Are you vaccinated for Covid-19 | Page 9 | INFJ Forum

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
noisebloom said:
I read half of it; the "monologue" conflates real facts with obvious falsifications, doing so cleverly by using a lot of highly technical language instead of being more accessible. I have numerous counterexamples to these assertions I've seen with my own eyes to indicate to me that this doesn't "fit".

The biggest red flag is the lack of humility and humanity in the writing. Real scientists tend to not speak in such absolutes about EVERYTHING (since there is a lot of nuance to science) and are much more up front about what is known and what isn't. Even published papers are generally clear to state that the respective findings are in scope of their own studies, an acknowledgment that science is about collective consensus over time.

Have you asked yourself why you aren't approaching this overly didactic language with skepticism? Is it possible it's only because it positions itself against what you distrust, i.e. "the enemy of my enemy is my friend?"

Have you considered talking to someone down to earth that can explain all of this in non-science terms and is willing to acknowledgement the extent and shortcomings of their own information?
Click to expand...
'References will be placed at the end.'

This would be the first 'academic' I've come across who thought it was necessary to explain to their peers what endnotes were.

Some of this is just laughable, and quite clearly just an amateur imagination of what a scientist might sound like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John K, Rit4lin, Wildfire and 2 others
Hey by all means go for it! After thinking this thru I was wrong to argue this in the first place! If my premise is correct there will be that many fewer liberal votes! Enjoy!
 
In America, the only vaccines available are mRNA vaccines, which have not been thoroughly tested and only have an efficacy of about 4 months (this is why you have to get booster shots consistently). Testing mRNA vaccines for a year does not give near enough data to substantiate taking them in good conscience, unless you are in the groups which are at risk (i.e.: comorbidity: age 50+, obesity, diabetes, etc.). Getting the vaccine does not help other people. You still spread it to others if you get Covid, and in fact, you end up with a larger viral load (how much of the virus you're spreading out per breath) with the virus and the vaccine combined (according to recent studies). There have been more deaths from mRNA vaccines than all of the other vaccines in the past combined (so being cautious is not only necessary, but logical). Traditional vaccines have been tested more thoroughly, and the side-effects are proven less deadly than the viruses that they protect against.

The issue is that these things have to be thoroughly researched and aren't easy to find, because they are not being reported to the average citizen. You have to dig through massive amounts of data in the government trials, research articles, scientific journals, etc. to find these things.

Certainly, a lot of people should get the available vaccines for their own health if they are among those at risk, but not as some moral justification to protect others (you aren't protecting anyone else). Stop projecting your own moral values on others with no scientific evidence to back it up (I mean anyone on either side of it-- not just here, it's a common blight of humanity). It's sickening.

So, no, I won't be getting the mRNA vaccine. Not because I don't care, and not because I'm a dolt who listens to rhetoric, but because according to research and documentation coming out about Covid (from governmental trials, Scientific American, the CDC, scientific journals, etc.), it isn't prudent given my age and health. Now, when Novavax (a traditional vaccine going through phase 3 trials currently, not mRNA) is released to America, I will consider it because the trials in Australia are proving to work against Covid similar to the mRNA vaccines (but before that I will get the anti-body test because natural immunity has been shown to be as good, if not more effective, in protecting against the virus itself). Traditional vaccines are far safer given long-term studies for 20+ years, as opposed to the modicum of data from a year of testing mRNA vaccines-- we actually have no clue how well these will work or what the actual side effects are to mRNA vaccines. Projections of the data are based on nothing because we simply don't have the data in years to draw any conclusions whatsoever for mRNA vaccines. Anyone who says otherwise, is talking out of their ass.

Belief without any evidence whatsoever, is what is illogical. Do your own research, not on one website in your own media bubble with strange iterations that make little sense based on political aims (either liberal or conservative-- same motivations (power, greed, control, etc.), different blubbering), or the conjecture from where you hear your local news. Search the fucking data from the actual scientists.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: John K, Rit4lin and Wyote
larry806q said:
What is with you lefties that think it is just neater than hell to insult people? I guess sitting behind that oh so vicious computer one can feel invincible.

