Vaccine or not?

#5,651
#5,651
Just an idea: wouldn't the "safest" attendees at mass gatherings be those who can provide proof of immunity? A positive nucleocapsid ab test and a high IgG titer would be ideal.

Honestly, with the apparent vaccine escape we are seeing with Delta variant, vaccination status doesn't mean squat as far as catching/transmitting it. It does seem to decrease the risk of hospitalization/death, so far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AshG, InVOLuntary, hog88 and 3 others
#5,653
#5,653
hog88 said:
That's not what this discussion is about. Try again. Maybe you can find a tweet about it?
Click to expand...
Just so we're clear, the Constitution explicitly says people (broadly read as companies) have a right of free speech. It does not say people have a right to travel on airplanes.
 
#5,654
#5,654
Velo Vol said:
Just so we're clear, the Constitution explicitly says people (broadly read as companies) have a right of free speech. It does not say people have a right to travel on airplanes.
Click to expand...

Again, nowhere close to what we we discussing.
 
#5,656
#5,656
In 2010 Bill Gates said that in the future we could reduce population if we do a really good job with vaccines. He says this around 4:40 into the video

 
#5,660
#5,660
AshG said:
Does anyone actually pay attention to Alex Jones anymore? Are there really that many lizard people Illuminati believers left?
Click to expand...
Listening to Alex Jones is amazing entertainment. He had a 4hr podcast with Rogan that was off the charts fun
 
  • Like
Reactions: RikidyBones
#5,662
#5,662
utvols88 said:
I got beef with this for several reasons.

One it is irrelevant because anyone can be exposed within the 72 hours.
But two, and most importantly, if implemented across all stadiums, aren't you overcrowding testing sites, urgent cares, etc unnecessarily?

Essentially you are taking the spot of an actual sick person to be cared for and seen by introducing the need for negative tests. We need to move on from this requirement and thought process.

Three, I also don't understand the complete disregard for natural immunity. That's what makes this all asinine.
Click to expand...
What about four: Even the vaccinated can spread the virus
Five: Mike the Tiger can probably spread it
 
  • Like
Reactions: RikidyBones
#5,665
#5,665
utvols88 said:
Why should I have to prove it? We need to drop this mindset that zero covid is the goal. It isn't realistic. A vaccinated person who is sick can easily get into the game and infect another vaccinated person who then dies. Or someone who can't take the vax for health reasons. If that happens, should liability solely fall on the host of the game?

Your response is going to be "if they are worried, stay home". Agreed. Same across the board though.
Click to expand...

"if it can save just one life"
 
  • Like
Reactions: RikidyBones
#5,666
#5,666
evillawyer said:
Recent data from Israel:

the rate of serious cases among unvaccinated people over age 60 (178.7 per 100,000) was nine times more than the rate among fully vaccinated people of the same age category, and the rate of serious cases among unvaccinated people in the under-60 crowd (3.2 per 100,000) was a little more than double the rate among vaccinated people in that age bracket.
Click to expand...
178.7/100000 = .1787%
3.2/100000 = .0032%

I'm still liking my odds.
 
#5,667
#5,667
kiddiedoc said:
Just an idea: wouldn't the "safest" attendees at mass gatherings be those who can provide proof of immunity? A positive nucleocapsid ab test and a high IgG titer would be ideal.

Honestly, with the apparent vaccine escape we are seeing with Delta variant, vaccination status doesn't mean squat as far as catching/transmitting it. It does seem to decrease the risk of hospitalization/death, so far.
Click to expand...

It is like they are intentionally going out of their way to ignore natural immunity and are herding you towards the jab...
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolinWayne
#5,668
#5,668
bamawriter said:
Yep. But none of the others had ever sought approval before now. It doesn't mean that they were not thoroughly tested or were producing troubling results.
Click to expand...
If it went through the typical vaccine development timeframe instead of Covid appearing and less than a year later there’s a vaccine being distributed I might not have hesitation.

Although if I hadn’t already had Covid earlier this year before vaccines were available I might have a different opinion.
 
#5,669
#5,669
NorthDallas40 said:
LMAO you’re the one qualifying how the state has the power to limit shall nots as called out in the Constitution Junior.
Click to expand...

You must have started drinking early today.

All I said that was if something that can be taken it away, it's a privilege. You naively believe that Constitutional Rights are irrevocable, this must be quite embarrassing to publicly have to admit you weren't aware of what most kids learn in grade school.

Take a few minutes and bone up on your civics.

3-Minute Civics: Can my constitutional rights be limited?
 
Last edited:
#5,670
#5,670
Tyler Durden said:
Assuming you meant to type liable.

The data shows the vaccines are safe and effective. Any side effects that happen because of it is short term and gone after a couple days.

Or you can get COVID, spend time in an ICU if you can get in and potentially die even though a readily available vaccine could've prevented it.
Click to expand...
If you want us to think of it as any ole vaccine you need to treat it like any ole vaccine. That includes the makers being held liable. Heck when J&J messed batches up people had no recourse. Same goes for any, if Pfizers next batch had lethal levels of arsenic in it because they didnt properly clean a tank and a bunch of people died Pfizer could not be held responsible.

It's big pharma/corporation protection. Has nothing to do with people being safe. It's about protecting both Trump and Bidens donors.
 
#5,672
#5,672
Septic said:
You just have started drinking early today.

All I said that was if something that can be taken it away, it's a privilege. You naively believe that Constitutional Rights are irrevocable, this must be quite embarrassing to publicly have to admit you weren't aware of what most kids learn in grade school.

Take a few minutes and bone up on your civics.

3-Minute Civics: Can my constitutional rights be limited?
Click to expand...

By your reasoning life is just a privilege.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolinWayne
#5,673
#5,673
Rasputin_Vol said:
Rights can be taken from you.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point, thanks.

Constitutional Rights are rights only in name, they are revocable and not at all absolute. The things being discussed here aren't even afforded a modicum of legal protection e.g. driving or flying which is why a few of us find it absurd to believe they are anything BUT privileges'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85
#5,674
#5,674
hog88 said:
By your reasoning life is just a privilege.
Click to expand...

You've moved the goal post. We're talking about things that can legally be taken from you, you're delving into an argument that's not being had.

I think however, it could be argued that life is a privilege in its strictest sense. Cause it can damn sure be taken from you...
 
#5,675
#5,675
Septic said:
You've moved the goal post. We're talking about things that can legally be taken from you, you're delving into an argument that's not being had.

I think however, it could be argued that life is a privilege in its strictest sense. Cause it can damn sure be taken from you...
Click to expand...

I didn't move the goalpost at all, you even agreed with me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolinWayne and NorthDallas40
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top