Explain that you doddering old fuck
shareDoesn't matter. Still need to get vaccinated. And wear two masks.
shareI just put a diaper on my head...
shareyes vaccination helps protect by producing anti bodies. helping those who are old or very unhealthy from getting less severe symptom (and possibly dying) when they get the real covid.
its really the simplest fucking thing in the world
Look Ma
shareI will explain it:
Fully vaccinated: 3 doses. Each dose 25$ (or even 30$).
42 millions people recovered.
42*30*3 = 3.8 billions$ (3.1 billions at 25$ per dose).
So if we don't vaccinate the recovered the big pharma "loses" almost 4 billions dollars in revenue.
Oh those poor big pharma billionaires! Won't someone think of their pockets!!!
/s
What about those who are unvaccinated and don't recover?
0.05%
shareWhy when the argument of "natural immunity is better than vaccines" is brought up you stupid fucks on the left ALWAYS understand that we somehow encourage people to get corona?
SMH.
That sentence makes absolutely no sense.
shareThat sentence makes perfect sense: let's cause "natural" immunity letting everyone get covid. That is their thinking.
And this is where I point out how many people died from covid already.... and how they don't ever consider how many MORE deaths they would be causing. Maybe including some or all of their family, or mine??? Who gets to decide this fate???
I'd rather take my chance with something that HAS a chance verses, say, oh I don't know... NOTHING?
My God we've become so fucking stupid
Yes, you have become so fucking stupid if when I say "I had corona, I have immunity so no need to take a vaccine" you dumb fucks understand "don't take the vaccine, is better to take corona to build immunity".
Are you a fucking retard??
It's pretty funny. You are right, when someone brings up natural immunity the opposite side always equate it to someone saying everyone should get covid. That is not the argument. Idk why people can't understand this.
shareAm chair doctors all around until a personal loved one dies
shareso basically unless immune compromised or over 70, natural immunity is better than vaccination...right?
shareand how before the vaccine do you suggest the 16% of Americans above 65, or 52 million. safely and easily get natural immunity?
ill wait..
its pretty obvious. the vaccine allowed these people to get improved immunity and MORE safely get covid and even better immunity
Maybe Herman 999 Cain will explain that.
share"i'll wait..." lol cringe.
Where did darkpast say older people shouldn't get the vaccination?
so what are anti vaccines conservatives plan? they try and have their cake and eat it, and bake it, and store it, and freeze it
the vaccine doesn't work! its a trick! ohh it does for old people. I shouldn't have to get it though! its all to make Pfizer money.
they have 7 different story lines.
You are jumping to conclusions. Several people in this thread have not said anything about whether or not to get the vaccine. They state that natural immunity has higher resistance than the vaccine and then people like you jump to a conclusion about "what they really mean."
This is what several posters have said was their problem and you played right into it.
When getting into a debate it's always best to understand that you don't totally know a person's opinion until you ask them. Going on the attack right away and making assumptions is what causes an even bigger divide between people.
the guy has trump as his picture. the only6 divide has been caused by republicans and conservatives who have decided to ignore the consensus and evidence form scientists and medical experts in favour of their partisan politics. like with man made climate change
shareBoth sides of an argument can have members who use hyperbole, incorrect facts, and assumptions. Doing so only further entrenches the opposing viewpoint.
sharestop doing false equivalencies please. no one is buying this BS. we dont have short term memory loss of what happened these past two years during covid.
there was one side who said "we should listen to the consensus of experts and what they say. we will follow what the scientific evidence is since its the best thing that provides actual answers.
the other side side, made up of almost exclusively conservatives, at various times said things like
-its a conspiracy to make trump look
-its not that bad, its just like the flu
-the vaccines dont work. its all to make Pfizer money
-the vaccines are killing 100s of thousands pf people
-its a plan by fauci and bill gates to take power and install a dictatorship
Again please stop with this false equivalency nonsense acting like both sides were on equal footing. no one is buying your crap
He’s too stupid and too demented to process actual science.
shareOP looks like a version of the survivorship fallacy. Replies are mostly a circle-jerk, which is to be expected on this site.
For the nth time, the virus has third-party consequences. If only you fools got sick and died (at home rather than taking a spot at a hospital), then, yeah, go for it. Just like if you have cancer want to pray to your invisible sky wizard for healing. Go ahead.
As for natural recovery conferring more resistance, the argument fails to comprehend basic marginal thinking. Natural recovery plus the vaccine confers even more resistance. Then there's the added administrative challenge of confirming that someone did in fact recover from COVID.
