District of Columbia(where no law exists and not part of our country either) poster boy denying anything negative about DCs killer depopulation vax tool
Florda_mike said:
District of Columbia(where no law exists and not part of our country either) poster boy denying anything negative about DCs killer depopulation vax tool
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210614/two-passengers-test-positive-for-covid-19-on-cruiseD. C. Bear said:4th and Inches said:cruise ship of vax only passengers and crew gets positive covid cases while at seaD. C. Bear said:br53 said:Your argument is flawed because although I get vaccinated it doesnt mean that I cant get COVID and still pass it on to others. The government has no place telling people to get a vaccine when they dont know all the side effects and what long term issues it may cause. What if it causes fertility issues? Your argument concerning abortion carries zero weight. If she is worried about having a child that is disabled or not being able to care for it she should get on birth control (many different options), make sure that her partner wears a condom, or abstain from sex. There is nothing inhumane about it. These people that you are saying cant afford birth control and healthcare have no problem owning 75" televisions, Luis Vuitton purses and having the latest smart phone. You liberals cant have it both ways, those days are over.J.B.Katz said:Apples and oranges.br53 said:
It's funny when it comes to abortion liberals scream my body my choice but over a vaccine they want to force everyone to get it and carry around paperwork. Hey if you took that much precaution over a virus try wearing a condom or taking birth control.
Vaccine not only helps you, it helps everybody. More ppl vaccinated means fewer cases means ppl who cant be vaxed because they're got some kind of immune disorder or are undergoing chemo are less vulnerable.
So it's both an individual good and a public good.
That's why it's not a controversy that public schools require that kids be vaxed and why most ppl don't argue with that.
Whereas an abortion only affects the woman and the father, if he's even involved. I know some ppl think forcing every woman who gets pregnant to give birth contributes to the public good; I think there's an equally good argument that making women, inc victims of rape and incest, give birth has a negative impact on society; ppl who are well-equipped and eager to raise kids don't have abortions. We already have more kids in the foster system than we can adequately care for. But my overweeming view here is that the govt simply has no place in the woman's decision about what to do if she gets pregnant and the govt should butt out.
Making a woman carry for 9 months in a country where there's no guaranteed access to healthcare for her after the kid comes or employment support or access to child care she can afford is also significantly different than requiring somebody spend the 15 minutes it takes to a free shot in order to come to work or get on a plane. You're saddling the woman with an unfunded liability the extent of which is impossible to predict (suppose the child is disabled and needs 24/7 care from a parent) and then telling her she can give the child up for adoption if she can't support it. That's inhumane.
My employer set up the appt and gave everyone shots and then said anyone who didn't get a shot by X date might face termination. That still offers a choice. You don't want the shot? Then find another job.
Evidence suggests that if you are vaccinated you won't get COVID or pass it along to others.
How about a link to specific case you are referencing?
The Delta variant is more transmissible and more deadly.muddybrazos said:Viruses typically mutate and weaken.TexasScientist said:And as you said, with people getting sick, new variants (and more dangerous) may render the vaccine ineffective, preventing herd immunity.Sam Lowry said:It emphatically doesn't work with people getting sick. It matters because vaccines don't just work or not work. They may protect the great majority of people, but there are always some who can't take them or can't benefit from them.GrowlTowel said:Herd immunity works with people getting sick. Again, why care? Either the vaccine works, or it doesn't. If you have had the vaccine, it does not matter if the person next you is sick.Sam Lowry said:Answer: herd immunity and variants.GrowlTowel said:
Question - why does anyone care if someone else gets the vaccine?
D. C. Bear said:4th and Inches said:cruise ship of vax only passengers and crew gets positive covid cases while at seaD. C. Bear said:br53 said:Your argument is flawed because although I get vaccinated it doesnt mean that I cant get COVID and still pass it on to others. The government has no place telling people to get a vaccine when they dont know all the side effects and what long term issues it may cause. What if it causes fertility issues? Your argument concerning abortion carries zero weight. If she is worried about having a child that is disabled or not being able to care for it she should get on birth control (many different options), make sure that her partner wears a condom, or abstain from sex. There is nothing inhumane about it. These people that you are saying cant afford birth control and healthcare have no problem owning 75" televisions, Luis Vuitton purses and having the latest smart phone. You liberals cant have it both ways, those days are over.J.B.Katz said:Apples and oranges.br53 said:
It's funny when it comes to abortion liberals scream my body my choice but over a vaccine they want to force everyone to get it and carry around paperwork. Hey if you took that much precaution over a virus try wearing a condom or taking birth control.
Vaccine not only helps you, it helps everybody. More ppl vaccinated means fewer cases means ppl who cant be vaxed because they're got some kind of immune disorder or are undergoing chemo are less vulnerable.
So it's both an individual good and a public good.
