If you’ve chosen not to take a Covid vaccine for whatever reason(s), it may be wise to reassess occasionally.

[phylodog]

I'm not saying with a certainty that it would, but I'm saying that's the only time it might. But to somewhat answer, you can transmit without infection, so theoretically if everyone were vaccinated the R would drop below 1 and the virus would burn out. I'm not saying that would absolutely happen, but that is how a vaccine that wasn't 100% effective could do it.

You can transmit with asymptomatic infection, symptomatic infection and without infection. That doesn't change regardless of the percent of the population vaccinated. I'm sorry but that makes no sense. It serves to do nothing other than convince people that the unvaccinated are a problem.

 

[JCSR]

You think you're hilarious...you think you're brilliant...yet you really, truly don't see the irony here.

You keep asking the same ******** question hoping for your big gotcha moment. No I'm not okay with any death, who would say yes to that?!?! I get upset when a rando in the pharmacy tells me their dog died for gods sake. I'm giving you the same ******** question back and I'm the one using a strawman?


I'm not saying with a certainty that it would, but I'm saying that's the only time it might. But to somewhat answer, you can transmit without infection, so theoretically if everyone were vaccinated the R would drop below 1 and the virus would burn out. I'm not saying that would absolutely happen, but that is how a vaccine that wasn't 100% effective could do it.

You refuse to answer a legit question and get upset when not let off the hook. Remember I'm only at a 7th grade level.

 

[mbills2223]

You can transmit with asymptomatic infection, symptomatic infection and without infection. That doesn't change regardless of the percent of the population vaccinated. I'm sorry but that makes no sense. It serves to do nothing other than convince people that the unvaccinated are a problem.

I think there is a disconnect somewhere between us because I think we are pretty close to on the same page as to what may or may not happen. 100% uptake of the vaccine MAY put an end to COVID, but certainly not immediately. Obviously 100% uptake of a 100% effective vaccine would end it.

 

[mbills2223]

You refuse to answer a legit question and get upset when not let off the hook. Remember I'm only at a 7th grade level. View attachment 170336

First of all I edited out the borderline insults and inappropriate language, so my apologies for that. Having said that, I did answer your question and I'll say it again here: No, I'm never okay with unnecessary death. Unfortunately we don't live in a fairytale, so we all have to choose our path on what's best for ourselves and, if we so choose, others we interact with.

 

[buckwacker]

We have multiple full sets of data. Efficacy was in the data. Anyone who thought that in a population without 100% vaccination that vaccinated would not be able to transmit had their heads in the sand, that's well known to be the case with most vaccines.

It either works or it doesn't. You seem to be as fond of tweaking commonly understood definitions to fit the narritive as the CDC.

 

[phylodog]

100% uptake of the vaccine MAY put an end to COVID, but certainly not immediately. Obviously 100% uptake of a 100% effective vaccine would end it.

The current vaccine is not 100% effective. That being the case, I don't understand how anyone can believe that 100% vaccination might end it.

 

[buckwacker]

As I said, are 700k deaths in 18 months acceptable? Seems like a legit question to me.

Answering a question with a question is obfuscation and I think we all know what purpose that serves.

 

[mbills2223]

The current vaccine is not 100% effective. That being the case, I don't understand how anyone can believe that 100% vaccination might end it.

I mean it's just a statistical exercise... If 100% of the population received a vaccine that is 90% effective (not specific to any vaccine, just an example) then theoretically the r value will drop and stay below 1 and the virus will burn out. Less potential hosts.

It either works or it doesn't. You seem to be as fond of tweaking commonly understood definitions to fit the narritive as the CDC.

Do you really think the world is that black and white? To stay in the therapeutic world, if that were the case there would be only one medication for blood pressure, for diabetes, for cholesterol, etc. Efficacy is a continuum, not a binary function.

 

[mbills2223]

Answering a question with a question is obfuscation and I think we all know what purpose that serves.

That was the point. I was doing what so many others seem to do to make a point.

