Vaccine

I just finished filling out vax forms for schools. Mmr, Tdap,mmr, varicella, and so on. They were all multiple shots. And all given to healthy kids.

In that context, Covid was 3 shots, plus one for omicron. Probably one more if the Chinese surge brews up something truly nasty. So what? Seems normal for a vaccine.
oh man..M, M, and R is a bit more dangerous to ulittles than covid. Tdap in infants, not a good thing. The chicken pox vaccine took decades to develop....name some more.

tell me exactly how deadly covid has been to this demographic? but look, you are one of those that think it's ok to vaccinate children with a pharma product that hasn't really been vetted in a traditional manner. Some of that is excusable given the emergent nature of the early days and the uncertainty of the disease.....we know plenty now and more is emerging. The idea that you think it's ok to flippantly compare current pharma products on the market to time tested, vetted, researched vaccines for children is ludicrous. but maybe you just like talking "trash"...if that's the case, it's ok, 1st amendment wins and I don't mind. If you are in fact serious about your beliefs...then..well, then you are. i don't know how many little lives you are responsible for, but it pains me to think about it.
 
How many of those shots are recommended each year?

so if you want to make those comparisons, please elabordevelopment timeline and research done in the creation of those Vaccines, the mortality rate of the viruses they were created for, the age levels most threatened by those viruses, as it compares to Covid and the Covid vaxx.

Then I will ask you to compare the effectiveness of these Vaccines in stopping the host from getting and transmitting those viruses versus the Covid vaxx.

Round and round we go…
Yeah, it never really ends. But I learn by talking with you. Cheers!
 
The weaker your argument, the longer your post.

In one sentence you claim it works, it does not work, and we don’t know whether it works.

At most one third of that sentence is true. You can’t be atheist, Catholic, and agnostic all at once.
1673626710592.png
 
Natural v/s vaccine immunity was only an argument pushed by the anti vax folks. We pro-vax folks were kind of confused that people were arguing that they wanted to get covid, so that they would become immune, so that they wouldn’t get covid.
I was pro-vax but anti-mandate. The pro-vax, pro-mandate folks were pushing vaccines and vaccine mandates whether someone had COVID or not and supporting the idea that the vaccine could give better protection than getting the virus. That was misinformation - and authoritarian, @espola.

You are both confused because you have refused to use basic rational reasoning and lack a healthy curiosity to question claims that support your fears. Well, that's why you are confused @dad4. @espola is confused because he's @espola.

From the article he cited but apparently didn't comprehend --

<<
If you are willing to risk hospitalization, death, or prolonged illness (currently termed Long COVID), then naturally acquired immunity will be more robust in protecting you from a second episode. It will not be as protective from the outcomes of that second infection. This is a real-world example of the tradeoff between “an abundance of caution” and rolling the viral dice that may or may not be loaded by your underlying frailty as measured by risk factors or your access to care.
>>
Reading comprehension, you say @espola? Consistent with your standard approach, you avoid addressing an argument where you were incorrect - in this case, vaccines don't confer better immunity than getting COVID. Instead, you address a completely different argument without the finesse to make it look like you are addressing the original argument. Even Karine Jean-Pierre would shake her head in disdain at your attempts.

Reading comprehension part II. Vaccine mandates are about protecting others. Based on the excerpt above, which one is better at protecting others? The one that protects you more from another episode or the one that gives the person that gets the infection a second time a slightly better chance at avoiding a severe outcome? Warning, it may require rational thought that leads you to a different conclusion than the one you jumped to without rational thought.

Separately, I have a comment about the reporting of these studies. Any reporting of %'s without a thorough breakdown by age group makes the reporting marginally useful - at best. It's a different disease with different outcomes depending on the age group. The other thing I need to see now is co-morbidities. The COVID Experience has shown me I have been too lazy in blindly trusting experts and our government. The open dialogue that I imagined existed here in the US has been shattered by the documented suppression of dissent and facts that don't support the narrative of those in power. Power without transparency always leads to where we are now regarding the COVID Experience. It will require healthy skepticism and unyielding support of transparency to overcome the damage.
 
I was pro-vax but anti-mandate. The pro-vax, pro-mandate folks were pushing vaccines and vaccine mandates whether someone had COVID or not and supporting the idea that the vaccine could give better protection than getting the virus. That was misinformation - and authoritarian, @espola.

You are both confused because you have refused to use basic rational reasoning and lack a healthy curiosity to question claims that support your fears. Well, that's why you are confused @dad4. @espola is confused because he's @espola.


Reading comprehension, you say @espola? Consistent with your standard approach, you avoid addressing an argument where you were incorrect - in this case, vaccines don't confer better immunity than getting COVID. Instead, you address a completely different argument without the finesse to make it look like you are addressing the original argument. Even Karine Jean-Pierre would shake her head in disdain at your attempts.

Reading comprehension part II. Vaccine mandates are about protecting others. Based on the excerpt above, which one is better at protecting others? The one that protects you more from another episode or the one that gives the person that gets the infection a second time a slightly better chance at avoiding a severe outcome? Warning, it may require rational thought that leads you to a different conclusion than the one you jumped to without rational thought.

Separately, I have a comment about the reporting of these studies. Any reporting of %'s without a thorough breakdown by age group makes the reporting marginally useful - at best. It's a different disease with different outcomes depending on the age group. The other thing I need to see now is co-morbidities. The COVID Experience has shown me I have been too lazy in blindly trusting experts and our government. The open dialogue that I imagined existed here in the US has been shattered by the documented suppression of dissent and facts that don't support the narrative of those in power. Power without transparency always leads to where we are now regarding the COVID Experience. It will require healthy skepticism and unyielding support of transparency to overcome the damage.
I find it interesting that you would call me authoritarian since I share you pro-vax anti-mandate viewpoint.
 


READ THIS.....THE " EURO " Covid/Sars-19 Vaccine Excuse " Playbook "...!!!

WHO-EURO-2022-3471-43230-60590-eng.pdf

Just remember ...the mRNA Death rate is NOW in the exponential stage...!!!!!!

1673649067333.png

We are at/past the two year mark. January 2021 - January 2023.... and only getting worse.


1673648771132.png

Go have YOUR Heart Checked !!!!!

Especially if You got the Jab....
 
Back
Top