Who's Been Vaccinated?

Gridley

New member
Attempts have been made on a local level in some areas to impose mandates on an individual's diet. Remember the push by the former mayor of NYC to ban XL sodas?

As for the vaccines, I look at in in much the same way as I've looked at the whole mess. I'm mid-40's, relatively active, no underlying conditions and generally healthy. I'm among the lower end of the at-risk types. But I've never made it about me. Not the vaccines or masks or social distancing.

But people that mean a lot to me are at the other end of the risk spectrum. Do I know for a fact that anything I've done has kept them safe? Nope.
I can comfortably say I've done everything that's been asked of me to try to minimize the risk for them, though. Maybe it's helped. Maybe it's helped someone I've never met. I'll probably never know for certain, but one thing I do know for certain is that none of it's hurt me any.
Good point, I'd forgotten the soda wars.

On the "risk to others", we need to talk about tradeoffs. "Anything you can do can kill you, including doing nothing." It holds for your interactions with others too. A variety of studies have pointed out that suicide rates have skyrocketed during the various lockdowns. Most people do better if they periodically have positive face-to-face social interactions with other people. If someone is "high risk" and so most popele stay away from them... well, the virus will probably get them anyway. Unless you live in a sealed bubble and sterilize everything you eat, drink, and breath, an airborne virus is hard to beat. In the meantime, what are the odds they decide life isn't worth living, and no one sees the warning signs because no one they know actually, you know, SEES them? If fewer people see grandma, is grandma more or less likely to remember to take her heart medicine?

Then lets talk about anitbodies. We can argue about how long immunity will last, but while you've got antibodies you're far, far less likely to give someone else the disease than someone who's been "vaccinated" is. Yet our glorious leader's executive order doesn't allow antibody testing as an alternative. So how is it about "risk to others"?

Turn it slightly. Say you're a company. Should you, as a good business decision, require your employees to be "vaccinated"? Deaths so far have been HIGHLY concentrated in the peripheral population. Most companies employ, almost entirely, members of the prime population. Getting the jab(s ) isn't risk free either - and mandating them will cost you some of your workforce even if you get lucky and none of them die. Oh, don't forget liability for the ones who die or become ill due to the "vaccines" you made them take. Maybe you'll win the lawsuits, but you'll have to pay to fight them. In fact if you're really cold-blooded you might calculate how many FORMER employees will die prematurely and stop drawing benefits. Hard to make a compelling business case if you add it all up. If we're talking ethics, how about the ethics of forced treatment? How about the ethics of mandating that an employee reveal private medical information? (Wait, isn't that illegal? Guess not anymore...)

Every time you drive your car on a public street you put others at risk.

How much is too much?

Apparently the .gov will decide for you from now on.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
It is only a danger if a vaccine-resistant strain develops. Which hasn't happened as far as we know.
Well, again, you're using all-inclusive language to propagate a falsehood. I know of at least three that have been reported, easily found and counted using an internet search. I don't know where you've been but if you don't know it's because you haven't looked, so don't claim "as far as we know" as a given. One of the resistant variants is currently found in the U.S. The reason the CDC isn't spreading panic about them is because they haven't been spreading (not much, not yet, anyway). But the truth is there are already existing vaccine-resistant strains and most health experts believe more will evolve with time.

B.1.351 vaccine-resistant strain discovered in S. Africa and now in U.S:

A.30 strain found in Tanzania:

Mu variant in S. America:

More to come:
 
Last edited:

Howland937

Active member
If we're talking ethics, how about the ethics of forced treatment? How about the ethics of mandating that an employee reveal private medical information? (Wait, isn't that illegal? Guess not anymore...
As far as mandates go, I could stomach the idea of a business owner requiring employees to be vaccinated easier than the .gov forcing it. Terms of employment. They can require steel toe boots, ban use of tobacco products on their property, forbid concealed carry. My S.I.L. is a healthcare worker and just got her employer mandated annual flu shot last week. I don't see a significant difference.

I will point out 2 details from my previous post and provide more context though.
I did everything I was asked to do in order to mitigate risk to the extent possible. Not because of any mandate and not because any politician or their parrots said I should or shouldn't.

And when I said none of those measures harmed me, they haven't. My job hasn't been affected, my finances are unchanged, my health is exactly the same as it was prior, and I'm still able to do the things I enjoy with all the people that are important to me. Would everything still be the same for me if I chose to do nothing? It's very possible...
Maybe if I'd lost my job, multiple family members, been sick repeatedly, had side effects from the vaccine, diaper rash on my face from masks, etc I'd have a different outlook.

I do sort of miss my 6ft of space already though. And the masks did help block some of the smells around the first of the month. The irony of walking into the bank wearing a mask, carrying a concealed handgun and being considered perfectly normal was never lost on me either.

I'm just one little anecdotal example. YMMV
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
Fellow members: please don't click on the link posted by "Bugmania" above. I reported it and it hasn't been deleted yet. The link is suspect as a security risk.
 

Bugmania

New member
The link is not a security risk. It is an article from theburningplatform.com that is pertinent to this conversation. I am not familiar with the proper way to link to a URL from my cell phone. I used the link icon but it is not presenting the same way wiscoaster's is. Can someone please explain the proper way to insert a link.
 

