Covid-19 vaccine

Deleted User · Jul 27, 2021

x65943 said:
Will you get the covid vaccine? And if so, which one - the RNA vaccine or the traditional one?

I'm scheduled to get the pfizer one soon. There have been very few reports of anaphylaxis so far, but it has been managed effectively with epinephrine.

What are your thoughts?

I already had Covid, so I will not be getting vaccinated. I'm ~40, so symptoms were pretty mild, but ill never forget not being able to move waking up two days in a row.

Would take the 'traditional' one if it weren't pulled for side effects. But I think the rra one is arrogance to some degree - never before done.. scientists think they can program the body to respond to something as well as it can natrually. Like the gain of function research that seemingly got us here to start with. This is stuff we should not be playing with period (ref GoF).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

jimbo13 said:
"The U.S. government has issued a ‘vaccine mandate’ for over 100,000 workers that are employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The mandate was reported by the New York Times. The vaccine mandate will apply to workers who are “the most patient-facing,” McDonough said, including ‘doctors, dentists, registered nurses, physician assistants and some specialists.’"

https://trendingpolitics.com/breaki...andate-that-impacts-over-100000-workers-knab/

And no one asks why so many trained medical professionals, many formerly military who are accustomed to a heavy vax schedule are declining in numbers to the degree it would require a mandate?

Amen, good points. I don't think anyone should be forced anything - and the messaging / ads are absolutely awful as to why you should get vaccinated, especially for young people. "BC I want to go to the dance at school", one youth says. That is the constant theme.

Regaining freedom - promised to us by God as humans in the Bill of Rights, is not a valid reason to make a health decision period.

jimbo13 · Jul 27, 2021

FLOOR ALERT: @HouseDemocrats blocked @HouseGOP requests to declassify intelligence on the origins of COVID-19 & #ChineseCommunistParty's subsequent cover-up. The Senate UNANIMOUSLY passed the bill 5⃣5⃣ days ago...what is the Speaker afraid of? #HoldChinaAccountable pic.twitter.com/uOzbadQ41q
— House Rules Committee (@RulesReps) July 20, 2021

Just the latest in a lack of transparency and honesty in the government leading to distrust of vaccines.

djpannda · Jul 27, 2021

lol even Trump Mouthpiece is saying everyone should get the Vaccine
Sarah Sanders urges taking the ‘Trump vaccine’ to combat low vaccination rates

Lacius · Jul 27, 2021

jimbo13 said:
https://twitter.com/RulesReps/status/1417572027578429440

Just the latest in a lack of transparency and honesty in the government leading to distrust of vaccines.

I can't find any evidence this even happened.

Also, the virus is either worth taking seriously or it isn't. Pick a side.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

eastwald said:
I already had Covid, so I will not be getting vaccinated. I'm ~40, so symptoms were pretty mild, but ill never forget not being able to move waking up two days in a row.

Would take the 'traditional' one if it weren't pulled for side effects. But I think the rra one is arrogance to some degree - never before done.. scientists think they can program the body to respond to something as well as it can natrually. Like the gain of function research that seemingly got us here to start with. This is stuff we should not be playing with period (ref GoF).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Amen, good points. I don't think anyone should be forced anything - and the messaging / ads are absolutely awful as to why you should get vaccinated, especially for young people. "BC I want to go to the dance at school", one youth says. That is the constant theme.

Regaining freedom - promised to us by God as humans in the Bill of Rights, is not a valid reason to make a health decision period.

It is recommended that people who have recovered from COVID-19 also get vaccinated. We don't know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID-19, and studies show the vaccine confers even more protection if you already had the disease vs. if you get vaccinated and didn't already have the disease.

djpannda · Jul 27, 2021

Lacius said:
I can't find any evidence this even happened.

Also, the virus is either worth taking seriously or it isn't. Pick a side.

LOL They really are a joke!
Before 1/20 - COVID is fake, nothing but a small Cold. Your making a big deal out of nothing!!
After 1/20- COVID is CHINESE BIO-Weapon created to KILL Americans!! OMG the CARNAGE OF THE CPP Covid!!!!

