Then, (you're) forcing people to not only do X, but the long-term impact of X isn't even known. Originally Posted by FatCityNot sure if you're speaking about me personally, but I didn't force people to do jack. I just encouraged them to act in their own best interests.
- Tiny
- 11-03-2021, 07:34 PM
- FatCity
- 11-03-2021, 07:39 PM
This isn't a huge issue any more. . Originally Posted by Tinybut WHY?
its because the majority bent the knee and complied with the the bullying.
People getting violated / raped and you're "well, at this point whattaya gonna do?"
You'll fall for this again because you never learned the lesson as it happened.
Ignoring it out of convenience doesn't change the fact that it was 1) wrong 2) tremendous overreach of authority 3) violated personal freedoms of choice.
You're abiding government to control your life out of the sake of some excuse.
You say this is all water under the bridge now, but the Federal, State and Municipal Executive EMERGENCY Powers have not been rescinded. This gives these fuckers total control; this isn't "normal". THIS is why they want everyone in a constant state of hysteria
- FatCity
- 11-03-2021, 07:40 PM
I just encouraged them to act in their own best interests. Originally Posted by Tinychicken shit deflection.
The "own best interests" you were championing was to lay down and get bullied. This is the epitome of cowardice
GUY: "the manager of Popeyes just punched me and took my money. I'm calling the cops"You advocated for people to do what they're told, but YOU weren't the one telling them. So Brave
YOU: "listen, man....its just best for everyone if you just went home. Don't call the cops, there's no need to make a scene"
- Tiny
- 11-03-2021, 07:46 PM
Violated and raped? You're exaggerating in the extreme. I do get violated and raped by the government but it has nothing to do with COVID.
I don't know what it's like in Louisiana, but there was only a month where your argument had any credence where I live. Since then there have been no lockdowns, no enforcement of mask mandates, and no one has been forced to get the vaccine. I don't think the private employers here are requiring people to get vaccinated to stay employed. The federal government offices however probably are.
I don't know what it's like in Louisiana, but there was only a month where your argument had any credence where I live. Since then there have been no lockdowns, no enforcement of mask mandates, and no one has been forced to get the vaccine. I don't think the private employers here are requiring people to get vaccinated to stay employed. The federal government offices however probably are.
- Tiny
- 11-03-2021, 07:49 PM
chicken shit deflection.Hey, if you want to encourage people to increase their probability of getting a disease and losing their jobs, have at it. Just don't expect to go unchallenged. I don't know if I'm brave, but I'm not scared of getting a jab in my arm, unlike you.
The "own best interests" you were championing was to lay down and get bullied. This is the epitome of cowardice
You advocated for people to do what they're told, but YOU weren't the one telling them. So Brave Originally Posted by FatCity
- FatCity
- 11-03-2021, 07:50 PM
- FatCity
- 11-03-2021, 08:02 PM
- winn dixie
- 11-04-2021, 05:09 AM
the "JAB" now in 5g line up for tracking
- FatCity
- 11-04-2021, 09:05 AM
MORE misinformation and conspiracy theories here
88% of Covid-19 Deaths & 77% of Hospitalisations were among the Fully Vaccinated in the past month according to the latest Public Health data
https://theexpose.uk/2021/11/04/88-p...ly-vaccinated/
Look, the VAX just works, mkay?
Anyone who doesn't get it or has questions is just being a big doodoo head baby
88% of Covid-19 Deaths & 77% of Hospitalisations were among the Fully Vaccinated in the past month according to the latest Public Health data
https://theexpose.uk/2021/11/04/88-p...ly-vaccinated/
Look, the VAX just works, mkay?
Anyone who doesn't get it or has questions is just being a big doodoo head baby
- rexdutchman
- 11-04-2021, 09:07 AM
You mean kinda like Tuskegee experiments or Hep B vax Hmm More shots less population
- FatCity
- 11-04-2021, 09:12 AM
so what happens to YOU when I coerce / bully you into doing something you really don't want to do?
- You have been defeated. You lose self-respect. You're no longer in control of life because you've lost autonomy
- rexdutchman
- 11-04-2021, 09:28 AM
Sheepls ,,,,, Medical advise at drive inns ,,,, Depopulation ( remember people are the biggest problem on the planet UN ,WHO ) hmm
- Tiny
- 11-04-2021, 12:01 PM
MORE misinformation and conspiracy theories hereSigh. More info from Scotland. How many times have we been through this. The vaccines are effective at reducing the probability of infection with COVID. And much more effective at reducing the probability of severe disease, hospitalization, and death.
