• Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.

Covid-19 vaccine

Will you get the vaccine?

  • Yes

    Votes: 500 67.1%
  • No

    Votes: 245 32.9%

  • Total voters
    745
Status
Not open for further replies.

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,334
Country
United States
Only a point if you care about other people, I don't concern myself with others peoples choices and consequences because it's not my business.
You have to not concern yourself with the well being of others and the consequences of your actions when you're willfully increasing the odds of spreading a disease that's killing hundreds of Americans a day.

If you want to increase the odds of spreading disease, that's your right, but as long as we are on the same page that it's because you're unconcerned with the lives of others, so be it.

>provides source
>says it doesn't count
So that means I can disregard your and possible others "sources" if I don't agree with them huh? Gotcha.
I'm not disregarding your source. It's an important study. The problem is it doesn't demonstrate what you think it demonstrates. It shows the vaccinated are susceptible to the delta variant, but it does not show that the vaccinated are spreading the disease more than the unvaccinated. It's anecdotal because it tracks a single outbreak. If, for example, there were an outbreak stemming from a wedding, 98% of the guests were vaccinated, and 78% of the infections were amongst the vaccinated, that doesn't mean "vaccinated people spread the disease more than the unvaccinated." It means most of the people who caught the disease were vaccinated because the vast majority of people who could have contracted it were vaccinated.
 
Last edited by Lacius,

BitMasterPlus

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
1,188
Trophies
0
Age
124
XP
1,571
Country
United States
I'm not disregarding your source. It's an important study. The problem is it doesn't demonstrate what you think it demonstrates. It shows the vaccinated are susceptible to the delta variant, but it does not show that the vaccinated are spreading the disease more than the unvaccinated. It's anecdotal because it tracks a single outbreak. If, for example, there were an outbreak stemming from a wedding, 98% of the guests were vaccinated, and 78% of the infections were amongst the vaccinated, that doesn't mean "vaccinated people spread the disease more than the unvaccinated."
Actually, it does, unless you want to wait some more to see more vaccinated people spread the disease more then ok.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,334
Country
United States
Actually, it does, unless you want to wait some more to see more vaccinated people spread the disease more then ok.
The study did not claim to show vaccinated people spreading the virus more than unvaccinated people, broadly or anecdotally. It showed, anecdotally, a majority of people catching the disease in a particular outbreak having been vaccinated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ghjfdtg and Xzi

linuxares

The inadequate, autocratic beast!
Global Moderator
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
13,099
Trophies
2
XP
17,742
Country
Sweden
This topic has really turned around to "NUH YOU!" kind of arguments.
Made up facts, with little to no proper bearing... if proper source are shown the "losing side" does a "BUT" argument...

Also I see a lot of people don't seem to understand basic understanding of a vaccine and medicine. I would hate to recommend some of them a simple Ibuprofen, if they got a headache.
 

BitMasterPlus

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
1,188
Trophies
0
Age
124
XP
1,571
Country
United States
The study did not claim to show vaccinated people spreading the virus more than unvaccinated people, broadly or anecdotally. It showed, anecdotally, a majority of people catching the disease in a particular outbreak having been vaccinated.
74% vaccinated people spreading the disease vs 26% unvaccinated people. I don't get how it doesn't show that in this case, the vaccinated are spreading the disease more. Not saying that's always the case, but it seems more often than not, vaccinated or not, people will spread the disease, and those who did get vaccinated still spread the disease more than the unvaccinated.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,334
Country
United States
74% vaccinated people spreading the disease vs 26% unvaccinated people. I don't get how it doesn't show that in this case, the vaccinated are spreading the disease more. Not saying that's always the case, but it seems more often than not, vaccinated or not, people will spread the disease, and those who did get vaccinated still spread the disease more than the unvaccinated.
The study did not show 74% of those spreading the disease being vaccinated. It showed 74% of new cases in an outbreak being vaccinated. These are two very different things. In other words, the study was about who got it, not who spread it. Again, the study was also anecdotal and focused on a specific outbreak.