That's why it's not a controversy that public schools require that kids be vaxed and why most ppl don't argue with that.
Whereas an abortion only affects the woman and the father, if he's even involved. I know some ppl think forcing every woman who gets pregnant to give birth contributes to the public good; I think there's an equally good argument that making women, inc victims of rape and incest, give birth has a negative impact on society; ppl who are well-equipped and eager to raise kids don't have abortions. We already have more kids in the foster system than we can adequately care for. But my overweeming view here is that the govt simply has no place in the woman's decision about what to do if she gets pregnant and the govt should butt out.
Making a woman carry for 9 months in a country where there's no guaranteed access to healthcare for her after the kid comes or employment support or access to child care she can afford is also significantly different than requiring somebody spend the 15 minutes it takes to a free shot in order to come to work or get on a plane. You're saddling the woman with an unfunded liability the extent of which is impossible to predict (suppose the child is disabled and needs 24/7 care from a parent) and then telling her she can give the child up for adoption if she can't support it. That's inhumane.
My employer set up the appt and gave everyone shots and then said anyone who didn't get a shot by X date might face termination. That still offers a choice. You don't want the shot? Then find another job.
Evidence suggests that if you are vaccinated you won't get COVID or pass it along to others.
How about a link to specific case you are referencing?
Clearly you don't understand science. BTW, comments on this board are not scientific research. However, I would love for you to try and produce some scientific research, peer reviewed, that supports some of the idiocy you post on this board. I'm still waiting for you to tell me who is the cabal?Florda_mike said:
It's almost painful how you lack the ability to do scientific research but still apparently consider yourself a "Scientist?"
You draw conclusions and stop any research at that point! Do you not realize that's simply anti-science?
It's really comical how much of a Scientist you aren't
You probably don't even comprehend what I asked here?
Sad
Precaution, further confirmation through time, plus there are a few labs where it exists. Since you believe it is still in circulation, tell me where small pox is actively cirulating.4th and Inches said:wrong but that is normal for you If you ignore the dozen or so outbreaks in Africa that happened in the last three years then it's all isolated in Asia.TexasScientist said:Not quite. The vaccines are effective, and if everyone were vaccinated polio would be totally eradicated, it is only present in a couple of areas in Asia. Small pox has been eradicated.4th and Inches said:try again, those viruses are still out thereTexasScientist said:Small pox, chicken pox, polio ...4th and Inches said:lol, virus gonna viruscms186 said:the more unvaccinated people there are, the more chance they get the virus and the more chance that the Virus mutates againGrowlTowel said:
Question - why does anyone care if someone else gets the vaccine?
Which one have we have successfully stopped? Flu? Chicken pox? Common cold?
People become asymptomatic carriers of these viruses but the virus is still around
Common cold and chicken pox typically are not fatal nor do they produce lingering morbidity.
We won't know where mutations will take this virus if it continues unchecked.
Outbreaks are common in Africa and the Middle East. Some wild and some from vaccine strains
If they were truely eliminated, why are we still giving our kids vaccines for these things? If it is gone, why are we still giving the shots to prevent something that doesnt exist?
The vaccination does not prevent you from getting or spreading covid. All it does is minimize the symptoms and hopefully mitigate the number of people in the hospital.D. C. Bear said:Florda_mike said:
District of Columbia(where no law exists and not part of our country either) poster boy denying anything negative about DCs killer depopulation vax tool
I will ignore your rambling ignorance and focus on the actual issue.
If fully vaccinated individuals developed COVID-19 and spread it to others, there would be little difference in case counts in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Evidence suggests the opposite is true. The vaccines are not 100 percent effective at preventing a positive COVID test as we have seen clinical data showing a variety of very high levels of effectiveness, but they don't need to be 100 percent effective to end the pandemic.
This is a separate question from whether a government should be able to make a person get a vaccine, but arguing that they should not be able to because the vaccine doesn't work is a bad argument because the vaccine does work.
