If there’s no force field, how do you explain this then:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII
Fixed regarding the vaccine part. They aren't asking at this point, they're telling, with legal and financial penalties for failing to comply.
As far as masks, overblown issue. It's annoying wear, but I don't mind them as long they're doing their job cutting down on spread.
This seems like serious gaslighting here and does a disservice to all the other vaccines. We can count on most vaccines to reliably stop infection and transmission. We got vaccinated with polio, it doesn't spread anymore. We once vaccinated for smallpox and completely eradicated from the public. We have been giving the COVID vaccines too much a casual pass to fall short of what we expect out of more-or-less any other vaccine.That's literally true for all vaccines. They're not force fields.
Last edited by EmperorBatman999; January 20, 2022 at 09:53 AM.
Author of Foreign Legions mod 7.0,EB's NTW Total Music, Knights of St. John mod, The Wardrobe of 1805 mod
!Under Proud Patronage of Gunny!
Employers are telling you, not government. Government is asking. That's one of the downsides of the anti-union "right to work" laws your side pushes, your employer can make you do things or get fired.
I just fail to see the problem with government setting laws aimed at the common good. Do you object to the government saying you must be sober to drive? Are laws against neglecting and beating children also unreasonable assaults on civil liberties?
According to many on your side wearing a mask is communism.As far as masks, overblown issue. It's annoying wear, but I don't mind them as long they're doing their job cutting down on spread.
State and municipal governments still have an upheld Supreme Court precedent backing up their police powers to enforce a vaccine mandate. In any case, there are now several national governments which are pushing for a universal vaccine mandate, like Austria and Australia.
If unions were stronger, it would've simply been the unions pushing the mandates, rather than employers. Overall, it would've made hardly any difference.
Finally, I fail to see how the vaccine is the way, the only way, to serve the greater good. It best benefits the hospitals, but why should people at low risk need the vaccine? If the low-risk groups get ill, don't take the vaccine, and survive, they get immunity that eliminates them as a health threat for at least several months.
Author of Foreign Legions mod 7.0,EB's NTW Total Music, Knights of St. John mod, The Wardrobe of 1805 mod
!Under Proud Patronage of Gunny!
And as I supplied a couple pages back, large amounts of members of the NS-DNC want the State to punish people who refuse or question the chinese cave bat lab lung aids virus vaccine, much like actual nazis demanded martial law in response to people exercising their 1st Amendment rights to peaceably assemble and petition against lockdowns along with summary stripping of rights and imprisonment...
Last edited by Infidel144; January 20, 2022 at 10:58 AM.
A (likely rapidly waning) efficacy of 50-80% in reducing symptomatic infection (not even total infection) is not significant enough to attain herd immunity or justify mandates in most situations (the context of the conversation). This is shown both by the studies and by the record breaking case numbers in many majority vaccinated countries where O is the dominant strain. The suggestion that said case numbers are merely "circumstantial" is false (the lack of infection protection in the double-jabbed provides clear evidence of O's immune evasiveness and it is known that O is 2-4x more contagious than D). As mentioned above, also false is the repeated claim that it was argued that "current vaccines provide no significant effectiveness".
It merely highlights the demonstrably fallacious nature of your entire position. No vaccine is 100% effective. What made past vaccination efforts effective is vast participation of effected population group. Polio is a great example. It requires multiple shots. Even at 2nd shot we only hit 90% efficacy. Yes, not all vaccines share high efficacy as not all viruses are easy to battle against. Smallpox vaccine similarly doesn't provide 100% efficacy and this starts to go down after 3-5 years.
That doesn't really address what I said but, sure. You seem to be going back on your word, and then back again... Neither study, nor the latest trend, support what you claimed as I pointed out in detail, of which you chose not to refute, but instead chose to wonder off with tangents. You say its false that efficacy was argued, even though your example were of discussing efficacy. You have yet to provide any data on efficacy of vaccines against transmission then? That's not part of efficacy? If you used that much energy that you spent in running in circles for actually searching studies I'm sure you'd have better results.
The Armenian Issuehttp://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930
GTA 6 Thread
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?819300-GTA-6-Reveal-Trailer
"We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."
You called the Democratic Party the Democrat National Socialist Party in a clear attempt to link them to the Nazi Party and the Holocaust. At least have the moral courage to stand by your baseless slander.