The study does show, unfortunately, that the viral loads in vaccinated people who have contracted the disease in a breakthrough infection being the same as those who are unvaccinated and infected. This means that, when you compare a person who is infected and vaccinated and a person who is infected and unvaccinated, they are likely to infect the same number of people when you remove other mitigation factors like masks, physical distancing, etc.
 

wartutor

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
756
Trophies
1
Age
45
XP
2,355
Country
United States
Leave this for you all to argue about. Makes since but of course many of the same individuals will still point to government controlled fact checkers and/or defend their never wrong mindset.

ME: CDC, should I get poke if I already had Covid?
CDC: “Yes, you should be poked regardless of whether you already had COVID-19. That’s because experts do not yet know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID-19.”
ME: Oh, okay, we don’t know how long natural immunity lasts. Got it. So, how long does poke-induced immunity last?
CDC: “There is still a lot we are learning about COVID-19 pokes and CDC is constantly reviewing evidence and updating guidance. We don’t know how long protection lasts for those who are poked.”
ME: Okay … but wait a second. I thought you said the reason I need the poke was because we don’t know how long my natural immunity lasts, but it seems like you’re saying we ALSO don’t know how long poke immunity lasts either. So, how exactly is the poke immunity better than my natural immunity?
CDC: …
ME: Uh … alright. But, haven’t there been a bunch of studies suggesting that natural immunity could last for years or decades?
CDC: Yes.
NEWYORKTIMES: “Years, maybe even decades, according to a new study.”
ME: Ah. So natural immunity might last longer than poke immunity?
CDC: Possibly. You never know.
ME: Okay. If I get the poke, does that mean I won’t get sick?
BRITAIN: Nope. We are just now entering a seasonal spike and about half of our infections and hospital admissions are poked people.
ME: CDC, is this true? Are there a lot of people in the U.S. catching Covid after getting the poke?
CDC: We stopped tracking breakthrough cases. We accept voluntary reports of breakthroughs but aren’t out there looking for them.
ME: Does that mean that if someone comes in the hospital with Covid, you don’t track them because they’ve been poked? You only track the UN-poked Covid cases?
CDC: That’s right.
ME: Oh, okay. Hmm. Well, if I can still get sick after I get the poke, how is it helping me?
CDC: We never said you wouldn’t get sick. We said it would reduce your chances of serious illness or death.
ME: Oh, sorry. Alright, exactly how much does it reduce my chance of serious illness or death.
CDC: We don’t know “exactly.”
ME: Oh. Then what’s your best estimate for how much risk reduction there is?
CDC: We don’t know, okay? Next question.
ME: Um, if I’m healthy and don’t want the poke, is there any reason I should get it?
CDC: Yes, for the collective.
ME: How does the collective benefit from me getting poked?
CDC: Because you could spread the virus to someone else who might get sick and die.
ME: Can a poked person spread the virus to someone else?
CDC: Yes.
ME: So if I get poked, I could still spread the virus to someone else?
CDC: Yes.
ME: But I thought you just said, the REASON I should get poked was to prevent me spreading the virus? How does that make sense if I can still catch Covid and spread it after getting the poke?
CDC: Never mind that. The other thing is, if you stay unpoked, there’s a chance the virus could possibly mutate into a strain that escapes the pokes protection, putting all poked people at risk.
ME: So the poke stops the virus from mutating?
CDC: No.
ME: So it can still mutate in poked people?
CDC: Yes.
ME: This seems confusing. If the poke doesn’t stop mutations, and it doesn’t stop infections, then how does me getting poked help prevent a more deadly strain from evolving to escape the poke?
CDC: You aren’t listening, okay? The bottom line is: as long as you are unpoked, you pose a threat to poked people.
ME: But what KIND of threat??
CDC: The threat that they could get a serious case of Covid and possibly die.
ME: My brain hurts. Didn’t you JUST say that the poke doesn’t keep people from catching Covid, but prevents a serious case or dying? Now it seems like you’re saying poked people can still easily die from Covid even after they got the poke just by running into an unpoked person! Which is it??
CDC: That’s it, we’re hanging up now.
ME: Wait! I just want to make sure I understand all this. So, even if I ALREADY had Covid, I should STILL get poked, because we don’t know how long natural immunity lasts, and we also don’t know how long poke immunity lasts. And I should get the poke to keep a poked person from catching Covid from me, but even if I get the poke, I can give it to the poked person anyways. And, the other poked person can still easily catch a serious case of Covid from me and die. Do I have all that right?

