Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry, your claim was bogus. It is rather obvious that you are not putting using the same standards for your claims as you demand from others. That is classic conspiracy theory territory.
Try again.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Suppression of Free Speech on Covid
- Thread starter Kenny
- Start date
Try again.
To the contrary, these posts are full of purpose.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Is it just me, or do the people that accuse others of being "triggered" appear to be in that state to you too?
Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
Before the COVID panic I would have believed this. My naiveté was shattered, and I'm wiser now for it. So some good came out of that nightmare.
Last edited:
No, that's YOUR strawman claim. Sexual harassment is not fine with me, and not analogous to requiring a vaccine at the workplace.
I was retired by the time of the pandemic, but I would have required my employees to be vaccinated, and any that didn't want to be vaccinated would need to find work where they welcome. Nobody was owed those jobs. Work was always by mutual agreement - quid pro quo. Being unvaccinated made many as unemployable as if they had chosen to tattoo their faces: "Sorry, can't use you. You're scaring my business away. They don't want to be here if you are, and I agree with them."
Would you deny me that and do you still equate that with sexual predation in the workplace?
That was in response to, "Vetted experts are a much more reliable source of facts than "ordinary people." People pay them for their expertise."
I'm trying to get a sense of just what it is you learned. Was it that it was the bleach and dewormer people who got it right whereas before you were listening to the scientists with their mask and vaccine recommendations. Is that what you learned that you call shattering your naivete?
Or was it that now you understand that there is really no such thing as expertise and that the opinions of so-called vetted experts aren't any more likely to be correct than you or I would be in their fields of expertise?
I don't believe that you mean either of those, but I can't guess what it is you DO mean if not one or both of them.
Here's what I came out of the pandemic learning, and I don't necessarily mean you or Sarkonski and son, but about half of America comes off as a tantruming child to me now. We had the mask and vaccine tantrums and cries of tyranny as well as the calls for Fauci's head. We had the airplane and Wal-Mart tantrums. We had the angry Karen phenomenon demanding to see the manager and demanding to know what you're doing in her neighborhood. We had the supremacists angrily shouting "You will not replace us." You had insurrectionists. People tantruming like Trump about their freedom of speech because they can't say whatever they like whenever they like.
What is this mindbending purile nonsense friend .. ?? Do you not realize that in your last post you produced a study that proves my claim is not bogus .. and that in fact it is your beloved Gov't pablum propaganda claim "Vax is Safe" that is bogus.
Now try again as you failed to answer the question clarifying your position Are you claiming that 1-2000 is "Safe" Yes or No ?
and on that question your position is crucified .. Russian Roullette with 2000 shot revolver and only one bullet in the chamber .. Safe ? and then tell me which is the bogus claim in the room .. and how you feel realizing that beloved Gov't has been lying to you. "Big Lie" .. not little. and remember further .. that I am the "Scientist" in the room here .. and Subject Matter Expert .. so do not feel too bad for losing this round ... the Champ has to score a point or two as well you know.
Now quit hiding and deflecting and state your position clearly -- Are you claiming 1-2000 SAR is safe .. ? Then tell me what is the bogus bunny in the room ... and why.
I'm reading something that makes no sense....
1 minus 2,000
Is that some hypothetical relationship, or an epidemiological statistic for something?
What are you actually quantitatively claiming about vaccines?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
There's an old saying that "You are like the company you keep", and with this I'm bailing out of this "discussion".
So true.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Pretty much everything you've said is conspiracy-related.
I didn't make that claim. I said it can help lower transmission rates by reducing viral loads. That's a different thing. Try reading more carefully.
"Even propaganda Central CDC" ... nah, you're not touting conspiracy theories.
Masking and lockdowns worked to slow the transmission of COVID and to help ease the burden on overwhelmed hospitals.
Covid-19: Lockdowns and masks helped reduce transmission, expert group finds
Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) were “unequivocally” effective when rolled out in tandem during the covid pandemic and led to “powerful, effective and prolonged reductions in viral transmission,” says a report by a team of experts brought together by the Royal Society.1 The team...
Lockdowns and face masks really did help to control covid-19
Non-vaccine measures such as social distancing and wearing face masks have been "unequivocally effective" at preventing the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, according to a major report by the UK's Royal Society
Effectiveness of Mask Wearing to Control Community Spread of SARS-CoV-2
This JAMA Insights CDC review summarizes accumulating evidence that mask wearing reduces spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection and that universal mandatory mask wearing policies reduce infections and deaths and emphasizes face masks are one component of pandemic control measures, including physical...
