Jump to content
Lunaticfringe

Vaccination retirement

Recommended Posts

Man I love these threads! Everyone has the assumption that what They say , post, is important. 
Well don’t take yourselves to seriously……. I mean believe what you want. If you think convincing some one, on this site ,to believe what you say ,is important or right. Then you have other problems. because it ain’t important. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, southend said:

Man I love these threads! Everyone has the assumption that what They say , post, is important. 
Well don’t take yourselves to seriously……. I mean believe what you want. If you think convincing some one, on this site ,to believe what you say ,is important or right. Then you have other problems. because it ain’t important. 

I agree. Its not important. At the same time, there is no wrestling to talk about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheOhioState said:

F U and your comment about the soldiers.

The comment I made about "god rest their souls" with respect? 

Listen, you can't "F U" your way out of people you don't agree with. Maybe I can learn something from you, maybe you can learn something from me. Without a doubt, the "F U" road leads nowhere good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Le duke said:


What is wrong about his statement? Please explain in detail.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let me help out AntiT:

2) If we get nearly everybody vaccinated, the spread essentially stops because there are no more hosts to be infected. When it is no longer spreading, it is no longer mutating. 

(3) Because of the potential future danger that exists for everyone, the collective goal for us should be to eradicate the virus. Vaccinations are the key to that goal. This is what logic tells us. The focus should be to put Covid behind us with vaccinations just as we've done with vaccinations for smallpox, measles, and polio

.Item # 2 would only make sense if the "vaccine" prevented people who are vaccinated from getting infected by the virus in question.  As that "vaccine " has very specifically been reported to a) not prevent the vaccinated from getting infected and b) not prevent an infected vaccinated person from spreading the virus to other people than it appears that item #2 would not work.  It follows logically that item #3 is moot.   That may be why AntiT is questioning whether these medicines should be called vaccines at all.

An extensive study out of Israel suggests that natural immunity acquired by having gone through a Covid infection gives much higher resistance to reinfection than the vaccines.  This should lead to a questioning of any attempt to coerce anyone by any means to take these vaccines if they have active antibodies.  I have no doubt that those who are motivated by politics or $ (Big Pharma) will manage to ignore this science.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-no-infection-parties

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me help out AntiT:

2) If we get nearly everybody vaccinated, the spread essentially stops because there are no more hosts to be infected. When it is no longer spreading, it is no longer mutating. 

(3) Because of the potential future danger that exists for everyone, the collective goal for us should be to eradicate the virus. Vaccinations are the key to that goal. This is what logic tells us. The focus should be to put Covid behind us with vaccinations just as we've done with vaccinations for smallpox, measles, and polio

.Item # 2 would only make sense if the "vaccine" prevented people who are vaccinated from getting infected by the virus in question.  As that "vaccine " has very specifically been reported to a) not prevent the vaccinated from getting infected and b) not prevent an infected vaccinated person from spreading the virus to other people than it appears that item #2 would not work.  It follows logically that item #3 is moot.   That may be why AntiT is questioning whether these medicines should be called vaccines at all.

An extensive study out of Israel suggests that natural immunity acquired by having gone through a Covid infection gives much higher resistance to reinfection than the vaccines.  This should lead to a questioning of any attempt to coerce anyone by any means to take these vaccines if they have active antibodies.  I have no doubt that those who are motivated by politics or $ (Big Pharma) will manage to ignore this science.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-no-infection-parties

 

 

But that same article says:

 

“The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected against reinfection than those who once had the virus and were still unvaccinated.”

 

His other points aren’t incorrect, IMO. If everyone got vaccinated tomorrow, the likelihood of additional variants would decrease; less transmission,fewer infected and fewer symptomatic hosts = less potential for random mutation.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, lu1979 said:

Let me help out AntiT:

2) If we get nearly everybody vaccinated, the spread essentially stops because there are no more hosts to be infected. When it is no longer spreading, it is no longer mutating. 

(3) Because of the potential future danger that exists for everyone, the collective goal for us should be to eradicate the virus. Vaccinations are the key to that goal. This is what logic tells us. The focus should be to put Covid behind us with vaccinations just as we've done with vaccinations for smallpox, measles, and polio

.Item # 2 would only make sense if the "vaccine" prevented people who are vaccinated from getting infected by the virus in question.  As that "vaccine " has very specifically been reported to a) not prevent the vaccinated from getting infected and b) not prevent an infected vaccinated person from spreading the virus to other people than it appears that item #2 would not work.  It follows logically that item #3 is moot.   That may be why AntiT is questioning whether these medicines should be called vaccines at all.

