Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[GT Pony]

They are saying this winter will be colder than normal with greater than normal snowfall. We will see.

Gotta look at weather patterns and bulk temperature over many years, not just "one season".

Sponsored

 

[Gregs24]

Hello; I already answered the question. Here is my comment.
"The naturally immune get to decide for themselves. The unvaccinated get to decide for themselves. The authorities do not get to decide for them"
"The authorities get to make a case for the shots as best they can. We individuals get to weigh the choices and make a decision."

But that is not an answer to my question.

I'm asking you what your advice would be, NOT telling anybody to do anything. You know, just like when you ask a builder for advice on your roof, or a doctor about an ailment. The builder doesn't say, 'you could retile it or not, up to you' - they say their advice would be to retile it. There is no advice in any of those comments. Remember most people don't have the knowledge or expertise and rely on others who do for advice.

The problem is you can't answer because you have painted yourself into a corner.

Lets say you say 'No'. Your advice is that people who have had COVID do not need vaccinating. probably consistent with many of your comments so far, but there is a big problem isn't there. If you advised the government or state or medical profession to say No then it is only a matter of time before somebody you have advised to not get vaccinated dies of COVID. We know this will happen because not everybody who has had COVID is immune afterwards / has any circulating antibodies as per data given before. The next stage is that the government or whoever gets sued, and then they sack and sue you too.

Lets say you say 'Yes'. Well that is a bit awkward for you isn't it as it really goes against your ill informed views. It is going to really hurt for you to have to say 'Yes' and you are going to look a bit of a pillock on here.

Do you know this is the problem with trolls like you that are happy to shoot at everybody in authority or any experts because you know better, but then come the day you are actually called upon to stand up and give advice, you run away tail between your legs.

You spend hours typing paragraphs of deductions and guesses (often wrong) but it doesn't matter, you don't matter, nobody is listening to you outside the handful on this forum. However if you were stood there next to the State Governor tonight and he asked you, 'What advice do you have for those that have had COVID considering vaccination' there would be silence because you can't help. Well done! The world needs more of people like you - not

So to help you out the advice is YES. Most countries and doctors advise people to get vaccinated after natural infection for good reasons covered before, this isn't authorities deciding for anybody, it is people in positions of responsibility giving the best advice they can in good faith to help people decide for themselves. Some people have to do this sort of thing every day (me for one) and frequently smart arses like you are trying to insist they know better cos they've Googled it, then try and blame you after ignoring good advice because their leg fell off or some such.

 

[GT Pony]

Luckily, or rather I chose to live in a relatively free State.

Then stop your bitchin' like you want to rule the whole country. A lot of these Covid rules, regulations and mandates are state driven.

 

[Gregs24]

I realise this, but I’m simply making the point that we can all make claims that lack evidence if that’s the way they want to play the game.

Sorry I don't see the ignoramus you are arguing with any more so probably my response was out of context.

 

[Gregs24]

Yet many weeks to months ago and again recently when I posted support for more to get a first shot before some get a second or third as a way to help the greater number of people, the idea got no traction. That a person who needs a transplant deserves to be denied because of not taking a shot. I can go on with this double standard thinking.

i think you will find I responded about this and why 1st 2nd 3rd doses are given when they are, the reasons for delays, how long there can be delays etc. The transplant thing was a white elephant as demonstrated by the numerous requirements medically / vaccine / medicine wise for these patients

 

[Burkey]

The shots and the virus may both have been created in a lab.

Yes, that’s possible. Can you name something that isn’t a possible candidate explanation for the origin of the virus?
How do you know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn’t create it? How did you exclude that possibility?
If the FSM did in fact develop the virus, what would that tell us about the virus?

The thing is when we become infected such is not done on purpose the way taking a shot is.

Um….. you have essentially two options here. You either get the shot OR you risk infection.
I would argue that by refusing the shot, you are in fact purposely exposing yourself to the risk of infection.

The tone of your posts have been a mix of gloom and doom if we all do not take the shots and that those who do not take the shots are social lowlife types who do not care for their fellow man.

I apologise if that’s the way you interpret my posts.
What I intend to convey is that they’re idiots rather than morally inferior.
My apologies if that wasn’t made clear.

Yet many weeks to months ago and again recently when I posted support for more to get a first shot before some get a second or third as a way to help the greater number of people, the idea got no traction.

Yes, and I’m fairly certain that Gregs24 explained that to you.
I don’t see a double standard. The person is unwilling to take a precaution that vastly improves their odds of survival post-op but demands that other people do their best to help them. I’d call that a double standard.

Here is one more point little responded to. The shots are new as a medicine injected into people on such a massive scale. I get some of the wishful thinking. I want the shots to be just as safe as you seem to think they are. But if by some yet unknown mechanism there are to be serious bad side effects, then having a large number who did not take them can be a species saving thing.

It is fortunate that not everyone thinks like you do. If they did, nobody would be willing to trial the shots and we’d be forever stuck in some kind of bizarre situation where we have all this technology but nobody willing to use it. The very first medicines would‘ve stalled at the gate so to speak.
Instead, nearly half the global population has decided that the vaccines are a worthy enterprise.

The future is only as bright as the people who occupy it.
Fortunately, the antivax brigade are removing themselves and their ideologies from that future as fast as they can.
It‘s just extremely unfortunate that other people are being caught up in their abject stupidity.