ME: Um, hello? Is anyone there?
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,334
Country
United States
Leave this for you all to argue about. Makes since but of course many of the same individuals will still point to government controlled fact checkers and/or defend their never wrong mindset.

ME: CDC, should I get poke if I already had Covid?
CDC: “Yes, you should be poked regardless of whether you already had COVID-19. That’s because experts do not yet know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID-19.”
ME: Oh, okay, we don’t know how long natural immunity lasts. Got it. So, how long does poke-induced immunity last?
CDC: “There is still a lot we are learning about COVID-19 pokes and CDC is constantly reviewing evidence and updating guidance. We don’t know how long protection lasts for those who are poked.”
ME: Okay … but wait a second. I thought you said the reason I need the poke was because we don’t know how long my natural immunity lasts, but it seems like you’re saying we ALSO don’t know how long poke immunity lasts either. So, how exactly is the poke immunity better than my natural immunity?
CDC: …
ME: Uh … alright. But, haven’t there been a bunch of studies suggesting that natural immunity could last for years or decades?
CDC: Yes.
NEWYORKTIMES: “Years, maybe even decades, according to a new study.”
ME: Ah. So natural immunity might last longer than poke immunity?
CDC: Possibly. You never know.
ME: Okay. If I get the poke, does that mean I won’t get sick?
BRITAIN: Nope. We are just now entering a seasonal spike and about half of our infections and hospital admissions are poked people.
ME: CDC, is this true? Are there a lot of people in the U.S. catching Covid after getting the poke?
CDC: We stopped tracking breakthrough cases. We accept voluntary reports of breakthroughs but aren’t out there looking for them.
ME: Does that mean that if someone comes in the hospital with Covid, you don’t track them because they’ve been poked? You only track the UN-poked Covid cases?
CDC: That’s right.
ME: Oh, okay. Hmm. Well, if I can still get sick after I get the poke, how is it helping me?
CDC: We never said you wouldn’t get sick. We said it would reduce your chances of serious illness or death.
ME: Oh, sorry. Alright, exactly how much does it reduce my chance of serious illness or death.
CDC: We don’t know “exactly.”
ME: Oh. Then what’s your best estimate for how much risk reduction there is?
CDC: We don’t know, okay? Next question.
ME: Um, if I’m healthy and don’t want the poke, is there any reason I should get it?
CDC: Yes, for the collective.
ME: How does the collective benefit from me getting poked?
CDC: Because you could spread the virus to someone else who might get sick and die.
ME: Can a poked person spread the virus to someone else?
CDC: Yes.
ME: So if I get poked, I could still spread the virus to someone else?
CDC: Yes.
ME: But I thought you just said, the REASON I should get poked was to prevent me spreading the virus? How does that make sense if I can still catch Covid and spread it after getting the poke?
CDC: Never mind that. The other thing is, if you stay unpoked, there’s a chance the virus could possibly mutate into a strain that escapes the pokes protection, putting all poked people at risk.
ME: So the poke stops the virus from mutating?
CDC: No.
ME: So it can still mutate in poked people?
CDC: Yes.
ME: This seems confusing. If the poke doesn’t stop mutations, and it doesn’t stop infections, then how does me getting poked help prevent a more deadly strain from evolving to escape the poke?
CDC: You aren’t listening, okay? The bottom line is: as long as you are unpoked, you pose a threat to poked people.
ME: But what KIND of threat??
CDC: The threat that they could get a serious case of Covid and possibly die.
ME: My brain hurts. Didn’t you JUST say that the poke doesn’t keep people from catching Covid, but prevents a serious case or dying? Now it seems like you’re saying poked people can still easily die from Covid even after they got the poke just by running into an unpoked person! Which is it??
CDC: That’s it, we’re hanging up now.
ME: Wait! I just want to make sure I understand all this. So, even if I ALREADY had Covid, I should STILL get poked, because we don’t know how long natural immunity lasts, and we also don’t know how long poke immunity lasts. And I should get the poke to keep a poked person from catching Covid from me, but even if I get the poke, I can give it to the poked person anyways. And, the other poked person can still easily catch a serious case of Covid from me and die. Do I have all that right?

