Vaccination Food For Thought

[SmashMouth]

2 hours ago, baddog said:

I’ve got it figured out….

 These vaccinations will alter a persons DNA. Since everyone’s DNA will be altered, we won’t be considered human and therefore will have no human rights. lol

Hell, we already have very few it seems!

[bullets13]

2 hours ago, Chester86 said:

I love it when people say “anti-vaxxers”, then go on to call those who choose not to get it “sheep”.  I was in the military and got every shot they told me to get.  I received every vaccination required growing up.  I have had COVID multiple times and I choose not to get it.   I do not mind open discussion and I see and read lots of articles on all sides.  Go ahead though if that makes you feel better.  They (Democrats) continue to work on dividing and evidently they are succeeding.

I don’t think people who choose not to get vaccinated are sheep.  I think people that read obviously false articles and believe every word are sheep.  Especially when they blindly follow along without doing any type of research.  

[Reagan]

2 hours ago, Chester86 said:

I love it when people say “anti-vaxxers”, then go on to call those who choose not to get it “sheep”.  I was in the military and got every shot they told me to get.  I received every vaccination required growing up.  I have had COVID multiple times and I choose not to get it.   I do not mind open discussion and I see and read lots of articles on all sides.  Go ahead though if that makes you feel better.  They (Democrats) continue to work on dividing and evidently they are succeeding.

The Dims always need something to divide us.  You notice how you don't hear about BLM anymore.  That's was to divide us when Trump was President.  Now they are using the vax!

[bullets13]

2 hours ago, mat said:

Have you bothered to watch this lengthy lecture that I posted a couple of pages back? A very credible doctor provides plenty of eye opening facts.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

 

 

 

No.  I’m happy to read the cliff notes if you’ll provide them.  I know he got fired for spreading misinformation about COVID, and Baylor Scott & White Health had to take out a restraining order against him because he lied for months about his credentials and claimed to still work for them.  The problem I have is you have an overwhelming majority of healthcare professionals, virologists, epidemiologists, doctors, etc. saying one thing.  But one doctor with a platform says what a big group of people wants to hear, and all of a sudden he’s the expert and knows more than everyone else in the world.  He’s not even a lung doctor.  Kinda like the local gynecologist who was making videos on YouTube for awhile about the evils of the vaccine, and people were eating it up.  Of course, I know for a fact he’s vaccinated now, and he deleted all the videos, but whatever.  

[Chester86]

11 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

I don’t think people who choose not to get vaccinated are sheep.  I think people that read obviously false articles and believe every word are sheep.  Especially when they blindly follow along without doing any type of research.  

That’s fair

[Reagan]

[baddog]

Always a next wave. What happened to flu deaths? Worldwide Covid cases have declined and we know the rest of the world is not vaccinated, not anywhere near the numbers in the U.S.

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[mat]

11 hours ago, bullets13 said:

No.  I’m happy to read the cliff notes if you’ll provide them.  I know he got fired for spreading misinformation about COVID, and Baylor Scott & White Health had to take out a restraining order against him because he lied for months about his credentials and claimed to still work for them.  The problem I have is you have an overwhelming majority of healthcare professionals, virologists, epidemiologists, doctors, etc. saying one thing.  But one doctor with a platform says what a big group of people wants to hear, and all of a sudden he’s the expert and knows more than everyone else in the world.  He’s not even a lung doctor.  Kinda like the local gynecologist who was making videos on YouTube for awhile about the evils of the vaccine, and people were eating it up.  Of course, I know for a fact he’s vaccinated now, and he deleted all the videos, but whatever.  

You would rather scrutinize a very credible independent thinker without knowing what he has to say. I would not automatically discredit a well renowned cardiologist because he is not a “pulmonologist”, but that’s up to you. He presented very compelling data directly from the CDC and other’s websites.

I’m not going to relay or translate the information just to continue a debate. One fact that he did point out though, on December 10, 2020 the Trusted News Initiative was established which was basically a collaborative agreement from most of the news and social media outlets in the world that they would squash any “covid misinformation” that would hinder the vaccine effort. My question to you, who within the media is qualified to determine what is accurate? Would it be their staff pulmonologist? 🙃

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, baddog said:

Always a next wave. What happened to flu deaths? Worldwide Covid cases have declined and we know the rest of the world is not vaccinated, not anywhere near the numbers in the U.S.

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

I have never understood the flu deaths argument.

[mat]

1 hour ago, mat said:

You would rather scrutinize a very credible independent thinker without knowing what he has to say. I would not automatically discredit a well renowned cardiologist because he is not a “pulmonologist”, but that’s up to you. He presented very compelling data directly from the CDC and other’s websites.

I’m not going to relay or translate the information just to continue a debate. One fact that he did point out though, on December 10, 2020 the Trusted News Initiative was established which was basically a collaborative agreement from most of the news and social media outlets in the world that they would squash any “covid misinformation” that would hinder the vaccine effort. My question to you, who within the media is qualified to determine what is accurate? Would it be their staff pulmonologist? 🙃

BTW - I have no argument for or against the vaccine, just my personal opinion that I keep to myself. However, I don't trust the government and media or the promotion of the agenda.

[bullets13]

5 minutes ago, mat said:

BTW - I have no argument for or against the vaccine, just my personal opinion that I keep to myself. However, I don't trust the government and media or the promotion of the agenda.

I feel the same way.  But what a lot of people are ignoring is that there are anti-vaxxers out there becoming relevant and making a lot of money by using their platform to pander to the political beliefs of those who are against the vaccine... and i don't trust them either.  