Dakitten · Jul 27, 2021

Foxi4 said:
I'm an excellent singer. I simply don't like blanket statements.
Of course it's preliminary - it was published 2 months ago. I only said it twice now - third time lucky.
You have no evidence of that. The last time the media propped up a story about someone munching on aquarium cleaner it turned out to be a homicide. As it stands, the latest FDA guidance only permits use of HCQ and CQ in hospital settings where clinical trials are available, so test cohorts are going to be small due to the revoked EUA. Point being, you don't know what it does, neither do I, and claiming otherwise silly.
Dr.Fauci is a duly appointed Chief Medical Advisor and the COVID team lead, he is de facto a government mouthpiece in all matters regarding COVID. He also did not mince words in his response to the NYT - he revised the proposed figure based on a change in polls, not new emerging evidence. If you want to argue the finer details of his statement, you'll have to argue with him, not me. Me calling him a liar is my opinion, it is subjective and based upon the fact that he demonstrably mislead the population in regards to the minimum required vaccination levels to reach herd immunity, among other things. You are welcome to disagree with that assessment, but nothing you've said so far invalidates it. I'm sorry that his mask slipped in a moment of weakness, but you are not required to mount a defense for him - he can do that himself when asked.
Both SNL and TDS are comedy entertainment. In the case of SNL it's pure comedy, in the case of TDS it's satirical news. I specifically brought up the comparison because you mentioned Crowder, who fits in the same bracket. You shouldn't draw your information from any of these shows - the only thing you can get out of SNL is cancer, the only thing you can get out of Crowder is cringe, the only thing you can get out of TDS is mild amusement from watching Trevor Noah cry on national television. I wouldn't treat any of these shows as a reliable source, you're the one who threw the first punch in regards to this kind of nonsense.

Back down the numbers~

1) The study you linked wasn't just preliminary, it was highly questionable and quickly scrutinized. It literally does nothing but prop up a probable coincidence using methods that prove nothing and documentation that is sketchy at parts. It is literally nothing... which is why when Donald Trump praised it on national news several times, people hurt themselves with the substance (which was promptly pounced on by media outlets and is pretty easy to google) and the rest of the world and its medical professionals dropped their heads in collective shame. Kinda like some people might do when reading your replies!

2) Fauci is a scientist and director with the NIAID who was chosen by every president on either side for decades to advise them regarding diseases, he has an assumed position because of his experience and aptitude while still holding his original job title. As such, he is not beholden to the government as part of his career, he serves at his own whims and in a largely advisory role. You can hold the "opinion" that he is a liar, but that is fallacious because at least insofar as how you've framed him, he hasn't lied. I can't say the same for you in turn, though, so...

3) Comedy comes in many forms. Some people use mockery of the news, some people gather news and mock it. There is a difference there, and while you seemed to presume one might use either as their primary source of news, one of them actually can at least give a taste of current events, even with a heavy bias. Still, if you want to compare Trevor Noah to Steven Crowder or Tucker Carlson, by all means! I've yet to see Trevor back untested garbage theories like the other two.

4) Ah, Jimbo, every time I think you're done spewing feces from your faceholes, you come back~ Having served and working with the VA on a few occasions after returning to civilian life, I can tell you that they hire a VERY diverse group of folk. They take in a lot of people from poor communities that tend to spring up around military bases and VA buildings, and veterans who were not affiliated with the medical field at all for tasks such as IT, coding, clerks, security, etc. They all get to work in big multi-building spanning VAs, which means a mandate spreads out to more than just recently discharged and highly educated medical professionals. Nice try though, thanks for playing.

5) Eastwald, your white christian privilege shines through yet again. You have the right to not take the jab, but regardless on if you think Jesus came to you in a dream and creamed your blood with immunity juice or not, you don't have the right to demand folk tolerate your unvaccinated presence anywhere you care to go. Sorry, dear, take it up with your maker for not making it clear enough for you.

