Vaccine

A8CA0C51-940A-4C20-BFC1-103D4C954A62.jpeg
These are the number of deaths nationwide of children since Covid began. Applying the risk adverse policies of vaccine mandates to children dying of drownings and car accidents tells me we should outlaw any water deeper than 6” and no child may ride in a car. This is the nonsense that makes it impossible to trust any politician or school board trying to force this on parents and their children.
 
what-happened said:
I may not have artuculated that very well. I was being sarcastic. ages 5-12 are already do well with covid. To vaccinate them means you can now add them into your numbers of people vaccinated and helps with numbers that show vaccine effectiveness in mitigating hospitalization and death. Already happening by including 16 and up. Smoking mirrors. . Vaccinating them is insignificant in terms of disease management.
Click to expand...
“Smoking mirrors”? You need an intervention.
 
Soccer Bum 06 said:
View attachment 11833
These are the number of deaths nationwide of children since Covid began. Applying the risk adverse policies of vaccine mandates to children dying of drownings and car accidents tells me we should outlaw any water deeper than 6” and no child may ride in a car. This is the nonsense that makes it impossible to trust any politician or school board trying to force this on parents and their children.
Click to expand...
And the people the children come in contact with? This is like a broken record . . . and further you must feel why should we try?
 
GoldenGate said:
Hey dumbshit, I checked back in at worldometers like you recommended. The 7-day moving average for Oct 2 has already doubled in a single day. It turns out there has been no sudden decrease in FL Covid deaths. The only reason it was at 17 yesterday and not 34 as it is today (and will probably be 200+ in a week) is because FL holds back the info for weeks. It will be fascinating to shove this up your ass every day as the 7-day moving average for Oct 2 steadily increases "retroactively" as FL eventually reports all the actual deaths that it now reports "retroactively". You are exactly why FL changed how it reports Covid deaths, which is to dupe dumbfucks like yourself. They know you are easily misled by the daily reporting and are too stupid to understand what they are doing or go back later and look at the actual numbers after they've stopped withholding that information.

View attachment 11829
Click to expand...
Lol! See that thing on the end of the chart that looks like a tin foil hat?
 
Hüsker Dü said:
In the real world your wish for an all or nothing choice isn’t viable.
Click to expand...

errr…logical fallacy. It’s not all or nothing. It’s either something works or it doesn’t. Of course you have to meet the parameters of what “works” mean but by definition it either hits those parameters or it doesn’t.

the issue on your end is you’ve tried every justification but none of them quiet work…so you guys keep throwing up something else:
-to protect the refusers (but they made their choice and assumed the risk)
-to protect the unvaxxed children (but their risk of death, hospitalization or long covid is less than a vaxxed 50 year old)
-to reach herd immunity (but there are breakthroughs and the vaccine immunity might decline with time…if so herd immunity might not be possible without natural immunity or it might not be possible at all)
-to protect the hospitals (but that doesn’t explain why you’d keep restrictions and mandates in places with low spread)
-to protect the elderly and immunocompromised (but you got their boosters and with breakthroughs it’s never gonna be 100%)

if the vaccine doesn’t stop transmission you guys can’t articulate any off ramp other than a vague hope that we might hit herd Immunity,stay there and not have any more variants.
 
dad4 said:
You are ignoring the people who cannot be vaccinated.

Think severely compromised immune systems. People who for some reason just are not good at antibody creation.

(not everyone is of average health)
Click to expand...

a. Same issue for them with flu and rsv
b. They can still be infected by breakthroughs
c. You are placing all your marbles on the assumption that herd immunity can be reached despite that we don’t know the real breakthrough rate, if the breakthrough numbers increase with time, and if we can do anything about that, and that there will be no more variants
 
dad4 said:
You are ignoring the people who cannot be vaccinated.

Think severely compromised immune systems. People who for some reason just are not good at antibody creation.