How do you know you're low risk? I've seen plenty of re-infections, many much more serious than the first one, and 20-somethings who thought they were hard-bodied Adonis's ending up wasting away on ventilators after losing 50% or more of their lung capacity to Covid.
That's what really gets me about the "just a cold" and "miracle Ivemectin" people. They know they're lying. Otherwise they wouldn't show up at the ER begging for help from the doctors they've spent years demonizing as part of the conspiracy to oppress them with 5G demon-vaccines. They'd at least have the dignity to die at home rather than taking up a bed at the taxpayer's expense.
Gaslighting, what does that look like?
Not sure if you posting in good faith, but one last swing at it.
You argument makes literally no sense. Masks like vaccines slow the spread. Both work to make the disease spread less quickly, so less people get it over a given period of time. This means there are more resources available per sick person. Its the difference between getting 12 bills for $100 over a year, or getting one bill for $1200 due this week.
There's a greater likelihood of the vaccinated needing less treatment, and less chance of dying, and less chance of "long COVID" vs vaccine related permanent illness.
The "slowing", which actually means the person infects less people per outing. compounds with other measures so masks, vaccines, common sense and support for the exposed and infected gives a greater chance of controlling the plague.
Letting it rip gives the infected an increased chance of spreading the illness, getting long term illness, and dying, as well as breeding new variants, and absurd pressure on healthcare services. It doesn't lead to the disease burning out and costs more than the vaccine program.
This is extremely basic epidemiology.
Jatte lambastes Calico Rat
When we're talking communicable disease, your right to bodily integrity runs straight into the rights of your co-workers to not be exposed to the greater risk your presence generates. Who has the greater right to safe employment? Those who look to mitigate risk or those who do not?
Your government has decided the rights of those majority of people who voluntarily chose to reduce societal risk, outweighs your right to employment if you choose not to reduce societal risk. As we discussed last time, your options for work - as a voluntarily more risky person, are not insignificant. You can still be like the up to 60% of Australians who have worked from home over the last year, or work in an industry that doesn't have a mandate. That is the compromise your society has made to you. It's up to you if you take advantage of that offer.
Last edited by alhoon; January 24, 2022 at 12:55 AM. Reason: continuity - off topic removed
IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM
Not at all!!! The right to self-determination is also a central tenet of Australian law. In the medical context, this means that a competent adult patient has the right to refuse medical treatment for whatever reasons, RATIONAL or IRRATIONAL.
A patient's body is his/her own and he/she may refuse to accept treatment as desired. The Australian High Court had described this as "a right in each person to bodily integrity".
This means I can be selfish (in fact the law even allows me to be selfish) as far as what goes into my body (that's assuming even if the vaccines stopped transmission which they don't).
It's NOT Government business to be involved with my healthcare, my health, and/or what goes into my body. This should be between me and my Doctor. But watch this space a massive HCW class action has been filed for the end of January in NSW. The narrative is crumbling...Your government has decided the rights of those majority of people who voluntarily chose to reduce societal risk, outweighs your right to employment if you choose not to reduce societal risk
I am actually currently negotiating a better offer to work from home; so things turned out alright (The Emergency Department can get somewhat hectic so will not say no for a bit of respite)As we discussed last time, your options for work - as a voluntarily more risky person, are not insignificant. You can still be like the up to 60% of Australians who have worked from home over the last year, or work in an industry that doesn't have a mandate. That is the compromise your society has made to you. It's up to you if you take advantage of that offer.
But what I still don't understand is that my unvaccinated colleagues who tested positive are allowed to keep working w/ vulnerable patients as long as they are asymptomatic. MADNESS I know...
Last edited by alhoon; January 24, 2022 at 12:55 AM. Reason: off topic removed
Except: (1) the dominant variant is so communicable that being vaccinated does not provide reliable protection against either infection or transmission; (2) vaccinated co-workers are extremely well protected against the disease; (3) infected persons can self-isolate; (4) many of the unvaccinated will have acquired some degree of natural immunity through prior infection and; (5) the most at risk groups are overwhelmingly past working age (for instance, new data from the UK confirms that average C19 death age was ~the average life expectancy, itself more than a decade above the retirement age).
So even though Stario is wrong about vaccine effectiveness, he is correct about violations of medical consent and privacy which are celebrated by Covid hysterics/authoritarians.
