@sleepyguy said"The first power, viz. of doing whatsoever be thought for the preservation of himself, and the rest of mankind, he gives up to be regulated by laws made by the society, so far forth as the preservation of himself, and the rest of that society shall require; which laws of the society in many things confine the liberty he had by the law of nature."
"So what?"
What an utter fraud you are no1. All your years expounding on your belief in, and reverence for, Natural Rights is washed away with two careless words that reveal the tyrant within. You're a joke.
John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, paragraph 129 https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/hollis-the-two-treatises-of-civil-government-hollis-ed
1 edit
@no1marauder said"The unvaccinated pose a public health threat to others."
So what? The unvaccinated pose a public health threat to others. Reasonable measures to reduce that threat are perfectly legitimate; you have no "right" to spread deadly, contagious diseases to others.
That is a lie!
The gene vaccines do not prevent the spread of the SARS2 virus. Repeating the big lie over and over again will not make it any less false. Stop spreading disinformation!
1 edit
@metal-brain saidNo one ever claimed that the vaccine were 100% effective.
"The unvaccinated pose a public health threat to others."
That is a lie!
The gene vaccines do not prevent the spread of the SARS2 virus. Repeating the big lie over and over again will not make it any less false. Stop spreading disinformation!
No reasonable person ever believed that they were 100% effective. No vaccine has ever been that.
But the vaccines reduce transmission as numerous studies show:
"Within months of the vaccine hitting the market, researchers in the UK (here) and Israel (here) began publishing studies suggesting that the Pfizer vaccine was reducing transmission of the virus.
In February 2021, for example, Israeli data (here) showed a sharp drop in infections among healthcare workers within 15-28 days of receiving the two-shot Pfizer vaccine series, indicating the vaccine was not just preventing symptomatic disease, but also preventing the virus from being passed from person to person.
“Whether it is 75 or 90 percent reduction doesn’t matter - it is a big drop in transmission,” Michal Linial, a professor of molecular biology and bioinformatics at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, told Reuters at the time. “It means that not only is the individual vaccinated protected, the inoculation also provides protection to his or her surroundings” (here)
Evidence continued to build in 2021 that the mRNA-based vaccines prevented infections and onward transmission of the virus (here). But with the advent that year of the coronavirus Delta variant, plus waning immunity from vaccines delivered at the start of the year, protection against infection and transmission was seen to be dropping, although not eliminated, as previously described by Reuters Fact Check (here).
The newest family of Omicron variants has further eroded vaccine effectiveness against infection and transmission (here) . But even Omicron does not escape vaccine protection completely.
A recent study in U.S. prisons, for example, found that vaccinated people who experience an Omicron breakthrough infection still have lower odds of passing the virus to their contacts (here). The protection was seen to start waning quickly, though, the journal Nature reported: “For every 5 weeks that passed since a person’s last vaccine dose, the risk of transmitting the infection to a close contact increased by 6%” (here)"
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-pfizer-vaccine-transmission/[WORD TOO LONG]
The early results:
"Evidence is increasing that, not only do COVID-19 vaccines either stop you getting sick or substantially reduce the severity of your symptoms, they’re also likely to substantially reduce the chance of transmitting the virus to others."
https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/mounting-evidence-suggests-covid-vaccines-do-reduce-transmission-how-does-work?gclid=CjwKCAiAqaWdBhAvEiwAGAQltsCyRXiwEnx-
UAXjRzD6HcDTsV0YKLbxFyBBHsJa0_jm-haez7MdXhoCqhAQAvD_BwE
Omnicron's a little trickier but still a recent study concluded:
"The overall risk of transmission to close contacts was 29%. However, people who had not been vaccinated had a higher risk (36% ) of transmitting the virus compared to vaccinated people, whose risk was 27%.
The researchers estimate that index cases who had received more than one COVID-19 vaccine dose had a 24% lower risk of transmitting infection than unvaccinated index cases. Each additional dose was associated with an average 12% reduction in risk of transmission to the close contact.
https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/new-research-proves-covid-19-vaccines-can-slow-spread-disease-even-omicron
No it's not some evil plot to get graphene oxide in us all so we can be controlled by radio waves or something; the vaccines both reduce severity and slow transmission of a deadly, contagious disease.
- Joined
- 06 Nov 15
- Moves
- 41301
@metal-brain saidHuh?
"The unvaccinated pose a public health threat to others."