ME: Um, hello? Is anyone there?
  1. We know a lot more about vaccine immunity than we do about natural immunity with regard to COVID-19. Vaccine immunity lasts months to years, depending on the circumstances preceding the vaccine. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03738-2
  2. Citing the same study, vaccine immunity lasts significantly longer if you had contracted COVID-19 before getting vaccinated.
Yes, everyone who can get vaccinated should do so, even if they already had the disease.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deleted User

wartutor

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
756
Trophies
1
Age
45
XP
2,355
Country
United States
  1. We know a lot more about vaccine immunity than we do about natural immunity with regard to COVID-19. Vaccine immunity lasts months to years, depending on the circumstances preceding the vaccine. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03738-2
  2. Citing the same study, vaccine immunity lasts significantly longer if you had contracted COVID-19 before getting vaccinated.
Yes, everyone who can get vaccinated should do so, even if they already had the disease.
The dynamics of antibody-secreting plasmablasts and germinal centre B cells induced by these vaccines in humans remain unclear. Here we examined antigen-specific B cell responses in peripheral blood (n = 41) and draining lymph nodes in 14 individuals who had received 2 doses of BNT162b2, an mRNA-based vaccine that encodes the full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) gene1. Circulating IgG- and IgA-secreting plasmablasts that target the S protein peaked one week after the second immunization and then declined, becoming undetectable three weeks later.

From the first paragraph of that article did you even read it. The study is them watching 14 people, way to be precise and accurate. And it was undetectable 3 weeks later?
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,334
Country
United States
The dynamics of antibody-secreting plasmablasts and germinal centre B cells induced by these vaccines in humans remain unclear. Here we examined antigen-specific B cell responses in peripheral blood (n = 41) and draining lymph nodes in 14 individuals who had received 2 doses of BNT162b2, an mRNA-based vaccine that encodes the full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) gene1. Circulating IgG- and IgA-secreting plasmablasts that target the S protein peaked one week after the second immunization and then declined, becoming undetectable three weeks later.

From the first paragraph of that article did you even read it. The study is them watching 14 people, way to be precise and accurate. And it was undetectable 3 weeks later?
I recommend you read the whole study like I did. You're describing a very small section of the experiment. There were more participants than 14, and they measured more than just the three weeks.
 

SG854

Hail Mary
Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
5,215
Trophies
1
Location
N/A
XP
8,104
Country
Congo, Republic of the
74% vaccinated people spreading the disease vs 26% unvaccinated people. I don't get how it doesn't show that in this case, the vaccinated are spreading the disease more. Not saying that's always the case, but it seems more often than not, vaccinated or not, people will spread the disease, and those who did get vaccinated still spread the disease more than the unvaccinated.

74% vaccinated people spreading the disease vs 26% unvaccinated people. I don't get how it doesn't show that in this case, the vaccinated are spreading the disease more. Not saying that's always the case, but it seems more often than not, vaccinated or not, people will spread the disease, and those who did get vaccinated still spread the disease more than the unvaccinated.
How do you spread it more after vaccinated? That doesn't make sense.

It's almost as if you are saying once you get the vaccine you will be more likely to spread it. That's what more implies. As if the vaccines makes the virus worse.

How do you not sit back and think how stupid this sounds?


Vaccines do not work 100%. You can still get infected. So if 90% of the people at a party were vaccinated. And 10% were unvaccinated. And people got infected. Then of course a study will show the majority of people who got infected were vaccinated there's just more of them. This does not mean vaccinated more likely to spread the virus then unvaccinated. It's basic mathematical odds.


