Anti vaxers making for an interesting ending to the pandemic

[theclap]

Selfish…

What’s the point of being vaccinated if a fearful life continues?

its kind of like going to war when your country needs you. even if you don't relish in the opportunity to get shot at, you do it because it helps the country as a whole.

I'm going to guess you were never enlisted.

no. i was never enlisted. i was making an analogy, not comparing getting a shot to going to war. pipe down, nancy.

Easy Sparky... Don't you feel awful selfish for not enlisting? Making that choice for yourself about your own life path?

[Animal]

Selfish…

What’s the point of being vaccinated if a fearful life continues?

its kind of like going to war when your country needs you. even if you don't relish in the opportunity to get shot at, you do it because it helps the country as a whole.

I'm going to guess you were never enlisted.

no. i was never enlisted. i was making an analogy, not comparing getting a shot to going to war. pipe down, nancy.

Easy Sparky... Don't you feel awful selfish for not enlisting? Making that choice for yourself about your own life path?

i know you are trying like hell to get off topic and dodge this topic, but what war would you suggest that i should have enlisted in?

[theclap]

Selfish…

What’s the point of being vaccinated if a fearful life continues?

its kind of like going to war when your country needs you. even if you don't relish in the opportunity to get shot at, you do it because it helps the country as a whole.

I'm going to guess you were never enlisted.

no. i was never enlisted. i was making an analogy, not comparing getting a shot to going to war. pipe down, nancy.

Easy Sparky... Don't you feel awful selfish for not enlisting? Making that choice for yourself about your own life path?

i know you are trying like hell to get off topic and dodge this topic, but what war would you suggest that i should have enlisted in?

You don't generally enlist in a war but during peacetime you can serve unselfishly.... But you're not selfish. I'm just comparing/contrasting your own logic. Not trying to be off topic. It's very much on topic.

[Animal]

You don't generally enlist in a war but during peacetime you can serve unselfishly.... But you're not selfish. I'm just comparing/contrasting your own logic. Not trying to be off topic. It's very much on topic.

no. i know exactly what you are doing. you are debating like a woman on facebook. which is fine, but i'm done. i played your game, in good faith and you aren't up for the debate. i'm back to assuming you are a pussy that's afraid of a needle.

[theclap]

You don't generally enlist in a war but during peacetime you can serve unselfishly.... But you're not selfish. I'm just comparing/contrasting your own logic. Not trying to be off topic. It's very much on topic.

no. i know exactly what you are doing. you are debating like a woman on facebook. which is fine, but i'm done. i played your game, in good faith and you aren't up for the debate. i'm back to assuming you are a pussy that's afraid of a needle.

/melt.

[Cassandros]

the Anti-Vaxxers just need to admit it. They are scared of a needle.

The label "anti-vaxxer' is no different than 'conspiracy theorist'.

Its tossed out to discredit someone's point of view so that no one will actually look at or consider said point of view.

Of course there are some true nut cases in the camp; but, the vast majority of people who get labeled and their voice dismissed are good, smart people, who came to their point of view through research and/or real life experience. Also, most are not "anti-vaccine" --> they actually just want safer vaccines, more transparency and less protections for vaccine makers, and a better accountability system than what's in place.

Big pharma spends a LOT of money to keep people of the mind that 'vaccines are 100% safe' and 'anyone who disagrees is an anti-vaccine nut' for a reason...

Well fucking said.

So, boiling this "well said" post down, it is:

1. they want safer vaccines.
2. they want more transparency
3. they want less protections for vaccine makers
4. they want more accountability for something.

This covid vaccine has been listed as one of the safest vaccines ever developed. They have injected nearly 1 billion people with it. How many vaccines have been given to that many people in the history of mankind? If there was anything at all dangerous about this vaccines, we would have found it by now.

What kind of transparency are you talking about? The entire world is in on this vaccination program. There isn't anything being hidden. Be specific with this, what do you think isn't transparent?

From what I can tell the vaccine makers don't need any kind of protections. Although I don't know exactly what you are referring to. What is happening right now that they are being protected from?

Again, just some vague use of words that mean nothing. What kind of accountability are you looking for. You know how many people have had tests. You know the test results. You know how many vaccines have been given. You know the outcome of that. You know the number of deaths. What information do you think is not being accounted for?

