"Pandemic of the unvaccinated" CONFIRMED

Harambe rims his boyfriend's butthole, yet he's worried about Covid.

Harambe wrote:

546tyg wrote:

I thought that according to you it's those antivaxxers who are dying. Guess you are not that smart. Sad!

Spreading antivaxx propaganda to people susceptible to it... is bad and likely contributes to very costly mistakes.

Oh, so most of the "antivaxxers" are not going to die they just gonna kill others with they propaganda?

Yikes, we gotta stop em. We need a new thread.

PANDEMIC OF THE ANTIVAXX PROPANGANDISTS

Yeah, sounds catchy.

troll_69 wrote:

formerly present wrote:

https://scontent-lga3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/122778966_3357843581003497_699715534403751414_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=ViE968_goucAX8xdS37&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-2.xx&oh=454eef7053b698f60f0e30322c26e5ac&oe=61A18B9A

Lol, brilliant. Perfectly captures the mindset and attention-starved nature of antivaxxers. Bunch of toddlers having a tantrum, nothing more.

This would be closer to the truth if the coats and hats were a new and experimental technology, were 80-90% protective the first month, essentially worthless after 5-6 months, were extremely toxic and even fatal to an unknown number of wearers, and may lead to long-term complications for all wearers.

So...yeah, "brilliant".

Uprising wrote:

troll_69 wrote:

Lol, brilliant. Perfectly captures the mindset and attention-starved nature of antivaxxers. Bunch of toddlers having a tantrum, nothing more.

This would be closer to the truth if the coats and hats were a new and experimental technology, were 80-90% protective the first month, essentially worthless after 5-6 months, were extremely toxic and even fatal to an unknown number of wearers, and may lead to long-term complications for all wearers.

So...yeah, "brilliant".

Ok I genuinely want to understand your perspective here. Why do you believe the vaccines are experimental ? They underwent rigorous clinical trials, the technology behind them had been in existence for decades, and the speed with which they were developed can be explained by unprecedented international scientific collaboration, funding, and other boring factors that expedited the process at no cost to the legitimacy of the trials themselves. The information on this is out there, and a basic understanding of clinical trials and how vaccines are brought to market would quickly show there were no corners cut in bringing the vaccine to market

Also, any “long term adverse effects” that are supposed to show up from this vaccine would have materialized a long time ago. Claims that vaccinated people will die in a few years or have crippling side effects have no basis in reality whatsoever; I don’t think people actually understand how vaccines work if they’re making such claims.

lack of self awareness wrote:

Also, any “long-term adverse effects” that are supposed to show up from this vaccine would have materialized a long time ago. Claims that vaccinated people will die in a few years or have crippling side effects have no basis in reality whatsoever; I don’t think people actually understand how vaccines work if they’re making such claims.

Long-term adverse effects, by definition, don't show up until a "long term" is observed. That could be two years or so.

As I type this, only the original clinical trial Phase I subjects have had the vaccine for more than one year. That's 36 subjects for Pfizer and 45 for Moderna. And we don't know the status of those subjects.

In December, one-year data will exist for 18,650 Pfizer subjects and a slightly smaller number for Moderna. And let me stress this. We will not have this data. Only Pfizer and Moderna have this data. They have no obligation, as I understand it, to report any more interim data until the clinical trial is over, which if I recall correctly, is January 2023.

Adding to my personal concern, the discussion of short-term effects has been fiercely suppressed. Medical personnel have been fired. Conversations online have been banned. YouTube discussion groups have been banned. Also, VAERS is a joke. I'm told that it's a hassle to submit the data. Medical personnel who have attempted to report their data have been told not to do so by their hospital superiors. As I have pointed out in every thread, VAERS is required to report all deaths regardless of cause and approximately 200,000 age 70 plus vaccinated seniors have died from all causes. The requirement is to report all deaths and let VAERS sort them out. It is not being done.

Finally, you cannot extrapolate long-term effects from short-term effects. It's just a guess... an informed guess, an educated guess, a best guess... but it is still a guess.

In my case, I have decided to wait and see until April 2022. By then, over 100 million people in the US will have been vaccinated for at least one year. At that point, long-term effects should begin to surface in enough people that it will be difficult to suppress the information.

Now... I'm not saying that there will be adverse effects. I am saying that we DO NOT know if there will be any adverse long-term effects until we can observe subjects for the long term.

2600 bro wrote:

2600 broscience wrote:

So when all the antivaxxers die off it'll all be over?

So this time it'll all be over by April?

So 2600 bro was right all along, he just got the year wrong?

Okay gotcha, thanks.

You're welcome. I guess I can support this kind of cheering for mass death? I'm conflicted.

Proof that Harambe/2600 bro supports the death of millions of people who don't agree with him.

What a maggot.

Thanks fisky.