Ironic statement coming from you, who's mind is in neutral, with your foot on the accelerator.Florda_mike said:Sam Lowry said:I know the feeling.ATL Bear said:That's so twisted from actual viral outcome and process I don't know where to address.Sam Lowry said:You're confusing lethality of the virus with severity of outcomes. It may kill a relatively small percentage of patients compared to some other viruses, but if it kills a higher percentage than some others and if enough people get it, it can become a leading cause of death (third most common in 2020, to be exact). That's not rare by any measure. Death rates are declining for various reasons, including better treatment and especially vaccines. That's a separate question from the inherent lethality of new strains. And even if a variant only increases transmissibility, that's a problem in itself.ATL Bear said:You forgot one critical factor. It rarely kills, especially if it isn't helped by other comorbidities, and there's only speculation variants are more deadly, and even those are by minute factors. In fact there's a better case to be made that the virus was deadlier last March through May, and has been steadily declining in severity ever since.Sam Lowry said:Viruses respond to evolutionary pressure. Most tend to become less deadly so as not to kill off the host before spreading. In this case the virus spreads unusually well for an unusually long time before symptoms appear. It also takes an unusually long time to kill after symptoms appear. So the evolutionary pressure is less. There's already evidence that some variants are more deadly. They also evolve to become more transmissible, and there's evidence of that too.ATL Bear said:Without further human intervention, it will act accordingly. The natural protein process is the future of Covid 19.Sam Lowry said:This one isn't typical.muddybrazos said:Viruses typically mutate and weaken.TexasScientist said:And as you said, with people getting sick, new variants (and more dangerous) may render the vaccine ineffective, preventing herd immunity.Sam Lowry said:It emphatically doesn't work with people getting sick. It matters because vaccines don't just work or not work. They may protect the great majority of people, but there are always some who can't take them or can't benefit from them.GrowlTowel said:Herd immunity works with people getting sick. Again, why care? Either the vaccine works, or it doesn't. If you have had the vaccine, it does not matter if the person next you is sick.Sam Lowry said:Answer: herd immunity and variants.GrowlTowel said:
Question - why does anyone care if someone else gets the vaccine?
India will reach herd immunity by rapid spread, not vaccines. It's just not logistically possible to vaccinate a Billion+ people with a fast spreading virus. But ratios of severity, even with new strains, continue to decline.
Yeah dippy boy, you are the feeling, the feeling of mental masturbations around here
You say a lot of nothingness, that's his definition of what you wrote ....... nothing of value!
About all you do here
Are you drinking?Florda_mike said:
District of Columbia(where no law exists and not part of our country either) poster boy denying anything negative about DCs killer depopulation vax tool
br53 said:https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210614/two-passengers-test-positive-for-covid-19-on-cruiseD. C. Bear said:4th and Inches said:cruise ship of vax only passengers and crew gets positive covid cases while at seaD. C. Bear said:br53 said:Your argument is flawed because although I get vaccinated it doesnt mean that I cant get COVID and still pass it on to others. The government has no place telling people to get a vaccine when they dont know all the side effects and what long term issues it may cause. What if it causes fertility issues? Your argument concerning abortion carries zero weight. If she is worried about having a child that is disabled or not being able to care for it she should get on birth control (many different options), make sure that her partner wears a condom, or abstain from sex. There is nothing inhumane about it. These people that you are saying cant afford birth control and healthcare have no problem owning 75" televisions, Luis Vuitton purses and having the latest smart phone. You liberals cant have it both ways, those days are over.J.B.Katz said:Apples and oranges.br53 said:
It's funny when it comes to abortion liberals scream my body my choice but over a vaccine they want to force everyone to get it and carry around paperwork. Hey if you took that much precaution over a virus try wearing a condom or taking birth control.
Vaccine not only helps you, it helps everybody. More ppl vaccinated means fewer cases means ppl who cant be vaxed because they're got some kind of immune disorder or are undergoing chemo are less vulnerable.
So it's both an individual good and a public good.
That's why it's not a controversy that public schools require that kids be vaxed and why most ppl don't argue with that.
Whereas an abortion only affects the woman and the father, if he's even involved. I know some ppl think forcing every woman who gets pregnant to give birth contributes to the public good; I think there's an equally good argument that making women, inc victims of rape and incest, give birth has a negative impact on society; ppl who are well-equipped and eager to raise kids don't have abortions. We already have more kids in the foster system than we can adequately care for. But my overweeming view here is that the govt simply has no place in the woman's decision about what to do if she gets pregnant and the govt should butt out.
Making a woman carry for 9 months in a country where there's no guaranteed access to healthcare for her after the kid comes or employment support or access to child care she can afford is also significantly different than requiring somebody spend the 15 minutes it takes to a free shot in order to come to work or get on a plane. You're saddling the woman with an unfunded liability the extent of which is impossible to predict (suppose the child is disabled and needs 24/7 care from a parent) and then telling her she can give the child up for adoption if she can't support it. That's inhumane.
My employer set up the appt and gave everyone shots and then said anyone who didn't get a shot by X date might face termination. That still offers a choice. You don't want the shot? Then find another job.
Evidence suggests that if you are vaccinated you won't get COVID or pass it along to others.
How about a link to specific case you are referencing?
GrowlTowel said:
Question - why does anyone care if someone else gets the vaccine?
Actually, this is not true, at least not yet. More transmissible? Give me the stats for how much. I do think it may be. More deadly? So far, no hard evidence of that.TexasScientist said:
The Delta variant is more transmissible and more deadly.
br53 said:The vaccination does not prevent you from getting or spreading covid. All it does is minimize the symptoms and hopefully mitigate the number of people in the hospital.D. C. Bear said:Florda_mike said:
District of Columbia(where no law exists and not part of our country either) poster boy denying anything negative about DCs killer depopulation vax tool
I will ignore your rambling ignorance and focus on the actual issue.
