Are you vaccinated for Covid-19

Are you vaccinated for Covid-19

  • Yes

    Votes: 38 71.7%
  • No

    Votes: 15 28.3%

  • Total voters
    53
To be fair, you both insulted one another back and forth. There were insulting questions of intelligence on their end, and you sought to insult them by stating they will likely die for their choices (or did you think this wasn't insulting?). Either way, you're both doing the same things using different words. However, it's difficult for anyone who adheres these things as some form of their identity, not to get defensive and resort to insulting individuals instead of attacking the lack of evidence or the lack of understanding. It's common human behavior to miss the point.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

As I have stated before this is all very pointless with that stated again. I posted what has been seen as many as a thoughtful presentation. Since the left finds itself being offended by being labeled as such, I will now refer to them as my opposition which they are free to also feign offense to as well. Part of the opposition took it upon himself to try and dis-credit the post not by offering counter facts no but, his OPINION that it was not really factual. One could go thru the science of it and try and prove the science wrong but that did not happen. Nor frankly can it since the science isn't wrong and where is one going to find information that says chemical processes do in did happen.

I then pointed out (and apologized for) what constitutes a reality of MINE (as stated on numerous occasions) that the out come of the pro-vaccine premise is that more people will needlessly die. So one can't be identified for anything then? I have been identified as an anti-vaxxer and apparently I missed your outrage over that so...yet again I will apologize. What point did I miss when I was thanked for trying to think? I now need to apologize yet again for mis-understanding an insult (cheap as it was) for being an insult? I simply wished him well enjoying his position, which yes in MY opinion will cause more deaths in vaccinated people.
 
Fine now point us to the OBJECTIVE data.
I wasn't speaking to you. Also, I have backed up what I said.
OK fine, now explain how a "vaccine" that doesn't stop the vaccinated from getting the virus OR, prevent them for spreading the virus. To the point that the vaccinated are carrying a higher viral load than the unvaccinated slows down the spread?
Are you reading someone else's comments? Seriously. It doesn't. Please, read my other comments.
 
As I have stated before this is all very pointless with that stated again. I posted what has been seen as many as a thoughtful presentation. Since the left finds itself being offended by being labeled as such, I will now refer to them as my opposition which they are free to also feign offense to as well. Part of the opposition took it upon himself to try and dis-credit the post not by offering counter facts no but, his OPINION that it was not really factual. One could go thru the science of it and try and prove the science wrong but that did not happen. Nor frankly can it since the science isn't wrong and where is one going to find information that says chemical processes do in did happen.

I then pointed out (and apologized for) what constitutes a reality of MINE (as stated on numerous occasions) that the out come of the pro-vaccine premise is that more people will needlessly die. So one can't be identified for anything then? I have been identified as an anti-vaxxer and apparently I missed your outrage over that so...yet again I will apologize. What point did I miss when I was thanked for trying to think? I now need to apologize yet again for mis-understanding an insult (cheap as it was) for being an insult? I simply wished him well enjoying his position, which yes in MY opinion will cause more deaths in vaccinated people.
You are welcome to your opinion.
 
Then what does justify a lack of freedom?
In my opinion, not much. There's a reason people are willing to risk everything for freedom. If the data showed that there would be a possibility to eradicate Covid completely, then giving up some freedoms to ensure that, would be understandable. However, the data simply does not demonstrate that to be the case.
 
In my opinion, not much. There's a reason people are willing to risk everything for freedom. If the data showed that there would be a possibility to eradicate Covid completely, then giving up some freedoms to ensure that, would be understandable. However, the data simply does not demonstrate that to be the case.

So you will then direct me to that part of the U.S. Constitution that supercedes the First Amendment?
 
I wasn't speaking to you. Also, I have backed up what I said.

Are you reading someone else's comments? Seriously. It doesn't. Please, read my other comments.