Enjoy!
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rit4lin, FiftySeven and Lady Jolanda
larry806q said:
What is with you lefties that think it is just neater than hell to insult people?
Click to expand...
As opposed to the not at all insulting point of view that it would be good if there are fewer voters of a particular political conviction because they've died?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rit4lin and Wildfire
Anomaly said:
..... Getting the vaccine does not help other people. You still spread it to others if you get Covid, and in fact, you end up with a larger viral load (how much of the virus you're spreading out per breath) with the virus and the vaccine combined (according to recent studies). .... Search the fucking data from the actual scientists.
Click to expand...
Overall, the likelihood of household transmission was approximately 40 to 50% lower in households of index patients who had been vaccinated 21 days or more before testing positive than in households of unvaccinated index patients; the findings were similar for the two vaccines.
Click to expand...
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2107717 dated Aug 2021 New England Journal of Medicine
 
  • Like
Reactions: Anomaly
Lady Jolanda said:
As opposed to the not at all insulting point of view that it would be good if there are fewer voters of a particular political conviction because they've died?
Click to expand...
Just curious. Is there a correlation between rightful criticisms you bother to lodge and the posture of the person for whom your post is made?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lady Jolanda
Posture? I'm afraid I can't see how a person is sitting through a computer screen. ;)

Jokes aside, can you please rephrase the question, I don't quite understand what you mean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John K, Rit4lin and o2b
o2b said:
Just curious. Is there a correlation between rightful criticisms you bother to lodge and the posture of the person for whom your post is made?
Click to expand...
derpy, keep your bullshit argumentation in the 5G thread. ;)
 
Lady Jolanda said:
Posture? I'm afraid I can't see how a person is sitting through a computer screen. ;)

Jokes aside, can you please rephrase the question, I don't quite understand what you mean.
Click to expand...
My post may be off-base as it occurs to me I have little awareness of when you have posted something of a critical nature.

What I mean by posture in a binary sense with respect to this subject - 1)pro-covid jab and 2)anti-covid jab and a tally of criticisms lodged as a function of both posture types.

Here is an example.

@FiftySeven recently made the most incompetent posts I think I have ever seen. They have to do with Zelenko claiming that Fauci/NIH knows of hydroxychloroquine efficacy with coronavirus back in 2005, based on the NIH periodical Virology Journal. 57 thinks to have repudiated the claim based on his contention that Zelenko claims over one million folks have died from the jab. So, I conducted a simple internet search - "Virology Journal hydroxychloroquine 2005." Sure enough:

https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69

And there it is. I will assume the NIH is aware since this is their periodical and it's not as though HCQ did not make the news what with Trump advocating it.

You can see the dialogue stream. 57 just buckled down. (Zelenko is a moron, blah, blah, blah.)

Absolute incompetence.

Now, I exclude you from not being verbal about this specific due to you being a sparse contributor.

But, if a person is a truth-seeker, 57 must be called to the carpet.

Where was Wyote? Deleted member 16771? And a number of others?

NOWHERE TO BE FOUND.

So @larry806q cites some article. Here some come. Now the criticisms.

There is your correlation.

Really, the pro-covid side's behavior is disgusting and wholly indicts itself as having virtually no intent to simply seek truth. I claim its truth-seeking desires are 100% nonexistent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lady Jolanda
FiftySeven said:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2107717 dated Aug 2021 New England Journal of Medicine
Click to expand...
The website disclaimer when you follow the original source of this information from the letter you posted:

"Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information."
(It was in red on the source website at the very top of the article)

I've been looking for any other source claiming this, that was backed and I found nothing so far. The original study linked was actually done in Israel, not England. I wouldn't exactly call the study reliable, having read it. The data sizes are also suspect, despite trying to do their best with the circumstances.

Anyway, for the sake of discussion, let's assume this is true. Ex: Person X needs a viral load of 100 particles of the virus to be infected with the virus. Then person Y comes along with a viral load of 5000 and gets the vaccine (each infected person's viral load of infected particles or viral load needed leading to infection is different, but this example is not uncommon for explanation sake). If the article is true, then person Y's viral load will be reduced by nearly 50%. So, then their viral load is at 2500 particles; still infecting patient X with the virus.