If fully vaccinated individuals developed COVID-19 and spread it to others, there would be little difference in case counts in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Evidence suggests the opposite is true. The vaccines are not 100 percent effective at preventing a positive COVID test as we have seen clinical data showing a variety of very high levels of effectiveness, but they don't need to be 100 percent effective to end the pandemic.
This is a separate question from whether a government should be able to make a person get a vaccine, but arguing that they should not be able to because the vaccine doesn't work is a bad argument because the vaccine does work.
Greenbear said:
There is an extremely small chance of anyone getting COVID for a second time. If they do, they will be asymptomatic or have a light case - or that is what evidence shows. I have seen no data showing a death or even hospitalization from a second case of COVID. In truth, data is hard to find here. The CDC wants everyone to get the vaccine including those that have had COVID and they don't want people to believe they are protected even though there is scientific evidence that antibodies are lying in wait to fight COVID (if you have had it once) in bone marrow.
Lastly, I recently read a journal where the person was suggesting that anyone who has had COVID and was taking Pfizer/Moderna should only get one shot, not two.
I really dont think you have the sense God gave a goose.D. C. Bear said:br53 said:The vaccination does not prevent you from getting or spreading covid. All it does is minimize the symptoms and hopefully mitigate the number of people in the hospital.D. C. Bear said:Florda_mike said:
District of Columbia(where no law exists and not part of our country either) poster boy denying anything negative about DCs killer depopulation vax tool
I will ignore your rambling ignorance and focus on the actual issue.
If fully vaccinated individuals developed COVID-19 and spread it to others, there would be little difference in case counts in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Evidence suggests the opposite is true. The vaccines are not 100 percent effective at preventing a positive COVID test as we have seen clinical data showing a variety of very high levels of effectiveness, but they don't need to be 100 percent effective to end the pandemic.
This is a separate question from whether a government should be able to make a person get a vaccine, but arguing that they should not be able to because the vaccine doesn't work is a bad argument because the vaccine does work.
1.The vaccine does prevent you from getting COVID. (Obviously not in every case, let's just go with vast majorities). If it didn't the rates of positive tests among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations would be similar. They are not similar. The differences are jaw dropping. Also the rates of actual disease and serious disease are massively lower among vaccinated individuals to the point of being negligible.
2. Early evidence suggests pretty strongly that vaccinated individuals who don't have symptoms do not spread the virus that causes COVID.
3. It does much more than "minimize symptoms" and it does not "hopefully" mitigate the numbers of people in hospitals because of COVID. More than 99 percent of those hospitalized with COVID have not been fully vaccinated.
br53 said:I really dont think you have the sense God gave a goose.D. C. Bear said:br53 said:The vaccination does not prevent you from getting or spreading covid. All it does is minimize the symptoms and hopefully mitigate the number of people in the hospital.D. C. Bear said:Florda_mike said:
District of Columbia(where no law exists and not part of our country either) poster boy denying anything negative about DCs killer depopulation vax tool
I will ignore your rambling ignorance and focus on the actual issue.
If fully vaccinated individuals developed COVID-19 and spread it to others, there would be little difference in case counts in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Evidence suggests the opposite is true. The vaccines are not 100 percent effective at preventing a positive COVID test as we have seen clinical data showing a variety of very high levels of effectiveness, but they don't need to be 100 percent effective to end the pandemic.
This is a separate question from whether a government should be able to make a person get a vaccine, but arguing that they should not be able to because the vaccine doesn't work is a bad argument because the vaccine does work.
1.The vaccine does prevent you from getting COVID. (Obviously not in every case, let's just go with vast majorities). If it didn't the rates of positive tests among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations would be similar. They are not similar. The differences are jaw dropping. Also the rates of actual disease and serious disease are massively lower among vaccinated individuals to the point of being negligible.
2. Early evidence suggests pretty strongly that vaccinated individuals who don't have symptoms do not spread the virus that causes COVID.
3. It does much more than "minimize symptoms" and it does not "hopefully" mitigate the numbers of people in hospitals because of COVID. More than 99 percent of those hospitalized with COVID have not been fully vaccinated.
For everything you say is current data there is another study that backs up what I have said. I dont have the time to argue with you on it and show you the evidence as I am working so I can pay all of your leftist ideals.D. C. Bear said:br53 said:I really dont think you have the sense God gave a goose.D. C. Bear said:br53 said:The vaccination does not prevent you from getting or spreading covid. All it does is minimize the symptoms and hopefully mitigate the number of people in the hospital.D. C. Bear said:Florda_mike said:
District of Columbia(where no law exists and not part of our country either) poster boy denying anything negative about DCs killer depopulation vax tool
I will ignore your rambling ignorance and focus on the actual issue.