Also nowhere in the article does it say they are more likely to spread it. Read the article headline. It says 74% of people infected were vaccinated. Not 74% who spread the virus were vaccinated.

That article you linked also shows that the vaccines were working as intended because when you read the end it says 97% of new hospitalizations and 99.5% of deaths were unvaccinated. And this is the most important part. You are less likely to die after vaccinated.


The article also says that people hit the hardest by the delta variant are unvaccinated.


How did you walk away from that article thinking what you thought is beyond me.
 
Last edited by SG854,

Alexander1970

XP not matters.
Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
14,971
Trophies
3
Location
Austria
XP
2,456
Country
Austria
In Austria we Non-Vaccinators are now OFFICIALLY Terrorists according due some "Ethic Experts"........^_^

https://www.krone.at/2474360

"Small group terrorizes the rest of society"

Virologists agree: if you don't get vaccinated, sooner or later you will be infected with the coronavirus. There is also a growing need for a vaccination, at least in some areas, to be seriously discussed. Almost 60% of the people in Austria would be in favor of compulsory vaccination in health and care professions. But only there: 70 percent are against a general vaccination requirement. What do we do with the noisy minority who do not want to be vaccinated? Prof. Ursula Köller from the Bioethics Commission in the Federal Chancellery and Prof. Ulrich Körtner from the Institute for Ethics and Law in Medicine at the University of Vienna will discuss this with Damita Pressl this week at “Moment Mal”.

In the vast majority of cases, the vaccination protects against severe Covid-19 courses, against hospitalization, against the intensive care unit or death. Vaccinated people can still get infected with Corona or pass the virus on, even if the probability of this is significantly lower than with unvaccinated people. So it is not a matter of so-called “sterile immunity”, explains Ursula Köller. "That would mean that I cannot get the infection as a vaccinated person". What is certain, however, is that the viral load in vaccinated people is significantly lower.

Are a "land of the vaccine muffle"

So the vaccination works. But why then stagnate vaccination numbers? “It also depends on the general attitude towards vaccinations in a country. Unfortunately, Austria is a country that is not vaccinated ”, said Köller. We only have child vaccinations as long as they are included in the mother-child pass. And they are so important: "Vaccinations are the greatest public health measure that has ever existed," says the doctor. Our high life expectancy is mainly due to the fact that there are no longer deaths from infectious diseases in childhood.

Vaccination compulsory privately or by the state?
So whether a mandatory vaccination would help? “We have far too little secured data,” complains Ulrich Körtner, like many other experts. “But we have evidence. In France, President Macron has announced compulsory vaccination for health professionals. You saw that when this announcement came, the number of vaccinations among health professionals rose significantly in the days that followed. ”In addition, there are already certain obligations:“ Politicians shun the word 'mandatory vaccination' like the devil shuns holy water, but in the private law area we definitely have that ”. Big employers like Google now require their employees to be vaccinated. Airlines and hotels also have the option of only making their offers available to vaccinated people. "We have long had employers' vaccination obligations. At the moment we are only discussing possible government regulations. But we ignore the fact that we otherwise leave that to the private sector, ”says Körtner. "The question is therefore: should politics be content with the fact that vaccination obligations only exist in the private sector, or are there reasons for a state-prescribed vaccination requirement?"

For the two experts, there are at least some areas: the bioethics committee, for example, requires mandatory vaccination in the health sector, from the state. “If the carriers do that, then the staff could switch to another carrier, which is why a general compulsory vaccination in the area would be important,” says Köller. The non-implementation of a compulsory vaccination, said Köller, also leads to a "hostage" for residents in the care area: "How do old people get to spend their last years in detention just because the staff does not get vaccinated?" Who does not want to be vaccinated in such professions, "he missed his job", says Körtner, "as hard as that sounds".

