It's Time to Mandate Vaccines

[Sundancer]

36 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Cherry picking would have been only discussing the .87 because it works for much less than half, but I pulled that from what you sent me so it must be valid.  I do appreciate your continued lying about me, it makes you seem desperate. 

If you look at the data he references the drop from month 6-8 is precipitous. He is just attacking because I misunderstood a study that was focused on elderly and thought it was overall. Since then everything he has said has turned out be wrong so he still focused on my self admitted  mistake back in August.

 

You didn’t understand it in August and you’ve been an anti-vax apologist since.

 

There is waning immunity from the vaccine, much higher for those at higher risk. That’s a proven fact—now. And yet it’s still the best tool we have to fight COVID. Get vaccinated. Get boosted. 

 

Big Blitz can now attack the idea of boosters some more. You can too. 

[GaryPinC]

44 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Cherry picking would have been only discussing the .87 because it works for much less than half, but I pulled that from what you sent me so it must be valid.  I do appreciate your continued lying about me, it makes you seem desperate. 

If you look at the data he references the drop from month 6-8 is precipitous. He is just attacking because I misunderstood a study that was focused on elderly and thought it was overall. Since then everything he has said has turned out be wrong so he still focused on my self admitted  mistake back in August.

Thanks, I'll definitely circle back on it.  It's a prime concern and may dictate a strategic change.  You both made good points, as I read it.  I just felt the source of your disagreement was referring to different efficacies but not recognizing that.

[Orlando Tim]

27 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

Thanks, I'll definitely circle back on it.  It's a prime concern and may dictate a strategic change.  You both made good points, as I read it.  I just felt the source of your disagreement was referring to different efficacies but not recognizing that.

The source of his disagreement is that he has been wrong the whole time. I misread one study as far as scope, he misinterpreted what it meant in totality. He even admitted I was correct and he has been lying a couple of post above here, pretending it is not what I was saying for months now. 

[Orlando Tim]

45 minutes ago, Sundancer said:

 

You didn’t understand it in August and you’ve been an anti-vax apologist since.

 

There is waning immunity from the vaccine, much higher for those at higher risk. That’s a proven fact—now. And yet it’s still the best tool we have to fight COVID. Get vaccinated. Get boosted. 

 

Big Blitz can now attack the idea of boosters some more. You can too. 

I did not understand the math in August but my point happened to spot on? Thank you also for admitting you were lying since early September about me. If you want to call me an anti-vaxx apologist go for it, I will defend adults rights to make their own decisions for them and their children. You somehow don't know about the damage government has done to people when they have been wrong about things ( I will point to ethanol as one that comes readily to mind) before. 

[Bakin]

1 hour ago, Sundancer said:

 

You didn’t understand it in August and you’ve been an anti-vax apologist since.

 

There is waning immunity from the vaccine, much higher for those at higher risk. That’s a proven fact—now. And yet it’s still the best tool we have to fight COVID. Get vaccinated. Get boosted. 

 

Big Blitz can now attack the idea of boosters some more. You can too. 

 

it was a risky experiment 10 months ago.
Now the lab has been blown to smithereens and some of you are still screaming: “but we have some excellent results here!!!”

vax your 5 year old. 
Get 10 boosters!  

it’s not like the ‘vaxx’ is already at negative efficacy 6 months later. 

some of you are really sick in the head. 

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by Bakin

[Doc Brown]

On 11/8/2021 at 8:35 PM, dpberr said:

The NBA is mandating booster shots for those who opted for the J&J product. You'll take this "shot" and keep these taking shots, and you'll like it. 
 

Don't be upset the "conspiracy theorists" among you keep telling you the news weeks, months in advance. Be concerned that they are.

 

As it pertains to the NBA, I'm amazed at how little criticism has arose from a bunch of largely exceptionally wealthy white men telling a league largely comprised of black men....what they must put into their bodies or else they can't play. Just don't see it being so quietly obeyed in a different decade.   

 

Please don't make this about race.  These players can think for themselves.  Most rational human beings are not going to turn down an exuberant amount of money due to some tiny sliver of a chance these vaccines will have negative long term side effects. 

[Sundancer]

8 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I did not understand the math in August but my point happened to spot on? Thank you also for admitting you were lying since early September about me. If you want to call me an anti-vaxx apologist go for it, I will defend adults rights to make their own decisions for them and their children. You somehow don't know about the damage government has done to people when they have been wrong about things ( I will point to ethanol as one that comes readily to mind) before. 

 

You still don’t get it. “The vaccine doesn’t work after 6 months for most people” STILL isn’t true. 

 

In science, you base your conclusions on the evidence at hand, not some supernatural instinct. 

 

You were wrong when you said it. You remain wrong. If the evidence eventually shows that the vaccine doesn’t work for most people after 6 months, you’re the proverbial blind squirrel. 

 

And guess what…boosters renew the effectiveness. So just get boosted. 

[Orlando Tim]

45 minutes ago, Sundancer said:

 

You still don’t get it. “The vaccine doesn’t work after 6 months for most people” STILL isn’t true. 

 

In science, you base your conclusions on the evidence at hand, not some supernatural instinct. 