Foxi4 · Jul 27, 2021

Dakitten said:
Back down the numbers~

1) The study you linked wasn't just preliminary, it was highly questionable and quickly scrutinized. It literally does nothing but prop up a probable coincidence using methods that prove nothing and documentation that is sketchy at parts. It is literally nothing... which is why when Donald Trump praised it on national news several times, people hurt themselves with the substance (which was promptly pounced on by media outlets and is pretty easy to google) and the rest of the world and its medical professionals dropped their heads in collective shame. Kinda like some people might do when reading your replies!

This statement is evidence-free. 200% is not probable coincidence - either it's a huge error (which should be easy to point out) or a relevant factor. Can you name who hurt themselves with the substance? I can only think of one story which, in the end, turned out to be a suspected homicide by means of poisoning, not an attempt at self-medication. Not that it matters since nobody advocates self-medicating with substances they don't understand.

2) Fauci is a scientist and director with the NIAID who was chosen by every president on either side for decades to advise them regarding diseases, he has an assumed position because of his experience and aptitude while still holding his original job title. As such, he is not beholden to the government as part of his career, he serves at his own whims and in a largely advisory role. You can hold the "opinion" that he is a liar, but that is fallacious because at least insofar as how you've framed him, he hasn't lied. I can't say the same for you in turn, though, so...

He is a government mouthpiece by the virtue of his position alone. He did lie - fudging stats based on nothing is a lie. Not disclosing to the public that the figure is actually unknown and can only be estimated based on educated guesses is a lie by omission. As for you saying things about me, have at it - I've heard worse.

3) Comedy comes in many forms. Some people use mockery of the news, some people gather news and mock it. There is a difference there, and while you seemed to presume one might use either as their primary source of news, one of them actually can at least give a taste of current events, even with a heavy bias. Still, if you want to compare Trevor Noah to Steven Crowder or Tucker Carlson, by all means! I've yet to see Trevor back untested garbage theories like the other two.

Trevor Noah is a shit comedian (which is why his show is on a "summer hiatus") who backs untested theories, particularly conspiracy theories, routinely and on air. There is nothing worthwhile you can draw from The Daily Show, it's purely an entertainment product with a political spin. He explicitly stated on national TV that the U.S. police is specifically trained to kill black people, I quote:

We’re not dealing with bad apples, we’re dealing with a rotten tree that happens to grow good apples, but for the most part the tree that was planted is bearing the fruit that it was intended to.

In Trevor Noah's mind police officers go out on duty with the express intent to murder citizens and the few "good apples" that don't are an exception from the rule. Good show, good show. Of course you're welcome to have a different opinion on his work, you can't account for taste, but I'd rather watch paint dry.

Lacius · Jul 27, 2021

Foxi4 said:
This statement is evidence-free. 200% is not probable coincidence - either it's a huge error (which should be easy to point out) or a relevant factor. Can you name who hurt themselves with the substance? I can only think of one story which, in the end, turned out to be a suspected homicide by means of poisoning, not an attempt at self-medication. Not that it matters since nobody advocates self-medicating with substances they don't understand.
He is a government mouthpiece by the virtue of his position alone. He did lie - fudging stats based on nothing is a lie. Not disclosing to the public that the figure is actually unknown and can only be estimated based on educated guesses is a lie by omission. As for you saying things about me, have at it - I've heard worse.
Trevor Noah is a shit comedian (which is why his show is on a "summer hiatus") who backs untested theories, particularly conspiracy theories, routinely and on air. There is nothing worthwhile you can draw from The Daily Show, it's purely an entertainment product with a political spin. He explicitly stated on national TV that the U.S. police is specifically trained to kill black people, I quote:
In Trevor Noah's mind police officers go out on duty with the express intent to murder citizens and the few "good apples" that don't are an exception from the rule. Good show, good show. Of course you're welcome to have a different opinion on his work, you can't account for taste, but I'd rather watch paint dry.

Acknowledging certain problems are demonstrably systemic by using a tree metaphor isn't the propagation of a conspiracy theory.

However, this is a topic best suited for a BLM thread.

Foxi4 · Jul 27, 2021

Lacius said:
Acknowledging certain problems are demonstrably systemic by using a tree metaphor isn't the propagation of a conspiracy theory.