1. Because you weren't speaking to me I can't ask a civil question? 2. Then on what authority do you have to offer an OPINION on interactions that DIDN'T INVOLVE YOU? 3. I never suggested you had or had not backed up what you said. 4. I simply and CIVILLY asked where the objective information was.
5. Not only am I reading someone else's comments I am QUOTING some else's comments. 6. Yes I was serious. 7. I have read your other comments why are you suggesting I re-read them?
 
So you will then direct me to that part of the U.S. Constitution that supercedes the First Amendment?
I think you're angry, and you're not even reading now. You feel attacked and called out because I pointed out that you were doing exactly what you were angry others had been doing to you.

However, you're not welcome to put words into my mouth, nor will I sit idle while you accuse me of things I've not done or said. If you have read anything I've written you'd know that freedom is paramount to me, and would know my exact stance on Covid. Yet, I can see you haven't.

Get out of your own way. I'm not your enemy here.
 
I think you're angry, and you're not even reading now. You feel attacked and called out because I pointed out that you were doing exactly what you were angry others had been doing to you.

However, you're not welcome to put words into my mouth, nor will I sit idle while you accuse me of things I've not done or said. If you have read anything I've written you'd know that freedom is paramount to me, and would know my exact stance on Covid. Yet, I can see you haven't.

Get out of your own way.

This is simply too easy now. 1. How would you have the slightest clue how I feel? 2. I am by no means angry, which is none of your business anyhow. 3. Not reading? 3a. I shudder to think what logic you used to come to that conclusion. 3b. I think I have demonstrated very clearly I have thoroughly read EVERYTHING. 3c. Please by all means point out what I have not read. 3d. If an apology is due I will indeed provide one. 4. Again by ALL means point out the error of my ways in accusing you of saying or doing things you have not done. 4a. Yet again if an apology is due one will be provided. 5. In post #204 YOU stated "not much" to my question in post #198 asking what does allow for the relinquishment of freedom. 5a. "Not much" in accepted usage means SOMETHING can. So, I asked where that exception was in the Constitution since Amendment 1is absolute (as is the entire Constitution) God given and all.5b. YOU STIPULATED IN POST #204 that something could indeed warrant the loss of freedom.6. Again I ask how you know how I feel? 7. I have responded to your original observation that it is not accurate. 8. Yet again again where have I put words into your mouth? 9. What have I accused you that you have not said or done? 10.How am I to know that freedom is paramount to you when you have specifically posted there is something that could qualify for someone to lose some freedom? 11. I have not questioned your stance on covid and no, I would not come to any conclusion on your position based on what I have read here. 12. I will apologize first but, how have you seen I haven't read any of your material? 13. How do you know I am in my own way? 13a. Why is it your position to point that out? 13b. Is this where I am to accuse you of doing to me what I am supposedly doing to you but "by using different words"? 14. Again where did I stipulate you are either an enemy or my enemy? 15. I simply asked a few simple civil questions. 16. In point of fact you have LITERALLY demonstrated you have NOT accurately read my posts.
 
Last edited:
@larry806q
I think you need a snickers
giphy.gif
 
I don’t think it really helps to polarise this kind of issue. Most things we rely on for civilised life carry downsides and risks that are not well quantified. Different people will judge those risks against the benefits to them and act accordingly. Those judgements will be based on convictions, evidence, logic and values.

Vaccines are like any other medical intervention and carry risk. It’s impossible to say at this point whether the long term risks outweigh the long term benefits. There may be indications but this thread shows how much these indications can be expressed and interpreted in quite different ways. It’ll probably only be a decade from now that a firm scientific understanding will be possible, because it will take that long for the long term raw data to emerge fully and be processed into digestible and agreed conclusions by the epidemiological experts.

So we are left with the balance relying rather more on convictions and values than evidence and logic - by no means entirely of course. It’s inevitable that there will be wide divergences between folks on these grounds. I think that a willingness to listen to each other and be tolerant of the divergent views is essential - it’s a mark of civilisation. And it’s a willingness to accept we each of us might well be wrong at this stage. The strong championship of each point of view here has certainly given me a fresh look at this issue and I respect the convictions that have driven it.

