Orangeburst
Attention all Planets of the Solar Federation
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2008
- Messages
- 48,355
- Likes
- 111,115
It actually does not. Let me help:
Using the Worldometer site, I'm seeing 272,502 cases in Kentucky, as of Jan 1, 2021 (which is the baseline set used in the article). They found a total of 246 cases of "breakthrough infection" to study, which yields a total breakthrough infection rate of 0.09%. Broken down by vaccination status, vaccinated/recovered people comprised 0.023% of the total, and unvaccinated 0.066% of the total, for an inferred protection factor of 0.04%, or 4 in 10,000.
That’s not the question you asked, that’s the one you moved the goalposts too. It’s still disingenuous.The bottom line is natural immunity is better than a vaccination. The risk of side effects from taking the vaccination on top of natural immunity, outway the benefit. Follow the science.
I’m sure it’s just an effort to document the people who say vaccination is such an existential threat that the government should mandate it also act so immaturely as to encourage people to be more reluctant to get vaccinated.And you thought what a (counter) protestor in Canada puts on a cardboard box is worthy of a post here???
So you are moving the goalposts from risks > benefits to “risks exist.”
Furthermore, anyone that thinks people should be fired for not taking the vaccine, can go to hell. I will take that opinion with me to my grave and treat those people the way they deserve to be treated.Unless that risk goes to ZERO by doing both then you’re the one trying to move the goalposts. Maybe the reason we don’t hear of reinfections is because they are virtually nonexistent. I think those with natural immunity are ok with not moving their alleged risk factor down a hundred thousandth of a percentage and definitely don’t want to take a vaccine they do not need.
Unless that risk goes to ZERO by doing both then you’re the one trying to move the goalposts. Maybe the reason we don’t hear of reinfections is because they are virtually nonexistent. I think those with natural immunity are ok with not moving their alleged risk factor down a hundred thousandth of a percentage and definitely don’t want to take a vaccine they do not need.
Furthermore, anyone that thinks people should be fired for not taking the vaccine, can go to hell. I will take that opinion with me to my grave and treat those people the way they deserve to be treated.
Ok. So you don’t understand what moving the goalposts means. That’s ok.Because moving an already virtually non existent risk possibly slightly lower is moot. The risk of any side effects from the vaccine aren’t worth that minuscule speck of “extra protection”.
Furthermore, anyone that thinks people should be fired for not taking the vaccine, can go to hell. I will take that opinion with me to my grave and treat those people the way they deserve to be treated.
Well you’re the one categorically saying that “the risks outway[sic] the benefits” when that is an individual determination based on an individual’s potential benefits, risks, and personal willingness to tolerate the latter.That's exactly what people should be able to do. Without anyone telling them how it should be or mandated by the gov.