The point is, they are still shedding a viral load much higher than is needed to catch it. Whether you have the vaccine or not, it still spreads through the population, and especially so, since it mutates.

Thus, the demonization of people who are not vaccinated, is baffling, and frankly speaks more about the ignorance of those propagating it as a means of forcing vaccination that does not stop the spread whatsoever. We will continue to have Covid, just like we will continue to have any other SARS virus.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: John K, o2b and Rit4lin
o2b said:
My post may be off-base as it occurs to me I have little awareness of when you have posted something of a critical nature.

What I mean by posture in a binary sense with respect to this subject - 1)pro-covid jab and 2)anti-covid jab and a tally of criticisms lodged as a function of both posture types.
Click to expand...
Forgive me, English isn't my first language so I still don't quite get what you mean.

As you've noted, I haven't been part of the discussion. All I've posted was the correction to an article that was linked, because I know from experience that many people read the original article but not the correction made later. (That's just human psychology, that has nothing to do with anybody in particular on this forum.)

I also don't intend to be part of the discussion for two reasons: 1) I don't like to involve myself until I feel like I know enough about a topic. I have very high standards for myself - ask anyone.
2) I'm a moderator, so I have a 'duty' to stay neutral.

I called out Larry on moral grounds that have nothing to do with Covid - wishing a group of people would die is despicable. That has nothing to do with the group itself either - swap lefties for righties, women, men, jews, gays, what have you, and I would have responded the same.

If you want to know how I feel about Covid vaccines itself - I'm for personal choice on the basis of the liberal moral principle of self-ownership. Everyone should decide for themselves if they do or do not want to get vaccinated, as each individual's situation is different. I only want that decision to be based on true information rather than misinformation. (Hence me posting the correction to the article linked, and beyond that, staying out of it.) In practice, that probably means contemplating your own moral principles, and discussing your situation with your doctor and coming up with a treatment plan together.
(Most doctors and scientists truly care about the truth of the medicine and doing what's best for the patients (the two are intertwined) - you don't last very long in the profession if you don't. Of course, as anywhere, there are exceptions. Psychopaths, frauds, etc. I'm trained as a scientist, although not currently working in the field, and I've met both kinds.)

In addition to that, I feel rather disgruntled with the current trend of religiously politicizing everything and constantly arguing in bad faith.
"Vaccines and scientists and doctors are the next coming of Jesus! Praise the lord Fauci! If you ask any questions, you're against science itself! Clap for the heroes of the NHS!" Barf.
"Vaccines and doctors and scientists are literally evil! They're hiding the truth from you and only want your money! Don't believe anything you're told!" Barf.


If that's what you mean when you say
o2b said:
Really, the pro-covid side's behavior is disgusting and wholly indicts itself as having virtually no intent to simply seek truth.
Click to expand...
then I will say, yes, there are people who act like that.

There are also people who act like that on the anti-covid side. (Aren't we all anti-covid? LOL. I'll just assume you mean pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine. ;))

Confirmation bias is human psychology, it has little to do with the ideas themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John K, o2b, Rit4lin and 1 other person
Lady Jolanda said:
Aren't we all anti-covid? LOL.
Click to expand...
One would hope. Unfortunately, it is, and will continue to be our reality, just like the flu or any other SARS virus.

The backbiting is frustrating, and seeks to deviate from the original intent of the thread. Sometimes, no answer is a better choice than continuing to one-up the other. The spreading of misinformation is also incredibly disconcerting from either side. Though, as you said, confirmation bias is prevalent.

I would like to thank you for trying to remain neutral as a part of the discussion, Jo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John K, Rit4lin and Lady Jolanda
Anomaly said:
One would hope. Unfortunately, it is, and will continue to be our reality, just like the flu or any other SARS virus.
Click to expand...
For the foreseeable future, yes.

And yes, one would hope, haha. You can bet I wouldn't stay neutral if anybody unironically held a pro-covid position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John K, Rit4lin and Anomaly
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back