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

[GT Pony]

Nor, do you have to have a card on you proving you've had the vax for other illnesses that we have almost removed from being an issue, that have a higher chance of having long term issues or death if contracted.

You do realize that there are many required vaccinations for kids to go to school - and parents need to show proof that they were done. This is one reason many of these diseases are now under control.

https://vaccines.procon.org/state-by-state-vaccinations-required-for-public-school-kindergarten/

Sponsored

 

[GT Pony]

I'm saying you can't go from being sober to driving drunk without knowing along the way that you're drinking. You have to drink to get drunk to drive drunk and put others at risk. That's why it's a poor analogy for the risk mitigations we're taking for Covid. You can go from not infected to infected and spreading Covid without knowing it, you cannot go from sober to driving drunk without knowing you're getting drunk.

Disagree ... every shit faced drunk on the road doesn't really know how impaired they really are. Why do you think they drink, drive, crash and kill themselves and/or other people? If they actually realized that can happen because of the state they are in, then they would decide not to drive and call a cab, Uber, friend or have someone else to drive them and leave their car behind.

Unless you think the person in your video got in the car just having been around people who were drunk and they became drunk themselves a few miles down the road?

Your analogy is flawed. She obviously thought she was totally able to drive, therefore she really didn't know just how drunk and dangerous she really was.

I have no problem with unvaccinated people being tested, if they have been in close contact with a Covid positive person or show symptoms. Beyond that, I don't think preemptive testing is useful, the only people at substantial risk of infection are the ones who haven't been vaccinated, and do you think they're simultaneously choosing the risk of being unvaccinated and are worried about the disease? I think it's unlikely, I think they don't feel the disease is dangerous to them, else they'd get the shots.

They won't think it's dangerous to them until they or someone they know have a bad case of it. Learning a lesson the hard way is a bitch as they say.

If there are a bunch of unvaccinated people at work, the testing also protects other unvaccinated people ... it's just not for the vaccinated. Yes, the vaccinated can still have a break-through infection, but most have much less symptoms. Anyone regardless if vaccinated or not that feels bad should stay home and get tested. Even vaccinated people should probably have a quick body temperature taken before walking into work.

So if you don't have a problem with unvaccinated people being tested then why are you still arguing about it? They should be tested regardless where they have been since the last test. Many people get Covid and don't even know how they really got it.

 

[Hobohunter]

Disagree ... every shit faced drunk on the road doesn't really know how impaired they really are. Why do you think they drink, drive, crash and kill themselves and/or other people? If they actually realized that can happen because of the state they are in, then they would decide not to drive and call a cab, Uber, friend or have someone else to drive them and leave their car behind.



Your analogy is flawed. She obviously thought she was totally able to drive, therefore she really didn't know just how drunk and dangerous she really was.



They won't think it's dangerous to them until they or someone they know have a bad case of it. Learning a lesson the hard way is a bitch as they say.

If there are a bunch of unvaccinated people at work, the testing also protects other unvaccinated people ... it's just not for the vaccinated. Yes, the vaccinated can still have a break-through infection, but most have much less symptoms. Anyone regardless if vaccinated or not that feels bad should stay home and get tested. Even vaccinated people should probably have a quick body temperature taken before walking into work.

So if you don't have a problem with unvaccinated people being tested then why are you still arguing about it? They should be tested regardless where they have been since the last test. Many people get Covid and don't even know how they really got it.

I guarantee that woman knew she was drinking alcohol before she started driving. That's why I've been saying the risk to others from drunk drivers is not analogous to the risk to others from Covid. Before getting in the car the drunk had to drink, I can't imagine a sensible way they could do that without their own knowledge. When they toss back a drink there's no coin toss to see if the alcohol makes it into their system. There's no guarantee a person who comes into contact with a Covid positive person will get it. That's why the drunk driver analogy doesn't fit.

 

[Hobohunter]

And that ridiculous analogy you called flawed isn't. It's how the drunk driver scenario would have to be to be logically analogous to the risk of spreading Covid.