Lockdown Led to 70% Drop in NYC COVID Spread, Masks Also Effective
Reducing contact rates—mainly via school closures and voluntary or mandated stay-at-home measures—contributed to around a 70 percent reduction in the transmission of COVID-19 in New York City during the spring pandemic wave from March to the June reopening.
I haven't had COVID ever. Not even once.
You are being lied to. You need to get off whatever YouTube algorithm you're stuck on. I have no desire to force anyone to do anything.You were lied to .. sorry .. no need to shoot the messenger .. it is not his fault you drank the spiked kool-aid and were duped into running around like someone yelled fire in a crowded theater .. wanting to force your desire to Jab people into law .. Yeah friend.. that is you running around crying "Fire Fire" .. not me
Herd immunity. It works.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Dude, this ain't Twitter.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Nobody said that but you.
Try reading more carefully before you fly off the handle.
Rambling.
The problem is the reader jumping into a conversation without having a grasp on what the conversation is about .... so no wonder it makes little sense to you. 1-2000 SAR (Severe Adverse Reaction) means your chances of getting an SAR from the Jab are 1 in 2000.
The question being addressed is whether or not this figure is "Safe"
Pretty much everything you've said is conspiracy-related.
I didn't make that claim. I said it can help lower transmission rates by reducing viral loads. That's a different thing. Try reading more carefully.
"Even propaganda Central CDC" ... nah, you're not touting conspiracy theories.
Masking and lockdowns worked to slow the transmission of COVID and to help ease the burden on overwhelmed hospitals.
Covid-19: Lockdowns and masks helped reduce transmission, expert group finds
Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) were “unequivocally” effective when rolled out in tandem during the covid pandemic and led to “powerful, effective and prolonged reductions in viral transmission,” says a report by a team of experts brought together by the Royal Society.1 The team...www.bmj.com
Lockdowns and face masks really did help to control covid-19
Non-vaccine measures such as social distancing and wearing face masks have been "unequivocally effective" at preventing the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, according to a major report by the UK's Royal Societywww.newscientist.com
Effectiveness of Mask Wearing to Control Community Spread of SARS-CoV-2
This JAMA Insights CDC review summarizes accumulating evidence that mask wearing reduces spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection and that universal mandatory mask wearing policies reduce infections and deaths and emphasizes face masks are one component of pandemic control measures, including physical...jamanetwork.com
Lockdown Led to 70% Drop in NYC COVID Spread, Masks Also Effective
Reducing contact rates—mainly via school closures and voluntary or mandated stay-at-home measures—contributed to around a 70 percent reduction in the transmission of COVID-19 in New York City during the spring pandemic wave from March to the June reopening.www.publichealth.columbia.edu
I haven't had COVID ever. Not even once.
You are being lied to. You need to get off whatever YouTube algorithm you're stuck on. I have no desire to force anyone to do anything.
Herd immunity. It works.
Who said Herd immunity didn't work .. and why are you pretending I said such a thing ..
You on the other hand now lie about your previous claim .. as you did claim that the Vax prevents transmission.. what a joke now trying to backtrack to "reduces Transmission" ... a completely nonsensical statement showing lack of understanding of the subject matter and what you are saying ... as "Reducing Transmission" = "Preventing Transmission" for the purposes of the topic..
Crying out .. "it reduced transmission" is complete nonsense unless that reduction is significant .. and it is not significant .. proven by the fact that we all got it... and now have herd immunity.
You then produce a study claiming transmission reduction ... ?? not realizing how idiotic this statment is outside of significant context .. likely have not even read the link .. just saw a headline you liked.
Then you cry out that you have not had Covid .. not even once.. as if this means something rather than understanding how silly the comment makes you look .. once again demonstrating a lack of understanding of the subject matter .. and thus should be listening instead of talking.
My Wife didn't get Covid Either .. Covid doesn't like everyone .. and in the beginning 9 out of 10 who contracted Covid were assymptomatic .. in a normal flue season 5-20% catch the flue. The problem here is that you seem to think that herd immunity = 100% of people have had Covid .. which of course is false .. think the number is somewhere around 70% but don't quote me .. but just like your "Reducing Transmission" error. "Prevention" does not require the transmission reduction to be zero .. nor close to zero. .. you need to reduce transmission to a value less than 1 .. meaning the a person with Covid will infect less than 1 ..as an overall average.
And last .. Slowing down the rate of transmission to "Preventing Transmission" level .. and slowing the rate of hospitalization are two completely separate questions that you are now conflating.. There may well have have been and probably was a lower rate into the hospital ... this has nothing to do with transmission prevention = stoping the virus from spreading through the population by having a transmission value lower than 1.