However, this is a topic best suited for a BLM thread.

Multiple studies over the years have demonstrated that racial bias in policing does not exist - figures for arrests directly correlate with the level of criminality. Black people being arrested more often is not a result of them being black, it's a result of higher crime levels in their neighbourhoods. This problem is solved by stricter, not more lenient policing. When Trevor Noah says that the police is out there to get the black man, he's lying to his audience, or he actually believes that's the case, in which case he's dumb-dumb - you are correct though, thus discussion is more appropriate in the BLM thread.

Lacius · Jul 27, 2021

Foxi4 said:
Multiple studies over the years have demonstrated that racial bias in policing does not exist - figures for arrests directly correlate with the level of criminality. Black people being arrested more often is not a result of them being black, it's a result of higher crime levels in their neighbourhoods. This problem is solved by stricter, not more lenient policing. When Trevor Noah says that the police is out there to get the black man, he's lying to his audience, or he actually believes that's the case, in which case he's dumb-dumb - you are correct though, thus discussion is more appropriate in the BLM thread.

You should probably do more reading on the topic, since the overwhelming preponderance of research indicates there is extensive racial and ethnic discrimination by police and the judicial system.

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

Feel free to tag me in a relevant thread if you wish to continue the conversation.

Foxi4 · Jul 27, 2021

Lacius said:
You should probably do more reading on the topic, since the overwhelming preponderance of research indicates there is extensive racial and ethnic discrimination by police and the judicial system.

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

Feel free to tag me in a relevant thread if you wish to continue the conversation.

I don't need to. This is a false narrative, and always has been.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883

Dakitten · Jul 27, 2021

Foxi4 said:
I don't need to. This is a false narrative, and always has been.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883

And the header for the link is WSJ Opinion. Beyond fitting for somebody who can only seek out scraps of like mindedness from the web while filtering out any other relevant information.

Foxi4 · Jul 27, 2021

Dakitten said:
And the header for the link is WSJ Opinion. Beyond fitting for somebody who can only seek out scraps of like mindedness from the web while filtering out any other relevant information.

The article links to two studies, one published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and the other by the Justice Department. You can Google more fairly easily, I'm not your dad - you can find your own resources.

Lacius · Jul 27, 2021

Foxi4 said:
I don't need to. This is a false narrative, and always has been.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883

If you're going to insist on having the off-topic conversation about racial bias in policing here, you could at least provided a resource that wasn't behind a paywall. As for what I could read, this opinion piece from a news organization doesn't appear to be, nor does it appear to provide, an academic meta-analysis of the data. You can find some reputable academic research on the Wikipedia page I sent you, if you're actually interested in what the research has to say.

Curiously, did you pay to get around the paywall, do you not see the paywall, or did you copy/paste a link to an article that appeared to support your preconceived notion without actually reading it?

Foxi4 · Jul 27, 2021

Lacius said:
If you're going to insist on having the off-topic conversation about racial bias in policing here, you could at least provided a resource that wasn't behind a paywall. As for what I could read, this opinion piece from a news organization doesn't appear to be, nor does it appear to provide, an academic meta-analysis of the data. You can find some reputable academic research on the Wikipedia page I sent you, if you're actually interested in what the research has to say.

Curiously, did you pay to get around the paywall, do you not see the paywall, or did you copy/paste a link to an article that appeared to support your preconceived notion without actually reading it?

I'm not forcing you to respond - you're the one insisting on continuing the conversation. I've read the article, and the studies linked within - they're consistent with what I've read over the years, no big surprises. Areas affected by more crime require a stronger police presence, a stronger police presence generates more police encounters, more police encounters generate more arrests. Nothing new under the sun, nothing to do with race.

Edit: Courtesy links to the two studies for people incapable of bypassing a paywall:

https://www.phillypolice.com/assets/directives/cops-w0753-pub.pdf
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877

smf · Jul 27, 2021

WiiCurious said:
Seriously, the only reason to take a survey is to completely invalidate the data being collected. Why would anybody honestly answer a survey when they have no reason to answer truthfully?

Not everyone is a worthless piece of shit.