88% of Covid-19 Deaths & 77% of Hospitalisations were among the Fully Vaccinated in the past month according to the latest Public Health data
https://theexpose.uk/2021/11/04/88-p...ly-vaccinated/
Look, the VAX just works, mkay?
Anyone who doesn't get it or has questions is just being a big doodoo head baby Originally Posted by FatCity
The data in your link is explained by the following,
1. Virtually 100% of Scots over the age of 50 have been vaccinated.
2. A smaller percentage of younger people in Scotland have been vaccinated.
3. Severe COVID and deaths from COVID are orders of magnitude higher in older people versus younger people, regardless of whether you're looking at vaccinated or unvaccinated populations.
See
https://www.reuters.com/article/fact...-idUSL1N2QQ24L
and
https://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p...0&postcount=38
I see your source, The Expose, is asking for donations because it's censored on Google, Facebook and Twitter.
You don't want to be like members of fringe churches who reject all medical treatment and believe they can safely handle poisonous snakes if they're right with God. Instead you should look at the available information, judge its quality, and come to your own conclusions, trying to disregard your prejudices.
- FatCity
- 11-04-2021, 12:11 PM
look at the available information, judge its quality, and come to your own conclusions, trying to disregard your prejudices. Originally Posted by Tinyi'm with ya on that one
but what would sabotage that fine scientific method you have there?
- only information promoted coincidentally has a biased, financial motive behind it
- censorship of any contrary findings
- dogmatic compulsory edicts
- outlawing your free thought (you need to be ostracized, re-educated if you aren't coming to MY conclusions)
and that's where we are in this thread
- Tiny
- 11-04-2021, 12:15 PM
This is a good article, written by a Neurologist/Neuroscientist. I've put text in bold that I believe may be of interest. The article would appear to provide ammo for some of Oeb's arguments. And would perhaps suggest I shouldn't have jumped the gun in getting my booster and my weekly COVID vaccines. Although I regret nothing. NOTHING.
Covid-19 Boosters Aren’t for Everyone
If you’re healthy and young, a third shot gives no benefit, so it isn’t worth even the small risk.
Healthy people in their 20s have been asking me about getting the third shot of the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines, recently authorized for older people. I’ve advised caution. More vaccine isn’t always better.
Doctors think of drug dosing using the metaphor of a “therapeutic window.” The bottom of the window is the lowest effective dose. The top is the dose at which the side effects become unacceptable. We aim to keep the dose within the therapeutic window.
When the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were first released, a second shot got 95% of patients into the therapeutic window, defined by total absence of symptoms. In the months since then, some of those people have dropped below the bottom of this therapeutic window because of a combination of fading immunity and the arrival of the Delta variant. Thus the case for boosters: A Pfizer study demonstrates that a third shot, administered some 11 months after the second, reduces symptomatic infections by 96% compared with those who had two shots.
So why not give everyone a third shot? Many people who got two shots are still in the therapeutic window and wouldn’t benefit from a third shot. For them, a booster would risk gratuitous inflammation that would push them above the window. The prospect of such inflammation wasn’t a deal breaker with the second shot. Months of follow-up revealed instances of heart inflammation, especially in young male patients, but these were rare and almost always mild and transient, and Covid itself can produce far worse heart inflammation. Other symptoms of inflammation, such as fever, fatigue and headache were far more common but lasted for only a day or two.
There could be other, more serious effects of inflammation that would take years to become apparent. In other contexts, strong inflammation has been shown to disrupt the “blood-brain barrier” and contribute to the progression of Alzheimer’s disease. That possibility isn’t a reasonable argument against a second shot because the inflammation from Covid itself can be far stronger, and the second shot reduces that risk by providing solid protection against serious disease.
For third shots, the calculation changes. A booster makes sense for most older people and for the immunocompromised because they tended to get lower efficacy and little inflammation from the second shot. A third shot puts them back into the therapeutic window. But healthy young people typically had good efficacy from the two-shot regimen, and many had strong inflammation.
The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention struggled with such issues and recommended a third shot for the elderly and the immunocompromised, but not for healthy young people. Advisory committee members suggested that further research was needed to refine these initial recommendations.
Some such research will be at the population level, advising about particular ages and vaccines. Other recommendations will be more personalized, drawing on many decades of assessing immunity against other diseases. When I began my clinical training in the 1980s, our group of new doctors took a blood test to assess immunity to diseases for which we could be vaccinated. Similarly, more research using blood tests for Covid immunity and questionnaires about the risk of inflammation could allow us to assess whether further shots would move a particular patient in or out of the therapeutic window.