 

You were wrong when you said it. You remain wrong. If the evidence eventually shows that the vaccine doesn’t work for most people after 6 months, you’re the proverbial blind squirrel. 

 

And guess what…boosters renew the effectiveness. So just get boosted. 

And you go back to lying about me, since the science has said since August that  for high risk people at 6 months have lost most of the protection. Needing the booster at 6 months proved my point, the fact that I understood the math and you did not does mean I made a crazy prediction, it means I understand math. You are literally right now arguing that you should get boosted despite it working well, how dumb would that be? 

[Bakin]

And every shot you get wrecks your immune system just a little bit more and increases your risk profile. 
some of these people are in so deep that they will be lining up for monthly boosters…until of course, COVID kills them. 
their compliance and stupidity is why we are in this mess to begin with. 

[Bakin]

On 11/8/2021 at 8:41 PM, Sundancer said:

 

Buffalo Timmy sees this and says vaccines don't work for most people.

 

Don't be as dense as Buffalo Timmy. 

 

Hot garbage chart with hot garbage data from a hot garbage resource.
Same people who told us COVID is more deadly than the Spanish flu.

Your vaccine is *****. It’s not even a vaccine. 
go get 5 boosters in your forehead though. 

[ALF]

31 minutes ago, Bakin said:

And every shot you get wrecks your immune system just a little bit more and increases your risk profile. 
some of these people are in so deep that they will be lining up for monthly boosters…until of course, COVID kills them. 
their compliance and stupidity is why we are in this mess to begin with. 

 

Proof ? serious question 

[Bakin]

38 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

Proof ? serious question 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410
negative efficacy at 7-9 months. 
it’s destroying your immune system. 

[Sundancer]

32 minutes ago, Bakin said:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410
negative efficacy at 7-9 months. 
it’s destroying your immune system. 

 

 

[dpberr]

5 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Please don't make this about race.  These players can think for themselves.  Most rational human beings are not going to turn down an exuberant amount of money due to some tiny sliver of a chance these vaccines will have negative long term side effects. 

If you want to turn a blind eye to the demographics of the NBA, no issues here.  That's your opinion.  I choose not to.   

 

I don't know how you know for certain NBA players would line up for it voluntarily without the mandate.  

 

[Orlando Tim]

36 minutes ago, Sundancer said:

 

 

Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic Covid-19 infection wanes progressively over time across all subgroups, but at different rate according to type of vaccine, and faster for men and older frail individuals. The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months, although not for men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities. 

 

Just one more time that shows I was correct about high risk individuals. The math in August has not changed, I just understood it where you did not. 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

2 hours ago, Bakin said:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410
negative efficacy at 7-9 months. 
it’s destroying your immune system. 

I thought you were citing a sketchy paper. You weren't. It's a real study by reputable scientists in Sweden.

But ... IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT YOU CLAIM.

Read the abstract. It confirms waning effectiveness of the non-mRNA vaccine, possibly going to zero after 121 days, whereas the mRNA remains effective, although at a reduced level.

Therefore, it concludes that there is a strong case for boosters.

Really, some of you anti-vaxxers will twist facts any which way to prove a stupid, made-up point about highly effective vaccines somehow "ruining" your immune system.

 

Here's the conclusion of the Swedish study. Show me where it says "COVID-19 vaccines actually ruin your immune system over time"  You should be embarrassed to have posted something so completely untethered to reality.

 

Interpretation: Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic Covid-19 infection wanes progressively over time across all subgroups, but at different rate according to type of vaccine, and faster for men and older frail individuals. The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months, although not for men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities. This strengthens the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third booster dose.

Edited November 10, 2021 by The Frankish Reich

[Doc Brown]

2 hours ago, dpberr said:

If you want to turn a blind eye to the demographics of the NBA, no issues here.  That's your opinion.  I choose not to.   

 

I don't know how you know for certain NBA players would line up for it voluntarily without the mandate.  

 

I never said that.  I'm sure there's some that wouldn't if their job wasn't on the line.  What do rich white owners have to do with it?

[Sundancer]

2 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic Covid-19 infection wanes progressively over time across all subgroups, but at different rate according to type of vaccine, and faster for men and older frail individuals. The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months, although not for men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities. 

 

Just one more time that shows I was correct about high risk individuals. The math in August has not changed, I just understood it where you did not. 

 

So were wrong when you admitted you were wrong? 

 

You've got some kind of logic going there bud.

[dpberr]

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court votes 4-1 to throw out state's school mask mandate.  Health Secretary had no authority to create the mandate.

 

 

[Orlando Tim]

1 hour ago, Sundancer said:

So were wrong when you admitted you were wrong? 

 

You've got some kind of logic going there bud.

The fact that I misinterpreted the scope of the trials does not change the fact that EVERYTHING else I have said is correct. If I had simply contained my initial assessment of the data to high risk people I would have correct, because the data was only on high risk people. Your clinging to my one mistake because if sucks for you that you have tried to mock me relentlessly but i have been right. You posted the data that shows I am right and then tried to argue that a hazard rate of .42 is good. Seriously stick with calling me an anti vax apologist and stop pretending you understand the stats.