Vaccine or not?

[kiddiedoc]

On the Nebraska piece cited above:

That information is contradictory to most of our accepted medical information on CV19 immunity. There is the one study now linked by everyone and their sister from Kentucky that included something like 200 participants which found a 2.3x higher risk of infection in recovered/unvaccinated vs recovered/vaccinated people. It does not include raw numbers, so impossible to tell exactly WHAT the risk is, and it indicates nothing with regards to severity of illness.

As previously noted, I, several staff, and colleague friends have been able to demonstrate strong laboratory evidence of immunity at 9+ months now.

 

[McDad]

I will say this one more time :

Nebraska Medicine is a private, non-profit, American healthcare company based in Omaha. They are the most comprehensive health network in their region, with two major hospitals, 40 clinics and over a thousand doctors. That isn't a press release or a commercial.

You can say it as many times as you wish. It will not change how wrong you are.

 

[kiddiedoc]

My worry coming out of this is that we will see increased vaccination hesitancy on established, long term viable vaccines. The last thing we need is measles or polio to make a return.

I've already seen this with flu vaccination this season. Several parents have expressed distrust with the "pushing" of the CV19 vaccine, and they are reacting with a push back of their own.

 

[tnmarktx]

You can say it as many times as you wish. It will not change how wrong you are.

You're wasting your time.

 

[McDad]

To keep themselves as an established medical facility, maximize patient inflow, and earn enough PROFIT to pay competitive wages to workers and very nice wages to officers.

Nonprofit Hospitals Earn Substantial Profits | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Non-Profit Hospitals Can Be Extremely Profitable
How Non-Profit Hospitals Are Driving Up The Cost Of Health Care

I just realized @BowlBrother85 is emphazising "non profit" because he thinks non profits don't advertise, promote, and market.

Oof.

 

[kiddiedoc]

Let's just logically think through this:

How would an extremely-narrow mRNA-mediated antibody protection to a specific segment of spike protein (which is SIGNIFICANTLY mutated in the new variants) offer better protection against new strains than the broad protection to several viral protein targets (perhaps, most importantly, nucleocapsid) offered by naturally-acquired immunity?

Even those without much understanding of immunology have to question this.

 

[kiddiedoc]

Additionally, cited from UpToDate, which is continuously updated with the most current medical information (sources available upon request):

Immune responses following infection — Protective SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies and cell-mediated responses are induced following infection. Evidence suggests that some of these responses can be detected for at least a year following infection.

Any "article" claiming "3 months" of protection is bunk

 

[ButchPlz]

I just realized @BowlBrother85 is emphazising "non profit" because he thinks non profits don't advertise, promote, and market.

Oof.

Hence my "holy sh*t" comment.

I am kind of baffled that he's ignoring my post with all the data too.

 

[NorthDallas40]

My worry coming out of this is that we will see increased vaccination hesitancy on established, long term viable vaccines. The last thing we need is measles or polio to make a return.

I've already seen this with flu vaccination this season. Several parents have expressed distrust with the "pushing" of the CV19 vaccine, and they are reacting with a push back of their own.

As far as I’m concerned the fed bastards have nobody to blame but themselves with that outcome.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I just realized @BowlBrother85 is emphazising "non profit" because he thinks non profits don't advertise, promote, and market.

Oof.

LOL. No, I see just as many ads for non-profits as you do. However, that was not an ad.

 

[McDad]

You're wasting your time.

It's okay.

Kiddiedoc validated my point. BB85 doesn't need to agree. The conversation is here for posterity for anyone interested.

 

[kiddiedoc]

As far as I’m concerned the fed bastards have nobody to blame but themselves with that outcome.

I've even been asked several times how I can be sure that they aren't disguising the CV19 vaccine as flu shots to get people to take it. I know that sounds crazy, but some people have become extremely distrustful of.gov

 

[ButchPlz]

Here's a fun one for you then- pick out, 100% correctly, the most and least vaccinated states from the attached data visualizations.

Then consider these stories from two highly vaccinated countries:

Singapore Urges Caution as Rising Cases May Test ICU System

Health officials predict thousands of seriously ill COVID patients within month | The Times of Israel

I bring data and stories. You bring BS.

@BowlBrother85 which of these represent highly vaccinated vs. highly unvaccinated states?

 

[ButchPlz]

I've even been asked several times how I can be sure that they aren't disgusting the CV19 vaccine as flu shots to get people to take it. I know that sounds crazy, but some people have become extremely distrustful of.gov

Well, we do have media stories of people getting injected with the wrong thing.

It only takes one blown out event to create problems, as this whole thing has shown us.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I have to admit, this is much more in line with consensus opinion.

AAAS

This wouldn't be any fun if I didn't troll once in a while...