State or corporate policy is not, and never will be, a yardstick, for morality.Your government has decided the rights of those majority of people who voluntarily chose to reduce societal risk, outweighs your right to employment if you choose not to reduce societal risk. As we discussed last time, your options for work - as a voluntarily more risky person, are not insignificant. You can still be like the up to 60% of Australians who have worked from home over the last year, or work in an industry that doesn't have a mandate. That is the compromise your society has made to you. It's up to you if you take advantage of that offer.
Last edited by Cope; January 21, 2022 at 11:28 PM.
With all said...I would argue I am not wrong even about vaccine effectiveness...
To use Pfizers study as an example. The Pfizer vaccine had a net benefit or Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) of just 0.84% (or less than 1%), and the control group was also unblinded early (amongst other major problems the study had). And sure sometimes a control group will be unblinded early when results from a new treatment are so fantastically positive it would simply be unethical to continue to withhold it.
But this didn't happen...In the first two months of Pfizer trial, 15 members of the experimental group died (all cause mortality) vs 14 members of the control group. This isn't fantastically positive.
Not to mention an additional 5 from the placebo group who decided to join the vaccinated side died as well...
Last edited by Stario; January 21, 2022 at 11:39 PM.
1. This issue is so heavily politicized, it's become tribalized.
2. The politicians have mostly been vaccinated, regardless of their public positions.
3. Even if there's a breakthrough, they have access to first class healthcare.
4. Forty Five has backtracked from his public stance on widespread public vaccination, though probably in an attempt to appeal to suburban voters if and when he runs again.
5. It's a personal decision if you want to increase the risk of dying; less so if your actions will likely infect others.
6. Part of the problem, besides populist politicians appealing to their hardcore supporters, is the financial agenda, that prevents a global campaign to try and eradicate it.
Eats, shoots, and leaves.
You do realize this post is nonsense right. First why bring up non Covid deaths in either group (that number (covid deaths) would be 2 in the placebo group and 1 in the vaccine group - none from complications of the vaccine). Second then why do you cite absolute risk reduction? The way you do try to says you really have no ideal what the statistic is telling you vs RRR. And its not what you think. The Note in the Lancet was clearly aimed at A people who understand that you are talking about vastly 2 different measures. Thus a cautionary notice that simply put B - that since AAR should also be used in this case it seems to show a modestly less effectiveness but only if translated into RRR a few points.
Last edited by conon394; January 22, 2022 at 09:43 AM.
IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites
'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'
But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.
Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.
The Armenian Issuehttp://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930
GTA 6 Thread
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?819300-GTA-6-Reveal-Trailer
"We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."
Would not matter since the statistics involved are massively abused. But if you want here is the Lancet Note/Comment that is massively not used properly by people who have no ideal what the relative statistics being talked mean
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...069-0/fulltext
Pfizer's 6 month study results are here but obviously now superseded by data from Israel. And of course the US where have a whole pool of people playing self inflicted control group.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...159v1.full.pdf
Last edited by conon394; January 22, 2022 at 05:10 PM.
IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites
'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'
But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.
Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.
While the Lancet study cites an ARR it provides no information on methodology as this label is highly dependent on various factors. We don't even know what is the risk of... The study does not say the placebo group was unblinded early. It doesn't say 5 of them died after they were unblinded as well. 2 of them did. These are not number of the dead due to COVID19.
Among 42,094 evaluable ≥12-year-olds without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, 77 COVID-19 cases with onset ≥7 days post-dose 2 were observed through the data cut-off (March 13, 2021) among vaccine recipients and 850 among placebo recipients, corresponding to 91.3% VE (95% CI [89.0-93.2]; Table 2). Among 44,486 evaluable participants, irrespective of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, 81 COVID-19 cases were observed among vaccine and 873 among placebo recipients, corresponding to 91.1% VE (95% CI [88.8-93.0]).Given these findings the Pfizer vaccine was demonstrably effective at the time of the study.Of 31 cases of severe, FDA-defined COVID-19,12 with onset post-dose 1, 30 occurred in placebo recipients, corresponding to 96.7% VE (95% CI 80.3-99.9) against severe COVID-19 (Fig. 2, Table S6).
Last edited by PointOfViewGun; January 23, 2022 at 04:20 AM.
The Armenian Issuehttp://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930
GTA 6 Thread
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?819300-GTA-6-Reveal-Trailer
"We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."