Unkle continuing his lies no matter the thread.
Unkle continuing his lies no matter the thread.
Precious Roy wrote:
Yeah. What is the logic? It's not like the virus mutates and becomes more transmissible and causes higher rates of severe illness. (checks notes) Oh, wait a second. That is exactly what has happened with the Delta variant that emerged in India.
If you want to play Russian Roulette every year to see whether the latest vax booster will be effective against the latest variant of COVID, then go on with your anti-vaxxer bullsh#t. But those of us who are responsible members of society know that we all need to be vaccinated to make sure that COVID has as few opportunities to mutate and to keep the vaccines as highly effective as possible.
Vaccines are not umbrellas. They are not there for whoever wants to be protected and everyone else can just deal with getting wet. Vaccines are fire breaks. They stop a virus from finding new wood to burn whether by finding unvaccinated people or by mutating to escape vaccine induced immunity.
This is just dad wrong dude. There are thousands of viruses out there looking for new wood to burn that never break out into something worse. The opposite is almost always what happens. Operating on the assumption of the opposite occurring is completely ridiculous and idiotic. Since you love fear porn so much, why don't we just spin this the other way with something contrary fear mongering that is actually somewhat plausible; although I believe it is BS it can help cancel out your backwards assumption that the least likely occurrence is the most likely:
https://principia-scientific.com/covid-19-rna-based-vaccines-and-the-risk-of-prion-disease-2/Das Unkle wrote:
It is hard to nail down the official story as it is always being changed oft contradictory.
It's not me, it's you.
ehrnys wrote:
Precious Roy wrote:
But those of us who are responsible members of society
Being a fearmonger, when fearmongering has caused untold suffering and death, is not being a responsible member of society.
You mean being an anti-vaxxer?
Haida Pigskin wrote:
ehrnys wrote:
Being a fearmonger, when fearmongering has caused untold suffering and death, is not being a responsible member of society.
You mean being an anti-vaxxer?
You are a moron because I am not against vaccination.
Try again, fearmonger.
Lead Foil Hat XX wrote:
This is just dad wrong dude. There are thousands of viruses out there looking for new wood to burn that never break out into something worse. The opposite is almost always what happens. Operating on the assumption of the opposite occurring is completely ridiculous and idiotic. Since you love fear porn so much, why don't we just spin this the other way with something contrary fear mongering that is actually somewhat plausible; although I believe it is BS it can help cancel out your backwards assumption that the least likely occurrence is the most likely:
https://principia-scientific.com/covid-19-rna-based-vaccines-and-the-risk-of-prion-disease-2/
ROFL. This is plausible? The same guy who said the flu vaccine causes diabetes? Somehow every vaccine is secretly deadly toxic according to this quack.
There are no methods in this article. The dude simply asserts that TDP-43 and FUS, known nucleic acid binding proteins, might misfold upon expsoure to the mRNA (which the COVID virus also delivers, of course....). It's just random hypothesis generation with no evidence.
He then mentions Bill Gates and the idea that the vaccine is a bioweapon.
PR's comments make sense. Once the virus can replicate in humans, there is much more likelihood of evolution toward transmissibility and infectiousness. Of course most viruses never take off -- they aren't adapted to replicate well in humans! COVID is well past that gate.
Now you are just posting blatant made-up conspiracy theories and trying to hide behind "I think it's BS." At least you are admitting you post only BS now ;)
Birkoboy wrote:
Unkle continuing his lies no matter the thread.
Such as?
The medical establishment wrote:
Das Unkle wrote:
It is hard to nail down the official story as it is always being changed oft contradictory.
It's not me, it's you.
Jesus, don't quit your day job
Haida Pigskin wrote:
ehrnys wrote:
Being a fearmonger, when fearmongering has caused untold suffering and death, is not being a responsible member of society.
You mean being an anti-vaxxer?
You are pro vax? Every vax Big Pharma comes up with is just fine with you?
mathematics wrote:
You're not accounting for start-of-chain vs. end-of-chain effects.
Old people are very susceptible to severe effects from COVID, but also generally have lower exposure by way of social contact. They are comparatively more likley to die from the disease than they are to spread it. They are the "end of the chain".