[BS Wildcats]

2 hours ago, bullets13 said:

I feel the same way.  But what a lot of people are ignoring is that there are anti-vaxxers out there becoming relevant and making a lot of money by using their platform to pander to the political beliefs of those who are against the vaccine... and i don't trust them either.  

Whether anyone will admit it or not, the Dems made the vaccine political from day one.

[baddog]

Like I said before, we can’t mix and match the math. Hey, and I stand corrected. It’s a 99% survival rate.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[tvc184]

22 minutes ago, baddog said:

Like I said before, we can’t mix and match the math. Hey, and I stand corrected. It’s a 99% survival rate.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

Out of curiosity, did you read the article?

No where in the article does it say there’s a 99% survival rate.

The article makes a case for the Covid vaccine to be very effective, in comparing the potential effectiveness of the vaccine to the survival rate is almost meaningless. 

[baddog]

43 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Out of curiosity, did you read the article?

No where in the article does it say there’s a 99% survival rate.

The article makes a case for the Covid vaccine to be very effective, in comparing the potential effectiveness of the vaccine to the survival rate is almost meaningless. 

From the article: Social media users have questioned why a COVID-19 vaccine found to be 90% efficient has been hailed as a breakthrough, when the disease itself has a survival rate of 99%

Did you read it? That’s the first paragraph 

[tvc184]

4 minutes ago, baddog said:

From the article: Social media users have questioned why a COVID-19 vaccine found to be 90% efficient has been hailed as a breakthrough, when the disease itself has a survival rate of 99%

Did you read it? That’s the first paragraph 

Yes, I read past the first paragraph. Apparently you did not or maybe  you were just scanning it. I can accept  that. You probably saw something interesting that fit your agenda and stopped.

As you can see from your first paragraph, the 99% comes from, “social media users”. Apparently they are getting some of their data from this forum.

Here  is a quote from later in the article from the actual author…. 
“While the exact mortality rate of COVID-19 is still not known, a hypothetical rate of 1% would still result in a massive number of deaths if left to spread unchecked.”.

As you can see, they are using a hypothetical rate of 1% to show that even if it was that low, it would still be a serious issue.

[baddog]

4 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Yes, I read past the first paragraph. Apparently you did not or maybe  you were just scanning it. I can accept  that. You probably saw something interesting that fit your agenda and stopped.

As you can see from your first paragraph, the 99% comes from, “social media users”. Apparently they are getting some of their data from this forum.

Here  is a quote from later in the article from the actual author…. 
“While the exact mortality rate of COVID-19 is still not known, a hypothetical rate of 1% would still result in a massive number of deaths if left to spread unchecked.”.

As you can see, they are using a hypothetical rate of 1% to show that even if it was that low, it would still be a serious issue.

Hypothetical?
I see no problem with the reference to social media users. What the heck are we? Does this invalidate yours and my opinions? 
What it comes down to is acceptable death numbers. As long as a person’s death to disease is considered acceptable, then the agenda has been met. It all depends on where the lines are drawn.

[tvc184]

3 minutes ago, baddog said:

Hypothetical?
I see no problem with the reference to social media users. What the heck are we? Does this invalidate yours and my opinions? 
What it comes down to is acceptable death numbers. As long as a person’s death to disease is considered acceptable, then the agenda has been met. It all depends on where the lines are drawn.

Well, if social media users are your standard for medical data, I guess you can use that.

Certainly opinions matter but you we’re not talking about opinions when you posted an article and said, “ I stand corrected. It’s a 99% survival rate“.

Yes it is, according to Facebook users.

Again, there is absolutely nothing in that article from any kind of medical data from any source whatsoever that says Covid has a 99% survival rate.

[bullets13]

39 minutes ago, baddog said:

From the article: Social media users have questioned why a COVID-19 vaccine found to be 90% efficient has been hailed as a breakthrough, when the disease itself has a survival rate of 99%

Did you read it? That’s the first paragraph 

1% of America's population is 3.3 million people.  If we could reduce that number by 90%, I'd say that's pretty good "math".  

[baddog]

2 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

1% of America's population is 3.3 million people.  If we could reduce that number by 90%, I'd say that's pretty good "math".  

Gee, that would be if everyone catches covid. There’s a good number to throw out there.

[baddog]

11 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Well, if social media users are your standard for medical data, I guess you can use that.

Certainly opinions matter but you we’re not talking about opinions when you posted an article and said, “ I stand corrected. It’s a 99% survival rate“.

Yes it is, according to Facebook users.

Again, there is absolutely nothing in that article from any kind of medical data from any source whatsoever that says Covid has a 99% survival rate.

So, I guess that since you are on a social media platform, I can discredit your opinion…..and it didn’t say Facebook.

[bullets13]

1 minute ago, baddog said:

Gee, that would be if everyone catches covid. There’s a good number to throw out there.

you're right.  I mean, hardly anybody's gotten sick, and basically nobody's died at all.  

[bullets13]

Just now, baddog said:

So, I guess that since you are on a social media platform, I can discredit your opinion…..and it didn’t say Facebook.

I mean, I wouldn't write an article using his opinion as the source of information or anything like that... 

[baddog]

Just now, bullets13 said:

you're right.  I mean, hardly anybody's gotten sick, and basically nobody's died at all.  

Have 330,000,000 people tested positive for Covid. Remember the false positives.

[baddog]

Just now, bullets13 said:

I mean, I wouldn't write an article using his opinion as the source of information or anything like that... 

I thought you were libertarian….able to see points from both sides. Guess I was wrong. You mods have a way of having each other’s back too. 
 

Live your Covid vaccinated life and I’ll live my non-vaccinated Covid life. It’s the American thing to do.