2 edits
@techsouth saidSo as long as this is what they are doing that means that is what they should be doing.
The black plague had at least 3 major pandemics before antibiotics were a thing. And each time it faded from concern for centuries. I answered your question, saying that "yes Covid would fade on its own", and correct me if I'm wrong, but that agrees with your opinion as well. But by agreeing with you, I've somehow shown how little I know about the topic? Very curious. ...[text shortened]... your ability to converse on the topic, you should be able to hold onto that distinction through out.
With your kind of thinking we would still be in the stone age.
Btw, what was the death rate of the plague and now compare that to the death rate of covid. Any comparison between covid and the plague is laughable.
@mghrn55 saidVaccinated people still spread the virus. At best you are not allowing the unvaccinated people in to protect the unvaccinated from the super spreading vaccinated. After the vaccinated leave the restaurant they go home and spread it to their family and friends.
I'm not nuts. I'm vaccinated !!
And up here in Canada, I can go to a restaurant. And put my mask away.
You know ...... that pesky little thing you guys have been complaining endlessly about ?
And people who are not vaccinated can't get into restaurants.
But they have the freedom to not get vaccinated.
And I have the freedom to not have to wear a mask and worry about ...[text shortened]... e still not happy. But that's your problem.
Keep posting your drivel. I'm going out to dinner. 😛
What good is that?
@eladar saidSo as long as this is what they are doing that means that is what they should be doing.
So as long as this is what they are doing that means that is what they should be doing.
With your kind of thinking we would still be in the stone age.
Btw, what was the death rate of the plague and now compare that to the death rate of covid. Any comparison between covid and the plague is laughable.
I never said anything close to that. I am not judging the rightness nor wrongness of how governments treat yellow fever. But I am asking you, does the fact that governments ask for proof of vaccination demonstrate that they don't realize natural immunity is better?
Your premise, as I understand it is as follows: any government that demands proof of vaccination for any reason that does not also also accept natural immunity equally proves that government does not think that natural immunity is better. Your method of proof seems to be that your own imagination cannot conceive of any reason, and therefore no one else can possibly have any reason that you yourself cannot imagine.
My contention is that there might be other reasons, but I am not attempting to judge the rightness or wrongness of those reasons. My contention can be true even if the government reasons themselves are not something I would support. I'm not saying they're wrong, but I'm not claiming they're right either. I'm just saying that other reasons seem to exist.
Can you discipline your mind long enough to understand this simple thought without injecting yet another tangent?
Btw, what was the death rate of the plague and now compare that to the death rate of covid. Any comparison between covid and the plague is laughable.
If one introduces the premise that all diseases resolve themselves without modern medicine, then the best counter-argument would be a counter-argument based on contradiction. The fact that I bring up a more deadly disease is irrelevant to the structure of the counter-argument.
If one has blind-faith that Covid will resolve itself on its own, then one has to explain why ALL diseases haven't (at least not in a way that seems tolerable). That is how logic works. Statements such as "any comparison between X and Y are laughable" as a way to dismiss an argument, are themselves something that any logician would laugh at.
@metal-brain saidThere's no point in explaining it to you.
Vaccinated people still spread the virus. At best you are not allowing the unvaccinated people in to protect the unvaccinated from the super spreading vaccinated. After the vaccinated leave the restaurant they go home and spread it to their family and friends.
What good is that?
Logic just won't get past your Qanon mindset.
@techsouth saidWhat is your other reason? Or do you have blind faith?
So as long as this is what they are doing that means that is what they should be doing.
I never said anything close to that. I am not judging the rightness nor wrongness of how governments treat yellow fever. But I am asking you, does the fact that governments ask for proof of vaccination demonstrate that they don't realize natural immunity is better?
Your pr ...[text shortened]... ughable" as a way to dismiss an argument, are themselves something that any logician would laugh at.
@eladar saidWe're not talking about my reasons and never have been talking about my reasons.
What is your other reason? Or do you have blind faith?
We're talking about a government reason to not accept natural immunity instead of proof of vaccine. I'm not serving in a role that decides such things.
Your premise is that since you cannot imagine a reason other than a belief that natural immunity is inferior, therefore no such reason can possibly exist. I'm saying that's a fallacy.
1 edit
@techsouth saidI have always been asking about a reason.
We're not talking about my reasons and never have been talking about my reasons.