If fully vaccinated individuals developed COVID-19 and spread it to others, there would be little difference in case counts in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Evidence suggests the opposite is true. The vaccines are not 100 percent effective at preventing a positive COVID test as we have seen clinical data showing a variety of very high levels of effectiveness, but they don't need to be 100 percent effective to end the pandemic.
This is a separate question from whether a government should be able to make a person get a vaccine, but arguing that they should not be able to because the vaccine doesn't work is a bad argument because the vaccine does work.
1.The vaccine does prevent you from getting COVID. (Obviously not in every case, let's just go with vast majorities). If it didn't the rates of positive tests among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations would be similar. They are not similar. The differences are jaw dropping. Also the rates of actual disease and serious disease are massively lower among vaccinated individuals to the point of being negligible.
2. Early evidence suggests pretty strongly that vaccinated individuals who don't have symptoms do not spread the virus that causes COVID.
3. It does much more than "minimize symptoms" and it does not "hopefully" mitigate the numbers of people in hospitals because of COVID. More than 99 percent of those hospitalized with COVID have not been fully vaccinated.
Everything in my post is factual based on current data. If you want to argue against it, provide current evidence to refute what I said.
evidence vs evidence. Should be awesome.br53 said:For everything you say is current data there is another study that backs up what I have said. I dont have the time to argue with you on it and show you the evidence as I am working so I can pay all of your leftist ideals.D. C. Bear said:br53 said:I really dont think you have the sense God gave a goose.D. C. Bear said:br53 said:The vaccination does not prevent you from getting or spreading covid. All it does is minimize the symptoms and hopefully mitigate the number of people in the hospital.D. C. Bear said:Florda_mike said:
District of Columbia(where no law exists and not part of our country either) poster boy denying anything negative about DCs killer depopulation vax tool
I will ignore your rambling ignorance and focus on the actual issue.
If fully vaccinated individuals developed COVID-19 and spread it to others, there would be little difference in case counts in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Evidence suggests the opposite is true. The vaccines are not 100 percent effective at preventing a positive COVID test as we have seen clinical data showing a variety of very high levels of effectiveness, but they don't need to be 100 percent effective to end the pandemic.
This is a separate question from whether a government should be able to make a person get a vaccine, but arguing that they should not be able to because the vaccine doesn't work is a bad argument because the vaccine does work.
1.The vaccine does prevent you from getting COVID. (Obviously not in every case, let's just go with vast majorities). If it didn't the rates of positive tests among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations would be similar. They are not similar. The differences are jaw dropping. Also the rates of actual disease and serious disease are massively lower among vaccinated individuals to the point of being negligible.
2. Early evidence suggests pretty strongly that vaccinated individuals who don't have symptoms do not spread the virus that causes COVID.
3. It does much more than "minimize symptoms" and it does not "hopefully" mitigate the numbers of people in hospitals because of COVID. More than 99 percent of those hospitalized with COVID have not been fully vaccinated.
Everything in my post is factual based on current data. If you want to argue against it, provide current evidence to refute what I said.
Yes more science vs science because if we have learned anything in the past 18 months its that science/data cant be politicized or manipulated.LIB,MR BEARS said:evidence vs evidence. Should be awesome.br53 said:For everything you say is current data there is another study that backs up what I have said. I dont have the time to argue with you on it and show you the evidence as I am working so I can pay all of your leftist ideals.D. C. Bear said:br53 said:I really dont think you have the sense God gave a goose.D. C. Bear said:br53 said:The vaccination does not prevent you from getting or spreading covid. All it does is minimize the symptoms and hopefully mitigate the number of people in the hospital.D. C. Bear said:Florda_mike said:
District of Columbia(where no law exists and not part of our country either) poster boy denying anything negative about DCs killer depopulation vax tool
I will ignore your rambling ignorance and focus on the actual issue.
If fully vaccinated individuals developed COVID-19 and spread it to others, there would be little difference in case counts in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Evidence suggests the opposite is true. The vaccines are not 100 percent effective at preventing a positive COVID test as we have seen clinical data showing a variety of very high levels of effectiveness, but they don't need to be 100 percent effective to end the pandemic.
This is a separate question from whether a government should be able to make a person get a vaccine, but arguing that they should not be able to because the vaccine doesn't work is a bad argument because the vaccine does work.
1.The vaccine does prevent you from getting COVID. (Obviously not in every case, let's just go with vast majorities). If it didn't the rates of positive tests among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations would be similar. They are not similar. The differences are jaw dropping. Also the rates of actual disease and serious disease are massively lower among vaccinated individuals to the point of being negligible.