Nutshell answers.

--Vaccines are not nearly as safe as you think. If you need an example look up "Italy Vaccinegate". IN 2013 Italy had an independent firm test the new hex-vaccine and not only found heavy metals and toxins in the vaccine, they also discovered some of the antigens that were supposed to be there were missing!

Now, of course, the medical industry claims the testing was flawed, as they rarely admit culpability, but 8 years later the industry has still not put out a counter study (that I am aware of) and the story has largely been lost in the memory hole. (I first read this from the AP, which no longer has the story... anywhere).

This is one of many, many examples. Big pharma is in the business to make money, if you know a vaccine causes an issue that a) you cannot be sued for and b) you have pills to treat the said side effect already ready for sale... be logical --> would you spend money fixing your formula to be more safe or just keep it like it is?

--The medical industrial complex, by and large, is not transparent. There is also a revolving door between it and the government which is all kinds of conflict of interest... but I digress. There is no shortage of articles discussing the need for more transparency with big pharma, especially regarding the covid shot (and coming boosters).

--In the 1980's a bill was passed that basically make vaccine makers immune form being sued. It also set the rules that vaccines cannot be considered culpable for damage after only 15 minutes to a couple hours, depending on the shot. There is a thing called latency in medicine, just like how it takes a few days for your body to react and produce antibodies, the body sometimes takes time to develop side effects.

The protections for big pharma are obscene. This needs to change.

--You are not even close on the last one. I am talking about the VAERS, a system set up (I think with the signing of the 1980's law) to track adverse vaccine reactions. The thing is, remember that latency thing I just mentioned, any side effect that happens after the 15 minute - couple hour window generally cannot be added to the database! You also have to go above and beyond proving the vaccine was at fault, going against very high paid attorneys which most people simply don't have the means to combat.

The truth is, we don't know the true number of deaths or adverse reactions, we have a sampling and that's it. Hence why people want the things I listed. Anyone who takes the time to really look at the stories of people who have been negatively impacted by vaccines will start to see a sinister pattern. And anyone in the medical field who speaks out gets treated like journalist and doctors did last year to a month ago if they talked about the lab leak theory , they would get labeled conspiracy theorist and the industry will attack their credentials and kick them out of medicine.

What was developed with the best of intentions for the good of the world has turned into a money making scheme. That's it. Think of healthcare more like a business and realize vaccines care more for profit than protecting the vulnerable --> and you might start to see the bigger picture.

Its not nearly as rosy as the talking heads and bought politicians claim.

[Animal]

--Vaccines are not nearly as safe as you think. If you need an example look up "Italy Vaccinegate". IN 2013 Italy had an independent firm test the new hex-vaccine and not only found heavy metals and toxins in the vaccine, they also discovered some of the antigens that were supposed to be there were missing!

Now, of course, the medical industry claims the testing was flawed, as they rarely admit culpability, but 8 years later the industry has still not put out a counter study (that I am aware of) and the story has largely been lost in the memory hole. (I first read this from the AP, which no longer has the story... anywhere).

This is one of many, many examples. Big pharma is in the business to make money, if you know a vaccine causes an issue that a) you cannot be sued for and b) you have pills to treat the said side effect already ready for sale... be logical --> would you spend money fixing your formula to be more safe or just keep it like it is?

--The medical industrial complex, by and large, is not transparent. There is also a revolving door between it and the government which is all kinds of conflict of interest... but I digress. There is no shortage of articles discussing the need for more transparency with big pharma, especially regarding the covid shot (and coming boosters).

--In the 1980's a bill was passed that basically make vaccine makers immune form being sued. It also set the rules that vaccines cannot be considered culpable for damage after only 15 minutes to a couple hours, depending on the shot. There is a thing called latency in medicine, just like how it takes a few days for your body to react and produce antibodies, the body sometimes takes time to develop side effects.

The protections for big pharma are obscene. This needs to change.

--You are not even close on the last one. I am talking about the VAERS, a system set up (I think with the signing of the 1980's law) to track adverse vaccine reactions. The thing is, remember that latency thing I just mentioned, any side effect that happens after the 15 minute - couple hour window generally cannot be added to the database! You also have to go above and beyond proving the vaccine was at fault, going against very high paid attorneys which most people simply don't have the means to combat.