We have this split in my family - my elder son and his partner refused the vaccine. My wife and I got it as soon as we were eligible. The risk balance at our respective ages and our differences in understanding of the risk/benefit equation make both positions sensible. Any putative increased risk of him giving COVID to us is lessened at the moment anyway because he and his partner have both had the illness recently and recovered fine.

I shall of course cut him out of my will :tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy:
 
Last edited:
@Anomaly you made several of points over a number of posts that set me thinking.

You and others have made the very important point that vaccines don't stop people catching and passing on the virus. We have a high level of infections now in the UK that certainly backs this up. On the other hand our hospital admissions and deaths from COVID are well below the levels they were the last time the illness was this prevelant. The main difference between then and now seems to be the vaccine.

I think there is a social responsibility aspect of being vaccinated that is worth consideration, but it's not a straightforward one (of course, I'm stating the thinking behind my own position here - each of us has to work out where we stand and make our choices accordingly in a bewildering chaos of information). Younger folks are more likely to have mild COVID and may be off work and have to isolate for a few days, but that happens with seasonal flu and other illnesses, so why make a big deal of it in comparison to those other illnesses? On the other hand older people are much more likely to end up in hospital if they have no level of prior immunity and this has crucifed the UK health service. As a result we now have a huge five year backlog of people with other serious health conditions who haven't been treated - for instance the deaths from cancer are significantly up as a direct consequence of COVID. I think for older people, doing all they can to avoid COVID putting them into hospital is very important both for themselves and for others who desperately need those resources. Lives are lost indirectly from COVID as well as directly.

The vaccination of children is another situation that's quite complex. Obviously, they don't suffer much risk of serious illness and death compared with older people, but that isn't the only risk. We have had over 18 months of severe disruption to childrens' education because of lockdowns, and even when the schools were open, particular classes were suspended repeatedly for a couple of weeks at a time if one of the kids or staff got COVID. If we don't prevent this from recurring, then the entire lives of these kids and the society they live in will be blighted through lack of proper education. The trouble is that measuring and balancing that sort of risk against the risks and possible efficacy of the vaccines is very difficult; but if we don't get a control and provide consistent and uninterrupted eduction for our young people then the damage done in the long run could far exceeed the risk of damage caused by the vaccination of children. But again I'm sure with information being so conflicting and debatable there is no simple assessment and choice to be made here - I don't envy the politicians who have to make the decisions on these matters.
 
After reading this thread, I want to highlight one thing that is critical to me.
Then what does justify a lack of freedom?
So, if the vaccine is killing more children than are dying from the virus why are they being vaccinated? Further why did 5-11 year olds get the OK for the vaccine?
Let's consider the assumption (which I am 100% convinced is true) that should children get the jab, more will die than would be saved by the jab.

I am unsatisfied having ONLY evidence of jab deaths sufficient to justify no lack of freedom. The evidence I refer to are the number of jab deaths from VAERS. And my dissatisfaction is stopping with that value. It is hugely under-reported. Sure there is some subjectivity, but the work of Attorney Thomas Rentz (in part by relying on the Medicare/Medicaid CMS database) as well as Steve Kirsch indicates to me that a far more accurate estimate is ~250,000 at least.

I want to factor in a bit more.

In the video of the 13 year old jab-injured girl I posted, Pfizer first said her problem is psychological. Then Pfizer said she is jab-injured and labeled it abdominal pain. The poor girl has a feeding tube and is wheelchair bound.

Pfizer is excluded from the mandate. Its employees need not take the jab. Its bastard CEO has not. (He knows.)

You can see Pfizer, J&J, Moderna, and CDC racketeering, thanks to the patent trail.

Pfizer internal documents demonstrate they know of the jab damage.

And they want children to be given the jab?

Oh no. Retention of our freedoms is not enough. I want Pfizer, CDC, Moderna, and J&J at the least to have their corporate charters revoked and all assets cashed out and distributed to victims.