Are you seriously asking why would anyone honestly answer a survey, that could save lives?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

MMX said:
my my my, have you seen the number of Flu deaths going down last year? Obviously to save the lives of others we should wear Masks most of the time. btw, will you get the flu shot this year? it is irresponsible not to!

We possibly should wear masks, like they have done in asia for a while.

I have a flu shot when I'm able to get one, they've only just lowered the age you can get one in the UK.

Lacius · Jul 27, 2021

Foxi4 said:
I'm not forcing you to respond - you're the one insisting on continuing the conversation.

I acknowledged at the beginning of my participation in this topic of conversation that I thought the topic was off-topic, and I said it would appear to be better suited in another thread. If it was going to be a long conversation, I figured it'd be best to move elsewhere sooner rather than later. If you, as the moderator, choose to have the conversation here instead, I can only assume that means it's appropriate to have the conversation here. It is, after all, your responsibility. Under these circumstances, it makes no difference to me either way.

It also takes two for a conversation to continue. Please don't pretend I am any more or less insistent on continuing this conversation than you are.

Foxi4 said:
I've read the article, and the studies linked within - they're consistent with what I've read over the years, no big surprises. Areas affected by more crime require a stronger police presence, a stronger police presence generates more police encounters, more police encounters generate more arrests. Nothing new under the sun, nothing to do with race.

I can't read the entire article, and from what I saw, it included nothing more than basic crime numbers (i.e. no actual research on the topic of racial biases in policing). Real academic research on the topic is needed, since the basic crime numbers you're touting could also be true in a world where racial biases in policing in fact exist. We know, for example, that areas that are policed more have more police encounters and higher rates of crime. Is the latter true because there's more crime, is the latter true because a higher percentage of crime is caught, or is it a mix of the two? How does one account for the data that shows the demonstrable existence of racial profiling in apples-to-apples comparisons? New York's "stop and frisk" is a good example.

If you want to make your point and make it well, I would suggest providing academic research. The problem with that is the academic research doesn't appear to be on your side. Throwing out basic crime numbers isn't academic research on the topic; it's a (failed) attempt at trying to academic research in front of us.

Foxi4 · Jul 27, 2021

Lacius said:
I acknowledged at the beginning of my participation in this topic of conversation that I thought the topic was off-topic, and I said it would appear to be better suited in another thread. If it was going to be a long conversation, I figured it'd be best to move elsewhere sooner rather than later. If you, as the moderator, choose to have the conversation here instead, I can only assume that means it's appropriate to have the conversation here. It is, after all, your responsibility. Under these circumstances, it makes no difference to me either way.

It also takes two for a conversation to continue. Please don't pretend I am any more or less insistent on continuing this conversation than you are.

I can't read the entire article, and from what I saw, it included nothing more than basic crime numbers (i.e. no actual research on the topic of racial biases in policing). Real academic research on the topic is needed, since the basic crime numbers you're touting could also be true in a world where racial biases in policing in fact exist. We know, for example, that areas that are policed more have more police encounters and higher rates of crime. Is the latter true because there's more crime, is the latter true because a higher percentage of crime is caught, or is it a mix of the two? How does one account for the data that shows the demonstrable existence of racial profiling in apples-to-apples comparisons? New York's "stop and frisk" is a good example.

If you want to make your point and make it well, I would suggest providing academic research. The problem with that is the academic research doesn't appear to be on your side. Throwing out basic crime numbers isn't academic research on the topic; it's a (failed) attempt at trying to academic research in front of us.

See above. I posted some courtesy links from the piece. Not really interested in having the same conversation with you for the third time.

Lacius · Jul 27, 2021

Foxi4 said:
See above. I posted some courtesy links from the piece. Not really interested in having the same conversation with you for the third time.

The point of your first link, as it relates to the topic of racial bias in policing, was unclear to me. It may have been the source for data in the WSJ article that I either didn't see (because of the aforementioned paywall) or take no issue with. I didn't see anything about it that demonstrates racial biases in policing and justice don't exist, but I didn't read the whole thing.