 

[NorthDallas40]

I've even been asked several times how I can be sure that they aren't disguising the CV19 vaccine as flu shots to get people to take it. I know that sounds crazy, but some people have become extremely distrustful of.gov

Yeah that is crazy but again trust in the bastards is at an all time low. So crazy but understandable

 

[newyorkvol]

I have to admit, this is much more in line with consensus opinion.

AAAS

This wouldn't be any fun if I didn't troll once in a while...

Here’s another…
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.08.463699v1

The problem is when research regarding antibody levels is used as the lone predictor of immune response. Antibodies wane and immune response remains, both with vaccine and natural immunity. They will both most likely be long lasting, there just hasn’t been enough time to actually study it.

 

[Wafflestomper]

They are not infringing on anybody’s rights in doing so. Your turn.

You didn't answer the question I asked and then you begged the question. Who determined that I don't have the right to drive my car as fast as I want, and on what basis? And if that same body determines you don't have the right to refuse the vaccine, then what--you'll concede that you don't actually have the right to refuse (I don't mean you in particular)?

 

[NorthDallas40]

You didn't answer the question I asked and then you begged the question. Who determined that I don't have the right to drive my car as fast as I want, and on what basis? And if that same body determines you don't have the right to refuse the vaccine, then what--you'll concede that you don't actually have the right to refuse (I don't mean you in particular)?

But I did. You don’t have a right to driving a car. You do have a right to determine what is or isn’t injected into your body.

And no I didn’t beg a question in reply. I just set up your next non acknowledgment of each answer I’ve provided. And you came thru in spades.

 

[Wafflestomper]

But I did. You don’t have a right to driving a car. You do have a right to determine what is or isn’t injected into your body.

And no I didn’t beg a question in reply. I just set up your next non acknowledgment of each answer I’ve provided. And you came thru in spades.

Why do I not have the right to operate my own property? And on what basis? And who determines that?

Reasserting the same thing you said before without supporting it is textbook begging the question.

 

[LouderVol]

I never said they were trying to injure others? The analogy with speeding is relevant because people are behaving risky, i.e., without regard to others' safety, and the argument to date has been something like "well don't go anywhere if you're afraid." But you all don't seem to have the same take on me driving at 155+ down the interstate. I'm not trying to hurt anyone, so stay home if you're afraid. The government should not have a say in what I do with myself or my property--isn't that what you said earlier today?

That's what I believe. But that's not what is happening.

This is more like the speed limit is 65. I drive 65. Everyone is ok with that. Suddenly the driving conditions get bad. I keep driving 65 because that's a safe speed for me. But now other people are concerned I am driving 65 because of adverse conditions we all must partake.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Why do I not have the right to operate my own property? And on what basis? And who determines that?

Reasserting the same thing you said before without supporting it is textbook begging the question.

View attachment 406204

Driving is a privilege. You are free to operate your property on private property all you like. Build your own race track. But driving on public roads is a privilege not a right.

And I know what begging the question is. Your problem is that my assertion is in fact correct. Driving on public roads is a privilege which is where you started this. Not a right.

You are falsely equating privileges and rights. That’s obvious and on you.

 

[NorthDallas40]

That's what I believe. But that's not what is happening.

This is more like the speed limit is 65. I drive 65. Everyone is ok with that. Suddenly the driving conditions get bad. I keep driving 65 because that's a safe speed for me. But now other people are concerned I am driving 65 because of adverse conditions we all must partake.

It’s more basic than that louder. Trying to equate a privilege (driving) with a right (not wanting the jab) is a busted analogy from the get go. Thus any refinement of the ill formed initial argument is just a waste of time

 

[Wafflestomper]

Driving is a privilege. You are free to operate your property on private property all you like. Build your own race track. But driving on public roads is a privilege not a right.

And I know what begging the question is. Your problem is that my assertion is in fact correct. Driving on public roads is a privilege which is where you started this. Not a right.

You are falsely equating privileges and rights. That’s obvious and on you.

Just noting again that you've neither answered my question (what is the purpose of enforcing speed limits if not to mitigate risk to the public?) nor supported your assertion that I don't have the right to drive it outside private roads.

Do you have a right to a job, or is that a privilege too? And if the rights bestowers determine that you don't have the right to work without the vaccine, then what? Just wanting to know where your logic is leading us.

 

[ButchPlz]

Just noting again that you've neither answered my question (what is the purpose of enforcing speed limits if not to mitigate risk to the public?) nor supported your assertion that I don't have the right to drive it outside private roads.

Do you have a right to a job, or is that a privilege too? And if the rights bestowers determine that you don't have the right to work without the vaccine, then what? Just wanting to know where your logic is leading us.

Imagine living this sad life. If the "rights bestowers" wanted to mitigate safety entirely, they'd lock up everyone- because the vaccinated are spreading disease as well. There is no logical path to go down, because you've already decided that someone else makes your decisions on your behalf.