An extensive study out of Israel suggests that natural immunity acquired by having gone through a Covid infection gives much higher resistance to reinfection than the vaccines.  This should lead to a questioning of any attempt to coerce anyone by any means to take these vaccines if they have active antibodies.  I have no doubt that those who are motivated by politics or $ (Big Pharma) will manage to ignore this science.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-no-infection-parties

 

Don’t want the vaccine? Well, don’t go to Lehigh, Cornell, Ohio State, etc. 

Edited by Billyhoyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, lu1979 said:

Let me help out AntiT:

(2) If we get nearly everybody vaccinated, the spread essentially stops because there are no more hosts to be infected. When it is no longer spreading, it is no longer mutating. 

(3) Because of the potential future danger that exists for everyone, the collective goal for us should be to eradicate the virus. Vaccinations are the key to that goal. This is what logic tells us. The focus should be to put Covid behind us with vaccinations just as we've done with vaccinations for smallpox, measles, and polio

.Item # 2 would only make sense if the "vaccine" prevented people who are vaccinated from getting infected by the virus in question.  As that "vaccine " has very specifically been reported to

a) not prevent the vaccinated from getting infected and

b) not prevent an infected vaccinated person from spreading the virus to other people

than it appears that item #2 would not work. 

It follows logically that item #3 is moot.   That may be why AntiT is questioning whether these medicines should be called vaccines at all.

You are clearly confused here. I've highlighted the related text from your post in blue.

Item #2 (highlighted in black) is not my creation, it is well established and is better known as "herd immunity". If nearly everyone is immune, then your points (a) and (b) are basically irrelevant. Even if a percentage of vaccinated people get infected and are able to spread it - there aren't enough hosts to continue the spread EXACTLY because nearly everyone is vaccinated.

If nearly everybody is vaccinated, then it works.

What you're describing (above, in blue) is what we're experiencing right now because we have too many unvaccinated people - too many hosts to continue the spread - that's the problem.

Item #3 is anything but moot... it is the most important piece, regardless of the rest of the discussion. I'll quote it again here for emphasis.

Quote

(3) Because of the potential future danger that exists for everyone, the collective goal for us should be to eradicate the virus. Vaccinations are the key to that goal. This is what logic tells us. The focus should be to put Covid behind us with vaccinations just as we've done with vaccinations for smallpox, measles, and polio

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s some debate about your premise of the goal here. I believe Singapore is on record as preparing for perpetual COVID threat, vs continued, misguided attempts to eradicate it. This virus is far more like influenza than it is to smallpox, measles, or polio. Those who choose to vaccinate against flu annually and those who don’t manage to coexist peacefully and respectfully. 
 

This recent talk of raising insurance rates for the vaccine hesitant seems arbitrary and discriminatory. Since when are personal health choices scrutinized this way? Group plans don’t penalize individuals who are overweight, diabetic, sedentary, smokers, drinkers, etc , they simply calculate a group risk based on all those factors and set rates accordingly. If they want to add a given percentage of unvaccinated to their calculus and adjust rates for everyone, that would be consistent (not equitable). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2021 at 6:27 AM, Perry said:

That explains a lot of what I'm seeing these days..

Just wanted to re-post this because I spit my coffee up laughing. I made the mistake of being in the trendy part of denver yesterday morning during "brunch hours". Good grief some of these guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tigerfan said:

There’s some debate about your premise of the goal here. I believe Singapore is on record as preparing for perpetual COVID threat, vs continued, misguided attempts to eradicate it. This virus is far more like influenza than it is to smallpox, measles, or polio. Those who choose to vaccinate against flu annually and those who don’t manage to coexist peacefully and respectfully. 
 

This recent talk of raising insurance rates for the vaccine hesitant seems arbitrary and discriminatory. Since when are personal health choices scrutinized this way? Group plans don’t penalize individuals who are overweight, diabetic, sedentary, smokers, drinkers, etc , they simply calculate a group risk based on all those factors and set rates accordingly. If they want to add a given percentage of unvaccinated to their calculus and adjust rates for everyone, that would be consistent (not equitable). 

