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

[Ingomike]

P

My theory is that Fauci knew he was funding gain of function research and he knew he wasn't supposed to be (per a rule put in place during the Obama administration). I don't believe he was funding it to be weaponized or with any intent of turning it loose on the population. I believe he is simply so arrogant as to believe only himself and few others are smart enough to "understand the science" so he felt justified in defying the law to further their research "for our own good".

His actions were almost understandable up that point. Once the virus leaked he **** himself and there is nothing he won't do or say to escape the consequences of his actions.

Well stated…

 

[mbills2223]

Ban seatbelts? Relating to its allegorical use, is anyone advocating banning the vaccine?

No, I was making a bad analogy in response to a bad analogy...but also referring to efficacy rates and what is considered good.

In response to your other post you quoted me on, I feel that's one of the biggest misunderstandings people have when they read my posts. They read it in the context of a mandate, which I've never advocated for and never would. Just a guy on the internet doing what I feel is right.

 

[actaeon277]

This virus came from China. That much we know. Yet 2 years into this, we still don't know the true origin of the virus. China isn't talking. What if it was indeed created in a lab, rather that from eating a bat? What was it specifically engineered to do? Why was it created? Biological warfare?

This may be a little "tin foil hat" but I don't think its too much of a stretch. I have wondered many times if the virus was engineered specifically to attack people with certain genetic traits. Sure, age, overall health, and comorbidities come into play... but why can 2 people with similar body types, age, and overall health react so differently?

I'm afraid that we may never know the answer.

Cause this would probably cause a global war.

 

[mbills2223]

Cause this would probably cause a global war.

Yes, it would. If it was released from a lab with intention, I would say they lost control of it. Plus, horrible execution not having the cure ready to go.

 

[jamil]

No, I was making a bad analogy in response to a bad analogy...but also referring to efficacy rates and what is considered good.

In response to your other post you quoted me on, I feel that's one of the biggest misunderstandings people have when they read my posts. They read it in the context of a mandate, which I've never advocated for and never would. Just a guy on the internet doing what I feel is right.

That's fine, but then you still need to interpret someone's analogy for what they're representing.

 

[mbills2223]

That's fine, but then you still need to interpret someone's analogy for what they're representing.

That's fine but I had no idea that is what they were representing since that wasn't the topic of conversation

 

[tbhausen]

Just got a fairly encouraging report… Hopefully he’s pushing through this thing.

 

[nonobaddog]

Just got a fairly encouraging report… Hopefully he’s pushing through this thing.

Awesome! Pulling for him.

 

[jamil]

That's fine but I had no idea that is what they were representing since that wasn't the topic of conversation

I don't recall the specific key word used in that analogy but it was something along the lines of "require". I thought the whole thing was intended to reveal the unjustified mandate based on the vaccine's lack of performance.

 

[mbills2223]

I don't recall the specific key word used in that analogy but it was something along the lines of "require". I thought the whole thing was intended to reveal the unjustified mandate based on the vaccine's lack of performance.

Went back to the original seat belt post to verify I didn't miss anything...I did not. Some of the responses did mention a requirement of seat belts being in cars, but I felt it was more to the safety/efficacy than a mandate

 

[nonobaddog]

I remember cutting the seat belts out of cars so people wouldn't have to sit on the buckles. This was before they were mandated.
Ahh - good times.

 

[AtTheMurph]

My friend, the subject of this thread, is two years younger than me. He’s a little bit heavier than me, but I wouldn’t say his comorbidities were any more serious than mine.

I think the fact is that you both have comorbidities. That changes the equation, as it does for the flu BTW.

 

[AtTheMurph]

Easy Covid test:
1. Pour yourself a beer
2. Smell the beer
3. Drink the beer

If you can smell it and taste it, you don’t have Covid-19. I took the test 18 times last night and they all came back negative. YMMV.

I didn't loose sense of smell/taste until day three. Told wife might as well start making tofu for dinner every night. Cannot tell the difference.

Also going to save a hell of a lot on wine/liquor. What's the point?

 

[tbhausen]

I think the fact is that you both have comorbidities. That changes the equation, as it does for the flu BTW.

And I think the fact is we probably nearly all have comorbidities to some degree, which can influence how willing we are to roll the dice on Covid (a decision we should all be able to make for ourselves, BTW).

 

[jamil]

Went back to the original seat belt post to verify I didn't miss anything...I did not. Some of the responses did mention a requirement of seat belts being in cars, but I felt it was more to the safety/efficacy than a mandate

I guess I use sense-making to try to figure out what people are trying to say. The people who were involved in this conversation have talked about safety and efficacy, but they've also said they don't care if other people decide to be vaccinated, just don't force it on them. So within that frame of sense-making, it doesn't make sense for the analogy to be about safety/efficacy if it's not in the context of justifying mandates.

The seatbelt analogy loses it's relevance outside of mandates. If the safety/efficacy of seatbelts was ****, mandating them would make no sense, and that's how I interpreted it.

 

[mbills2223]

I guess I use sense-making to try to figure out what people are trying to say. The people who were involved in this conversation have talked about safety and efficacy, but they've also said they don't care if other people decide to be vaccinated, just don't force it on them. So within that frame of sense-making, it doesn't make sense for the analogy to be about safety/efficacy if it's not in the context of justifying mandates.

The seatbelt analogy loses it's relevance outside of mandates. If the safety/efficacy of seatbelts was ****, mandating them would make no sense, and that's how I interpreted it.

I don't read into what people say/type...I've gotten into way too much trouble doing that lol. I think the analogy is **** either way to be totally honest.

 

[tbhausen]

I was walking by CVS today and I made a snap decision to go in and get the Moderna booster. If this thing is going to **** me up, I’m already ****ed. In for a penny, in for a pound, right? No side effects of all, and that was about three hours ago now.

 

[mbills2223]

I was walking by CVS today and I made a snap decision to go in and get the Moderna booster. If this thing is going to **** me up, I’m already ****ed. In for a penny, in for a pound, right? No side effects of all, and that was about three hours ago now.

Lucky dog. After my second shot and my booster I was "hungover" for about 2 days. The booster wasn't nearly as bad as the second shot for me though.

 

[jamil]

I don't read into what people say/type...I've gotten into way too much trouble doing that lol. I think the analogy is **** either way to be totally honest.

Obviously an opinion.

 

[nonobaddog]

I guess I use sense-making to try to figure out what people are trying to say. The people who were involved in this conversation have talked about safety and efficacy, but they've also said they don't care if other people decide to be vaccinated, just don't force it on them. So within that frame of sense-making, it doesn't make sense for the analogy to be about safety/efficacy if it's not in the context of justifying mandates.

The seatbelt analogy loses it's relevance outside of mandates. If the safety/efficacy of seatbelts was ****, mandating them would make no sense, and that's how I interpreted it.

I try to 'just read the black part' of what people say.
However there definitely are times when you have to use 'sense making' because they neglected to.