PeterNSteinmetz
Ejection Handle Pulled
True, maybe I should have posted links to anti-mask "studies" with misleading excerpts instead.
That subject is now banned here so not possible to respond to your snarky attack. Sorry.
True, maybe I should have posted links to anti-mask "studies" with misleading excerpts instead.
you'll never know.....those stats are not recorded.How is the pool for an infected unvaccinated person different from the pool for an infected vaccinated person?
What if you test positive but the vaccine kept you completely asymptomatic, but you caught an ordinary common cold at OSH. Those still exist. You can simultaneously have more than one virus in you. But there is no standard test for the common cold.
Vaccinated, there for a week. I felt bad for a few days after coming home…sore throat and a runny nose but a test said it wasn’t COVID.
How is the pool for an infected unvaccinated person different from the pool for an infected vaccinated person?
How is the pool for an infected unvaccinated person different from the pool for an infected vaccinated person?
It isn't. But if you're unvaccinated you're about 50 times more likely to be in hospital than if you're vaccinated. This really isn't that hard.
It circulates hundreds of times less within the vaccinated, and likely wouldn't circulate at all if enough were vaccinated. I represented things perfectly accurately.
Please clarify.This is even more ridiculous than your average post.
bull hockey on that....prove it with real science. 98.5% do fine with COVID and if you're under 50 those numbers grow by orders of magnitude. Kids in MD do fine with COVID 11 fatals in 70,000....those are very successful numbers and we want our kids to try an experimental drug?
Like all respiratory viruses, it is with us forever in one form or another. That’s just a simple fact.
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/16/1017...ering-hospitals-for-covid-19-are-unvaccinated
"97% of people entering hospital for COVID are unvaccinated"
There are many more articles and official announcements giving figures in the same range.
mRNA vaccines have been in development for decades. Multiple billions have been given with negligible side effects. They are not "untested" in any way.
I don’t know that there is hard data out there on the likelihood of mutant forms of the virus arising in vaccinated versus unvaccinated people and then spreading.
…
Polio still exists in the world. But not the US. Because of vaccinations. Which our kids still get. Thank goodness…There will never be a time without COVID-19. It is forever. The restrictions can not be forever. Some where in there the politics needs to be separated from this so it’s dealt with correctly. So far that has been a bar to high for our leadership since this **** happened last year.
So it's only 30-ish times, not 50 times.
Your article is from July 16. Israel and the UK had similar data before the delta variant took hold. Then everything changed. Latest data shows vaccines are less than 40% effective at stopping the spread of infection. It’s the spread of infection that keeps the virus alive and evolving. Meanwhile, in both countries, only about 1% of COVID recovered are getting sick again. That’s much lower than vaccine breakthrough cases."97% of people entering hospital for COVID are unvaccinated"
Polio still exists in the world. But not the US. Because of vaccinations. Which our kids still get. Thank goodness…
It isn't. But if you're unvaccinated you're about 50 times more likely to be in hospital than if you're vaccinated. This really isn't that hard.
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/16/1017...ering-hospitals-for-covid-19-are-unvaccinated
"97% of people entering hospital for COVID are unvaccinated".
My bad. I was throwing numbers around like a madman!
Llewtrah381 said: ↑
Polio still exists in the world. But not the US. Because of vaccinations. Which our kids still get. Thank goodness…"
But….that vaccine works. It prevents the virus from attacking the host.
I don’t know that there is hard data out there on the likelihood of mutant forms of the virus arising in vaccinated versus unvaccinated people and then spreading.
One can make theoretical arguments either way. I would suspect that at most the difference would be 1 order of magnitude since many of the vaccines in use were about 90% effective in preventing infection in the original studies, not 10% or 99%.
This pandemic involves a lot of percentages like that and does not well conform to the usual qualitative descriptions of being “completely effective” or “worthless”. Thus many of the overheated arguments which are the equivalent of “it’s black”, “no it’s white” when the real answer is it is about a 70% shade of gray.
Returning now to the normal arguments over qualitative distinctions …
It absolutely does prevent replication. What it does not do is prevent replication in 100% of all cases. The same way seatbelts do not save lives in 100% of all car accidents. In both cases though, the amount of prevention afforded makes the risk/reward a no-brainer IMO.I am not entirely sure that the vaccine prevents replication as they are now saying it is being passed on by those that are vaccinated.
It absolutely does prevent replication. What it does not do is prevent replication in 100% of all cases. The same way seatbelts do not save lives in 100% of all car accidents. In both cases though, the amount of prevention afforded makes the risk/reward a no-brainer IMO.
The vaccines are proving very ineffective against the delta variant. .
The same way seatbelts do not save lives in 100% of all car accidents. In both cases though, the amount of prevention afforded makes the risk/reward a no-brainer IMO.
If you're infected, it's replicating. If it's not replicating, you're not infected; you just have some virus on you.In the interest of correctness - the virus mutates when it replicates and it can only replicate when it is inside a living cell. The vaccine prevents replication and do not increase the likelihood of a replication being a mutation. It is orders of magnitude more likely that mutations happen in unvaccinated people.
now that this argument has started…IBTL
I guess there are people having significant complications from buckling up? Just sayin'.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html
" .. As of August 11, 2021, VAERS has received 1,306 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis among people ages 30 and younger who received COVID-19 vaccine. .."
"..CDC and FDA identified 42 confirmed reports of people who got the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and later developed TTS .."
".. VAERS received 6,789 reports of death (0.0019%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine .."
Question for you. If my wife asks me if I would like her to make me a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch and I say 'Absolutely!' Should she take that to mean I want PB&J and only PB&J for lunch for 100% of my remaining lunches I have available on this Earth? Should she take that mean I guarantee that there will never come a day when I don't want PB&J for lunch?How can it "absolutely" prevent replication and also not prevent replication 100% of the time? Absolute means, well, absolute, as in always, perfect, without fail, etc...
It can not be both absolute and less than 100% at the same time.
It either works 100% of the time (absolute) or it doesn't work 100% of the time. 80% isn't absolute. 90% isn't absolute. 99% isn't absolute.
Schrodinger's Vaccine????
Or would you like to rephrase?
FWIW ...
VACCINE FAIL: 64% of Israel’s COVID-19 patients in serious condition are fully vaccinated
https://www.vaccinedeaths.com/2021-08-13-most-patients-in-serious-condition-fully-vaccinated.html
FWIW ...
VACCINE FAIL: 64% of Israel’s COVID-19 patients in serious condition are fully vaccinated
https://www.vaccinedeaths.com/2021-08-13-most-patients-in-serious-condition-fully-vaccinated.html
I'd give it as much credence as any mainstream news channel.vaccinedeaths.com?
Are we sure this is a bastion of accurate reporting?
Question for you. If my wife asks me if I would like her to make me a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch and I say 'Absolutely!' Should she take that to mean I want PB&J and only PB&J for lunch for 100% of my remaining lunches I have available on this Earth? Should she take that mean I guarantee that there will never come a day when I don't want PB&J for lunch?
But because its apparently pedantic day, I will happily rephrase. It DEFINITELY does prevent replication. Happy now?