 

[sk47]

Disagree ... every shit faced drunk on the road doesn't really know how impaired they really are. Why do you think they drink, drive, crash and kill themselves and/or other people? If they actually realized that can happen because of the state they are in, then they would decide not to drive and call a cab, Uber, friend or have someone else to drive them and leave their car behind.



Your analogy is flawed. She obviously thought she was totally able to drive, therefore she really didn't know just how drunk and dangerous she really was.



They won't think it's dangerous to them until they or someone they know have a bad case of it. Learning a lesson the hard way is a bitch as they say.

If there are a bunch of unvaccinated people at work, the testing also protects other unvaccinated people ... it's just not for the vaccinated. Yes, the vaccinated can still have a break-through infection, but most have much less symptoms. Anyone regardless if vaccinated or not that feels bad should stay home and get tested. Even vaccinated people should probably have a quick body temperature taken before walking into work.

So if you don't have a problem with unvaccinated people being tested then why are you still arguing about it? They should be tested regardless where they have been since the last test. Many people get Covid and don't even know how they really got it.

Hello; I appreciate that you keep posting in the way that you do. It sheds light on the sort of logic being used. We all can figure the same sort of thinking is present in the rest of your arguments to some degree.
Thing is I have had a number of relatives who were drunks. They each and every one knew they were drinking when they took the first drink of the day or sometimes the first drink of many days when starting on a bender.
Now if you go ask them about anything when they were roaring drunk the likely hood of getting a sensible answer is about the same as the likely hood of you prevailing in this particular argument.

 

[GT Pony]

I guarantee that woman knew she was drinking alcohol before she started driving. That's why I've been saying the risk to others from drunk drivers is not analogous to the risk to others from Covid. Before getting in the car the drunk had to drink, I can't imagine a sensible way they could do that without their own knowledge. When they toss back a drink there's no coin toss to see if the alcohol makes it into their system. There's no guarantee a person who comes into contact with a Covid positive person will get it. That's why the drunk driver analogy doesn't fit.

Sure she knew she was drinking ... BUT she did not know she was a danger to others - that's the rub. If she did, she would not be driving. You don't believe that? You think she actually knew she was a danger to herself and everyone on the street but decided to drive anyway?

There's a big difference and why you can't connect the dots. If you go back to what started this whole debate, you specifically asked me to give an example where someone could hurt or kill someone without knowing that they could (analogous to someone with Covid that didn't know they had it).

My two examples are exactly that situation. It doesn't matter if they knew they drank, or knew they fired a gun. If they put themselves or others in danger without actually realizing it then they are putting people in danger without knowing so ... simple as that.

But instead, you've tried to tie this into someone knowing if they have Covid or not and how that somehow changes the risk to others. The bottom line, which I've said many times, is that if doesn't matter is someone knows or not if they have Covid because if they have it and either know it or don't know it, then they still pose a risk to others around them. No matter what you say, that fact will always hold true.

 

[GT Pony]

And that ridiculous analogy you called flawed isn't. It's how the drunk driver scenario would have to be to be logically analogous to the risk of spreading Covid.

Wrong ... read the post above this one.

 

[GT Pony]

Thing is I have had a number of relatives who were drunks. They each and every one knew they were drinking when they took the first drink of the day or sometimes the first drink of many days when starting on a bender.
Now if you go ask them about anything when they were roaring drunk the likely hood of getting a sensible answer is about the same as the likely hood of you prevailing in this particular argument.

Like I said above ... of course they KNEW they were drinking, but they didn't know they were too inebriate and a danger to themselves and other on the road - if they did know, nobody in their right mind would drive in that case. That's my whole argument. If you and Hobohunter think that badly inebriated drunks aren't a danger to others just because they knew that they drank, then it's you two that will never prevail in this particular argument because that's a very obtuse argument. It doesn't matter is they knew or not, they are STILL a potential danger to others. Just like if some does or doesn't know they are actively infected with Covid, in either case they are still a potential danger to others. If you don't see that simple logic then you will never get it.

Your comment of "Now if you go ask them about anything when they were roaring drunk the likely hood of getting a sensible answer ..." pretty much tells me you know they would drive and not think for one second that they could put themselves or other in danger. Is it really that hard to understand?