Young people are not very susceptible to severe effects from COVID. They do, however, have much greater exposure by social contact. They are comparatively more likely to spread the disease than to die from it. They are the "start of the chain".
To your question, would it be effective to ONLY vaccinate the elderly? Probably. The disease would run rampant among those with a low mortality, and lessen the mortality of those in high risk groups. The point your question misses is WHY would we take on this additional risk, especially when the supply of vaccine is now great enough to vaccinate the entire US population?
Lastly, your point that 'the vaccinate does not stop you from getting the virus, but only prevents anything worse than mild symptoms' shows a fundamental misunderstanding of both vaccines and the immune system. Clearly, an injection will not stop an outside particle from entering your body. That would violate several laws of physics, let alone biology. The entire point is that after being vaccinated, your immune system can fight off the virus more effectively. As it does with almost every other germ that enters your body on a minute-by-minute basis.
This an example of a well-thought out and well-written post.
Das Unkle wrote:
Tell the CDC
This is an example of a sheep with no retort.
mathematics wrote:
You're not accounting for start-of-chain vs. end-of-chain effects.
Old people are very susceptible to severe effects from COVID, but also generally have lower exposure by way of social contact. They are comparatively more likley to die from the disease than they are to spread it. They are the "end of the chain".
Young people are not very susceptible to severe effects from COVID. They do, however, have much greater exposure by social contact. They are comparatively more likely to spread the disease than to die from it. They are the "start of the chain".
To your question, would it be effective to ONLY vaccinate the elderly? Probably. The disease would run rampant among those with a low mortality, and lessen the mortality of those in high risk groups. The point your question misses is WHY would we take on this additional risk, especially when the supply of vaccine is now great enough to vaccinate the entire US population?
Lastly, your point that 'the vaccinate does not stop you from getting the virus, but only prevents anything worse than mild symptoms' shows a fundamental misunderstanding of both vaccines and the immune system. Clearly, an injection will not stop an outside particle from entering your body. That would violate several laws of physics, let alone biology. The entire point is that after being vaccinated, your immune system can fight off the virus more effectively. As it does with almost every other germ that enters your body on a minute-by-minute basis.
Good post. Let's not forget that COVID sends healthy people to the hospital, lays them up for a week 1+, ruins training blocks, or just makes you feel crappy for a few days.
There is a big gap for COVID symptoms between "asymptomatic" and "kills you" that lots of young people fall into.
This must be weighed against the relative risk of the vaccine, which is minuscule after months of data in millions of people.
nahbrah wrote:
This is an example of a sheep with no retort.
Just a reminder that it was you who followed the MSM and gladly stuck a cloth on your face and helped destroy lives and businesses.
You are the sheep.
Your welcome.
nahbrah wrote:
mathematics wrote:
You're not accounting for start-of-chain vs. end-of-chain effects.
Old people are very susceptible to severe effects from COVID, but also generally have lower exposure by way of social contact. They are comparatively more likley to die from the disease than they are to spread it. They are the "end of the chain".
Young people are not very susceptible to severe effects from COVID. They do, however, have much greater exposure by social contact. They are comparatively more likely to spread the disease than to die from it. They are the "start of the chain".
To your question, would it be effective to ONLY vaccinate the elderly? Probably. The disease would run rampant among those with a low mortality, and lessen the mortality of those in high risk groups. The point your question misses is WHY would we take on this additional risk, especially when the supply of vaccine is now great enough to vaccinate the entire US population?
Lastly, your point that 'the vaccinate does not stop you from getting the virus, but only prevents anything worse than mild symptoms' shows a fundamental misunderstanding of both vaccines and the immune system. Clearly, an injection will not stop an outside particle from entering your body. That would violate several laws of physics, let alone biology. The entire point is that after being vaccinated, your immune system can fight off the virus more effectively. As it does with almost every other germ that enters your body on a minute-by-minute basis.
This an example of a well-thought out and well-written post.
Das Unkle wrote:
Tell the CDC
This is an example of a sheep with no retort.
I take it you cannot answer my original question.
Harambe wrote:
mathematics wrote:
You're not accounting for start-of-chain vs. end-of-chain effects.
Old people are very susceptible to severe effects from COVID, but also generally have lower exposure by way of social contact. They are comparatively more likley to die from the disease than they are to spread it. They are the "end of the chain".
