammer


----------



## tabzer (Dec 19, 2021)

If you don't buy this hammer, you are a racist.


----------



## linuxares (Dec 20, 2021)

Let's just put this thread out of its misery


----------