2. Early evidence suggests pretty strongly that vaccinated individuals who don't have symptoms do not spread the virus that causes COVID.
3. It does much more than "minimize symptoms" and it does not "hopefully" mitigate the numbers of people in hospitals because of COVID. More than 99 percent of those hospitalized with COVID have not been fully vaccinated.
Everything in my post is factual based on current data. If you want to argue against it, provide current evidence to refute what I said.
It is. Continue to horse laugh or do you have an opinion?BaylorBJM said:GrowlTowel said:
Question - why does anyone care if someone else gets the vaccine?
lol is this a real question?
1- vax prevents you from getting covid like already having been thru a covid infection does prevent a second oneD. C. Bear said:br53 said:The vaccination does not prevent you from getting or spreading covid. All it does is minimize the symptoms and hopefully mitigate the number of people in the hospital.D. C. Bear said:Florda_mike said:
District of Columbia(where no law exists and not part of our country either) poster boy denying anything negative about DCs killer depopulation vax tool
I will ignore your rambling ignorance and focus on the actual issue.
If fully vaccinated individuals developed COVID-19 and spread it to others, there would be little difference in case counts in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Evidence suggests the opposite is true. The vaccines are not 100 percent effective at preventing a positive COVID test as we have seen clinical data showing a variety of very high levels of effectiveness, but they don't need to be 100 percent effective to end the pandemic.
This is a separate question from whether a government should be able to make a person get a vaccine, but arguing that they should not be able to because the vaccine doesn't work is a bad argument because the vaccine does work.
1.The vaccine does prevent you from getting COVID. (Obviously not in every case, let's just go with vast majorities). If it didn't the rates of positive tests among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations would be similar. They are not similar. The differences are jaw dropping. Also the rates of actual disease and serious disease are massively lower among vaccinated individuals to the point of being negligible.
2. Early evidence suggests pretty strongly that vaccinated individuals who don't have symptoms do not spread the virus that causes COVID.
3. It does much more than "minimize symptoms" and it does not "hopefully" mitigate the numbers of people in hospitals because of COVID. More than 99 percent of those hospitalized with COVID have not been fully vaccinated.
D. C. Bear said:4th and Inches said:cruise ship of vax only passengers and crew gets positive covid cases while at seaD. C. Bear said:br53 said:Your argument is flawed because although I get vaccinated it doesnt mean that I cant get COVID and still pass it on to others. The government has no place telling people to get a vaccine when they dont know all the side effects and what long term issues it may cause. What if it causes fertility issues? Your argument concerning abortion carries zero weight. If she is worried about having a child that is disabled or not being able to care for it she should get on birth control (many different options), make sure that her partner wears a condom, or abstain from sex. There is nothing inhumane about it. These people that you are saying cant afford birth control and healthcare have no problem owning 75" televisions, Luis Vuitton purses and having the latest smart phone. You liberals cant have it both ways, those days are over.J.B.Katz said:Apples and oranges.br53 said:
It's funny when it comes to abortion liberals scream my body my choice but over a vaccine they want to force everyone to get it and carry around paperwork. Hey if you took that much precaution over a virus try wearing a condom or taking birth control.
Vaccine not only helps you, it helps everybody. More ppl vaccinated means fewer cases means ppl who cant be vaxed because they're got some kind of immune disorder or are undergoing chemo are less vulnerable.
So it's both an individual good and a public good.
That's why it's not a controversy that public schools require that kids be vaxed and why most ppl don't argue with that.
Whereas an abortion only affects the woman and the father, if he's even involved. I know some ppl think forcing every woman who gets pregnant to give birth contributes to the public good; I think there's an equally good argument that making women, inc victims of rape and incest, give birth has a negative impact on society; ppl who are well-equipped and eager to raise kids don't have abortions. We already have more kids in the foster system than we can adequately care for. But my overweeming view here is that the govt simply has no place in the woman's decision about what to do if she gets pregnant and the govt should butt out.
Making a woman carry for 9 months in a country where there's no guaranteed access to healthcare for her after the kid comes or employment support or access to child care she can afford is also significantly different than requiring somebody spend the 15 minutes it takes to a free shot in order to come to work or get on a plane. You're saddling the woman with an unfunded liability the extent of which is impossible to predict (suppose the child is disabled and needs 24/7 care from a parent) and then telling her she can give the child up for adoption if she can't support it. That's inhumane.
My employer set up the appt and gave everyone shots and then said anyone who didn't get a shot by X date might face termination. That still offers a choice. You don't want the shot? Then find another job.
Evidence suggests that if you are vaccinated you won't get COVID or pass it along to others.