Smokers are charged more in my company’s insurance plan and I believe that is fairly common.   You also get a discount for doing a health screening.  So I think giving the vaccinated/previously infected a discount on insurance (rather than charging the unvaccinated & not previously infected more although I realize that’s basically the same thing) makes more sense than a straight up mandate.

It’s also not that easy to get a new job, so overall I’m not a fan of vaccine mandates for employers (especially if they disregard natural immunity).  But it’s not that difficult to go to a different college so I kinda understand them for colleges.   Not to mention college students would probably be more likely to spread covid potentially causing outbreaks that could disrupt in person classes.

Edit:  And if we want to have any chance at eradicating covid (which seems unlikely at this point) and seeing less variants, we need to get more 1st vaccine doses to other countries.  Not give Americans a third.

 

Edited by 1032004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

You are clearly confused here. I've highlighted the related text from your post in blue.

Item #2 (highlighted in black) is not my creation, it is well established and is better known as "herd immunity". If nearly everyone is immune, then your points (a) and (b) are basically irrelevant. Even if a percentage of vaccinated people get infected and are able to spread it - there aren't enough hosts to continue the spread EXACTLY because nearly everyone is vaccinated.

If nearly everybody is vaccinated, then it works.

What you're describing (above, in blue) is what we're experiencing right now because we have too many unvaccinated people - too many hosts to continue the spread - that's the problem.

Item #3 is anything but moot... it is the most important piece, regardless of the rest of the discussion. I'll quote it again here for emphasis.

 

 

 

 

Hey GWN - I am not confused at all - I understand what herd immunity is - If the vaccines in question actually made people immune to the virus that would be a great thing.  But they don't.  The people promoting the vaccines don't even claim that now.  They are publicly saying that vaccinated people can still get infected by the virus and still pass the virus on to other people.  Now on the positive side they are claiming that the vaccination will lower the subjects chance of having a serious case of Covid that will land them in the hospital or kill them.  That is a good reason for someone to take the vaccine.  But the herd immunity argument is pretty hard to make when the makers and promoters of the vaccine say it does not prevent infection or stop an infected person from transmitting the virus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, lu1979 said:

Hey GWN - I am not confused at all - I understand what herd immunity is - If the vaccines in question actually made people immune to the virus that would be a great thing.  But they don't.  The people promoting the vaccines don't even claim that now.  They are publicly saying that vaccinated people can still get infected by the virus and still pass the virus on to other people.  Now on the positive side they are claiming that the vaccination will lower the subjects chance of having a serious case of Covid that will land them in the hospital or kill them.  That is a good reason for someone to take the vaccine.  But the herd immunity argument is pretty hard to make when the makers and promoters of the vaccine say it does not prevent infection or stop an infected person from transmitting the virus.

There is a pretty good discussion of this, in layman's terms, here: Americans Are Losing Sight of the Pandemic Endgame - The Atlantic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, red blades said: - but yes, much better.

How so?

it’s pretty simple. 
 

let’s say there were 10, 000 hospitalizations due to COVID per day prior to anybody being vaccinated (just using a simple number to illustrate a simple point). If half the population is now vaccinated, and the vaccine is as effective, as claimed, then there should now be approximately half as many hospitalizations due to COVID per day (~5000). 
 

reports of hospitals still being overwhelmed are either b.s., or there’s some other explanation (I.e., staffing issues), but blaming the unvaccinated makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, vegetable lasagna said:

How so?

it’s pretty simple. 
 

let’s say there were 10, 000 hospitalizations due to COVID per day prior to anybody being vaccinated (just using a simple number to illustrate a simple point). If half the population is now vaccinated, and the vaccine is as effective, as claimed, then there should now be approximately half as many hospitalizations due to COVID per day (~5000). 
 

reports of hospitals still being overwhelmed are either b.s., or there’s some other explanation (I.e., staffing issues), but blaming the unvaccinated makes no sense.

You seem to be assuming the virus before vaccinations and now is the same. It's not. Delta is way more transmissible.

Plus the hospitals being overwhelmed are in low vaccination areas and are almost entirely overwhelmed BY  the unvaccinated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How so?
it’s pretty simple. 
 
let’s say there were 10, 000 hospitalizations due to COVID per day prior to anybody being vaccinated (just using a simple number to illustrate a simple point). If half the population is now vaccinated, and the vaccine is as effective, as claimed, then there should now be approximately half as many hospitalizations due to COVID per day (~5000). 
 
reports of hospitals still being overwhelmed are either b.s., or there’s some other explanation (I.e., staffing issues), but blaming the unvaccinated makes no sense.