It's also amusing that people say 99.5% of people survive COVID when 99.999% of people take the vaccine without consequence. Now percentages are out of 100. It's there in the word -- percentage -- per cent (as in century). Apply the percentages to hundreds of millions of people and they begin to add up. Talk about irrational. There's a reason why some people are epidemiologists and you dumb-dumbs bitch about "wokeness" of re-made 80s cartoons.
I guess "third party consequences" is supposed to sound clever. But you forget to explain what you mean. Not that smart...
What's an "invisible sky wizard"? Are we talking about faith? Faith helps much more than your creepy placebo.
Where do your "99.999%" come from? Sounds even more made up than Fauci's numbers. Any reliable source?
Third-party effects is just simple English, but maybe it sounds "clever" to people who are dumb. Even if someone has a 100% chance of not dying from COVID, she can still spread the disease to others, which makes it a public health problem. Your behavior affects other people. This is basic harm principle stuff.
As for sources:https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html#:~:text=Reports%20of%20death%20after%20COVID,COVID%2D19%20vaccine.
"Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 375 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through September 7, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 7,439 reports of death (0.0020%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause." As noted, just because people died after receiving the vaccine, it does not mean they died *because* of the vaccine. Feel free to compare to Randall's predictably laughable sources.
Bottom line: Dumb-dumbs argue that COVID isn't all that dangerous, but fail to appreciate the vaccine is even less dangerous.
Thanks for the source.
shareThe problem is: vaccine might be safer than getting corona. But for someone that already HAD corona the vaccine is useless, according to some studies might even be detrimental.
And they rushed to enforce mandates to vaccinate everyone, regardless of immunity status. And let's not forget that yes, the chances to die from vaccine are lower than from corona, specially for elders and people with no immunity. But then why force all others that have minimal chances to die, specially when the vaccine doesn't really stop the spread?
Plus: if I'm forced to take a vaccine and I have some bad adverse reactions someone MUST be responsible and pay for it since it wasn't my choice to take it.
The problem is: vaccine might be safer than getting corona. But for someone that already HAD corona the vaccine is useless, according to some studies might even be detrimental.
But then why force all others that have minimal chances to die, specially when the vaccine doesn't really stop the spread?
Plus: if I'm forced to take a vaccine and I have some bad adverse reactions someone MUST be responsible and pay for it since it wasn't my choice to take it.
People don't like facts and truths
share"This has been false. Unless something has changed with the mutating virus in recent months, it's likely still false. The guidance has been to get vaccinated even if one has recovered from infection."
Studies have proven that it's true. And the vaccines are for Alpha and pretty much have a much lower efficiency against the mutated versions as well. Imagine this conversation:
"I just had Omicron B2 so I have immunity
NO you don't have immunity, you need to be forced to have 3-4 doses of this vaccine that was manufactured against Alpha"
If you don't see how moronic and flawed your "logic" is sorry but I cannot do anything for you.
The guidance is flawed.
The analogy with the swimming vest is moronic.
"Because the vaccine was expected to stop the spread, and it did. " so did natural immunity. Even better than the vaccines and still does it better than the vaccines according to all studies, the guidance ignores those studies so it is, as I said, flawed.
" I'm sure you're willing to follow your logic the other way: If you don't take it, and contribute to spreading the disease, then you're obligated to pay extra taxes for the illnesses of others."
No, because the others still have the option to take the vaccine and be protected if they wish. It is NOT my duty to protect others and I'M NOT forcing others to not take the vaccine so you cannot really blame me - it's their choice and if the vaccines work that good they will be protected. I guess it's hard for you to see the lack of logic in your argument. Don't force me to take the risks for others.
"Also, "adverse" means "bad.""
Bad as in stronger, not just a rash at the injection location.
Studies have proven that it's true.
Imagine this conversation:
If you don't see how moronic and flawed your "logic" is sorry but I cannot do anything for you.
The guidance is flawed.
The analogy with the swimming vest is moronic.
No, because the others still have the option to take the vaccine and be protected if they wish.
"What studies?"
A lot of studies. Do your homework.
Here's a start: https://www.wfla.com/community/health/coronavirus/natural-immunity-superior-to-vaccines-against-delta-variant-cdc-study-finds/
"There are allergic and immunocompromised people who do not have the option." first of all: not my problem.
But again, as dumb as you are you forgot that we are speaking in the context of already having natural immunity acquired after recovery. And that protects at least as good as the vaccines against transmission as well. So those people that are allergic and/or immunocompromised are as safe around the recovered as are around the vaccinated.