That is a lie!
The gene vaccines do not prevent the spread of the SARS2 virus. Repeating the big lie over and over again will not make it any less false. Stop spreading disinformation!
You have no idea what you're talking about.
What, do you think that quick Google searches accompanied by follow-on copy and pastes make you an epidemiological expert?
Your ego exceeds the level of your IQ, Sir.
Open head: Insert brain.
1 edit
@no1marauder said"No one ever claimed that the vaccine were 100% effective."
No one ever claimed that the vaccine were 100% effective.
No reasonable person ever believed that they were 100% effective. No vaccine has ever been that.
But the vaccines reduce transmission as numerous studies show:
"Within months of the vaccine hitting the market, researchers in the UK (here) and Israel (here) began publishing studies suggesting that the Pfiz ...[text shortened]... something; the vaccines both reduce severity and slow transmission of a deadly, contagious disease.
I agree. Nobody claimed that....including me.
Your articles are outdated and based on speculation. All of that was debunked months ago. Your past claims that the gene vaccines slow the spread were wrong. Stop spreading misinformation!
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/589344-fauci-omicron-will-infect-just-about-everybody/
If everyone will get it (and probably everyone already has) how is the gene vaccine going to protect others no1? When you got the gene vaccine you protected yourself and nobody else. What part of "everybody will get it" that you don't understand?
@metal-brain said"Eventually" is a long time. That "almost everybody will get it eventually" doesn't mean that the vaccines don't slow the spread now. That is what the studies I referenced above indicated including omicron.
"No one ever claimed that the vaccine were 100% effective."
I agree. Nobody claimed that....including me.
Your articles are outdated and based on speculation. All of that was debunked months ago. Your past claims that the gene vaccines slow the spread were wrong. Stop spreading misinformation!
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/589344-fauci-omicron-will-infect-j ...[text shortened]... protected yourself and nobody else. What part of "everybody will get it" that you don't understand?
1 edit
@metal-brain saidDo you think the next time no1 gives covid to someone, and he will, that he will chastise himself for doing something he had no right to do, for his moral failing? Or, will he reflect on the premise of his argument? I don't think he'll do either, because he's a joke.
"No one ever claimed that the vaccine were 100% effective."
I agree. Nobody claimed that....including me.
Your articles are outdated and based on speculation. All of that was debunked months ago. Your past claims that the gene vaccines slow the spread were wrong. Stop spreading misinformation!
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/589344-fauci-omicron-will-infect-j ...[text shortened]... protected yourself and nobody else. What part of "everybody will get it" that you don't understand?
@no1marauder saidWith maybe the exception of some guy running from the law and living off of the land in the mountains with no social contact, everyone will get the SARS2 virus.
"Eventually" is a long time. That "almost everybody will get it eventually" doesn't mean that the vaccines don't slow the spread now. That is what the studies I referenced above indicated including omicron.
"Eventually" means it is inevitable. How long it will take is irrelevant, but almost everyone has had the SARS2 virus anyway. If you are just prolonging the inevitable who did you protect other than yourself by submitting to the gene vaccine? Nobody, that is who.
The gene vaccines protect the vaccinated and nobody else. The only logical reason to slow the spread is to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed by covid 19 patients in a short period of time. Since the pandemic is over that is no longer a concern.
The gene vaccines do not protect the unvaccinated as you falsely have claimed. Stop spreading misinformation!
@sleepyguy saidYes. He is in deep denial. Everything he is saying has already been proven wrong in more ways than one. He cannot accept that he was lied to and propagandized. That is why he keeps getting proven wrong over and over again. He repeats lies like a parrot.
Do you think the next time no1 gives covid to someone, and he will, that he will chastise himself for doing something he had no right to do, for his moral failing? Or, will he reflect on the premise of his argument? I don't think he'll do either, because he's a joke.
I am waiting for him to claim he taught his dog to socially distance and gave his dog the gene vaccine. Maybe he should make face masks for dogs.
1 edit
@Metal-Brain
Here's a study done recently, not yet peer reviewed. Maybe you have seen it.
Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1
Three excerpts:
1) The multivariable analyses also found that, the more recent the last prior COVID-19 episode was the lower the risk of COVID-19, and that the greater the number of vaccine doses previously received the higher the risk of COVID-19.