These and many other reasons are why I remain in the Control Group.

I know that respiratory illness is multi factorial, so I try to minimise as many factors as possible without avoiding them completely.

Exposure to the virus is not my fear, it is an immune system requirement for continuing health.

I'm just stating the obvious here though. This is normal life. Or it is where I live.

For City dwellers, life has been more problematic. Millions of people old and young have been trapped.

Yes, these are some sick puppies. Acting like only unvaxxed people spread the virus is about as stupid as it gets.

fisky wrote:

I'm not saying that there will be adverse effects. I am saying that we DO NOT know if there will be any adverse long-term effects until we can observe subjects for the long term.

And yet...we ALREADY know that there are adverse long-term effects (for some) with Covid-19 itself--and that those include lung transplants, amputation, and DEATH (~ three-quarters of a million dead Americans).

Given that many posters on this thread and on others have stated that (virtually) every American will be infected by SARS-CoV-2 eventually, wouldn't it be reasonable and useful to take a step that has been shown (in most) to ameliorate those effects and/or reduce the chances that they occur? I'm genuinely puzzled here.

To address one frequently-bruited example of a post-vaccination complication: Myocarditis, which is a possibility after vaccination (and thankfully mild in most cases), is *more* frequent after Covid-19 itself. Yet people see possible myocarditis as a reason to avoid vaccination? Even though many of these same people say everyone eventually will be infected by the virus?

I just don't get it: It seems like people are refusing something with an "unknown"-but-possible risk of long-term damage--vaccination--in favor of something with a *known*-and-possible risk of long-term damage--Covid-19. Fortunately the risk of long-term damage with either is small, but--as with myocarditis--many times larger with the disease than with the vaccination. So why are so many people playing against the odds? Makes no sense to me.

Harambe rims buttholes confirm

Congratulations to the State of Vermont. 71% "fully vaccinated". Highest in the nation.

https://vtdigger.org/2021/10/20/vermont-reports-107-new-covid-cases-and-2-new-deaths-recent-record-of-55-hospitalizations/

https://www.mynbc5.com/article/despite-nations-highest-vaccination-rate-vermont-covid-19-cases-remain-high/38007852#

Myocarditis is always a risk with viral infection.

So if you have severe viral symptoms, you don't go to work, you don't go for a run or even a walk. You go to bed, ideally with a source of liquid glucose by your bedside.

I learned this as a kid back in the 70s. It works.

2600 broscience wrote:

Myocarditis is always a risk with viral infection.

So if you have severe viral symptoms, you don't go to work, you don't go for a run or even a walk. You go to bed, ideally with a source of liquid glucose by your bedside.

I learned this as a kid back in the 70s. It works.

Certainly.

Not sure it's a response to the post you quoted, though, but whatever.

LOL, he should stick to practicing law

DanM wrote:

Congratulations to the State of Vermont. 71% "fully vaccinated". Highest in the nation.

Vermont has as 7-day average of 2 deaths per day. Fearmonger all you want, the antivaxxers lost this one.

Study finds vaccines are better than natural immunity at preventing COVID infections.

THis is big - one fewer major rationale for anti-vaxxers. If you've had covid, a shot is still more effective than relying on gained natural immunity, per this study.

A new study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests that vaccination provides stronger and more reliable protection against the coronavirus than a past infection does, the agency said on Friday.

Unvaccinated people who had previously recovered from a coronavirus infection were five times as likely to get Covid as people who had received both shots of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines, the C.D.C. said.

The study’s authors cautioned, however, that certain gaps in patient data and biases in their study participants could have influenced the results.

“We now have additional evidence that reaffirms the importance of Covid-19 vaccines, even if you have had prior infection,” said Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky, the C.D.C. director, in a statement accompanying the release of the report.

///

a caveat:

The researchers also noted that separate research in Israel had failed to show that vaccinated people were better protected than those who had only been infected. In general, scientists said, studies on the topic had drawn contradictory conclusions.

///

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/29/health/vaccination-covid.html

Wow interesting data, appreciate the post. The caveat is important -- there have been many studies point in several different directions on the relative strength of infection-driven vs vaccine-driven immunity.

What is clear, for now, is that no unequivocal statements can be made. Everyone should be wary of the people screaming about how natural immunity is 'so much better' -- they usually follow with the insane suggestion that low-risk groups FOREGO vaccination to get naturally immunized. Note, of course, that even the most infection-driven-immunity favorable data suggests nothing of the sort.

As I've said many times before, I believe that infection-driven immunity is effective but I see no reason to give unvaccinated-but-recovered people a carve out in vaccine policy. They have the opportunity to take a very safe vaccine and get outstanding immunity better than either component part of the 'hybrid.'

Yes, it's unfair that someone infection-naive is held to 'lower standards of immunity' but we have an answer for that: get over it.