"And, again, the main argument for the vaccine is not about immunity but preventing severe illness/hospitalization." so after your bullshit with allergic and immunocompromised you forgot about it already???? And again since we are talking about natural immunity, that offers higher protection than vaccines so your main argument applies to natural immunity as well so it's void in this context.
So you're basically wrong and you fail at every level.
Basically you are like "vaccines offers this" while the truth is that "natural immunity offers this better" but you chose to ignore that truth.
Let me tell you something that might be a surprise for you: I'm not against vaccination, I'm against forced, mandated vaccination even when NOT needed (as proved by science). As a matter of fact I was about to take the vaccine before getting covid, so stop assuming that I'm an antivaxer and that I'm anti-vaccination in all situations.
A lot of studies. Do your homework.
A new study released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that people who were both vaccinated and had survived a prior bout of COVID-19 were best protected from infection.
first of all: not my problem.
But again, as dumb as you are you forgot that we are speaking in the context of already having natural immunity acquired after recovery.
Basically you are like "vaccines offers this" while the truth is that "natural immunity offers this better" but you chose to ignore that truth.
Can you read??? From the article:
"The study, that examined infections in New York and California last year, found that unvaccinated people with a past infection were a close second. By fall, when the more contagious delta variant had taken over but boosters weren’t yet widespread, that group had a lower case rate than vaccinated people who had no past infection."
So there is NO REASON to mandate someone that already has better protection to vaccinate. Recommend? Sure. MANDATE? Nope.
"This is inconsistent with your earlier premise that you deserve compensation for an adverse reaction to the vaccine."
Again, you can't read. I clearly wrote: "And, again, the main argument for the vaccine is not about immunity but preventing severe illness/hospitalization."
As an expert in your own article observes, "[I]t’s still much safer to get your immunity from vaccination than from infection."
that group had a lower case rate than vaccinated people who had no past infection."
It's proven, you can't read, understand or you just refuse to do so. Ideology or pure stupidity, either way it's clear that you are incapable to understand the written word.
Bye.
Your original claim that resurrected this part of the thread was that the vaccine is "useless" and even potentially "detrimental.
I'm happy to invite others to compare my posts in this thread to yours.
Yes idiot, compared to natural immunity. When you have a 95% percent protection by vaccines (alleged), a higher protection from nat immunity (let's say 97%) the extra 1% is useless.
For sure NOT enough to justify a mandate.
Detrimental effects:
And there are more but I'm too lazy to search for them.share
Lazy, indeed. Even though this looks terrifically ad hoc, quote the relevant section to support your claim.
I would suggest that you reread your posts. You constantly misunderstood or willingly misrepresented what I said and a lot of times you were quite ... not on topic.
Assertions devoid of argument.
This only demonstrates that you are innumerate in addition to being illiterate.
This perfectly demonstrates how illiterate you are.
On the contrary, it's yet another demonstration of your own sand-pounding stupidity. I was not thinking what you imagine I was thinking. Like the vaccines, natural immunity wanes, so these percentages are fluid. It's especially silly for you to go on, "Let's say 97%" and stack these numbers so casually. Why do you think medical professionals recommend everyone get vaccinated if it's "useless"? And, of course, by "useless" you do not actually mean useless.
What's more revealing is what is left unsaid. How the articles support your view. How we bridge the Is-Ought chasm.
You were always out of your depth.
Here's all the people who have died or had a severe reaction to the vaxx
https://theempoweror.com/
https://t.me/s/covidvaccineinjuries
"99.99% without consequence" my ass
I wish I knew that before I got vaccinated. I was under the impression that no one would die after being vaccinated. No blood clots, no heart attacks, no strokes, no death from electrocution, car accidents, or gunfire..
Guess I had better cancel my cliff jumping lessons.
YOu know what's amusing??
That when we say "natural immunity is better than vaccines" you idiots think that we say: "go get corona so you have natural immunity".
NO idiot, we don't say that, we say that since having natural immunity is better than the vaccines protection then there is NO NEED to force us, who had it, to take the vaccine.
"Natural recovery plus the vaccine confers even more resistance.", yeah, so? It should be MY choice if I want it or not.
"Then there's the added administrative challenge of confirming that someone did in fact recover from COVID." have you ever heard about medical records? I still have my test results on paper so I can show it to you. If it's easy to provide a paper that show that you are vaccinated how hard can it be to add on that paper that you previously tested positive and so have natural immunity??