I want heads to roll. I want thousands rounded up for the crime of mass murder.

So I want better data and we can estimate it pretty well.
 
After reading this thread, I want to highlight one thing that is critical to me.


Let's consider the assumption (which I am 100% convinced is true) that should children get the jab, more will die than would be saved by the jab.

I am unsatisfied having ONLY evidence of jab deaths sufficient to justify no lack of freedom. The evidence I refer to are the number of jab deaths from VAERS. And my dissatisfaction is stopping with that value. It is hugely under-reported. Sure there is some subjectivity, but the work of Attorney Thomas Rentz (in part by relying on the Medicare/Medicaid CMS database) as well as Steve Kirsch indicates to me that a far more accurate estimate is ~250,000 at least.

I want to factor in a bit more.

In the video of the 13 year old jab-injured girl I posted, Pfizer first said her problem is psychological. Then Pfizer said she is jab-injured and labeled it abdominal pain. The poor girl has a feeding tube and is wheelchair bound.

Pfizer is excluded from the mandate. Its employees need not take the jab. Its bastard CEO has not. (He knows.)

You can see Pfizer, J&J, Moderna, and CDC racketeering, thanks to the patent trail.

Pfizer internal documents demonstrate they know of the jab damage.

And they want children to be given the jab?

Oh no. Retention of our freedoms is not enough. I want Pfizer, CDC, Moderna, and J&J at the least to have their corporate charters revoked and all assets cashed out and distributed to victims.

I want heads to roll. I want thousands rounded up for the crime of mass murder.

So I want better data and we can estimate it pretty well.

Well put! It could be easier than even that.....

ALL officers of big pharma HAVE to take their full vaccination course. If ANYONE of their officers refuse, their vaccine is pulled. Who now wants to argue that point?

You are indeed correct, they know and they won't. Why is it that anyone with enough pull gets exempted? How does the left want to rationalize that?
 
So, if the vaccine is killing more children than are dying from the virus why are they being vaccinated? Further why did 5-11 year olds get the OK for the vaccine?
I'm not the one deciding. Your guess is as good as mine what the motivations are behind it, given the data that doesn't substantiate such a decision. Simply, I don't know why it would be necessary, as it prevents nothing, and does more harm than good to children.
 
@Anomaly you made several of points over a number of posts that set me thinking.

You and others have made the very important point that vaccines don't stop people catching and passing on the virus. We have a high level of infections now in the UK that certainly backs this up. On the other hand our hospital admissions and deaths from COVID are well below the levels they were the last time the illness was this prevelant. The main difference between then and now seems to be the vaccine.

I think there is a social responsibility aspect of being vaccinated that is worth consideration, but it's not a straightforward one (of course, I'm stating the thinking behind my own position here - each of us has to work out where we stand and make our choices accordingly in a bewildering chaos of information). Younger folks are more likely to have mild COVID and may be off work and have to isolate for a few days, but that happens with seasonal flu and other illnesses, so why make a big deal of it in comparison to those other illnesses? On the other hand older people are much more likely to end up in hospital if they have no level of prior immunity and this has crucifed the UK health service. As a result we now have a huge five year backlog of people with other serious health conditions who haven't been treated - for instance the deaths from cancer are significantly up as a direct consequence of COVID. I think for older people, doing all they can to avoid COVID putting them into hospital is very important both for themselves and for others who desperately need those resources. Lives are lost indirectly from COVID as well as directly.

