Vaccine or not?

#13,954
#13,954
ButchPlz said:
You can post these all you like, they won't pay attention. Two-plus weeks ago I shared unlabeled state data so that these folks could distinguish between high-vax and high-non-vax states and none of them took me up on it (likely because it flew in the face of what they keep rambling about). Here we are weeks after my other post and the data has stayed the same. It's about time that we acknowledge the trend, the real science, the real data- the shots ain't working.
Click to expand...

Unvaxed are 29 times as likely to be hospitalized.
 
#13,957
#13,957
Rasputin_Vol said:
And for the unvaccinated? What are their symptoms like?
Click to expand...

As was pointed out previously, the unvaccinated are nearly 30 times more likely to end up in the hospital.

So.... I'd go with much, much worse.

It's still fascinating watching you try to carry the water for being unvaccinated. Can you point out on the doll where that vaccine touched you?
 
#13,959
#13,959
ClearwaterVol said:
And you consistently run from making a decision.
Click to expand...
No, I refuse a Hobson's choice scenario. Besides, the world doesn't work like that. You know as well as I that they will both be taken. We have not reached the apocalypse just yet, but socialism is right around the corner with the dipshit you elected. I guess rationed medicine is the way things will go under that utopia. This country (used to be) better than that.
 
#13,960
#13,960
Septic said:
As was pointed out previously, the unvaccinated are nearly 30 times more likely to end up in the hospital.

So.... I'd go with much, much worse.

It's still fascinating watching you try to carry the water for being unvaccinated. Can you point out on the doll where that vaccine touched you?
Click to expand...
Potentially right in the heart in my case. Change my mind... "doctor"
 
#13,961
#13,961
ClearwaterVol said:
They live together and arrived at the same time.


You guys are a bunch of damn pussies who cannot admit that there has to be some criteria for making hard decisions. Life choices matter.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. When it comes to actual military triage some lives are lost that potentially could have been saved if they received care. It happens.

Not need to justify one over the other if literally everything is equal.

You just want special rights over your fellow Americans because you complied with a "science" that failed you in this particular made up scenario.

If anything the vaxxed should be denied care because they already took up resources by getting the vax. Why should anyone get special treatment for a failed preventative measure?

This is the same lazy argument that says people who dont get vaxxed are "anti vax". Most arent, most are "anti mandates". And now you are trying to conflate the already stretched "anti vax" into "anti medicine" worthy of denial of care.

In your impossible scenario no one would hold the healthcare professional responsible for picking one over the other. Only the Karen's want to use vaccine status as a reason to divide us.
 
#13,963
#13,963
LouderVol said:
Absolutely. When it comes to actual military triage some lives are lost that potentially could have been saved if they received care. It happens.

Not need to justify one over the other if literally everything is equal.

You just want special rights over your fellow Americans because you complied with a "science" that failed you in this particular made up scenario.

If anything the vaxxed should be denied care because they already took up resources by getting the vax. Why should anyone get special treatment for a failed preventative measure?

This is the same lazy argument that says people who dont get vaxxed are "anti vax". Most arent, most are "anti mandates". And now you are trying to conflate the already stretched "anti vax" into "anti medicine" worthy of denial of care.

In your impossible scenario no one would hold the healthcare professional responsible for picking one over the other. Only the Karen's want to use vaccine status as a reason to divide us.
Click to expand...

One person took precautions. The other said, "F$ck it. If it happens it happens." I would pick the person that took precautions all day. Same with two people with lung cancer smoker vs. non. Non all day. Decisions have consequences.
 
#13,964
#13,964
ClearwaterVol said:
One person took precautions. The other said, "F$ck it. If it happens it happens." I would pick the person that took precautions all day. Same with two people with lung cancer smoker vs. non. Non all day. Decisions have consequences.
Click to expand...
you are defining one very specifc precaution. A precaution we know isnt 100%. You arent allowing for any other precautions, and are wanting to put compliance over healthcare.

If this wasnt politicized no one would bat an eye either way with the healthcare provider taking one over the other. Be them vaxxed or unvaxxed.

You are playing stupid partisan games because someone took Trumps vaccine, and one didnt. You want the choice to matter when it shouldnt.

Your line of work may allow this holier than thou out look, but thankfully our medical professionals arent this shallow.

It's literally the same wrong argument as that doctor that said they wouldnt treat vaccinated people, or the one that said they werent taking new vaccinated patients.

Your stance of let the business decide became "let's dictate the vaxxed die first" real fast.
 
#13,965
#13,965
LouderVol said:
you are defining one very specifc precaution. A precaution we know isnt 100%. You arent allowing for any other precautions, and are wanting to put compliance over healthcare.