The truth is, we don't know the true number of deaths or adverse reactions, we have a sampling and that's it. Hence why people want the things I listed. Anyone who takes the time to really look at the stories of people who have been negatively impacted by vaccines will start to see a sinister pattern. And anyone in the medical field who speaks out gets treated like journalist and doctors did last year to a month ago if they talked about the lab leak theory , they would get labeled conspiracy theorist and the industry will attack their credentials and kick them out of medicine.

What was developed with the best of intentions for the good of the world has turned into a money making scheme. That's it. Think of healthcare more like a business and realize vaccines care more for profit than protecting the vulnerable --> and you might start to see the bigger picture.

Its not nearly as rosy as the talking heads and bought politicians claim.

so there's many many examples of dangerous vaccines, but you can only list one and it has since been deemed as flawed (italy). Well, we also have that scientific logic that Jenny McCarthy spread about how vaccines cause autism. It just seems to me that if there were "many many exmples" we would have heard about at least a few of them.

again you mention "transparency" but just in broad general terms that make no point.

i understand that there are laws to protect companies for law suits and vaccines. the FDA approves them and after that the company is not liable. i doubt the companies would even be interested in joining the game if not for that protection. I guess they could just ask you to sign a waiver, like a rodeo rider has to sign.

its hard to debate when you bring up mystery deaths that no one knows about and use them as part of your logic and defense.

[Cassandros]

--Vaccines are not nearly as safe as you think. If you need an example look up "Italy Vaccinegate". IN 2013 Italy had an independent firm test the new hex-vaccine and not only found heavy metals and toxins in the vaccine, they also discovered some of the antigens that were supposed to be there were missing!

Now, of course, the medical industry claims the testing was flawed, as they rarely admit culpability, but 8 years later the industry has still not put out a counter study (that I am aware of) and the story has largely been lost in the memory hole. (I first read this from the AP, which no longer has the story... anywhere).

This is one of many, many examples. Big pharma is in the business to make money, if you know a vaccine causes an issue that a) you cannot be sued for and b) you have pills to treat the said side effect already ready for sale... be logical --> would you spend money fixing your formula to be more safe or just keep it like it is?

--The medical industrial complex, by and large, is not transparent. There is also a revolving door between it and the government which is all kinds of conflict of interest... but I digress. There is no shortage of articles discussing the need for more transparency with big pharma, especially regarding the covid shot (and coming boosters).

--In the 1980's a bill was passed that basically make vaccine makers immune form being sued. It also set the rules that vaccines cannot be considered culpable for damage after only 15 minutes to a couple hours, depending on the shot. There is a thing called latency in medicine, just like how it takes a few days for your body to react and produce antibodies, the body sometimes takes time to develop side effects.

The protections for big pharma are obscene. This needs to change.

--You are not even close on the last one. I am talking about the VAERS, a system set up (I think with the signing of the 1980's law) to track adverse vaccine reactions. The thing is, remember that latency thing I just mentioned, any side effect that happens after the 15 minute - couple hour window generally cannot be added to the database! You also have to go above and beyond proving the vaccine was at fault, going against very high paid attorneys which most people simply don't have the means to combat.

The truth is, we don't know the true number of deaths or adverse reactions, we have a sampling and that's it. Hence why people want the things I listed. Anyone who takes the time to really look at the stories of people who have been negatively impacted by vaccines will start to see a sinister pattern. And anyone in the medical field who speaks out gets treated like journalist and doctors did last year to a month ago if they talked about the lab leak theory , they would get labeled conspiracy theorist and the industry will attack their credentials and kick them out of medicine.

What was developed with the best of intentions for the good of the world has turned into a money making scheme. That's it. Think of healthcare more like a business and realize vaccines care more for profit than protecting the vulnerable --> and you might start to see the bigger picture.

