Austria first country to make Covid vaccine mandatory

Status
Not open for further replies.

tabzer

Maybe authoritarian
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
2,704
Trophies
1
Age
37
XP
2,131
Country
Japan
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

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
28,534
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
26,038
Country
Poland
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.
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

Maybe authoritarian
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
2,704
Trophies
1
Age
37
XP
2,131
Country
Japan
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.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Coto

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
28,534
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
26,038
Country
Poland
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

Maybe authoritarian
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
2,704
Trophies
1
Age
37
XP
2,131
Country
Japan
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. :wacko:
 

smf

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,401
Trophies
1
XP
4,028
Country
United Kingdom
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.
 
Last edited by smf,

tabzer

Maybe authoritarian
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
2,704
Trophies
1
Age
37
XP
2,131
Country
Japan
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, 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)

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

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,401
Trophies
1
XP
4,028
Country
United Kingdom
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.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: AlexMCS

tabzer

Maybe authoritarian
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
2,704
Trophies
1
Age
37
XP
2,131
Country
Japan
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.


So they f'd up the definition for decades and you are calling me dumb because of it. Good play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexMCS

smf

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,401
Trophies
1
XP
4,028
Country
United Kingdom
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

Maybe authoritarian
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
2,704
Trophies
1
Age
37
XP
2,131
Country
Japan
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

Human
Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2018
Messages
379
Trophies
0
Age
36
Location
Fortaleza
XP
1,605
Country
Brazil
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyan
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
4,736
Trophies
3
XP
7,220
Country
United Kingdom
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.
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

Human
Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2018
Messages
379
Trophies
0
Age
36
Location
Fortaleza
XP
1,605
Country
Brazil
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

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
17,284
Trophies
2
XP
16,501
Country
United States
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

Maybe authoritarian
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
2,704
Trophies
1
Age
37
XP
2,131
Country
Japan
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

Maybe authoritarian
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
2,704
Trophies
1
Age
37
XP
2,131
Country
Japan
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.

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coto and AlexMCS

weatMod

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
3,225
Trophies
1
Age
44
XP
2,839
Country
United States
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexMCS
Status
Not open for further replies.
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    Psionic Roshambo @ Psionic Roshambo: I still sucked at it though since it's been a few years since I played it lol