(not everyone is of average health)
Click to expand...
Vaccines are not the only way to treat an infection. You people are the ones ignoring those who canʻt be vaxxed or are immuno compromised by treating vaccines as the only solution. There are a lot of other therapies that can and are being used to treat folks. I posted a list of stuff this mornʻ that worked just fine for my J&J vaxed friend who is in his 10th day of quarantine today after corona broke through his May vaccination. Both his wifeʻs parents, near 90, got covid pre-vax, and survived on a bunch of therapies combined. They are both vaxed now but they know they arenʻt relying only on the vax to get them past a break-through infection. They will heavily augment their vaccination with proven therapies.
 
dad4 said:
Didn't want to go that far into the weeds on the post.

Add in past infections, then subtract out any transmission from breakthrough infections.

It's really hard to reach herd immunity for Delta without vaccinating 5-11 year olds.
Click to expand...
Golden Gate speak.
 
Grace T. said:
errr…logical fallacy. It’s not all or nothing. It’s either something works or it doesn’t. Of course you have to meet the parameters of what “works” mean but by definition it either hits those parameters or it doesn’t.

the issue on your end is you’ve tried every justification but none of them quiet work…so you guys keep throwing up something else:
-to protect the refusers (but they made their choice and assumed the risk)
-to protect the unvaxxed children (but their risk of death, hospitalization or long covid is less than a vaxxed 50 year old)
-to reach herd immunity (but there are breakthroughs and the vaccine immunity might decline with time…if so herd immunity might not be possible without natural immunity or it might not be possible at all)
-to protect the hospitals (but that doesn’t explain why you’d keep restrictions and mandates in places with low spread)
-to protect the elderly and immunocompromised (but you got their boosters and with breakthroughs it’s never gonna be 100%)

if the vaccine doesn’t stop transmission you guys can’t articulate any off ramp other than a vague hope that we might hit herd Immunity,stay there and not have any more variants.
Click to expand...

What do you mean “something works or it doesn’t”?

Can you honestly not think of anything in the world which is only partly efffective? Mousetraps. Anti-lock brakes. Weather forecasts. Does this mean they are all useless?

You love your false dichotomy fallacy so much, you are insulting others for not copying it.
 
dad4 said:
What do you mean “something works or it doesn’t”?

Can you honestly not think of anything in the world which is only partly efffective? Mousetraps. Anti-lock brakes. Weather forecasts. Does this mean they are all useless?

You love your false dichotomy fallacy so much, you are insulting others for not copying it.
Click to expand...
Your reading comprehension is always so much weaker than your math.

I said you have to define what”work” means. It either meets the standard or it doesn’t. But it’s up to you to lay out that standard (which the complaint recently is that it shifted majorly with the arrival of the delta). We went from vaccines 95% effective at stopping transmission and it would be over by June to now we don’t really know (which is why you are back on masks on the vaccinated)

And having been caught in a thunderstorm which unexpectedly wiped out goalkeeper practice and team practices Monday, I don’t think most people would say weather forecasts “work” but again it depends on the definition.
 
Grace T. said:
errr…logical fallacy. It’s not all or nothing. It’s either something works or it doesn’t. Of course you have to meet the parameters of what “works” mean but by definition it either hits those parameters or it doesn’t.

the issue on your end is you’ve tried every justification but none of them quiet work…so you guys keep throwing up something else:
-to protect the refusers (but they made their choice and assumed the risk)
-to protect the unvaxxed children (but their risk of death, hospitalization or long covid is less than a vaxxed 50 year old)
-to reach herd immunity (but there are breakthroughs and the vaccine immunity might decline with time…if so herd immunity might not be possible without natural immunity or it might not be possible at all)
-to protect the hospitals (but that doesn’t explain why you’d keep restrictions and mandates in places with low spread)
-to protect the elderly and immunocompromised (but you got their boosters and with breakthroughs it’s never gonna be 100%)

if the vaccine doesn’t stop transmission you guys can’t articulate any off ramp other than a vague hope that we might hit herd Immunity,stay there and not have any more variants.
Click to expand...

"It’s not all or nothing. It’s either something works or it doesn’t."

That's an interesting string of words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top