Its not nearly as rosy as the talking heads and bought politicians claim.

so there's many many examples of dangerous vaccines, but you can only list one and it has since been deemed as flawed (italy). Well, we also have that scientific logic that Jenny McCarthy spread about how vaccines cause autism. It just seems to me that if there were "many many exmples" we would have heard about at least a few of them.

again you mention "transparency" but just in broad general terms that make no point.

i understand that there are laws to protect companies for law suits and vaccines. the FDA approves them and after that the company is not liable. i doubt the companies would even be interested in joining the game if not for that protection. I guess they could just ask you to sign a waiver, like a rodeo rider has to sign.

its hard to debate when you bring up mystery deaths that no one knows about and use them as part of your logic and defense.

See what I mean, Big Pharma has "deemed" the vaccine study in Italy "flawed", so you (like most who have been conditioned to not question the safety of vaccines) are content to assume it was.

There can't really be a discussion when one side has near complete control of the information and has the power to discredit professionals who speak out against them.

If you were in the business of making money from medicine would you:
A) Work on cures or work on treatments?
B) If you new a medicine killed people, would you pull it from the market, or make 20 billion knowing when you finally get a large class action lawsuit against you it will only cost you less than 2 billion in fines and court costs?
C) if you found out a vaccine or medication had a side effect that you also had a treatment for, would you recall it and spend millions to make it safer or push it out and 'double dip' on revenue?

The answer to all three is the latter of the two options given.

[Animal]

If you were in the business of making money from medicine would you:
A) Work on cures or work on treatments?
B) If you new a medicine killed people, would you pull it from the market, or make 20 billion knowing when you finally get a large class action lawsuit against you it will only cost you less than 2 billion in fines and court costs?
C) if you found out a vaccine or medication had a side effect that you also had a treatment for, would you recall it and spend millions to make it safer or push it out and 'double dip' on revenue?

The answer to all three is the latter of the two options given.

A. I would work on whatever my team was the best at doing in a time frame where we could make the most money from it. there is no one size that fits all. Just like in my business. there are companies that only do large jobs, there are companies that only do federally funded jobs, there are companies that only do city jobs or private jobs. there are some that do combinations of some of those. there is no point at all to this point you are trying to make because there are hundreds of companies all approaching it a little differently.

B. If i had a medicine that i knew killed people i would have never gotten it through the trials, so that point is moot. the government doesn't offer protection to half ass schemes that "might" work. that protection comes from lots and lots of testing and trials. So don't pretend that its some giveaway program.

C. if i had a vaccine that had side effects, first of all i wouldn't have found it. but second, the side effects would have to be so minor that aspirin and such would treat it. or the side effects would have to be so few and far between that everyone felt they were within an acceptable tolerance. like the astra zeneca went through in europe.

these scenarios you set up are so bizarre and far from reality that they can't really be your thoughts on things.

[Cassandros]

If you were in the business of making money from medicine would you:
A) Work on cures or work on treatments?
B) If you new a medicine killed people, would you pull it from the market, or make 20 billion knowing when you finally get a large class action lawsuit against you it will only cost you less than 2 billion in fines and court costs?
C) if you found out a vaccine or medication had a side effect that you also had a treatment for, would you recall it and spend millions to make it safer or push it out and 'double dip' on revenue?

The answer to all three is the latter of the two options given.

A. I would work on whatever my team was the best at doing in a time frame where we could make the most money from it. there is no one size that fits all. Just like in my business. there are companies that only do large jobs, there are companies that only do federally funded jobs, there are companies that only do city jobs or private jobs. there are some that do combinations of some of those. there is no point at all to this point you are trying to make because there are hundreds of companies all approaching it a little differently.

B. If i had a medicine that i knew killed people i would have never gotten it through the trials, so that point is moot. the government doesn't offer protection to half ass schemes that "might" work. that protection comes from lots and lots of testing and trials. So don't pretend that its some giveaway program.

C. if i had a vaccine that had side effects, first of all i wouldn't have found it. but second, the side effects would have to be so minor that aspirin and such would treat it. or the side effects would have to be so few and far between that everyone felt they were within an acceptable tolerance. like the astra zeneca went through in europe.

these scenarios you set up are so bizarre and far from reality that they can't really be your thoughts on things.

Far from reality?