How about a link to specific case you are referencing?
br53 said:I really dont think you have the sense God gave a goose.D. C. Bear said:br53 said:The vaccination does not prevent you from getting or spreading covid. All it does is minimize the symptoms and hopefully mitigate the number of people in the hospital.D. C. Bear said:Florda_mike said:
District of Columbia(where no law exists and not part of our country either) poster boy denying anything negative about DCs killer depopulation vax tool
I will ignore your rambling ignorance and focus on the actual issue.
If fully vaccinated individuals developed COVID-19 and spread it to others, there would be little difference in case counts in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Evidence suggests the opposite is true. The vaccines are not 100 percent effective at preventing a positive COVID test as we have seen clinical data showing a variety of very high levels of effectiveness, but they don't need to be 100 percent effective to end the pandemic.
This is a separate question from whether a government should be able to make a person get a vaccine, but arguing that they should not be able to because the vaccine doesn't work is a bad argument because the vaccine does work.
1.The vaccine does prevent you from getting COVID. (Obviously not in every case, let's just go with vast majorities). If it didn't the rates of positive tests among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations would be similar. They are not similar. The differences are jaw dropping. Also the rates of actual disease and serious disease are massively lower among vaccinated individuals to the point of being negligible.
2. Early evidence suggests pretty strongly that vaccinated individuals who don't have symptoms do not spread the virus that causes COVID.
3. It does much more than "minimize symptoms" and it does not "hopefully" mitigate the numbers of people in hospitals because of COVID. More than 99 percent of those hospitalized with COVID have not been fully vaccinated.
Public Service Announcement pic.twitter.com/XjQicdvnKm
— Cole Beasley (@Bease11) June 18, 2021
br53 said:For everything you say is current data there is another study that backs up what I have said. I dont have the time to argue with you on it and show you the evidence as I am working so I can pay all of your leftist ideals.D. C. Bear said:br53 said:I really dont think you have the sense God gave a goose.D. C. Bear said:br53 said:The vaccination does not prevent you from getting or spreading covid. All it does is minimize the symptoms and hopefully mitigate the number of people in the hospital.D. C. Bear said:Florda_mike said:
District of Columbia(where no law exists and not part of our country either) poster boy denying anything negative about DCs killer depopulation vax tool
I will ignore your rambling ignorance and focus on the actual issue.
If fully vaccinated individuals developed COVID-19 and spread it to others, there would be little difference in case counts in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Evidence suggests the opposite is true. The vaccines are not 100 percent effective at preventing a positive COVID test as we have seen clinical data showing a variety of very high levels of effectiveness, but they don't need to be 100 percent effective to end the pandemic.
This is a separate question from whether a government should be able to make a person get a vaccine, but arguing that they should not be able to because the vaccine doesn't work is a bad argument because the vaccine does work.
1.The vaccine does prevent you from getting COVID. (Obviously not in every case, let's just go with vast majorities). If it didn't the rates of positive tests among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations would be similar. They are not similar. The differences are jaw dropping. Also the rates of actual disease and serious disease are massively lower among vaccinated individuals to the point of being negligible.
2. Early evidence suggests pretty strongly that vaccinated individuals who don't have symptoms do not spread the virus that causes COVID.
3. It does much more than "minimize symptoms" and it does not "hopefully" mitigate the numbers of people in hospitals because of COVID. More than 99 percent of those hospitalized with COVID have not been fully vaccinated.
Everything in my post is factual based on current data. If you want to argue against it, provide current evidence to refute what I said.
Reported on CNN and ABC more transmissible and reportedly more deadly.Greenbear said:Actually, this is not true, at least not yet. More transmissible? Give me the stats for how much. I do think it may be. More deadly? So far, no hard evidence of that.TexasScientist said:
The Delta variant is more transmissible and more deadly.
Did the Cabal get your money? I'm still waiting.Florda_mike said:br53 said:For everything you say is current data there is another study that backs up what I have said. I dont have the time to argue with you on it and show you the evidence as I am working so I can pay all of your leftist ideals.D. C. Bear said:br53 said:I really dont think you have the sense God gave a goose.D. C. Bear said:br53 said:The vaccination does not prevent you from getting or spreading covid. All it does is minimize the symptoms and hopefully mitigate the number of people in the hospital.D. C. Bear said:Florda_mike said:
District of Columbia(where no law exists and not part of our country either) poster boy denying anything negative about DCs killer depopulation vax tool
I will ignore your rambling ignorance and focus on the actual issue.
If fully vaccinated individuals developed COVID-19 and spread it to others, there would be little difference in case counts in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Evidence suggests the opposite is true. The vaccines are not 100 percent effective at preventing a positive COVID test as we have seen clinical data showing a variety of very high levels of effectiveness, but they don't need to be 100 percent effective to end the pandemic.
This is a separate question from whether a government should be able to make a person get a vaccine, but arguing that they should not be able to because the vaccine doesn't work is a bad argument because the vaccine does work.