 

[phylodog]

I mean it's just a statistical exercise... If 100% of the population received a vaccine that is 90% effective (not specific to any vaccine, just an example) then theoretically the r value will drop and stay below 1 and the virus will burn out. Less potential hosts.

That completely ignores the reality that naturally acquired immunity appears to be superior to the vaccine. Theoretical or statistical exercises are being misunderstood, misrepresented and utilized to convince people that those who choose not to get the vaccine are preventing an end to this ********.

That is a problem.

 

[mbills2223]

That completely ignores the reality that naturally acquired immunity appears to be superior to the vaccine. Theoretical or statistical exercises are being misunderstood, misrepresented and utilized to convince people that those who choose not to get the vaccine are preventing an end to this ********.

That is a problem.

You seem to want to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing and I'm not sure why...maybe I'm misinterpreting. I really don't think we are in disagreement on this particular subtopic.

 

[Ingomike]

And it still did for people not trying to look for any absurd reason to discredit the reason. At least find a legitimate argument rather than a CDC definition.

Come on. We all know the jabs being given are a new technology never before used as a vaccine and thus did not meet the old definition…

 

[buckwacker]

Do you really think the world is that black and white? To stay in the therapeutic world, if that were the case there would be only one medication for blood pressure, for diabetes, for cholesterol, etc. Efficacy is a continuum, not a binary function.

Yeah, no thats not true at all. In a world with multiple pharma corps, there will be multiple meds for the same ailment.

 

[Ingomike]

So?

So what?

 

[buckwacker]

That was the point. I was doing what so many others seem to do to make a point.

Obfuscating? Because answering a question honestly undercuts your argument?

 

[phylodog]

You seem to want to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing and I'm not sure why...maybe I'm misinterpreting. I really don't think we are in disagreement on this particular subtopic.

We absolutely are.

You choose to believe that 100% vaccination would maybe benefit the population by increasing the likelihood of defeating covid.

100% vaccination rate with the current vaccines does nothing to eradicate Covid. Entertaining fantasies that it does creates monsters in those who do not feel they need this vaccine. The "experts" aren't even claiming that it offers anything other than possibly milder symptoms. If you can't see the issue with making that jump and justifying the requirement of 100% vaccine compliance then I can't help you.

 

[Ingomike]

Is 700k deaths in 18 months acceptable for a virus that supposedly isn't that serious?

Yes

 

[mbills2223]

Come on. We all know the jabs being given are a new technology never before used as a vaccine and thus did not meet the old definition…

Utilizing a "new" technology doesn't make it any less of a vaccine. New drug technology emerges all the time, that doesn't make it any less a particular a therapeutic agent for a particular disease state.

Yeah, no thats not true at all. In a world with multiple pharma corps, there will be multiple meds for the same ailment.

What? You think the only reason for multiple drugs in a class is capitalism? That's just incorrect.

Obfuscating? Because answering a question honestly undercuts your argument?

You are completely missing the point lol

 

[mbills2223]

We absolutely are.

You choose to believe that 100% vaccination would maybe benefit the population by increasing the likelihood of defeating covid.

100% vaccination rate with the current vaccines does nothing to eradicate Covid. Entertaining fantasies that it does creates monsters in those who do not feel they need this vaccine. The "experts" aren't even claiming that it offers anything other than possibly milder symptoms. If you can't see the issue with making that jump and justifying the requirement of 100% vaccine compliance then I can't help you.

I mean it's not a fantasy. As I said it's a statistical exercise. I said nothing of a requirement so don't put words in my mouth.

Yes

Well that's frankly pretty disgusting if you feel that way and completely highlights why you and I will never agree on virtually anything when it comes to not only COVID, but the health and wellbeing of others.

 

[phylodog]

I mean it's not a fantasy. As I said it's a statistical exercise. I said nothing of a requirement so don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't claim that you are in favor of mandatory vaccines but your flawed argument is what is being used to justify them by others. It is incorrect.