To retort, A) while all is true in what you say, it is said only to make a simple question seemingly too complex to answer. Lets deflate a bit. We should both agree the general goal when you are in the business, at any level and at any capacity, is to make money. Hypothetically, if your Capital comes from the medicine you R&D and sell: what is more profitable: pouring money into finding cures or funding new long term treatments? The answer is self evident: repeat customers > one time visitors, treatments will always make more money.

B) ...Ummmm... Tell me again what Purdue is doing right now? Oh yeah, offering $10 billion to make people stfu about them getting caught openly putting profits over lives.

C) You have more morals than others who are actually in the position to call the shots. Zyprexa, Vioxx, Wellbutrin... Fen-Phen. The end game is always make money. If these companies are willing to risk getting caught selling these drugs in the manner they did out in the open --> Why on Earth would you blindly trust these same people to maintain their integrity when they develop their drugs behind closed doors?

[CaptQuint]

i notice one thing about you anti-vaxxers (sorry, but if it quacks....)

if you make a point with some kind of study you have heard and then you find out its completely debunked and wrong, that doesn't matter. you just move on to some new reason. When a person goes to that much trouble to defend a position, then they aren't using logic. I have to go back to just assuming you are scared of a needle. its the only thing that makes any sense.

Moving on to the next reason may just mean we have several reasons why we feel the way we do. You have not debunked every reason. Also you are wrong..No problem with needles. I am just not convinced it's a good choice for me.

You said "it's not a good choice for me" 14 times in this thread. How about you shut the fuck up already?

You not getting it is a good choice for the rest of us.

Why are you so stupid? I got my second shot 2 months ago.

[Animal]

To retort, A) while all is true in what you say, it is said only to make a simple question seemingly too complex to answer. Lets deflate a bit. We should both agree the general goal when you are in the business, at any level and at any capacity, is to make money. Hypothetically, if your Capital comes from the medicine you R&D and sell: what is more profitable: pouring money into finding cures or funding new long term treatments? The answer is self evident: repeat customers > one time visitors, treatments will always make more money.

B) ...Ummmm... Tell me again what Purdue is doing right now? Oh yeah, offering $10 billion to make people stfu about them getting caught openly putting profits over lives.

C) You have more morals than others who are actually in the position to call the shots. Zyprexa, Vioxx, Wellbutrin... Fen-Phen. The end game is always make money. If these companies are willing to risk getting caught selling these drugs in the manner they did out in the open --> Why on Earth would you blindly trust these same people to maintain their integrity when they develop their drugs behind closed doors?

i am in no way making a simple question too complex to answer. You seem to have a singular view that only you know what provides profit and that every single company would want to do whatever it is you think in order to make the most money. I hate to break the news, but you aren't that smart. If you were, you would have a business making millions of dollars on these easy roads to riches. The truth is that every single business has to carve its own path and find out what they are the most profitable at. The successful ones will shift gears enough to find that path. The unsuccessful ones will hold onto whatever their original premise was and watch themselves go bankrupt.

the first of last year, when the need for a vaccine became apparent, companies around the globe scrambled to do whatever they thought they could do to profit from it. Some focused on vaccines, some focused on different kinds of vaccines, some focused on vaccines that take years to develop knowing their only chance was the failure of the other companies shorter approach, some focused on therapeutics, etc. I would bet there were no less than 50 companies attempting a vaccine. If your theory was correct, zero companies would have attempted a vaccine and 100% of them would have focused on therapeutics. Why cure a disease you can sell drugs to treat, right? Well, that didn't happen. They focused on curing the disease.

What they didn't count on their profit projections were the knuckleheads like yourself that refuse to get a vaccine. so that they will be able to sell rounds 2 and 3 and so on and so on because you guys join in and help us kill the virus in its tracks.

[Cassandros]

To retort, A) while all is true in what you say, it is said only to make a simple question seemingly too complex to answer. Lets deflate a bit. We should both agree the general goal when you are in the business, at any level and at any capacity, is to make money. Hypothetically, if your Capital comes from the medicine you R&D and sell: what is more profitable: pouring money into finding cures or funding new long term treatments? The answer is self evident: repeat customers > one time visitors, treatments will always make more money.

B) ...Ummmm... Tell me again what Purdue is doing right now? Oh yeah, offering $10 billion to make people stfu about them getting caught openly putting profits over lives.