2) The evolution of the SARS-CoV-2 virus necessitates a more nuanced approach to assessing the potential impact of vaccination than when the original vaccines were developed. Additional factors beyond vaccine effectiveness need to be considered. The association of increased risk of COVID-19 with higher numbers of prior vaccine doses in our study, was unexpected. A simplistic explanation might be that those who received more doses were more likely to be individuals at higher risk of COVID-19. A small proportion of individuals may have fit this description. However, the majority of subjects in this study were generally young individuals and all were eligible to have received at least 3 doses of vaccine by the study start date, and which they had every opportunity to do. Therefore, those who received fewer than 3 doses (>45% of individuals in the study) were not those ineligible to receive the vaccine, but those who chose not to follow the CDC’s recommendations on remaining updated with COVID-19 vaccination, and one could reasonably expect these individuals to have been more likely to have exhibited higher risk-taking behavior. Despite this, their risk of acquiring COVID-19 was lower than those who received a larger number of prior vaccine doses. This is not the only study to find a possible association with more prior vaccine doses and higher risk of COVID-19.
3) In conclusion, this study found an overall modest protective effect of the bivalent vaccine booster against COVID-19, among working-aged adults. The effect of multiple COVID-19 vaccine doses on future risk of COVID-19 needs further study.
@metal-brain saidActually .....
"The unvaccinated pose a public health threat to others."
That is a lie!
The gene vaccines do not prevent the spread of the SARS2 virus. Repeating the big lie over and over again will not make it any less false. Stop spreading disinformation!
The COVID vaccine was never intended to prevent you from getting infected.
Nor was it intended to prevent you from infecting others.
It was intended to prevent you from getting seriously ill when you got infected.
As to the "separation of society", the intent for mask requirement, for instance, was to prevent the spread of the virus.
So when I, as a vaccinated person" was told to mask up, it was primarily to protect those who went out in public when they weren't vaccinated, in the name of freedom !!
Not my freedom to leave my mask at home !!
The freedom of those to impose their freedoms upon others.
I still remember, about 25 years ago, having to listen to some blowhard complaining about not being to blow cigarette smoke in my face in a restaurant. In the name of freedom.
@mghrn55 said"As to the "separation of society", the intent for mask requirement, for instance, was to prevent the spread of the virus. "
Actually .....
The COVID vaccine was never intended to prevent you from getting infected.
Nor was it intended to prevent you from infecting others.
It was intended to prevent you from getting seriously ill when you got infected.
As to the "separation of society", the intent for mask requirement, for instance, was to prevent the spread of the virus.
So when I, as a vac ...[text shortened]... laining about not being to blow cigarette smoke in my face in a restaurant. In the name of freedom.
You mean slow the spread. There is no evidence masks do that though. You are right that the gene vaccines were never intended to prevent you from getting infected.
Nor was it intended to prevent you from infecting others. Tell no1 that. He believed the lies.
@sleepyguy saidI think you're sounding like someone who seems to have some personal animosity towards another internet poster, which is pretty childish.
Do you think the next time no1 gives covid to someone, and he will, that he will chastise himself for doing something he had no right to do, for his moral failing? Or, will he reflect on the premise of his argument? I don't think he'll do either, because he's a joke.
The data makes it clear that it the vaccines limit transmission as well as severity. This is really just common sense; if you're less likely to be infected you're less likely to spread the disease than someone who is. Or are you playing at copying MB's nutty anti-vaxxer views and denying that people who are vaccinated are less likely to catch COVID?
I'm not sure why this needs to be explained more than 2 and a half years into the pandemic BUT:
COVID19 is a disease caused by a virus. It isn't the virus.
The vaccines cause a response which mimics a certain part of the structure of that virus so that if the immune system is exposed to that virus it is prepared to fight it
No, the vaccines don't magically make it so that you're never exposed to the virus; it makes it so if you are, your immune system can prevent it from giving you the disease or, failing that, reduce its severity.
These are simple facts that the MBs of the world don't seem to understand.
@no1marauder saidYou still have failed to logically explain how you being vaxxed protects the unvaxxed. It doesn't. FAIL!
I'm not sure why this needs to be explained more than 2 and a half years into the pandemic BUT:
COVID19 is a disease caused by a virus. It isn't the virus.
The vaccines cause a response which mimics a certain part of the structure of that virus so that if the immune system is exposed to that virus it is prepared to fight it
No, the vaccines don't magically make i ...[text shortened]... , reduce its severity.
These are simple facts that the MBs of the world don't seem to understand.