 

[Gregs24]

Hello; Vaccine immunity does not stop us from being infected. It is not like a bio-hazard suit which keep the virus out. We can be vaccinated and/or have natural immunity then pick up a load of the virus. Once the virus is in our bodies the immune system is ready to fight the virus from the get go. With very good luck the virus is stopped right away. With poor luck the virus invades a few cells but does not do to too much damage.

I guess it may be another spin on the wording, but i do recall lots of times the shots have been called very safe. I could go back and find lots of such comments. I have been contending the shots possibly may have long term side effects for months now and have been getting criticism for such . Good that at least one of you is seeing the light.

Yes it can if you have mucosal antibodies. the virus never gets into the cells

Immune Defenses - Medical Microbiology - NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov)

 

[GT Pony]

Hello; Just did a quick check on a calculator. I subtracted the 38,964 unvaccinated deaths from the 51,281 total of all deaths regardless of vaxx status. I used the deaths involving covid19 column.
I get 12,317 deaths which appear to be of the vaccinated ( those with shots). So you are correct in that roughly a third of the total deaths involving covid19 are of those with shots.

But look at the death rate ratio in the "Deaths involving COVID-19" column between all deaths and the death number of people who had both shots (but the 2nd shot wasn't fully kicked in), which is 182 + 458 = 640, then 640/51,281 = 1.25%.

If you only included deaths of the vaccinated who died 21 days or more after the 2nd shot (meaning the 2nd shot had full effect), then the death rate of the fully vaccinated was only 458/51,281 = 0.95%.

The death rate of the unvaccinated was 38,964/51,281 = 76.0%.

Which route should someone go based on the numbers?

 

[Burkey]

I guess it may be another spin on the wording, but i do recall lots of times the shots have been called very safe. I could go back and find lots of such comments. I have been contending the shots possibly may have long term side effects for months now and have been getting criticism for such . Good that at least one of you is seeing the light.

Yes, very safe. It’s a relative term. It’s also a subjective term.
I have not shifted my position on the POSSIBILITY of long term side effects. It has always been know that there ARE some POTENTIAL side effects from these vaccines.

I‘ll believe that LONG TERM side effects exist one we have data that shows as much. Until then, they remain nothing more than a POSSIBILITY.

 

[sk47]

But that is not an answer to my question.

I'm asking you what your advice would be, NOT telling anybody to do anything. You know, just like when you ask a builder for advice on your roof, or a doctor about an ailment. The builder doesn't say, 'you could retile it or not, up to you' - they say their advice would be to retile it. There is no advice in any of those comments. Remember most people don't have the knowledge or expertise and rely on others who do for advice.

The problem is you can't answer because you have painted yourself into a corner.

Hello; But I have indeed answered the question. Here is my comment;
"The authorities get to make a case for the shots as best they can. We individuals get to weigh the choices and make a decision. I did so for my particular circumstance. Being old with two comorbidities helped me to decide. Having a negative covid19 antibody test helped me decide. I freely decided to take the shots and did accept the possibility of an unknown risk from the shots.
The shots did hurt me in a few ways and I will not take a third shot for those reasons and for having a better understanding of how the shots work. "

Let me try to spell it out in a simpler way for you. I would ask the authorities to give us the most accurate and up to date information they have available. ( that would mean no "good lies" or other such.) I would ask them to lay out the possible options available in terms of money to spend, equipment or lack of equipment, Medicines including the shots, but also any others. Allow the authorities to present the best facts.
Then allow each individual to make their own decision.

 

[GT Pony]

of course that is a moving number for some in authority Why did you find the need to say this. I have explained how the % required for herd immunity is calculated and why it varies - nothing to do with those in 'authority'

He recognizes a moving target if he might have to be in charge of things and make decisions, but if others are in charge and they make a different statement and decisions because things are a moving target then he will just accuse them of being bold faced liars.

 

[sk47]

Yes it can if you have mucosal antibodies. the virus never gets into the cells

Immune Defenses - Medical Microbiology - NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov)

Hello; Yes I overlooked that. I tend to lump the mucous lining and the skin as protective barriers. My bad I tend think of the mocosa as a sticky trap for dust and things including bacteria and virus. You are correct.

 

[sk47]

Yes, very safe. It’s a relative term. It’s also a subjective term.
I have not shifted my position on the POSSIBILITY of long term side effects. It has always been know that there ARE some POTENTIAL side effects from these vaccines.

I‘ll believe that LONG TERM side effects exist one we have data that shows as much. Until then, they remain nothing more than a POSSIBILITY.

Hello; Fair enough. long term side effects are possible but not yet proven. Pretty much my take on the subject. Back when I was making the point it was in a discussion about the naturally immune having to take the shots. My stance was then and is now they do not need to risk possible long term side effects.
I decided to take the shots with the understanding there may be long term side effects. My choice -my risk.

 

[CJJon]

Sadly????

Hell some say not to take aspirin during pregnancy, but they should take some experimental drug that has not been long term tested on non-pregnant people.
SMH and wonders when people forgot how to critical think.

"A few studies show that taking aspirin around the time of conception and in early pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of miscarriage. And some researchers believe that taking adult aspirin during pregnancy could affect the baby's growth and slightly increase the risk of a placental abruption."

True colors showing here. Gross.

 

[CJJon]

It's been proven the jab does not stop infection, so if you get the jab and the infection your chances for long term side effects are doubled.

Sponsored