The vaccination of children is another situation that's quite complex. Obviously, they don't suffer much risk of serious illness and death compared with older people, but that isn't the only risk. We have had over 18 months of severe disruption to childrens' education because of lockdowns, and even when the schools were open, particular classes were suspended repeatedly for a couple of weeks at a time if one of the kids or staff got COVID. If we don't prevent this from recurring, then the entire lives of these kids and the society they live in will be blighted through lack of proper education. The trouble is that measuring and balancing that sort of risk against the risks and possible efficacy of the vaccines is very difficult; but if we don't get a control and provide consistent and uninterrupted eduction for our young people then the damage done in the long run could far exceeed the risk of damage caused by the vaccination of children. But again I'm sure with information being so conflicting and debatable there is no simple assessment and choice to be made here - I don't envy the politicians who have to make the decisions on these matters.
John, I respect your perspective here, truly. I can see why it is integral for anyone with a comorbidity to receive the available vaccinations due to milder symptoms should they contract the virus (which, sad to say, most will eventually contract it given time). I am not anti-vaxx, but I am anti mRNAs for those who simply do not need it, and because we do not have any data whatsoever on them to be giving them to those who do not require it.

I agree that this issue is highly polarized; however, if one looks at the data, it really shouldn't be. It isn't black and white, as you said, which is why I'm in the middle gray area when it comes to this. You have to look at the actual data, and be a reasonable person. However, this is not a common approach in a world where anyone who disagrees with another is seen as an enemy, or is assumed to be on the opposite 'side' of things. Where I draw a line is in the force of these notions on individuals who have their choice taken from them based on nothing more than emotional manipulation, given that the data simply does not back up such measures (the spikes on the graphs are incidentally related to what was going on in the news-- and people were more apt to leave their homes from December-2020 to January of this year, if you recall. The decrease in number is due to lockdowns being re-enforced).

Many of the things you've mentioned would happen with or without vaccinations, as the spread will not be slowed due to them. The only thing that causes the slowing down of the spread is from the actual limitations of contact from person to person (I pointed out why this is the case in one of my comments to FiftySeven about viral load and shedding), and nothing else (not the vaccine, nor masks, nor the dousing of sanitizer). The data just does not corroborate with that ideology, since in places where vaccinations are prevalent, the deaths are also still prevalent due to viral load and shedding. The science on that isn't something that can be refuted. However, in places that have had strict lockdown procedures or treatment options (the treatments we know to be effective are actually being prohibited in many countries), the spread has slowed significantly. In places with vaccinations, Covid-related deaths (please note the caveat I mentioned in a prior post from the CDC itself) are still prevalent, and these numbers are being over-reported significantly due to the misrepresentation of the cause of death by as much as 94% (reported by the CDC themselves). So, the data, unless you sit and calculate the numbers yourself, is highly misrepresented and suspect.

There are only two solutions, in my opinion, based on the objective data available, and not based on my values.
1. Vaccinations for those who need it, and allow treatment for Covid that we have seen is effective, but is being prohibited in hospitals. (Hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice a day for 1 day subsequently 400 mg once every week for 3 weeks. Not for children under 15 (due to the fact that the disease is not a problem for them) or pregnant women. HCQ and azithromycin(Z-Pack)). The troubling thing is, we know without a doubt that this regimen treats effectively against Covid, yet in many countries it is being prohibited, and the only solution being presented is vaccination. Now, why would that be the case? Hospitals are literally telling people they cannot have this effective treatment, and allowing people to die or suffer. It makes no logical sense. You can look at data from India to see that this treatment has been effective in decreasing their Covid-related death rates. We have massive data sets when we look at the world stage.

2. Lockdowns, but at what cost? Decrease of educational opportunity, psychological ramifications, influx of suicides, people with no means to provide for their families, people who are afraid due to the propagation of misinformation by the media and celebrity/politician 'know-it-alls', people going without the care they need because they don't have the access to it, etc. This is what I meant by freedoms. How many are we willing to give up? Are we willing to give up our livelihoods? Given that this is never going away, and has never been a pandemic of epic proportions as was originally thought (I posted why in another comment with graphs from the CDC). It will be our new reality, just as flu is our reality. We cannot stay in lockdowns forever. So, this solution is not only unreasonable, it is purely illogical to maintain long-term.

covid.png covid 2.png
(Note: The deaths reported above are Covid-related deaths, so even those who died of other causes, but had Covid-- were marked as being a Covid-related death and therefore contributed as a part of the dataset despite not being remotely related to Covid death (so these numbers are likely much lower given this information). Further things to consider, Australia has been in lockdowns since the beginning, but they are on the brink of civil war over it. Their psychological issues have grown exponentially, given recent data surveys. India has been using ivermectin (recently stopped as preventative and only used as treatment) and HCQ and azithromycin effectively slowing their deaths comparatively).
 