Or, more people (who are overwhelmingly unvaccinated) are catching and spreading COVID, because of relaxed restrictions (mask bans, for example) and a more virulent variant?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gimpeltf said:

You seem to be assuming the virus before vaccinations and now is the same. It's not. Delta is way more transmissible.

Plus the hospitals being overwhelmed are in low vaccination areas and are almost entirely overwhelmed BY  the unvaccinated.

I’ll be honest, I haven’t kept up with the latest developments bc I find the whole thing more and more dubious... but , I think that I heard that delta, while more transmissible, causes much less severe symptoms and is much less deadly. By your reasoning, delta would have to be more lethal than the original strain.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Le duke said:


Or, more people (who are overwhelmingly unvaccinated) are catching and spreading COVID, because of relaxed restrictions (mask bans, for example) and a more virulent variant?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So the vaccine has really had little effect thus far... and, unlike every other vaccine known to man,  will only help you if everybody gets it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, vegetable lasagna said:

I’ll be honest, I haven’t kept up with the latest developments bc I find the whole thing more and more dubious... but , I think that I heard that delta, while more transmissible, causes much less severe symptoms and is much less deadly. By your reasoning, delta would have to be more lethal than the original strain.

 

Delta is more transmissible but also gives you about a 2x chance of getting hospitalized if you’re unvaxxed compared to alpha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vegetable lasagna said:

I’ll be honest, I haven’t kept up with the latest developments bc I find the whole thing more and more dubious... but , I think that I heard that delta, while more transmissible, causes much less severe symptoms and is much less deadly. By your reasoning, delta would have to be more lethal than the original strain.

A. Why comment when you know you haven't kept up?

B Why are you more dubious for the same reason as in A?

C. The fact that hospitals are being overwhelmed should tell you about how serious it is. The older are mostly vaccinated so some stats could be interpreted in such a way but Delta is infecting the younger group more than 1.0 did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

A. Why comment when you know you haven't kept up?

B Why are you more dubious for the same reason as in A?

C. The fact that hospitals are being overwhelmed should tell you about how serious it is. The older are mostly vaccinated so some stats could be interpreted in such a way but Delta is infecting the younger group more than 1.0 did.

Is my “old” information wrong? Have the “facts” changed ?

 

 Where I live, reports of overwhelmed hospitals have been greatly exaggerated, per my brother-in-law, a nurse who actually works in one... so I take such reports with a block of salt.

Edited by vegetable lasagna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, pawrestler said:

Delta is more transmissible but also gives you about a 2x chance of getting hospitalized if you’re unvaxxed compared to alpha

That doesn’t jibe with the original findings that delta causes less severe symptoms and is less deadly. Look it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vegetable lasagna said:

That doesn’t jibe with the original findings that delta causes less severe symptoms and is less deadly. Look it up.

...Because of the vaccine.   Multiple studies have concluded it is actually more deadly.   Many countries with little vaccine coverage have recently seen their highest daily deaths of the entire pandemic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vegetable lasagna said:

Is my “old” information wrong? Have the “facts” changed ?

 

 Where I live, reports of overwhelmed hospitals have been greatly exaggerated, per my brother-in-law, a nurse who actually works in one... so I take such reports with a block of salt.

Again, the fact that you don't know should tell you the answer.

It depends where you live. Hospitalizations have approached pre-vaccination era data country-wide but very skewed towards low vax states.

ICU beds are gone/nearly gone in the states and people with other emergencies are being shuttled or refused ICU beds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, vegetable lasagna said:

That doesn’t jibe with the original findings that delta causes less severe symptoms and is less deadly. Look it up.

Researchers analysed healthcare data from 43,338 COVID-19 cases in England from March 29 to May 23 of this year, including vaccination status, emergency care, hospital admission and other patient information.


After accounting for factors that are known to affect susceptibility to severe illness -- including age, ethnicity, and vaccination status -- the researchers found the risk of being admitted to hospital was more than doubled with the Delta variant.


You can read the study yourself if you want:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00475-8/fulltext

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.france24.com/en/live-news/20210827-covid-delta-doubles-hospital-risk-vs-alpha-variant


www.nytimes.com/2021/08/27/health/delta-variant-hospitalization-risk.amp.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...