C) You have more morals than others who are actually in the position to call the shots. Zyprexa, Vioxx, Wellbutrin... Fen-Phen. The end game is always make money. If these companies are willing to risk getting caught selling these drugs in the manner they did out in the open --> Why on Earth would you blindly trust these same people to maintain their integrity when they develop their drugs behind closed doors?

i am in no way making a simple question too complex to answer. You seem to have a singular view that only you know what provides profit and that every single company would want to do whatever it is you think in order to make the most money. I hate to break the news, but you aren't that smart. If you were, you would have a business making millions of dollars on these easy roads to riches. The truth is that every single business has to carve its own path and find out what they are the most profitable at. The successful ones will shift gears enough to find that path. The unsuccessful ones will hold onto whatever their original premise was and watch themselves go bankrupt.

the first of last year, when the need for a vaccine became apparent, companies around the globe scrambled to do whatever they thought they could do to profit from it. Some focused on vaccines, some focused on different kinds of vaccines, some focused on vaccines that take years to develop knowing their only chance was the failure of the other companies shorter approach, some focused on therapeutics, etc. I would bet there were no less than 50 companies attempting a vaccine. If your theory was correct, zero companies would have attempted a vaccine and 100% of them would have focused on therapeutics. Why cure a disease you can sell drugs to treat, right? Well, that didn't happen. They focused on curing the disease.

What they didn't count on their profit projections were the knuckleheads like yourself that refuse to get a vaccine. so that they will be able to sell rounds 2 and 3 and so on and so on because you guys join in and help us kill the virus in its tracks.

Wish you would have addressed what I asked, but whatever...

***

LOL@"kill this virus in its tracks."

Unless they make enough vaccines to inoculate everyone in the world and time it so all of us get our shot at nearly the same time... you will never eradicate this virus.

None of those companies were racing to save the world --> they all just wanted a seat on the next global-wide annual-treatment-plan gravy train.

[Animal]

None of those companies were racing to save the world --> they all just wanted a seat on the next global-wide annual-treatment-plan gravy train.

i never said they were racing to save the world. but, thanks to folks like yourself, their annual booster shots are going to make them filthy rich off of people like me that are going to have to do it because people like you won't participate. and just so you understand how money works, they have already been paid for your shot. whether you get it or not. i suppose if it starts to reach expiration they will give it away or sell it again.

[theclap]

Looks like only 45% of US is fully vaccinated. I wonder how much higher that will rise.

[Cassandros]

None of those companies were racing to save the world --> they all just wanted a seat on the next global-wide annual-treatment-plan gravy train.

i never said they were racing to save the world. but, thanks to folks like yourself, their annual booster shots are going to make them filthy rich off of people like me that are going to have to do it because people like you won't participate. and just so you understand how money works, they have already been paid for your shot. whether you get it or not. i suppose if it starts to reach expiration they will give it away or sell it again.

Let's be honest --> even if 100% of Americans got vaccinated there would still be annual boosters for years to come.

Break-through cases will always be a thing... Hell the delta variant has already reduced vaccine effectiveness to 79%. Delta merging with another variant will likely drop it even more. By Fall it could mutate/merge two or three more times.

You think you are safer being vaccinated, others disagree and trust their own immune systems. Both sides hope they are right. The important thing is that we have a choice in the matter.

[Animal]

You think you are safer being vaccinated, others disagree and trust their own immune systems. Both sides hope they are right. The important thing is that we have a choice in the matter.

well, fortunately for you, my choice to be vaccinated doesn't impact your "hope on what is right". Your decision not to get a vaccine is greatly affecting mine.

[theclap]

You think you are safer being vaccinated, others disagree and trust their own immune systems. Both sides hope they are right. The important thing is that we have a choice in the matter.

well, fortunately for you, my choice to be vaccinated doesn't impact your "hope on what is right". Your decision not to get a vaccine is greatly affecting mine.

You don't have faith in being vaccinated?

[Cassandros]

You think you are safer being vaccinated, others disagree and trust their own immune systems. Both sides hope they are right. The important thing is that we have a choice in the matter.

well, fortunately for you, my choice to be vaccinated doesn't impact your "hope on what is right". Your decision not to get a vaccine is greatly affecting mine.