Personalized recommendations are particularly important for the more than 100 million Americans who have already recovered from Covid. Their immunity and risk of inflammation from vaccines is variable. But when health officials refuse to take account of natural immunity, they neglect the needs and concerns of a large segment of the population and give the public a reason to think experts are not conveying the whole truth.
We also need answers to other questions about the therapeutic window for vaccines, such as whether taking anti-inflammatory drugs after vaccination is good because it reduces inflammation or bad because it could reduce the vaccine’s effectiveness.
Radio hosts often advise listeners to “do your own research.” What we really need is research that gives the CDC and FDA the data needed to refine their initial recommendations on third shots. The recommendations that will be most acceptable to the populace are the ones that promote trust by helping assess whether a particular patient would benefit from the shot.
Dr. Segal is a neurologist and neuroscientist.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-1...ta-11635948641
Covid-19 Boosters Aren’t for Everyone
If you’re healthy and young, a third shot gives no benefit, so it isn’t worth even the small risk.
Healthy people in their 20s have been asking me about getting the third shot of the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines, recently authorized for older people. I’ve advised caution. More vaccine isn’t always better.
Doctors think of drug dosing using the metaphor of a “therapeutic window.” The bottom of the window is the lowest effective dose. The top is the dose at which the side effects become unacceptable. We aim to keep the dose within the therapeutic window.
When the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were first released, a second shot got 95% of patients into the therapeutic window, defined by total absence of symptoms. In the months since then, some of those people have dropped below the bottom of this therapeutic window because of a combination of fading immunity and the arrival of the Delta variant. Thus the case for boosters: A Pfizer study demonstrates that a third shot, administered some 11 months after the second, reduces symptomatic infections by 96% compared with those who had two shots.
So why not give everyone a third shot? Many people who got two shots are still in the therapeutic window and wouldn’t benefit from a third shot. For them, a booster would risk gratuitous inflammation that would push them above the window. The prospect of such inflammation wasn’t a deal breaker with the second shot. Months of follow-up revealed instances of heart inflammation, especially in young male patients, but these were rare and almost always mild and transient, and Covid itself can produce far worse heart inflammation. Other symptoms of inflammation, such as fever, fatigue and headache were far more common but lasted for only a day or two.
There could be other, more serious effects of inflammation that would take years to become apparent. In other contexts, strong inflammation has been shown to disrupt the “blood-brain barrier” and contribute to the progression of Alzheimer’s disease. That possibility isn’t a reasonable argument against a second shot because the inflammation from Covid itself can be far stronger, and the second shot reduces that risk by providing solid protection against serious disease.
For third shots, the calculation changes. A booster makes sense for most older people and for the immunocompromised because they tended to get lower efficacy and little inflammation from the second shot. A third shot puts them back into the therapeutic window. But healthy young people typically had good efficacy from the two-shot regimen, and many had strong inflammation.
The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention struggled with such issues and recommended a third shot for the elderly and the immunocompromised, but not for healthy young people. Advisory committee members suggested that further research was needed to refine these initial recommendations.
Some such research will be at the population level, advising about particular ages and vaccines. Other recommendations will be more personalized, drawing on many decades of assessing immunity against other diseases. When I began my clinical training in the 1980s, our group of new doctors took a blood test to assess immunity to diseases for which we could be vaccinated. Similarly, more research using blood tests for Covid immunity and questionnaires about the risk of inflammation could allow us to assess whether further shots would move a particular patient in or out of the therapeutic window.
Personalized recommendations are particularly important for the more than 100 million Americans who have already recovered from Covid. Their immunity and risk of inflammation from vaccines is variable. But when health officials refuse to take account of natural immunity, they neglect the needs and concerns of a large segment of the population and give the public a reason to think experts are not conveying the whole truth.
We also need answers to other questions about the therapeutic window for vaccines, such as whether taking anti-inflammatory drugs after vaccination is good because it reduces inflammation or bad because it could reduce the vaccine’s effectiveness.
Radio hosts often advise listeners to “do your own research.” What we really need is research that gives the CDC and FDA the data needed to refine their initial recommendations on third shots. The recommendations that will be most acceptable to the populace are the ones that promote trust by helping assess whether a particular patient would benefit from the shot.
Dr. Segal is a neurologist and neuroscientist.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-1...ta-11635948641