Young people are not very susceptible to severe effects from COVID. They do, however, have much greater exposure by social contact. They are comparatively more likely to spread the disease than to die from it. They are the "start of the chain".
To your question, would it be effective to ONLY vaccinate the elderly? Probably. The disease would run rampant among those with a low mortality, and lessen the mortality of those in high risk groups. The point your question misses is WHY would we take on this additional risk, especially when the supply of vaccine is now great enough to vaccinate the entire US population?
Lastly, your point that 'the vaccinate does not stop you from getting the virus, but only prevents anything worse than mild symptoms' shows a fundamental misunderstanding of both vaccines and the immune system. Clearly, an injection will not stop an outside particle from entering your body. That would violate several laws of physics, let alone biology. The entire point is that after being vaccinated, your immune system can fight off the virus more effectively. As it does with almost every other germ that enters your body on a minute-by-minute basis.
Good post. Let's not forget that COVID sends healthy people to the hospital, lays them up for a week 1+, ruins training blocks, or just makes you feel crappy for a few days.
There is a big gap for COVID symptoms between "asymptomatic" and "kills you" that lots of young people fall into.
This must be weighed against the relative risk of the vaccine, which is minuscule after months of data in millions of people.
Right. No long term effects could ever occur with these experimental vaccines that got emergency authorization and did not go through the usual testing protocol.
The Unkle wrote:
nahbrah wrote:
This an example of a well-thought out and well-written post.
This is an example of a sheep with no retort.
I take it you cannot answer my original question.
I take it you did not understand mathematics' post, which is why you had no rebuttal.
Lead Foil Hat XX wrote:
Precious Roy wrote:
Yeah. What is the logic? It's not like the virus mutates and becomes more transmissible and causes higher rates of severe illness. (checks notes) Oh, wait a second. That is exactly what has happened with the Delta variant that emerged in India.
If you want to play Russian Roulette every year to see whether the latest vax booster will be effective against the latest variant of COVID, then go on with your anti-vaxxer bullsh#t. But those of us who are responsible members of society know that we all need to be vaccinated to make sure that COVID has as few opportunities to mutate and to keep the vaccines as highly effective as possible.
Vaccines are not umbrellas. They are not there for whoever wants to be protected and everyone else can just deal with getting wet. Vaccines are fire breaks. They stop a virus from finding new wood to burn whether by finding unvaccinated people or by mutating to escape vaccine induced immunity.
This is just dad wrong dude. There are thousands of viruses out there looking for new wood to burn that never break out into something worse. The opposite is almost always what happens. Operating on the assumption of the opposite occurring is completely ridiculous and idiotic. Since you love fear porn so much, why don't we just spin this the other way with something contrary fear mongering that is actually somewhat plausible; although I believe it is BS it can help cancel out your backwards assumption that the least likely occurrence is the most likely:
https://principia-scientific.com/covid-19-rna-based-vaccines-and-the-risk-of-prion-disease-2/
Why do COVID deniers and anti-vaxxers keep digging up the same disgraced idiots over and over again? Classen claimed twenty years ago that the flu vax would give everyone type 1 diabetes. The prion claim by anti-vaxxers is utter garbage and demonstrably wrong.
The COVID variants have been carefully documented and researched. Delta has been documented to be more transmissible and cause more severe disease than the original strain of COVID. Delta may also have some escape ability. The pattern is very clear with COVID . The mutations have resulted in more transmissible variant. The more transmissible variants have been highly effective at taking over and becoming the dominant variant.
There is a huge difference between viruses that have been in the environment for years and years and those that just emerged. Coronaviruses do mutate. Variants that give them an advantage will dominate. More transmissible viruses have an advantage. More severe disease is not an advantage if everyone dies. But COVID has reached so far and wide that an increase in mortality can be outweighed by an increase in transmissibility.
https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check-no-evidence-that-pfizers-covi-idUSL1N2MZ382coach wrote:
joed|rt wrote:
Obviously this opinion ignores the fact that vaccinating kids in this country who are likely to not be symptomatic and transmit the virus to others keeps those vaccines out of the hands of health workers and vulnerable populations in other countries who are far more likely to be symptomatic and transmit the virus to others and spread variants through the world. Ever wonder why there are few outbreaks in schools and tons of outbreaks in old folks homes? It's because kids are a lot less likely to transmit the virus.