That makes zero sense...

How so?

If the vaccine works as reported --> you should be protected regardless of other peoples choices on the matter.

[theclap]

You think you are safer being vaccinated, others disagree and trust their own immune systems. Both sides hope they are right. The important thing is that we have a choice in the matter.

well, fortunately for you, my choice to be vaccinated doesn't impact your "hope on what is right". Your decision not to get a vaccine is greatly affecting mine.

That makes zero sense...

How so?

If the vaccine works as reported --> you should be protected regardless of other peoples choices on the matter.

You need to wear your mask so my mask works!!!
Now take your vaccine so my vaccine works!!!

[Animal]

You think you are safer being vaccinated, others disagree and trust their own immune systems. Both sides hope they are right. The important thing is that we have a choice in the matter.

well, fortunately for you, my choice to be vaccinated doesn't impact your "hope on what is right". Your decision not to get a vaccine is greatly affecting mine.

That makes zero sense...

How so?

If the vaccine works as reported --> you should be protected regardless of other peoples choices on the matter.

it makes complete sense. "My hope" is that we get over 80% of the people vaccinated so herd immunity makes the virus go away. Your decision (along with the other anti vaxxers) is making that not happen. The more non vaccinated people up the odds of more and stronger variants.

[Cassandros]

You think you are safer being vaccinated, others disagree and trust their own immune systems. Both sides hope they are right. The important thing is that we have a choice in the matter.

well, fortunately for you, my choice to be vaccinated doesn't impact your "hope on what is right". Your decision not to get a vaccine is greatly affecting mine.

That makes zero sense...

How so?

If the vaccine works as reported --> you should be protected regardless of other peoples choices on the matter.

it makes complete sense. "My hope" is that we get over 80% of the people vaccinated so herd immunity makes the virus go away. Your decision (along with the other anti vaxxers) is making that not happen. The more non vaccinated people up the odds of more and stronger variants.

Herd immunity comes when 80% of the population has antibodies against the virus/disease... Those antibodies can come from both artificial and natural means.

It is estimated (as of Feb 21) that 20% of Americans have gotten covid. So we are ever closer to that magical 80%.

Regarding mutations, I'd be more worried about vaccinated long-haulers creating the real killer variants.

[AnalHamster]

Long covid is a post viral condition, the virus isn't mutating because it isn't there replicating anymore. It's looking like an auto immune thing. Mutations are likely where there's a lot of replicating going on, which will be poor countries where there are not enough vaccinations going on, which will continue until the rich countries send them a shit ton of vaccines rather than buying it all up. Herd immunity could be anywhere from 65 to 90 percent, or it may not be possible at all with this one.

[Animal]

You think you are safer being vaccinated, others disagree and trust their own immune systems. Both sides hope they are right. The important thing is that we have a choice in the matter.

well, fortunately for you, my choice to be vaccinated doesn't impact your "hope on what is right". Your decision not to get a vaccine is greatly affecting mine.

That makes zero sense...

How so?

If the vaccine works as reported --> you should be protected regardless of other peoples choices on the matter.

it makes complete sense. "My hope" is that we get over 80% of the people vaccinated so herd immunity makes the virus go away. Your decision (along with the other anti vaxxers) is making that not happen. The more non vaccinated people up the odds of more and stronger variants.

Herd immunity comes when 80% of the population has antibodies against the virus/disease... Those antibodies can come from both artificial and natural means.

It is estimated (as of Feb 21) that 20% of Americans have gotten covid. So we are ever closer to that magical 80%.

Regarding mutations, I'd be more worried about vaccinated long-haulers creating the real killer variants.

As of right now a total of 44% of the US is vaccinated. Let's take your 20% number at face value. Are you assuming that you simply add 20% and 44% to claim you have 64% of the population immune? Well, Biker is in both categories, so that math won't work. Do you think its possible there might be other people in both categories?

At least admit you see my point instead of trying to make a joke of it. For my hope to come true, anti vaxxers are keeping that from happening. But, for your hope to come true, my decision to get a vaccine doesn't fuck that up for you.

[CaptQuint]