If this wasnt politicized no one would bat an eye either way with the healthcare provider taking one over the other. Be them vaxxed or unvaxxed.

You are playing stupid partisan games because someone took Trumps vaccine, and one didnt. You want the choice to matter when it shouldnt.

Your line of work may allow this holier than thou out look, but thankfully our medical professionals arent this shallow.

It's literally the same wrong argument as that doctor that said they wouldnt treat vaccinated people, or the one that said they werent taking new vaccinated patients.

Your stance of let the business decide became "let's dictate the vaxxed die first" real fast.
Click to expand...

My stance remains let the business decide.
 
#13,966
#13,966
ClearwaterVol said:
Unvaxed are 29 times as likely to be hospitalized.
Click to expand...

No offense, but this type of stat even if accurate means nothing without more information. It is nothing more than a scare tactic and you are not much better than mad4vols in citing it.

First, 29 times more than an infinitely small number is still an infinitely small number. Say i go on a 2 hour car trip. I bet I am more than 29 times more likely to get in a wreck and be hospitalized if i drive 10 mph over the speed limit than I am if i drive 5 mph under the speed limit. But it is still very unlikely that I will get in a wreck and be hospitalized either way so my risk analysis is that i would rather get where I am going a little quicker.

Second, 29 times more likely for who? If I am young and healthy and know that hospitalizations are virtually nil for young healthy people, than why should i be concerned about a "29 times more likely" number when that is largely the result of people over 80 and the obese people that refuse to lose weight even when we are almost two years into a "pandemic" that is known to attack the obese.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, SlipKidVol and SpaceCoastVol
#13,967
#13,967
vols4sure said:
No offense, but this type of stat even if accurate means nothing without more information. It is nothing more than a scare tactic and you are not much better than mad4vols in citing it.

First, 29 times more than an infinitely small number is still an infinitely small number. Say i go on a 2 hour car trip. I bet I am more than 29 times more likely to get in a wreck and be hospitalized if i drive 10 mph over the speed limit than I am if i drive 5 mph under the speed limit. But it is still very unlikely that I will get in a wreck and be hospitalized either way so my risk analysis is that i would rather get where I am going a little quicker.

Second, 29 times more likely for who? If I am young and healthy and know that hospitalizations are virtually nil for young healthy people, than why should i be concerned about a "29 times more likely" number when that is largely the result of people over 80 and the obese people that refuse to lose weight even when we are almost two years into a "pandemic" that is known to attack the obese.
Click to expand...

SARS-CoV-2 Infections and Hospitalizations Among Persons Aged ≥16 Years, by Vaccination Status — Los Angeles County, California, May 1–July 25, 2021 | MMWR (cdc.gov)


106932532-1629828153456-image.jpg


You're welcome.
 
#13,968
#13,968
#13,969
#13,969
vols4sure said:
That does provide more context. However, why not broken down into age groups instead of lumping it all into 16+ (we both know why). Not that it matters for this discussion but I am vaccinated.
Click to expand...

Because few children under 16 are vaccinated? I mean, if they had done the study only looking at 45, 50 or 60+ that would have skewed the numbers even harder I'm sure. 16+ with vaccinations encompasses a broad window for statistical analysis.

It's astonishing after looking at that graphic how anyone could not accept that there's clear benefit to taking the vaccine, and yet this forum is full of nutty deniers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
#13,970
#13,970
#13,971
#13,971
Septic said:
Because few children under 16 are vaccinated? I mean, if they had done the study only looking at 45, 50 or 60+ that would have skewed the numbers even harder I'm sure. 16+ with vaccinations encompasses a broad window for statistical analysis.

It's astonishing after looking at that graphic how anyone could not accept that there's clear benefit to taking the vaccine, and yet this forum is full of nutty deniers.
Click to expand...

Its astonishing that you don't see the problem of that study not breaking down the hospitalizations down by age instead of lumping them all into one giant 16+ category. There were only 25k unvaccinated cases for people under 50. Why not tell us how many of those were hospitalized (if they are giving us this information i don't see it)?

You are also forgetting that the vast majority of older people are vaccinated. They are not the ones this study was trying to push because they are already vaccinated. They are trying to push younger people because they are the ones that have vaccine hesitancy and make up a larger portion of the population. Hard not to be a conspiracy theorist as reducing hesitancy in the younger age brackets is also where Pfizer and Moderna will increase their profits more significantly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ButchPlz
#13,975
#13,975
Septic said:
As was pointed out previously, the unvaccinated are nearly 30 times more likely to end up in the hospital.

So.... I'd go with much, much worse.

It's still fascinating watching you try to carry the water for being unvaccinated. Can you point out on the doll where that vaccine touched you?
Click to expand...

And that’s extrapolated of an already minuscule number.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top