"Most children who become infected with the COVID-19 virus have no symptoms, or they have milder symptoms such as low-grade fever, fatigue, and cough. Early studies suggested that children do not contribute much to the spread of coronavirus."
- Harvard Health Publishing
If you have to choose (which is exactly the choice the world is faced with) between vaccinating a kid (who is far less likely to have a severe reaction and spread COVID ) and vaccinating an adult that is either vulnerable or work with vulnerable populations, the choice is clear: Vaccinate the vulnerable. Vaccinating kids is bad policy and a poor use of scarce resources.
I suspect the vaccine is no longer scarce which is why we no longer have to choose the vulnerable vs less vulnerable
Your view is too narrow. Just because the US has administered 90 vaccine doses per 100 residents, does not mean the rest of the world has (and just like COVID came from China, variants can come from anywhere [the UK variant that is the primary variant in the US came from the UK)]. Scarcity is real. The global vaccination rate is 28 doses per 100 residents (and a lot of those are cheap vaccines of marginal efficacy). There are 62 countries at 5 doses or less administered per 100 residents. Mexico is at 27 doses per 100, and there are people flooding in from Mexico and Central America on a daily basis. Vaccinating kids in the US should not be a priority if your concern is variants.
ehrnys wrote:
nahbrah wrote:
This is an example of a sheep with no retort.
Just a reminder that it was you who followed the MSM and gladly stuck a cloth on your face and helped destroy lives and businesses.
You are the sheep.
Your welcome.
Lol at the irony of posting about the MSM boogeyman and calling someone else a sheep hahaha.
nahbrah wrote:
ehrnys wrote:
Just a reminder that it was you who followed the MSM and gladly stuck a cloth on your face and helped destroy lives and businesses.
You are the sheep.
Your welcome.
Lol at the irony of posting about the MSM boogeyman and calling someone else a sheep hahaha.
You used the word sheep. I only used your word.
But go on laughing like the psychopath you are.
joed|rt wrote:
Precious Roy wrote:
Yeah. What is the logic? It's not like the virus mutates and becomes more transmissible and causes higher rates of severe illness. (checks notes) Oh, wait a second. That is exactly what has happened with the Delta variant that emerged in India.
If you want to play Russian Roulette every year to see whether the latest vax booster will be effective against the latest variant of COVID, then go on with your anti-vaxxer bullsh#t. But those of us who are responsible members of society know that we all need to be vaccinated to make sure that COVID has as few opportunities to mutate and to keep the vaccines as highly effective as possible.
Vaccines are not umbrellas. They are not there for whoever wants to be protected and everyone else can just deal with getting wet. Vaccines are fire breaks. They stop a virus from finding new wood to burn whether by finding unvaccinated people or by mutating to escape vaccine induced immunity.
Obviously this opinion ignores the fact that vaccinating kids in this country who are likely to not be symptomatic and transmit the virus to others keeps those vaccines out of the hands of health workers and vulnerable populations in other countries who are far more likely to be symptomatic and transmit the virus to others and spread variants through the world. Ever wonder why there are few outbreaks in schools and tons of outbreaks in old folks homes? It's because kids are a lot less likely to transmit the virus.
"Most children who become infected with the COVID-19 virus have no symptoms, or they have milder symptoms such as low-grade fever, fatigue, and cough. Early studies suggested that children do not contribute much to the spread of coronavirus."
- Harvard Health Publishing
If you have to choose (which is exactly the choice the world is faced with) between vaccinating a kid (who is far less likely to have a severe reaction and spread COVID ) and vaccinating an adult that is either vulnerable or work with vulnerable populations, the choice is clear: Vaccinate the vulnerable. Vaccinating kids is bad policy and a poor use of scarce resources.
This presumes that there are scarce resources. There aren't. The only reason COVID vaxxes are scarce is because of IP protections. If COVID vaxxes were open sourced, even just a temporary free license to boost production, you would easily have enough vaxxes to go around. And to be honest, the US is very fertile ground for new variants because so many parts of the US are filled with COVID deniers and anti vaxxers that we need every does we can get to keep the US from spawning the next variant.