We're talking about a government reason to not accept natural immunity instead of proof of vaccine. I'm not serving in a role that decides such things.
Your premise is that since you cannot imagine a reason other than a belief that natural immunity is inferior, therefore no such reason can possibly exist. I'm saying that's a fallacy.
Obviously it is not a public health issue if they do not care about natural immunity.
1 edit
@eladar saidI have always been asking about a reason.
I have always been asking about a reason.
Obviously it is not a public health issue if they do not care about natural immunity.
You only very recently asked the reason. Originally you posited that since agencies have been inclined to accept proof of vaccinations and not claims of natural immunity that the only possible explanation is that they don't believe natural immunity works. You were not asking for a reason. You were claiming that you knew for sure that the reason was that they do not believe natural immunity is as good as a vaccine.
In fact, your initial question was "Why are we saying vaccinations are the only form of immunity?" You could have ask "Do some agencies think that vaccinations are the only form of immunity?" But you didn't, because you already thought you could divine the thinking based on the fact that they do not accept a claim of natural immunity.
Obviously it is not a public health issue if they do not care about natural immunity.
You are just restating the same fallacy as if you are somehow explaining things.
Is yellow fever a public health issue? Yes or no? It doesn't seem countries care about natural immunity with regards to yellow fever.
Here is the outline of your argument:
A(X) is the premise that governments care about natural immunity for disease X.
B(X) is the premise that disease X is a public health issue.
Your contention is the the following:
For every X: ~A(X) => ~B(X) (This is because you use the word "obviously" ).
Applying this to Covid (X = Covid), you are saying ~A(Covid) => ~B(Covid) because you feel the rule is self evident (i.e. "obvious" ).
But since ~A(Yellow Fever) is true and B(Yellow Fever) is true (i.e. ~B(Yellow Fever) is false), then we know for certain that the "self evident" rule is not valid and hence not really so self evident. To expound... ~A(Yellow Fever) => ~B(Yellow Fever) is a conditional where the premise is true and the implication is false, thus the inference itself is not valid.
I suppose this is kind of a proof by contradiction.
So your inference "Obviously it is not a public health issue if they do not care about natural immunity." is not a sound argument.
2 edits
@techsouth saidYou are going on about nothing.
I have always been asking about a reason.
You only very recently asked the reason. Originally you posited that since agencies have been inclined to accept proof of vaccinations and not claims of natural immunity that the only possible explanation is that they don't believe natural immunity works. You were not asking for a reason. You were claiming that you knew f ...[text shortened]... t is not a public health issue if they do not care about natural immunity." is not a sound argument.
My original assumption about them not caring about public safety has not been demonstrated false. Show me a reason beyond simply wanting jabs in every arm for jabbing sake, then we have something to discuss. Until then all you can do is try to pretend that you have a point.
1 edit
@eladar saidMy original assumption about them not caring about public safety has not been demonstrated false.
You are going on about nothing.
My original assumption about them not caring about public safety has not been demonstrated false. Show me a reason beyond simply wanting jabs in every arm for jabbing sake, then we have something to discuss. Until then all you can do is try to pretend that you have a point.
We've moved the goal post. We started with you claiming something is true and using faulty reasoning as if that were a solid proof. Now we've moved to my not having proved your claim false. I've never tried to prove it false. I'm saying you have neither proved it true, nor even made a strong argument supporting it.
You even use the word "assumption" to describe your original assertion. If all you have are assertions that have not been demonstrated false, you have nothing. You're the one that started the thread, and you've done it based on nothing.
Edit: and now you're to the point of them "wanting jabs in every arm for jabbing sake". There are a lot of bad people in the world, but do you really think any of those competent to lead countries (be they dictatorships or democracies) are really motivated to jab arms for jabbing sake?
@Eladar
Well here is one reason which you would undoubtedly reject:
Natural immunity, take a look at the plague a thousand years ago.
They NEVER got "Natural immunity". They got together and figured out what the hell was killing people, they got it partially right and the deaths went down.
So that tells me that natural immunity if it ever worked would have killed more like HUNDRED million people instead of the 'mere' 50 million it DID kill.
So espousing natural immunity, what could POSSIBLY go wrong?
For instance: In this push for NI, it is just more weaponization of covid for political purposes.
So all you are going to do with this nonsense is kill more people in the process.
Not you individually of course I mean the whole lot of you idiots who think they know better than ANY scientist because Tucker Carlsen told them the TRUTH.