>YOu know what's amusing??
>That when we say "natural immunity is better than vaccines" you idiots think that we say: "go get corona so you have >natural immunity".
And yet I never said anything like that, so you can have your lame straw man back.
>"Natural recovery plus the vaccine confers even more resistance.", yeah, so? It should be MY choice if I want it or not.
Not exactly, no. When our behavior affects other people, it becomes their business. Your choice deprives others of their liberty. If the disease killed one in three people, then the vast majority of people -- I'd hope -- would support strict quarantines and mandatory vaccinations. As it stands the issue becomes morally fuzzier because it's not plague-level deadly, so these issues are resolved with political bargaining and compromise, which is difficult when moral idiots wave Gadsden Flags and talk about "mah rights."
> have you ever heard about medical records? I still have my test results on paper so I can show it to you. If it's easy to >provide a paper that show that you are vaccinated how hard can it be to add on that paper that you previously tested >positive and so have natural immunity??
It's needlessly dumb. Not only does the vaccine provide the previously mentioned additive benefit, but there are a variety of COVID tests and false positives are, like, a thing. We're dealing with people who mock mask wearers for being scared of a not-so-deadly disease, yet these folks are absolutely terrified of the vaccine. If you created this type of policy, you would absolutely get people who would deliberately infect themselves so they could avoid the vaccine. Hell, we've seen people who, instead of getting a FREE vaccine that can prevent illness and death, they choose to pay hundreds of dollars for fake vaccine "verification" (which provides no protection against COVID). I'm glad you don't work in public health.
"And yet I never said anything like that, so you can have your lame straw man back."
You did say that, or you don't really understand what you're saying???
I quote: "For the nth time, the virus has third-party consequences. If only you fools got sick and died (at home rather than taking a spot at a hospital), then, yeah, go for it. Just like if you have cancer want to pray to your invisible sky wizard for healing. Go ahead."
And you're saying it again "If you created this type of policy, you would absolutely get people who would deliberately infect themselves so they could avoid the vaccine. ", I think you're not aware of the things that you say ...
"Not exactly, no. When our behavior affects other people, it becomes their business. Your choice deprives others of their liberty. If the disease killed one in three people, then the vast majority of people -- I'd hope -- would support strict quarantines and mandatory vaccinations."
No, because I have the same chance (or even lower) to affect others people just as they have to affect me. It's my choice if I want to do MORE or not. Am i asking you to get corona (because being vaccinated your risks are much lower anyway to have adverse reactions) so you increase the protection to others???
"It's needlessly dumb. Not only does the vaccine provide the previously mentioned additive benefit" and what does this have to do with the possibility of having records of positive tests? It's indeed dumb.
Like many others here, you cannot read. If you think what you quoted means, "go get corona so you have natural immunity" you need to get your head examined. It's like claiming I said people purposely seek out cancer so their god can fix it. In the second example, there are people who would get COVID not for the natural immunity but to avoid getting microchipped/becoming magnetized/developing mutant powers etc.
Re: Quarantines and vaccinations for a deadlier pathogen
>No, because I have the same chance (or even lower) to affect others people just as they have to affect me. It's my choice if I want to do MORE or not. Am i asking you to get corona (because being vaccinated your risks are much lower anyway to have adverse reactions) so you increase the protection to others???
I'm not going to pretend to understand what this means.
Like many others I can read. That's exactly what you mean.
shareMaybe, just maybe, you're guilty of a false inference. Happens all the time. Maybe, just maybe, I can speak with some authority about what I intended as I am the author of my statements -- never mind their literal meaning which runs contrary to your twisted misunderstanding. Something to consider.
shareOr maybe, just maybe, when challenged straight on you just change your stance.
Or you don't realize how the way you construct your phrases conveys meanings.
The meaning is quite clear, let me quote again: "For the nth time, the virus has third-party consequences. If only you fools got sick and died (at home rather than taking a spot at a hospital), then, yeah, go for it."
NO, we don't want to "go for it", it's just for those who happened to get the virus, UNWILLINGLY.
And you doubled down with "you would absolutely get people who would deliberately infect themselves so they could avoid the vaccine." - but that's not the message.
Sand poundingly stupid. Being indifferent to dumb behavior is not the equivalent of saying they intend to get the disease in order to secure immunity. Also, the statement was made in the context of third-party consequences. The meaning should be reasonably clear: It's generally OK to engage in whatever behavior you please provided you're not harming anyone else. Durrrrrr.
share