 

[rick81721]

You do realize that there are many required vaccinations for kids to go to school - and parents need to show proof that they were done. This is one reason many of these diseases are now under control.

https://vaccines.procon.org/state-by-state-vaccinations-required-for-public-school-kindergarten/

Except all states have exemptions - either religious, medical or philosophical (15 states!).

https://vaccines.procon.org/state-vaccination-exemptions-for-children-entering-public-schools/

This is why there are still outbreaks of diseases like measles and mumps:

https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html

 

[sk47]

Like I said above ... of course they KNEW they were drinking, but they didn't know they were too inebriate and a danger to themselves and other on the road - if they did know, nobody in their right mind would drive in that case. That's my whole argument. If you and Hobohunter think that badly inebriated drunks aren't a danger to others just because they knew that they drank, then it's you two that will never prevail in this particular argument because that's a very obtuse argument.

Your comment of "Now if you go ask them about anything when they were roaring drunk the likely hood of getting a sensible answer ..." pretty much tells me you know they would drive and not think for one second that they could put themselves or other in danger. Is it really that hard to understand?

Hello; This is rich. It is almost as good as the "heads I win, tails you lose" way of looking at things.
That something said in a video by a roaring drunk who is impaired to an extreme is the basis support for your stance.

Let me throw in a better analogy. Say a person is a sleep on the top bunk of bunk beds. They go to bed with only the plan to sleep. Later in their sleep they fall out of bed and land on someone. Does that work for you?

 

[GT Pony]

Hello; This is rich. It is almost as good as the "heads I win, tails you lose" way of looking at things.
That something said in a video by a roaring drunk who is impaired to an extreme is the basis support for your stance.

Let me throw in a better analogy. Say a person is a sleep on the top bunk of bunk beds. They go to bed with only the plan to sleep. Later in their sleep they fall out of bed and land on someone. Does that work for you?

LoL ... are you drinking right now? Go read my last post again, as I've added to it.

https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/threads/science-is-now-cancelled.158720/post-3367785

So your bottom line is that drunk drivers are not a risk to others if they know they have been drinking and are drunk? And people with active Covid are only a risk to others if they know they have Covid. What kind of logic is that, really?

 

[GT Pony]

Let me throw in a better analogy. Say a person is a sleep on the top bunk of bunk beds. They go to bed with only the plan to sleep. Later in their sleep they fall out of bed and land on someone. Does that work for you?

The guy who tosses and turns in his sleep shouldn't be sleeping in the top bed - he could hurt himself or someone else. Just like someone with Covid shouldn't be allowed to be at work and should stay home instead.

The bottom line is regardless if the guy sleeping on the top bed knew he was sleeping or not was still a risk to himself and the guy below him with his actions, be it intentional or not. Can you grasp that simple analogy?

 

[GT Pony]

^^^ Don't be Curly.

 

[Patience]

Show me, where you have to show proof of these vax, and hand over a vax card showing you've had them and when, to be employed, to travel, to go into an event, School AKA COLLEGE.
I'll wait. oh, no, you don't and NEVER HAD TOO.
But this one You will have to, WHY. Why is this ONE different?
Why, haven't they made one for kids 12 and under yet? What is in it that will harm human developement? that they can't just make the dose smaller like almost every other med known to man? What are they not telling the peons, aka the masses.
BECAUSE IF COVID IS SO DEADLY and or harmful to humans, why would you send kids under 12 that are not poked to a germ farm to bring it home with them knowing many that got the poke are still contracting it and getting sick and quiting their breathing addiction?
That's right , you wouldn't send them to the germ farm to bring it home and spread it.
LOGIC AND REASON. some use it, others not so much, and are led to slaughter.

Some countries require polio and/or smallpox vaccinations to enter. Several also require meningitis vaccinations. As for schools (colleges), here's one example: http://international.ua.edu/isss/future-new-students/required-immunizations/

 

[GT Pony]

I swear some people really don't know what's going on beyond the walls of their own house ... and maybe not even then.

Sponsored