As for the second link, the findings of the study were debunked by Princeton University scholars, who argued that the study's methodology and dataset made it impossible for the authors to reach the conclusion they reached. The authors of the original study issued a correction.

If you're going to (unfairly) criticize a comedian for spouting a conspiracy theory that's unsupported by evidence, my humble advice is that you also take care not to do the same thing.

Edit: as for not wanting to continue the conversation, that is fine. "I'm not forcing you to respond - you're the one insisting on continuing the conversation."

Deleted User · Jul 27, 2021

Lacius said:
I can't find any evidence this even happened.

It is recommended that people who have recovered from COVID-19 also get vaccinated. We don't know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID-19, and studies show the vaccine confers even more protection if you already had the disease vs. if you get vaccinated and didn't already have the disease.

"Pick a side! " Take the fuckin vaccine right meow stop asking questions or mentioning our constantly shifting standards, which any scientist who takes their job seriously wouldn't do! You can go to dances again! We'll let you have your rights back. Why isn't what 'we' think in any of the advertising as to why to take your vax? I'm healthy, not worried about 98.5% survival rate 'pandemic' - if the man who made the Polio vaccine had your standards, it'd never have been irradiated in the West and most of the world.

Our low-T comrades (search engine: dropping testosterones levels in men) will let you into buildings again! You can have your God given liberty back - until the next reason we find to take it again.

Didn't mention I've had it twice. Second time I had no very little ill effects. "We don't know how long you are protected", so just take it. Right. Meow. Take the shot. Hurry. Might need another booster every year, but uhhh what was I saying again? I'll be fine - you do you, I'll do me.

Are you a scientist like Fauci, who constantly moves goal posts - vaccine totally solves it broz - wait might need a booster - wear masks, don't, ok we lied to get our lot more medical grade masks - WHO said it was not transmissible then it was, let's keep funding them. Logical as scientific communities gender fluid biology crap. We will stunt your natural puberty until you figure out what sex you are. No ill effects for sure. If I held this standard to my line of work, Computer Science, our company would be disgraced and broke and rightfully so.

I bought n-95's in early March, you know when your side was busy with impeachment over legitimate concerns, lying to citizens about why they told us not to buy mask - read Fauci e-mails but I'm guessing, like my niece - a doctor at JHU, I know information like that physically hurts and you probably never read any of it. Her face turns red and she cannot process what to do next, because the logical answer is against her ideology. I was a liberal after Bush. Got us involved in a bunch of wars I thought Democrats were against. Then came Obama, drone strikes on weddings, Libya / Arab Spring, nothing changed.

t's pure conspiracy! Like New York Times and a bunch of other outlets and the Great Reset - right wing conspiracy. Crap, the IMF put it on their homepage. Oppsie., openly admitting we should never waste an incident like this advance leftist social ideology.

Covid was a called a wag the dog by many like yourself, since it was mentioned during Trump's first impeachment to distract the masses early on, my niece surely said so, and her lispy doctor friends all agreed. Trump cannot be right about anything. Well he was. He downplayed it later. But it's ok when the CDC/WHO changes their mind every few months, that is fine? You all said this vaccine was impossible, then they announced it , and you embrace it like a person akin to how someone on MDMA tells everyone they love them. Totally consistent / logical.

My former company consulted for the highly efficient government you praise so much in many areas of technology, and historically speaking, f you trust the government to be efficient and honest with you, you don't know history. The rot is unspeakably deep and money is dolled at insane levels to anyone involved in this system.

I know I'm wasting my time writing this - think I'll go outside. Traditional liberals loved debate in all areas of intellectual curiosity and I was one of them.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Foxi4 said:
See above. I posted some courtesy links from the piece. Not really interested in having the same conversation with you for the third time.

He posted links w/ UPDATED studies, see, constantly shifting goal posts in the new science! Embrace it, comrade!

It really is a waste of time arguing w/ any of these people, agree.

Covid-19 vaccine

Will you get the vaccine?

Yes

No

Deleted User

Guest

Terry Crews #1 Fan

GBAtemp's Pannda

Well-Known Member

GBAtemp's Pannda

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Deleted User

Guest

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum