Jump to content

Getting tough with the anti-vaxxers


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

JFC, global annual revenue from vaccines is about 0.3% of what big pharma makes. If there is any conspriacy behind vaccines, it would be that they want as many people as possible to live and grow

Makes me smile every time I read the price $3000+ tag on my MS drugs having just handed over $30.  I don't know where your tax money goes but I get good value for mine.

I think this article puts it quite succinctly. OH MY FUCKING GOD, GET THE FUCKING VACCINE ALREADY, YOU FUCKING FUCKS https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/oh-my-fucking-god-get-the-fucking-vac

Posted Images

2 hours ago, d'ranger said:

It's a liability issue, if an employee or customer becomes seriously ill or dies because the company chose to allow an unprotected person to infect others the lawsuits would soon follow, as they should.

If you coerce an employee into getting vaccination either directly or indirectly via changing employment conditions and they then die from an adverse reaction to that vaccination aren't you then liable for a massive lawsuit?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, d'ranger said:

If your business is in a "right to work" state of which IIRC there are 28 in the US then you can absolutely require employees to be vaccinated.  Right to work is really  a "right to be fired".  Many years ago a lawyer explained that I could fire someone because I thought their feet stunk.

Your lawyer, assuming they are a good one, would have also told you that due process would need to be followed if you summarily dismissed an employee because "their feet stunk".  Otherwise you would open yourself to a lawsuit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Your lawyer, assuming they are a good one, would have also told you that due process would need to be followed if you summarily dismissed an employee because "their feet stunk".  Otherwise you would open yourself to a lawsuit.

In Canada and I believe the US we have "at-will' employment.  You can terminate an employee for any reason, or no reason. So long as it is not unlawful (discriminatory, i.e. sex, race, or religion.)  The only potential issue is the amount of notice.  If the termination is with cause no notice is required.  If termination is without cause, then the employer is obligated to provide the terminated employee adequate notice - or pay in lieu of, which is what happens most of the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

If you coerce an employee into getting vaccination either directly or indirectly via changing employment conditions and they then die from an adverse reaction to that vaccination aren't you then liable for a massive lawsuit?

I don't think it would work that way in Canada, because the legal outcome of being made sick or killed by a vaccine is already covered by the indemnity of the vaccine manufacturers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, spankoka said:

I don't think it would work that way in Canada, because the legal outcome of being made sick or killed by a vaccine is already covered by the indemnity of the vaccine manufacturers. 

That indemnifies the pharmaceutical companies but not the Employer or the Government forcing/coercing someone to be vaccinated essentially against their will.  There are international laws which would support someone arguing that position.  

If someone willingly gives consent to be vaccinated then they accept the indemnity which is different if they are force/coerced into being vaccinated.

Another dimension to the argument is when someone who has recovered from Covid-19 is forced/coerced into being vaccinated.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Crown already has indemnity on account of being the Crown. The employers are off the hook because the Crown has already dealt with this sort of thing since at least 1215.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, 12 metre said:

In Canada and I believe the US we have "at-will' employment.  You can terminate an employee for any reason, or no reason. So long as it is not unlawful (discriminatory, i.e. sex, race, or religion.)  The only potential issue is the amount of notice.  If the termination is with cause no notice is required.  If termination is without cause, then the employer is obligated to provide the terminated employee adequate notice - or pay in lieu of, which is what happens most of the time.

I think the "employment-at-will" laws are only applicable in 28 USA State.  Even then they only apply if there is no employment contract/collective bargaining agreement and the termination does not violate any other State or Federal law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 12 metre said:

In Canada and I believe the US we have "at-will' employment.  You can terminate an employee for any reason, or no reason. So long as it is not unlawful (discriminatory, i.e. sex, race, or religion.)  The only potential issue is the amount of notice.  If the termination is with cause no notice is required.  If termination is without cause, then the employer is obligated to provide the terminated employee adequate notice - or pay in lieu of, which is what happens most of the time.

This is correct, but termination with cause can be questioned - aka "wrongful dismissal".  

In an interesting case, and employee at the engineering firm I worked at was demoted for some things he did the company wasn't happy with.  He quit, and then brought a wrongful dismissal suit against the company because he had been, "constructively dismissed" when he was demoted.

I have no idea how it came out - I had already left the company when I found out about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, spankoka said:

The Crown already has indemnity on account of being the Crown. The employers are off the hook because the Crown has already dealt with this sort of thing since at least 1215.

You miss the point.  The indemnity applies to anyone WILLINGLY receiving the vaccine who has an adverse reaction causing illness or death.  If someone is coerced or forced to be vaccinated against their will then they did not accept the indemnity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that adverse reactions to vaccines are the responsibility of the government. This is why dismissing someone for refusing vaccination would be unlikely to be construed as constructive dismissal. It wasn't the company that decided vaccines were a good idea, so it is not about the boss deciding what people do. If the person refusing the vaccination belonged to an exotic religion that does not want vaccination, that might work. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

That indemnifies the pharmaceutical companies but not the Employer or the Government forcing/coercing someone to be vaccinated essentially against their will.  There are international laws which would support someone arguing that position.  

If someone willingly gives consent to be vaccinated then they accept the indemnity which is different if they are force/coerced into being vaccinated.

Another dimension to the argument is when someone who has recovered from Covid-19 is forced/coerced into being vaccinated.   

Continuing to be employed by a company is a choice, ever since official slavery was abolished (and other forms of slavery introduced but that is another story).  If the company requires that you have a vaccination, and you don't want to have it, you can always quit.  I was required to have on-going criminal record checks with fingerprinting when employed as a teacher;  I could avoid it by quitting.

Where this might get sticky is foreign workers who would also have to leave the country if they decide to leave their employment.  In that case, it is coercion for the employer to require vaccination?  Legal beagles will have to answer that one.

Airlines no doubt require that their air-side employees get certain vaccinations.  I wonder how this issue is dealt with there.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, spankoka said:

This is why dismissing someone for refusing vaccinated would be unlikely to be construed as constructive dismissal.

That wasn't the construct that I was arguing although I do think that someone could and no doubt will mount a successful challenge to being dismissed for refusing to be vaccinated.

One poster argued that they were enforcing vaccination because of the potential liability from an employee having a serious illness dying from contracting the virus supposedly from another employee who wasn't vaccinated.  Of course that assumes that the employee that got ill wasn't vaccinated for some reason afterall the vaccine is supposed to stop them from getting ill.

My argument is that the company has a liability if they force/coerce an employee into getting vaccinated against their will and they get seriously ill or die because of an adverse reaction to the vaccine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

If the company requires that you have a vaccination, and you don't want to have it, you can always quit.

Some people don't have that option particularly if it forces them into hardship.  It is no better than slavery.

5 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

I was required to have on-going criminal record checks with fingerprinting when employed as a teacher;  I could avoid it by quitting.

That was a condition of your employment contract which you agreed to when you signed up.

7 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

Airlines no doubt require that their air-side employees get certain vaccinations.  I wonder how this issue is dealt with there.

Well that's an interesting point because not all airline staff are willing to get vaccinated for Covid-19.  Now from what I've seen some airlines are altering the duties of those staff OR requiring them to undergo greater quarantine requirements than those that are vaccinated.  Not all airlines are making vaccination mandatory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but the IATA will probably make vaccination for aircrew mandatory in any case. Therefore the airlines will offload the issue on to the IATA just like they do with broken guitars. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

That wasn't the construct that I was arguing although I do think that someone could and no doubt will mount a successful challenge to being dismissed for refusing to be vaccinated.

One poster argued that they were enforcing vaccination because of the potential liability from an employee having a serious illness dying from contracting the virus supposedly from another employee who wasn't vaccinated.  Of course that assumes that the employee that got ill wasn't vaccinated for some reason afterall the vaccine is supposed to stop them from getting ill.

My argument is that the company has a liability if they force/coerce an employee into getting vaccinated against their will and they get seriously ill or die because of an adverse reaction to the vaccine.

The odds of this happening are vanishingly small, especially now that AstraZeneca is mostly out of the mix. 

I just checked the updated adverse reactions in Canada.  Out of 31,400,416 vaccines administered, there have been 1719 adverse reactions considered serious, and 6 deaths.

In contrast, out of the 1.4 million reported cases where people contracted covid, there were 26,232 deaths.  

A young person under 10 just died yesterday from covid.  We need to do everything we can to stop this virus.

https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/22/2021 at 12:36 PM, Mambo Kings said:

The same with my son's school, George Washington University.   All students have to be vaccinated. But its not a problem, he and all of his friends and college room mates are already vaccinated. Despite the grumbling by some on these forums , most college kids want to be vaccinated.

They are not making any political statement, my son's friends include Republicans and Democrats.  They understand the vaccine trial results and want to be safe and have a safe campus with social activities and sports without masks. 

 

 

Rational choices made by intelligent beings.  Even dogs know to get out of the rain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

My argument is that the company has a liability if they force/coerce an employee into getting vaccinated against their will and they get seriously ill or die because of an adverse reaction to the vaccine.

You stated your argument.  You didn't support it with any accurate legal analysis.  In other words, you are talking out of your ass again.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I think the "employment-at-will" laws are only applicable in 28 USA State.  Even then they only apply if there is no employment contract/collective bargaining agreement and the termination does not violate any other State or Federal law.

You're picking fly shit out of the pepper here.

I didn't think it necessary to specifically exclude union or collective bargaining agreements because by definition, they are not "at-will' contracts.

So for most 9-5 grunts who are not unionized, what I said applies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rain Man said:

This is correct, but termination with cause can be questioned - aka "wrongful dismissal".  

In an interesting case, and employee at the engineering firm I worked at was demoted for some things he did the company wasn't happy with.  He quit, and then brought a wrongful dismissal suit against the company because he had been, "constructively dismissed" when he was demoted.

I have no idea how it came out - I had already left the company when I found out about it.

Correct, but wrongful dismissal suits are not what most people think they are about.  Even if successful, it is all about notice and was the notice (or pay in lieu of) adequate.  It is not about rescinding the termination, which I think a lot of people think it is about.

I filed for constructive dismissal before.

I was with a failing company.  They brought in a new CEO who I despised from previous encounters, so I was looking for an out.  One of the first things he did was e-mailed all management saying we would have to take a 40% pay cut.  I printed it and a couple of minutes later submitted my resignation.

I didn't even think about suing since the company was effectively bankrupt.  But at least now I could collect EI when I quit.  If I had quit before receiving the e-mail, I would not have been able to. 

I was kind of lucky as well because EI said anything less than either a 25% or 30% (I can't recall which) cut in pay would not have been constructive dismissal by their definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2021 at 6:00 PM, EYESAILOR said:

KSFB is a local poster limited to the SA audience with balanced push back from other posters. I am much more concerned about pseudo scientists like Tess Lawrie pushing out misinformation to a very wide audience.

Dr. EYE, I agree that a Tess Lawrie and the like have further direct reach and impact.

I have to disagree about the poster (read: content) being limited to the SA audience. The site and the forums are being constantly indexed by search engine and social media companies. These companies live by deploying ads and generating clicks on those ads and "content that might interest you". Their algorithms collect the chatter from all over the internet and come up with the next level of escalation for, let's say, the outspoken anti-vaxxer. KSFB's bullshit fuels that fire, and this is why his/her bullshit still is misleading and dangerous, even when every other user on SA has him/her on ignore.

 

That said, thank you for your sober and relevant contributions!

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, random. said:

Yep, that's exactly how it works.

They also use smaller sites like this as a resume, an example of their works, so they can get jobs in 'media management' with other clients.

Unvaccinated Randy has spoken! Randy had an appointment but cancelled because it "doesn't work".

YCMTSU!

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, random. said:

Except that I have been vaccinated and using this shithole to distract me from the effects of that.

How many times can you be wrong in so few posts?  Must be some kind of record.

79cf07de6e3c0814efcc480e8f9af0eb.gif


Different story on Friday... Bullshitter

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, random. said:

Then we had an outbreak, so I went and did it today.

So how is the old Travelodge in Darwin going?

Good for you. 

when the shivers start, just look noble and woebegone and the missus will tuck you up with some tea and bickies for a couple of hours :)

My doc said take panadol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, random. said:

Then we had an outbreak, so I went and did it today.

So how is the old Travelodge in Darwin going?

I don't believe you because..... you're a bullshitter.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, random. said:

This goes off every time Grumpy posts.

tenor.gif?itemid=12470961

That should be your avatar. Pre warn folks of what's coming

You got caught telling porkies again Randy. Suck it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Grog said:

Dr. EYE, I agree that a Tess Lawrie and the like have further direct reach and impact.

I have to disagree about the poster (read: content) being limited to the SA audience. The site and the forums are being constantly indexed by search engine and social media companies. These companies live by deploying ads and generating clicks on those ads and "content that might interest you". Their algorithms collect the chatter from all over the internet and come up with the next level of escalation for, let's say, the outspoken anti-vaxxer. KSFB's bullshit fuels that fire, and this is why his/her bullshit still is misleading and dangerous, even when every other user on SA has him/her on ignore.

 

That said, thank you for your sober and relevant contributions!

 

Not that I am a big fan of the upvote/downvote feature on this site, but a more useful feature might be a "bullshit" rating.  

When a user posts obvious falsehoods, we could all hit the bullshit button. 

If implemented well, the user's posts would gradually be covered over with an image of bullshit lying on the ground:

Post too much bullshit, and no-one can see your posts:

The Story of Bullshit - Personal Excellence

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rain Man said:

Not that I am a big fan of the upvote/downvote feature on this site, but a more useful feature might be a "bullshit" rating.  

When a user posts obvious falsehoods, we could all hit the bullshit button. 

If implemented well, the user's posts would gradually be covered over with an image of bullshit lying on the ground:

Post too much bullshit, and no-one can see your posts:

The Story of Bullshit - Personal Excellence

 

Fantastic idea!

Beats even the Bullshit-Bingo from the line of work I have finally left in disgust.

Love it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, random. said:

No, not there, was there working in the 1990's.  Posted that because our resident Darwin poster claimed that there was no where that the hotel foyer looked out over parks.  That's how it was for the old Travelodge. 

But why is Darwin 'hardcore'?  Until recently it was just a flight away.  I like the place, it's like nothing else in Australia.

It's 4:0 a.m. here, struggling after a vaccination.  Trying to distract myself till the panadols kick in.

The Doubletree does now.  

The whole NT is pretty hardcore if you are not Australian. Hot and humid as all get out, crocs on the beaches, long dindtances by weird roads, crocs in the ponds, crocs....

Nice museum though.  

The posvaccine stuff was celebration time here. Took as a sign we were generating a response.  "Older" ya know..

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, random. said:

[snip]

It's 4:0 a.m. here, struggling after a vaccination.  Trying to distract myself till the panadols kick in.

 

The respone can be a bit too much of good thing, but it's still a good thing.

Weather it out, you'll be ok!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

99% of covid deaths in June in the USA, close to 10,000 people, were unvaccinated. The virus itself is tough with the anti-vaxers. And the vast majority of those deaths would have been in older or otherwise vulnerable people who had more than enough information to do the right thing, but swallowed the coolaid and now are dead. Sucks, but that's Darwin for you.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

You source for that data?

Just asking.

99% of deaths coming from unvaccinated is a statistic that is being thrown around by CDC, Dr Fauci and even an AP survey but without publicly available supporting data that I have seen.

  CDC : https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/07/01/995-of-people-killed-by-covid-in-last-6-months-were-unvaccinated-data-suggests/?sh=560ed293493d

Dr. Fauci  at 6 mins 48 secs on this video of meet the press from Sunday 

Then read the comments below the broadcast.

But this does not tie in with the data coming from the UK.

Currently I place little weight in these numbers being thrown around . There is likely a disproportionate number of unvaccinated people dying from covid, but we need to see statistics by age group and vaccine distribution.

For example if 95% of people who die of covid are unvaccinated comes from a population where only 5% of the population was vaccinated.....that is not compelling.    However if 50% of people who die of covid are unvaccinated comes from a demographic that is 95% vaccinated then that would be a compelling piece of data.

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IStream said:

Also, the data from the UK are much more reflective of the effects of Delta than ours will be for a month or two. 

Only if you adjust/normalise for the impact of vaccination vs non-vaccination vs previous variants vs age group vs comorbidities.  Not an easy calculation in the absence of control samples.  Nevertheless over 40% of the Covid-19 deaths currently in the UK are vaccinated (refer NHS/ONS/SAGE statistics).  The difference of course is that the number of deaths per percentage of infection is way down on previous peaks.  The UK has average zero or negative excess mortality since February.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

99% of deaths coming from unvaccinated is a statistic that is being thrown around by CDC, Dr Fauci and even an AP survey but without publicly available supporting data that I have seen.

I concur with that statement.  It doesn't help anyone to twist the statistics or indeed politicise them.  The media are shocking at doing that.  For example the headline "More Young People are Dying from the Delta Variant than Previously."  You dig deeper and you find that the number of people dying overall is way down and the headline is based on not deaths per cases but deaths as a percentage of the total number of deaths!

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

  The UK has average zero or negative excess mortality since February.

That's a good argument for being vaccinated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Only if you adjust/normalise for the impact of vaccination vs non-vaccination vs previous variants vs age group vs comorbidities.  Not an easy calculation in the absence of control samples.  Nevertheless over 40% of the Covid-19 deaths currently in the UK are vaccinated (refer NHS/ONS/SAGE statistics).  The difference of course is that the number of deaths per percentage of infection is way down on previous peaks.  The UK has average zero or negative excess mortality since February.

Okay, we are starting to get some numbers now from UK and Israel which are two nations with an above average degree of vaccination and growing %age of Delta variant.

1. Delta variant is significantly more infectious than prior strains of the virus. This is true in every cohort. That debate is over.

2.  The Delta variant mortality rate is similar to prior variations. Comparing unvaccinated vs unvaccinated , age vs age etc.    they are currently indistinguishable.   More data still coming in. Its important to compare and unvaccinated 50 years old with an unvaccinated 50  year old etc.  and unvaccinated 30 years old with unvaccinated 30 year old.

3.  The vaccines reduce probability of catching Delta, but less effective than they were against Alpha.  AZ is down to approx 60% effective (vs 73%)and Pfizer is 79% effective  (vs 92%), Source published study in Lancet. The vaccines are still effective at prevention of disease.

4.  The vaccines substantially reduce the mortality rate of the delta variant.  A vaccinated 50 year old without comorbidity is less likely to die from covid than an unvaccinated.   Same at 30.

So the bad news is that as long as covid continues to circulate variations will occur and the more virulent variations will grow at the expense of the less virulent.

The good news is that the vaccine is mitigating the spread and mortality.

The % of the population that needs to be vaccinated in order to reach herd immunity is higher due to Delta than before.  The rate of vaccination in US is slowing considerably .

It is on balance probable that the US will see an increase in covid cases as the Delta variant gains traction. We will likely see this more pronounced in states will low vaccination rates. Further progress in vaccination rates may curtail this .  The UK surge might not be a guide because the UK has a high %age of people with a single dose of AZ vs US which has a higher % of double dosed mRNA vaccine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, 00seven said:

 

If you want to get vaccinated an AZ vaccination appears to be substantially better than no vaccine at all. You can consider boosting that vaccine with a Pfizer shot when it becomes more available.

I had the Pfizer shot because that was what was available.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I concur with that statement.  It doesn't help anyone to twist the statistics or indeed politicise them.  The media are shocking at doing that.  For example the headline "More Young People are Dying from the Delta Variant than Previously."  You dig deeper and you find that the number of people dying overall is way down and the headline is based on not deaths per cases but deaths as a percentage of the total number of deaths!

A greater proportion of young (<40) people dying from the Delta variant... what is so difficult to understand about this... oh wait, I know, it's news you don't want to hear so you start immediately shouting LIAR! LIAR! which of course tells a lot about you.

How many people SHOULD be dying of CoVid-19?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Wess said:

How many should die of CV disease? 

Why toss in irrelevant bullshit?

Or are you trying to make the point that due to being overloaded with CoVid patients, a large number of heart patients had their procedures cancelled last year?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

You want people to take a risk get vaxed when they don't want to.  Just wondering if the fatties are willing to give up their soda pop and ice cream to live safer... maybe even get off their couches...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wess said:

You want people to take a risk get vaxed when they don't want to.  Just wondering if the fatties are willing to give up their soda pop and ice cream to live safer... maybe even get off their couches...

Obesity is a major health hazard in the US and significantly shortens life expectancy. We should be trying to address this anyway by encouraging healthy lifestyles and healthy diets.   This has been an improving trend in the US.   

I dont think our response to covid is co- dependant on our longer term efforts to reduce obesity. 

Those who support vaccines want to "encourage" people to take the minimal risks to get vaxxed for all the reasons we have discussed before.

Wess, the bottom line here is that vaccines are one of the most important tools in the medical tool box to combat a wide range of infectious diseases. Since WW2 they have significantly improved life expectancy and quality of life.  We have gotten better and better at developing vaccines as inevitably global society unearths new infectious diseases.    Covid 19 is a pandemic by any measure. We have the tools to contain and eventually defeat covid but promptness will make it easier to contain. Yes, everyone in the US has the right to make up their own mind but leaders (both left and right wing) should be encouraging everyone to get vaccinated and most medical professionals are encouraging their patients to get vaccinated as well as eat more healthily.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

Wess, the bottom line here is that...

Doctor, your compulsion to feed the pigeons dilutes your message and amplifies theirs.  At some point, it only pollutes the discussion by encouraging the troll fest.  Or should I say infestation.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@EYESAILOR , that's worthy of the patience of Job ....

 

as Kenny sang , know when to hold 'em and know when to fold em  

 

trolls will waste more time than is available .

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mid said:

ever had Polio Wess ? , Typhoid ? Diphtheria? Whooping cough ? Tetanus ? 

 

wonder why ...

The reason why @Wess and his family have not been at risk from smallpox, Diptheria, Polio etc. is due to vaccines. 

I woke up this morning. It was a beautiful sunny day and yet I felt demotivated.  I work so hard to make people well. (I have an elderly demographic patient population.) Yet ultimately the health of my patients depends on their own decisions and the decisions of those around them.  I can significantly improve quality of life but y'all have to contribute.  What am I doing taking care of a healthy 76 year old man if his children are not vaccinated.   

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ProaSailor said:

Doctor, your compulsion to feed the pigeons dilutes your message and amplifies theirs.  At some point, it only pollutes the discussion by encouraging the troll fest.  Or should I say infestation.

You are right. For various reasons it has been a tough morning that started at 5 am

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

The reason why @Wess and his family have not been at risk from smallpox, Diptheria, Polio etc. is due to vaccines. 

you and I amongst many others know that , wonder if our troll will rise to the bait ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

God I love this place. New day but same idiots saying the same dumb shit trying to force others to take a risk and do something they don't want to do. 

Y'all are the reason why people don't get vaccinated.  Truth doesn't matter... the only thing you care about is getting somebody else to do what you want and they don't and you prove over and over again that you will say anything and do anything to accomplish your goal. You are why folks don't trust government or the press or anyone and fiercely protect their right to make their own decision.  So yes I will stand up for their right to make whatever decision they want however they want to make it.  And yes I will enjoy making fun of you leftist sissy fatties at the same time.  Too much fun not to and frankly you deserve to get back what you dish out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wess said:

God I love this place. New day but same idiots saying the same dumb shit trying to force others to take a risk and do something they don't want to do. 

Y'all are the reason why people don't get vaccinated.  Truth doesn't matter... the only thing you care about is getting somebody else to do what you want and they don't and you prove over and over again that you will say anything and do anything to accomplish your goal. You are why folks don't trust government or the press or anyone and fiercely protect their right to make their own decision.  So yes I will stand up for their right to make whatever decision they want however they want to make it.  And yes I will enjoy making fun of you leftist sissy fatties at the same time.  Too much fun not to and frankly you deserve to get back what you dish out. 

The truth does matter, you just enjoy your bed of nice fat lies and you enjoy being antagonistic toward people you've been brainwashed into hate-hate-hating.

Why are you and your family NOT worried about smallpox? It's a simple question

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, ProaSailor said:

Doctor, your compulsion to feed the pigeons dilutes your message and amplifies theirs.  At some point, it only pollutes the discussion by encouraging the troll fest.  Or should I say infestation.

And you think that warrants a downvote...take a potshot at somebody on the same team as you because you don't like the way they conduct their earnest effort to get people to do the right thing? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh so now you want to play 20 questions; OK!

What is the difference between an EUA and a full approval?

Why don't the covid vaccine have a full FDA approval?

Did folks on the Advisory Board vote initially against it and why?

How many and describe their credentials?

What is the difference between these vaccines and others in terms of the follow up time patients have been monitored for?

What is the survival rate (overall) if infected with covid?

What is the survival rate (for those younger than 25 with no other health issues) if infected with covid?

Has FDA or other developed nations health authorities ever removed a fully approved (distinct from EUA) drug from market for reason relating to its efficacy?

Has FDA or other developed nations health authorities ever not granted full approval to an EUA (or other accelerated pathway) drug and why?

I can't wait to see the misleading answers to these questions.

THEIR BODY - THEIR CHOICE!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Wess said:

Oh so now you want to play 20 questions; OK!

What is the difference between an EUA and a full approval?

Did folks on the Advisory Board vote initially against it and why?

How many and describe their credentials?

What is the difference between these vaccines and others in terms of the follow up time patients have been monitored for?

What is the survival rate (overall) if infected with covid?

What is the survival rate (for those younger than 25 with no other health issues) if infected with covid?

Has FDA or other developed nations health authorities ever removed a fully approved (distinct from EUA) drug from market for reason relating to its efficacy?

Has FDA or other developed nations health authorities ever not granted full approval to an EUA (or other accelerated pathway) drug and why?

I can't wait to see the misleading answers to these questions.

THEIR BODY - THEIR CHOICE!

 

 

It's not "20 Questions" if you never answer because you're afraid

But here's another one... how many drugs are tested on over 200 million people, and you -still- believe people who try to feed you a scary line about it being "untested"?

For the record, I am totally in favor of people making an INFORMED choice about medical care. I am not in favor of lies and prejudice, on any topic

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Wess said:

I can't wait to see the misleading answers to these questions.

you are avoiding the pertinent question ,

 

no surprises there .

 

like all trolls you're full of hot air and nothing else,

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Wess said:

As have you.

I asked first, as well as asking the more relevant question- why do you and your family have no reason to fear smallpox... brief reminder, you may not know, smallpox was (key word "was)... a deadly viral disease that swept through mankind in plagues all through history. It was particularly feared because even though the majority survived it (most of the time, there were episodes of smallpox pandemics with >50% mortality), it left small pockmark scars on the face. People hated and feared disfigurement.

So, to repeat (4th time)- Why do you and your family make a rational decision to not worry about smallpox?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wess, you seem obsessed with fat people and the food they eat. Have you recovered from morbid obesity or have an eating disorder? If so, that might explain your fixation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Delta variant is now spreading in the Houston area, a local church has a number of new cases from a week long summer retreat including 6 people fully vaccinated. The Delta variant is under reported since it requires a genome sequencing that not many test sites have. 

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/health/article/Delta-variant-confirmed-at-Houston-area-church-16296602.php

My body, my choice to continue the spread. Freedumb Rains.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

I asked first, as well as asking the more relevant question- why do you and your family have no reason to fear smallpox... brief reminder, you may not know, smallpox was (key word "was)... a deadly viral disease that swept through mankind in plagues all through history. It was particularly feared because even though the majority survived it (most of the time, there were episodes of smallpox pandemics with >50% mortality), it left small pockmark scars on the face. People hated and feared disfigurement.

So, to repeat (4th time)- Why do you and your family make a rational decision to not worry about smallpox?

- DSK

Nice try but I asked first.  Not recalling if it was this or the other Kool Aid cult thread but none of you folks answered which BTW are far more relevant questions because they are all covid specific.

58 minutes ago, NeedAClew said:

Wess, you seem obsessed with fat people and the food they eat. Have you recovered from morbid obesity or have an eating disorder? If so, that might explain your fixation. 

Yes its true. I was fat and I have an eating disorder.  Its terrible.  But at least I am not a sissie. :lol:

Just now, d&#x27;ranger said:

The Delta variant is now spreading in the Houston area, a local church has a number of new cases from a week long summer retreat including 6 people fully vaccinated. The Delta variant is under reported since it requires a genome sequencing that not many test sites have. 

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/health/article/Delta-variant-confirmed-at-Houston-area-church-16296602.php

My body, my choice to continue the spread. Freedumb Rains.

Its spelled freedom. And yes I believe in it.  Even if you think its dumb and in part because you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wess said:

Oh so now you want to play 20 questions; OK!

What is the difference between an EUA and a full approval?

Why don't the covid vaccine have a full FDA approval?

Did folks on the Advisory Board vote initially against it and why?

How many and describe their credentials?

What is the difference between these vaccines and others in terms of the follow up time patients have been monitored for?

What is the survival rate (overall) if infected with covid?

What is the survival rate (for those younger than 25 with no other health issues) if infected with covid?

Has FDA or other developed nations health authorities ever removed a fully approved (distinct from EUA) drug from market for reason relating to its efficacy?

Has FDA or other developed nations health authorities ever not granted full approval to an EUA (or other accelerated pathway) drug and why?

I can't wait to see the misleading answers to these questions.

THEIR BODY - THEIR CHOICE!

 

 

Caveat....I do NOT have medical experience.

EUA was introduced in 2005 to accelerate emergency drugs. The first one was an anthrax vaccine. Since then, it has been used several times for vaccines in potential epidemics (Ebola etc)

The manufacturers of the three vaccines under EUA are applying for full approval.

The vote on the advisory board was 17-4

The 4 wanted the age to start at 19 vs 16, because the sample size 16-19 was small.  Since then Pfizer has expanded the phase 3 trial to focus on adolescents .   My lay persons read was that nobody disputed effectiveness for adults over 19.

Good credentials. The vaccine was approved by some very heavy hitters.

The survival rate for those infected with covid depends on (i) Whether they have been vaccinated or not and (ii) Age.   There have been 2,800 people die from covid under the age of 29. The probability of mortality increases dramatically at around age 50.  Based on AP survey, there were 0 deaths under age of 29 who were vaccinated , admittedly a small sample size of 150 vaccinated people who had break through infections , but very few vaccinated people have died

Yes

yes to the last 2 questions.

Nothing I read dissuaded me that my family and I made the right personal decision for ourselves.  Our children are happy they got vaccinated and the college kid looks forward to going back to a fully vaccinated school this fall.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Wess said:
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

So, to repeat (4th time)- Why do you and your family make a rational decision to not worry about smallpox

Nice try but I asked first

Nope, like I said, this is the 4th... now 5th... time

Do you consider your list of questions, which basically are nothing but conspiracy-theorist slander, to be relevant?

OK here is my honest answer... the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have now been tested on a couple hundred million people, with all side effects carefully measured and tabulated. That makes conspiracy theories about it's approval totally irrelevant, except for the legal issue of whether your employer can fire you for not getting it, except in at-will states like mine, where they definitely can.

Your turn. What enables you and your family to make a rational decision to not worry about smallpox?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I do enjoy having fun here I am honestly not trying to bust your chops here with this...

No. You just don't get it and its impossible to have any rational discussion unless you do.  There are huge differences between an EUA and a full approval and there is a reason for each and every question I asked and you ducked.  Sadly even IPL ducked them for the most part.  You want to equate a smallpox vaccine with this covid vaccine while ignoring the many very significant and legitimate difference between them.

Now it truly doesn't bother me that you do or if you continue to.  For many especially those at high mortality risk from covid the differences don't matter to the decision (at least IMHO which is why I urged my parent to vaccinate ASAP and helped them do so).  But to other groups those things may very well matter (to them).  Either way, regardless of which of those groups you are in I take no offense to whatever decision you made with re vaccine or not or how you made that decision.  If you are in a low risk group though I would say (to myself not you) if you can't answer those questions you really didn't make the informed personal risk decision you think you did.  But again...  no worry as I see it as your call to make your own way.

At the end of the day we parts ways on freedom.  There is nothing you can say that will change my mind and nothing I can say that will change yours.  The only difference is I don't want to nor do I think I have the right to force my way of thinking or acting upon you.

THEIR BODY; THEIR DECISION.

AND ITS SPELLED FREEDOM.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Wess said:

At the end of the day we parts ways on freedom.  There is nothing you can say that will change my mind and nothing I can say that will change yours.  The only difference is I don't want to nor do I think I have the right to force my way of thinking or acting upon you.

This is exactly the argument that vigilante group members make when the don't want to pay taxes, or rent for grazing on public lands, or whatever. I think you actually believe the humbuggery that you spout.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Israel Hands said:

This is exactly the argument that vigilante group members make when the don't want to pay taxes, or rent for grazing on public lands, or whatever. I think you actually believe the humbuggery that you spout.

Best run back inside now and hide in the basement.  The sky is falling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Wess said:

  Sadly even IPL ducked them for the most part. 

 

I did not deliberately duck the questions. If I missed one then it may simply be because I did not know the answer. If you know the answer and I am wrong, I am happy to be enlightened.

I looked up the difference between an EUA and full approval , admitting it is not something I know much about.  The principle differences between an EUA and Full Approval seem to be:

1. EUA gets you to the front of the queue . The FDA has much more pending than it can possibly handle. In order to get an EUA there has to be a genuine urgent unfulfilled need .  It has to warrant the FDA diverting resources from its current work load to review the drug or device,

2. The EUA is much faster to obtain than a full approval. 

3. An EUA does not guarantee full approval, the manufacturer usually has to supply further data and a submission for full approval.

4. An EUA can be withdrawn at any time.

5. Many EUAs are not followed by full approval because either the need goes away and the manufacturer does not bother with cost of application (Ebola Vaccines) or because better alternatives emerge .  Eg CV19 tests, there were originally over 200 tests granted EUA and that was whittled down to the best ones.

 

I note that the current leading vaccines are applying for full approval, suggesting (a) The need is ongoing and (b) The Pahse 4 monitoring is contnuing to supply good data.  Does your post suggest that when and if they are granted full approval, that will make the choice easier for lower risk groups?   Just asking. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Wess said:

  The only difference is I don't want to nor do I think I have the right to force my way of thinking or acting upon you.

THEIR BODY; THEIR DECISION.

AND ITS SPELLED FREEDOM.

 

 

"THEIR BODY; THEIR DECISION.".........This definitely used to be "my Body My Decision"

 :wub:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, one says I am vaccinated and others say I am too scared.  I love it when the left canntt get its story straight.  Or accurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Israel Hands said:
29 minutes ago, Wess said:

At the end of the day we parts ways on freedom.  There is nothing you can say that will change my mind and nothing I can say that will change yours.  The only difference is I don't want to nor do I think I have the right to force my way of thinking or acting upon you.

This is exactly the argument that vigilante group members make when the don't want to pay taxes, or rent for grazing on public lands, or whatever. I think you actually believe the humbuggery that you spout.

The problem here is, that by choosing the FREEDOM to reject vaccination on irrational grounds, Wess is indeed forcing increased risk on all the rest of us.

The irrationality of his "choice" (personally I think of it as brainwashing, not choice) is proven by his declaration that facts do not matter, he will never change his mind, he hates "being told what to do" etc etc. This is the same kind of FREEDOM that religious nuts want, the freedom to force their religion onto everybody else.

 

4 minutes ago, IPLore said:
34 minutes ago, Wess said:

Sadly even IPL ducked them for the most part. 

 

I did not deliberately duck the questions. If I missed one then it may simply be because I did not know the answer. If you know the answer and I am wrong, I am happy to be enlightened.

I looked up the difference between an EUA and full approval , admitting it is not something I know much about.  The principle differences between an EUA and Full Approval seem to be:

1. EUA gets you to the front of the queue . The FDA has much more pending than it can possibly handle. In order to get an EUA there has to be a genuine urgent unfulfilled need .  It has to warrant the FDA diverting resources from its current work load to review the drug or device,

2. The EUA is much faster to obtain than a full approval. 

3. An EUA does not guarantee full approval, the manufacturer usually has to supply further data and a submission for full approval.

4. An EUA can be withdrawn at any time.

5. Many EUAs are not followed by full approval because either the need goes away and the manufacturer does not bother with cost of application (Ebola Vaccines) or because better alternatives emerge .  Eg CV19 tests, there were originally over 200 tests granted EUA and that was whittled down to the best ones.

 

I note that the current leading vaccines are applying for full approval, suggesting (a) The need is ongoing and (b) The Pahse 4 monitoring is contnuing to supply good data.  Does your post suggest that when and if they are granted full approval, that will make the choice easier for lower risk groups?   Just asking. 

You're a better, more patient, man than I. A few minutes looking into the FDA approval vote showed me that the whole smear campaign against the voting members is conspiracy-loon bullshit. Yes there are legitimate medical/scientific concerns. Yes there is solid data. Yes those votes were made in good faith, good conscience etc.

There is especially solid data now that over 200 million people have been given the vaccines, rendering the EUA a moot point for anybody who is concerned about the medical/scientific results. It is now of interest only to lawyers and loony anti-vaxx RWNJs.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Wess said:

LOL, one says I am vaccinated and others say I am too scared.  I love it when the left canntt get its story straight.  Or accurate.

Or both?

Link to post
Share on other sites