Last edited:
@John K
Further, about the effects on children, I agree. The effects are likely catastrophic long-term, and we are only just now realizing it. Most of my friends who are teachers are reporting that their students are upwards of being 1-2 grade levels behind. However, it was entirely based on the decisions of politicians at the time, given our limited knowledge. Compare Sweden with the UK, and you'll see that even though Sweden did not shut down their schools, their numbers are below the UK's. We allowed the shutting down of schools because we didn't understand the nature of the virus, and we were making the best decisions we knew how given the situation. Now that we understand that it is similar to H1N1, mutates, and also will stagger off due to the natural selection process viruses go through, it wasn't prudent after-all, and the closing of schools is not necessary. The data just does not support such measures given the overall likely harm long-term.

covid sweden uk data.png
 
@Anomaly many thanks for all these thoughts and information - I think what you are saying really does show how complex and unstable the situation is in terms of information and policy. I very much agree that this can't be a time for taking a hard-edged view one way or another because the situation can change so easily. The disease itself might start to behave differently, new effects of the various interventions may emerge, we may start to see results in the statistics that weren't apparent before. It wouldn't surprise me if the published figures are inconsistent as well - I'm sure the UK has over-recorded COVID deaths in the way you suggest, but other countries might well have under-recorded deaths from COVID in a similar way, particularly in parts of the world with limited medical services or a political investment in under-recording.

Like you and others say here, the emergence of more effective treatments makes a difference too - there was a big splash about the effectiveness of a new one, Ronapreve, in the UK recently, which is a monoclonal antibody treatment.

At the moment, the UK Government seems to be taking the policy that you mentioned of learning to live with COVID rather than going into civil restrictions again. It's betting on the vaccines and the anti-viral treatments to keep the load down on our hospitals. They can't say it of course, but I think they are fairly happy for the rate of infections to be on the high side as long as people aren't getting seriously ill, because that reinforces immunity in the population. I think it was reasonable to go into lockdowns when the thing wasn't understood, and the hospitals were just days away from having to turn away crash victims because they were full of elderly emergency COVID patients and almost overwhelmed. For goodness sake let's not go back to lock downs though, or the death rates will eventually start to rise from an economic and social disaster which could be even worse than the illness in its effect. If we are really at that point now where we can start to live with it, we shouldn't have any worse a time than we do with flu.

In fact one of the side effects of the lockdowns that we should be worried about if they do continue is the lack of exposure to winter bugs like colds and flu and a drop in natural resistance to them - the last thing we need is to lay down the foundations for the next major flu epidemic by trying to contol COVID.
 
Literally none of this stuff is an ongoing conversation in Canada so it's really hard for me to understand what it's like living in a country where people are freaking about ivermectin and lockdowns and cold and flu season etc. But we're also one of the leading countries for vax rates and our case count 7 day average is under 3k.

We had pretty gentle lockdowns and have a temporary vax passport in place. In my province there's less than 12 percent of the eligible population that hasn't received their first dose yet (by choice).

They're looking to lift all restrictions including mask wearing in early 2022 as well.

I am very thankful I don't need to hear about ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine or regular violent altercations over mask mandates all the time.
 
I'm not sure that it's really a 'debate' as such; actual epidemiologists seem to share a consistent line.

To me this is like non-biologists insisting that we 'teach the controversy' about evolution.

While there might be legitimate grounds for differences of opinion on the implementation of public health measures, according to differing values and priorities, the actual science is only controversial amongst non-scientists, and particularly in cultures with an anti-science bias.
 
Back
Top