But is a world emerging now where unvaccinated people are only allowed to shop and use public transport? "If we are a little unlucky, the very group drives us back into a lockdown, where all of Austria is only allowed to use public transport and the supermarket," says Köller. And Körtner adds: “Small groups terrorize the rest of society. Then, as a vaccinated person, I will end up being restricted in my basic rights again because a hard-boiled minority has no sense of community. ”He demands more courage from politicians: to“ move the subject to the private law level ”is cowardly. “You can't ask, 'Why am I being forced to get a driver's license? I just want to drive a car like that. ‘” So the state also sets conditions in other areas for access to certain areas of society.

bravo.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: jimbo13

Alexander1970

XP not matters.
Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
14,971
Trophies
3
Location
Austria
XP
2,456
Country
Austria
I would listen to these virologist's
Ethic Experts.^_^



I would listen to these virologist's

For more than a year in Austria no one thought about the professional group "kindergarten teachers / childcare workers".
They were always open and looked after children, nobody gave a shit about vaccination for these people.
Despite lockdowns, these people were always at risk.Testing for them started in DECEMBER 2020 !!!

And now these people should suddenly be forced to vaccinate........ They didn't even get a thank you for taking care of the children for over a year without a break, nothing with lockdown, apart from the psychological stress ..... great "vaccination strategy" ....

Of course, I also listen to the Experts ...
 
Last edited by Alexander1970,

SG854

Hail Mary
Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
5,215
Trophies
1
Location
N/A
XP
8,104
Country
Congo, Republic of the
Ethic Experts.^_^





For more than a year in Austria no one thought about the professional group "kindergarten teachers / childcare workers".
They were always open and looked after children, nobody gave a shit about vaccination for these people.
Despite lockdowns, these people were always at risk.Testing for them started in DECEMBER 2020 !!!

And now these people should suddenly be forced to vaccinate........ They didn't even get a thank you for taking care of the children for over a year without a break, nothing with lockdown, apart from the psychological stress ..... great "vaccination strategy" ....

Of course, I also listen to the Experts ...
These anti vaxxers are terrorizing our neighborhoods!
 
Last edited by SG854,
  • Like
Reactions: Xzi

Dakitten

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2021
Messages
414
Trophies
0
Age
41
XP
1,030
Country
United States
Ethic Experts.^_^





For more than a year in Austria no one thought about the professional group "kindergarten teachers / childcare workers".
They were always open and looked after children, nobody gave a shit about vaccination for these people.
Despite lockdowns, these people were always at risk.Testing for them started in DECEMBER 2020 !!!

And now these people should suddenly be forced to vaccinate........ They didn't even get a thank you for taking care of the children for over a year without a break, nothing with lockdown, apart from the psychological stress ..... great "vaccination strategy" ....

Of course, I also listen to the Experts ...

I... don't understand this. Are you saying that the vaccination for them is akin to a punishment? As a teacher myself, I can say that when covid hit, I said "Nope!" and bounced right the heck back to the government sector for remote or strictly controlled work environments, even after getting vaccinated. That being said, as soon as the vaccination was available, it was a requirement at my present place of employment and nobody fussed a minute for doing so. You work in a position with sensitive populations? You get the shot. You deal with the public? You get the shot. You lie or misrepresent your vaccination status? You're absolutely a threat to your community and are engaging in terrorist-adjacent behavior.

It isn't hard to figure out. Your rights end when they infringe on the rights of others, end of story. If you don't want the jab, stay in seclusion, that's perfectly fine too. Nobody has to get the shot, unless they want to go back out into the world proper. Once covid has gone the way of polio, then we can afford to be lax.
 

KingVamp

Haaah-hahahaha!
Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
13,472
Trophies
2
Location
Netherworld
XP
7,873
Country
United States
Same reason someone in Beijing can't prove Taiwan is a country. I don't care if your claims are true or not, has nothing to do with my decision not to get vaxed.

The reasons I don't get vaxed are true.


1) I am not using a product or services claiming a privilege of blanket indemnity, simplest safety metric in the world is "Will they take responsibility for it?". No? Well I am not going to trust their product more than they do.

2) Me and the people I care about continued on working and going about life normally, unaffected by Covid and neither myself or anyone I have concern for has any reasonable metric of risk.