What part of Masks/lockdowns did not prevent 60% of the population from contracting omicron over a 6 week period .. is a ridiculously fast rate of transmission .. did you not understand ? Not that this matters to the "Prevention" argument .. but though I might as well shoot down your "reduced transmission" argument as well .. at least for Omicron.. Perhaps the lockdown had greater success against Delta .. but you would not know anyway so what ?
Last edited:
Wrong .. it is you saying this .. just too oblivious of the consequences of your actions to realize it.
What part of - you are supporting a legal position where "Give Boss a BJ or lose Job" is perfectly OK .. and arguing for this position - did you not realize ?
You don't get to choose what legislation you favor is used for .. get to apply it "Only for things you agree with" .. Sorry Pal. .. you are the one who put the bar at "Well if the Boss didn't hold her down ..its not force" .. and then cry out that I am the one rambling nonsense.
Did you not say "If he didn't hold her down it is not force" to justify Jab or lose Job ? .. don't matter if it is Jab with a needle .. or Jab with something else. You don't get to choose .. crying out "Oh No .. its only for the kind of Jab that I agree with" thats not how legal precedent works friend.
Of course Sexual harrassment and "my body my Choice" are analogous. Just because you don't know the consequences of your actions does not make me a builder of Strawmen.
We are talking "Forced Medical Treatment" -- something done by force - The claimants crying out that "Vax or lose Job" is not force. The claimants arguing "If the employee was not held down and Jabbed it is not force" and crying out "she could have quit" .. or like the anti abortionist .. She could have left the State and gone to another .. the Gov't didn't use force or coercion of any kind .. in the hollow land of disingenuous oblivion..
So yes .. sorry .. but you are argument is exactly analogous .. "If he didn't hold her down - it was not force" The Boss didn't force her ... and where did you think Sexual harrassment legislation comes from if not born out of the idea that "fk me or lose job" is Force - Coercion .. just as Jab or lose job is force-coercion.
What part are you having trouble figureing out ? You don't get to pick and choose .. when you say "my body my choice" does not apply in the case of " give up essential liberty or lose Job" you don't get to pick and choose which liberty gets trampled ... which bodily invasion .. with a straight face.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Oh, so now you believe that the vaccine was effective?
Nope. Read more carefully.
Can the condescension dude, you haven't earned it.
These comments belie a lack of understanding as to how vaccines work. Can you explain to me how you think vaccines work?
It means something in light of your comment that everyone got it. Do you not read your own posts?
COVID is more contagious than the flu. What's your point?
I don't know what you're going on about but I didn't say any of this.
So you think that masking, social distancing and lockdowns helped reduce the burden on overwhelmed hospitals, how exactly? If not by reducing transmission rates. Do tell.
The Effect of Strict Lockdown on Omicron SARS-CoV-2 Variant Transmission in Shanghai - PMC
Omicron, the current SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern, is much more contagious than other previous variants. Whether strict lockdown could effectively curb the transmission of Omicron is largely unknown. In this retrospective study, we compared the ...
Frontiers | Evaluating the effectiveness of lockdowns and restrictions during SARS-CoV-2 variant waves in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia
IntroductionAfter the initial onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the government of Canada and provincial health authorities imposed restrictive policies to li...
www.frontiersin.org
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
BS.
I'm not. Another poster already explained this to you.
Not doing any such thing.
Read through my posts with more care in the future. Thanks.
This is another straw man. Last time, it was insisting on oral sex in the workplace being called equivalent to insisting on vaccination status. What are you discussing - workplace fellatio, criminalizing abortion, or workplace vaccine status?
That part, and why you think workplace standards, illegal coercion, and the use of physical force are equivalent. Also, why you ignored both of these questions: "Would you deny me that and do you still equate that with sexual predation in the workplace?" I'll assume that you would force me to keep your unvaccinated son if he worked for me even if I required all staff and myself to be vaccinated, and that you do equate vaccine mandates in the workplace with sexual predation. Feel free to chime in if that's not your position.
If you mean physical force, then it is correct to say that nobody but minor children and perhaps some others not able to consent were vaccinated forcibly such as those in a coma or the severely demented. If you mean the word metaphorically, as in economic incentives to take an unwanted vaccine, then that is a different topic. And if you mean laws that compel a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, that's altogether different.
I already addressed that. Yes, the government is using coercion and the threat of physical force including forced incarceration when it criminalizes what used to be lawful abortion, and yes a pregnant woman can go to another state for abortion if she has the means and opportunity. Same with employees who don't like their bosses' terms of employment, the difference being that acknowledge the right of a woman to get an abortion she wants, but not that of an employee imposing himself and his values, nor that of a secular government imposing religious values on the unwilling.
Have any link to cromulent evidence that
1 in 2,000 vaccinations result in severe reactions?