Howland937

Active member
https://www.theburningplatform.com/...you-realize-they-want-to-kill-us/#more-252187

The link is not a security risk. It is an article from theburningplatform.com that is pertinent to this conversation. I am not familiar with the proper way to link to a URL from my cell phone. I used the link icon but it is not presenting the same way wiscoaster's is. Can someone please explain the proper way to insert a link.
On my phone, I just click the icon in the top right that's 3 vertical dots, it pops open with options, including "copy link".
If you're an iOS user, I can't help.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
... I am not familiar with the proper way to link to a URL from my cell phone. ....
Just include the link text in your post. The forum editor will deal with it appropriately. My apologies if your link was safe. However, posting a link without accompanying comments or discussion is frowned on. Welcome to the forum, but please take some time learning the local culture. Thanks.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Well, again, you're using all-inclusive language to propagate a falsehood. I know of at least three that have been reported, easily found and counted using an internet search. I don't know where you've been but if you don't know it's because you haven't looked, so don't claim "as far as we know" as a given. One of the resistant variants is currently found in the U.S. The reason the CDC isn't spreading panic about them is because they haven't been spreading (not much, not yet, anyway). But the truth is there are already existing vaccine-resistant strains and most health experts believe more will evolve with time.

B.1.351 vaccine-resistant strain discovered in S. Africa and now in U.S:

A.30 strain found in Tanzania:

Mu variant in S. America:

More to come:

Hmm. Nature says there are non, as of Oct. 20;

Although this study did find that the B.1.351 variant was partially resistant to AstraZenica.

So there is always going to be an arms race between the various sources of immunity (exposure, vaccine, antivirals etc.) and the virus. Although, there is no sign that a resistant strain is in any way having an effect on death rates currently. And now that there is a baseline COVID vaccine, biotech companies expect to be able to tweak the vaccines. In fact, they already are working on it.

The Nature paper specifically spoke about the danger of strains resistant to natural immunity. In this paper, the authors found "Reinfection by SARS-CoV-2 under endemic conditions would likely occur between 3 months and 5·1 years after peak antibody response, with a median of 16 months.": (the link is clean, just a funky name)

The thing about an arms race like this is that the driving factor (beyond the virus) is time. If you let the disease run through the population, there is no time to find effective therapies or drugs. You get a rapid cycle of infection, large scale death, then disease recession, then reinfection. You do ultimately (after decades or centuries) get resistant populations. But the cost is obviously huge. You can look at the history of medieval disease cycles.

If you have a vaccine, and a vaccine-resistant variant evolves, you have a chance to slow the spread and give technology a chance to catch up. It decreases the death rate because the surge, with overcrowded hospitals and emergency rooms, creates conditions in which triage allows many to die. It also allows us time to find other drugs that might mitigate the effects enough so that it is like a common cold (e.g. molnupiravir).

None of this is possible is the disease is allowed to spread naturally. We already have 750,000 Americans dead from COVID, and it is clear that, right now, vaccinations are pushing the death rate is down. That decrease cannot be because of natural immunity because the deaths now are almost entirely among the unvaccinated.

Here is an interesting paper summarizing current variants of interest:

Summary - I am not saying the vaccines could not ever be beaten by the virus. I am saying that it is a no-cost (except for a sore arm and a day of temperature) tool that is, right now, the best chance for keeping the infection at bay, especially if the vaccines can be tweaked to counter new variants. The vaccines are estimated to have saved 140,000 lives.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Oh, and there is no bioluminescent marker in the vaccines that allow the government to track you:

1636088869010.png


Anyway, it would be nanobots, not luminescent markers. Everybody knows that!
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
.... Although, there is no sign that a resistant strain is in any way having an effect on death rates currently.
This is why we feed the troll. To expose him. For example, first he says there's no resistant strains. Then when he's proven wrong, he doesn't admit he's wrong, instead, he changes his argument: they're having no effect on death rates.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
The thing about an arms race like this is that the driving factor (beyond the virus) is time. If you let the disease run through the population, there is no time to find effective therapies or drugs.
There were effective drugs and therapies available very early on. When Pres. Trump caught Covid he was treated and got over it in days with no lasting harm. So this argument is false. The driving factor was, and is, money.
 
Last edited:

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
If you only listen to opinions that you agree with then you are in an echo chamber.
The other guy may be a troll, but the dissonance is worth it because it keeps you alert.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
There were effective drugs and therapies available very early on. When Pres. Trump caught Covid he was treated and got over it in days with no lasting harm. So this argument is false. The driving factor was, and is, money.

Trump was sicker than you think. He was on the verge of going on ventilator, which often is very bad news. And he has since had the vaccine. Those drug therapies he received were experimental and early in testing at the time.

 

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
Nonetheless, blocking these effective treatments simply because they were linked to Trump when people were dying for lack of treatment was totally irresponsible and possibly criminal.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
.... Those drug therapies he received were experimental and early in testing at the time.
Or in other words, kind of like the vaccines that came later. The monoclonal antibody and convalescent plasma treatments were available and effective, if the same FDA emergency authorization that was given later to the vaccines had been given to them. I think Regeneron is still under priority review and waiting for authorization, if I'm not mistaken. I guess Regeneron didn't donate enough money to the DNC.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Nonetheless, blocking these effective treatments simply because they were linked to Trump when people were dying for lack of treatment was totally irresponsible and possibly criminal.
Nobody was blocking those therapies. Monoclonal antibodies were widely used in 2020, and still are. My stepmother avoided death late last year because of them. Regeneron was given emergency use approval by the FDA in 2020. And nobody linked them to Trump - he just happened to get them early because of his political position.
 
Top