3) I have no faith or belief in the integrity of this government so anything they claim is presumed to be a lie.

4) If it involves messaging, promotion, selfie frames, virtue signaling, censorship or any manner of social engineering from Big tech I am doing the opposite.

1) Some companies are trying to not take responsibility for not having precautions against the virus. Good luck finding all the products you need to ban. Btw, it is limited, but can still use the CICP to try to get compensation.

3) Then start voting for people that actually care and want us to catch up to other 1st world countries.

4) So, if the government and "Big tech" start saying that jumping out of a plane in high altitude with no gear is a bad idea, you jump? Being actually critical and contrarianism for the sake of it, are two different things.

2) Me and the people I care about continued on working and going about life normally
The uptick in home schooling and curtailing travel I consider a boon.
Except this isn't normal.

You have to not concern yourself with the well being of others and the consequences of your actions when you're willfully increasing the odds of spreading a disease that's killing hundreds of Americans a day.

If you want to increase the odds of spreading disease, that's your right, but as long as we are on the same page that it's because you're unconcerned with the lives of others, so be it.
He just outright admitted that he doesn't care that a lot people are either getting sick or dying. :huh: Yet somehow the people that do care are the problem.
 

The Catboy

GBAtemp Official Catboy™: RIP Akira Toriyama
Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
27,736
Trophies
4
Location
Making a non-binary fuss
XP
38,495
Country
Antarctica
Same reason someone in Beijing can't prove Taiwan is a country. I don't care if your claims are true or not, has nothing to do with my decision not to get vaxed.

The reasons I don't get vaxed are true.


1) I am not using a product or services claiming a privilege of blanket indemnity, simplest safety metric in the world is "Will they take responsibility for it?". No? Well I am not going to trust their product more than they do.

2) Me and the people I care about continued on working and going about life normally, unaffected by Covid and neither myself or anyone I have concern for has any reasonable metric of risk.

3) I have no faith or belief in the integrity of this government so anything they claim is presumed to be a lie.

4) If it involves messaging, promotion, selfie frames, virtue signaling, censorship or any manner of social engineering from Big tech I am doing the opposite.
So you have no sources
 

videogamefanatic

Well-Known Member
Newcomer
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
69
Trophies
1
XP
742
Country
United States
If you get Covid and have the real hard Symptoms:
THAT is 100 Percent true.View attachment 271547

As is well known,long-term Consequences/Phenomena are not yet known.
No, I mean it completely literally. Your chance of dying from covid if you catch it is astronomically higher than risk of serious side effects from the vaccine. There's a reason the world shut down for covid.

The case mortality rate for covid is about 2%. That's an overestimate of course since it only counts confirmed cases of covid (lots of people get it without knowing). The mortality rate of the vaccine is 0.0019%, and that number is relatively accurate (also an overestimate since all deaths soon after vaccination are counted, even those maybe not caused by the vaccine) since we know exactly how many people have been vaccinated as it's all tracked. Still it's a 3 orders of magnitude difference.

Also because of how mRNA vaccines work and are made, there's little to no chance of long term side effects. Anything serious would have been likely to show up within the week or two while you body attack the injection (and we've been testing and monitoring these vaccines for like a year now). Getting covid is still far more risky in terms of death, and other problems since we *know* it can give you shitty months-long side effects (brain fog, lower stamina, etc). And besides, it seems there's a lot of anecdotal evidence that taking the vaccine can actually clear up lingering long-covid symptoms in a lot of people, though that's yet to be well verified (there's at least one study in progress on that, hopefully they have good data soon)

EDIT: accidentally wrote 0.019% and 2 orders of magnitude, when I meant 0.0019% and 3 orders of magnitude. I've since fixed it.
 
Last edited by videogamefanatic,

Valwinz

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2020
Messages
1,166
Trophies
1
Age
34
XP
2,247
Country
Puerto Rico
vaccinated people are spreading this themselves
 
  • Like
Reactions: jimbo13
Status
Not open for further replies.

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    Sicklyboy @ Sicklyboy: *teleports behind you* "Nothing personnel, kiddo" +1