1.The vaccine does prevent you from getting COVID. (Obviously not in every case, let's just go with vast majorities). If it didn't the rates of positive tests among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations would be similar. They are not similar. The differences are jaw dropping. Also the rates of actual disease and serious disease are massively lower among vaccinated individuals to the point of being negligible.
2. Early evidence suggests pretty strongly that vaccinated individuals who don't have symptoms do not spread the virus that causes COVID.
3. It does much more than "minimize symptoms" and it does not "hopefully" mitigate the numbers of people in hospitals because of COVID. More than 99 percent of those hospitalized with COVID have not been fully vaccinated.
Everything in my post is factual based on current data. If you want to argue against it, provide current evidence to refute what I said.
Yep you're right again as anything from DC like that fool is paid by government dollars stolen from us
They need put on the streets literally, give me my money back DC, give me it back
br53 said:For everything you say is current data there is another study that backs up what I have said. I dont have the time to argue with you on it and show you the evidence as I am working so I can pay all of your leftist ideals.D. C. Bear said:br53 said:I really dont think you have the sense God gave a goose.D. C. Bear said:br53 said:The vaccination does not prevent you from getting or spreading covid. All it does is minimize the symptoms and hopefully mitigate the number of people in the hospital.D. C. Bear said:Florda_mike said:
District of Columbia(where no law exists and not part of our country either) poster boy denying anything negative about DCs killer depopulation vax tool
I will ignore your rambling ignorance and focus on the actual issue.
If fully vaccinated individuals developed COVID-19 and spread it to others, there would be little difference in case counts in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Evidence suggests the opposite is true. The vaccines are not 100 percent effective at preventing a positive COVID test as we have seen clinical data showing a variety of very high levels of effectiveness, but they don't need to be 100 percent effective to end the pandemic.
This is a separate question from whether a government should be able to make a person get a vaccine, but arguing that they should not be able to because the vaccine doesn't work is a bad argument because the vaccine does work.
1.The vaccine does prevent you from getting COVID. (Obviously not in every case, let's just go with vast majorities). If it didn't the rates of positive tests among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations would be similar. They are not similar. The differences are jaw dropping. Also the rates of actual disease and serious disease are massively lower among vaccinated individuals to the point of being negligible.
2. Early evidence suggests pretty strongly that vaccinated individuals who don't have symptoms do not spread the virus that causes COVID.
3. It does much more than "minimize symptoms" and it does not "hopefully" mitigate the numbers of people in hospitals because of COVID. More than 99 percent of those hospitalized with COVID have not been fully vaccinated.
Everything in my post is factual based on current data. If you want to argue against it, provide current evidence to refute what I said.
Proud 1992 Alum said:
I want to hear the argument that D.C. is not part of our country. Haven't heard that one.
paging katsung. katsung to the blue courtesy phone.Florda_mike said:Proud 1992 Alum said:
I want to hear the argument that D.C. is not part of our country. Haven't heard that one.
Even google will get you a start on it with a 2 minute search finding the below
"DC has its own flag and own independent constitution. The Act of 1871 passed by Congress created a separate "corporation" known as THE UNITED STATES & corporate government for the District of Columbia. Thus DC acts as a Corporation through the Act."
But if you want to research from there it's a deep hole, a deep secretive rabbit trail! It's why those there are immune legally but we aren't when we enter there! That's why the "insurrectionists" are selectively chosen on January 6th and being selectively tortured with solitary confinement in DC jails! The CITY OF LONDON AND VATICAN enjoy same sovereignty FYI as those 3 places run our world and you can't escape it, so far! That's our current World War vs Globalists going on as we speak. Anyone could research this but ain't easy. City of London controls everything, one effin sq mile of this earth controls it all!
LIB,MR BEARS said:paging katsung. katsung to the blue courtesy phone.Florda_mike said:Proud 1992 Alum said:
I want to hear the argument that D.C. is not part of our country. Haven't heard that one.
Even google will get you a start on it with a 2 minute search finding the below
"DC has its own flag and own independent constitution. The Act of 1871 passed by Congress created a separate "corporation" known as THE UNITED STATES & corporate government for the District of Columbia. Thus DC acts as a Corporation through the Act."
But if you want to research from there it's a deep hole, a deep secretive rabbit trail! It's why those there are immune legally but we aren't when we enter there! That's why the "insurrectionists" are selectively chosen on January 6th and being selectively tortured with solitary confinement in DC jails! The CITY OF LONDON AND VATICAN enjoy same sovereignty FYI as those 3 places run our world and you can't escape it, so far! That's our current World War vs Globalists going on as we speak. Anyone could research this but ain't easy. City of London controls everything, one effin sq mile of this earth controls it all!