Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss

[glockenspiel]

12 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

@pawnman, you gave me a minus for this statement. 

Does the vaccine have side effects that we know about that are harmful? Does it prevent people from catching covid? Does it prevent people from spreading covid? 

Answer those questions and then tell me why you think that statement is deserving of a down vote. 

Pawn will never be able to remove the CNN lens on his life.  He is just a pot stirrer. Usually only responding with more questions about vaccines as seatbelts, your non-objection to other vaccines etc etc. he cannot possibly consider evaluating each medical product on its own merits. There is but one truth- the cv19 vaccine. And he’s not alone, there are a LOT of people just like him, which is why I’m glad he is still around these chats.
 

It has become an identity. The idea of the vaccine as panacea is crumbling. Over the past few years people have tied their Identities to the pandemic and the idea that vaccine is the only way out, and that narrative is slowly eroding. Bad things happen when you loose your identity.

[pawnman]

23 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

@pawnman, you gave me a minus for this statement. 

Does the vaccine have side effects that we know about that are harmful? Does it prevent people from catching covid? Does it prevent people from spreading covid? 

Answer those questions and then tell me why you think that statement is deserving of a down vote. 

1. In a tiny portion of the population, yes. But your argument is like saying peanut butter isn't safe because some people have peanut allergies. 

2. It does lower the odds of getting Covid. By a lot. It's not 100%, but no vaccine is. 

3. If you don't catch Covid, you don't spread it. Lower probability of catching it means lower odds of spreading it.

I wonder...do you put up the same fuss over the flu vaccines that are less effective, statistically, at preventing flu than the covid vaccine are at preventing covid?

[VMFA187]

3 minutes ago, pawnman said:

1. In a tiny portion of the population, yes. But your argument is like saying peanut butter isn't safe because some people have peanut allergies. 

2. It does lower the odds of getting Covid. By a lot. It's not 100%, but no vaccine is. 

3. If you don't catch Covid, you don't spread it. Lower probability of catching it means lower odds of spreading it.

I wonder...do you put up the same fuss over the flu vaccines that are less effective, statistically, at preventing flu than the covid vaccine are at preventing covid?

1. So it is harmful? Thank you. And you can make that statement only if peanut butter had just been invented less than a year ago and people were "unexplainably" having adverse reactions and. Peanut butter has been around for quite some time so we know there are no long-term adverse effects. 

2. Not an answer to my question. By how much does it have to lower your odds to actually be a "vaccine?"

3. Not an answer to my question.

Thanks for only answering one of my questions and side-stepping the others. "Alot" and "tiny" are also very useful numbers. Appreciate the thoughtful response. /sarcasm

I have received the flu vaccine twice in the four years since I've departed active duty. It is well-established. 

I'll wear your down votes as a badge of honor from here on out!

[HU&W]

2 hours ago, Negatory said:

But do you guys support boosters for those over the age of 50 or 60? Boosters for those with BMIs > XX? Maybe boosters for those with certain immune issues

Support? Yes

Mandate as a condition for enjoying the rights of citizenship? No

Edited December 3, 2021 by HU&W

[Blue]

1 hour ago, glockenspiel said:

Pawn will never be able to remove the CNN lens on his life.  He is just a pot stirrer. Usually only responding with more questions about vaccines as seatbelts, your non-objection to other vaccines etc etc. he cannot possibly consider evaluating each medical product on its own merits. There is but one truth- the cv19 vaccine. And he’s not alone, there are a LOT of people just like him, which is why I’m glad he is still around these chats.
 

It has become an identity. The idea of the vaccine as panacea is crumbling. Over the past few years people have tied their Identities to the pandemic and the idea that vaccine is the only way out, and that narrative is slowly eroding. Bad things happen when you loose your identity.

I mean, you gotta admire his commitment to playing Whatabout-ism Tennis all day long.

I kind of assumed he was getting paid by the post or something.

[pawnman]

58 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

1. So it is harmful? Thank you. And you can make that statement only if peanut butter had just been invented less than a year ago and people were "unexplainably" having adverse reactions and. Peanut butter has been around for quite some time so we know there are no long-term adverse effects. 

2. Not an answer to my question. By how much does it have to lower your odds to actually be a "vaccine?"

3. Not an answer to my question.

Thanks for only answering one of my questions and side-stepping the others. "Alot" and "tiny" are also very useful numbers. Appreciate the thoughtful response. /sarcasm

I have received the flu vaccine twice in the four years since I've departed active duty. It is well-established. 

I'll wear your down votes as a badge of honor from here on out!

 https://institutions.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-likely-are-you-to-spread-covid-19-if-youre-vaccinated/

Vaccines reduce the odds you transmit even the Delta variant by 63%, ASSUMING YOU HAVE IT.

A 63% drop in transmission, combined with a risk of 1 in 5000 of even getting it in the first place, is what I would call a "huge" reduction.

The Covid vaccines is more effective at preventing Covid than the flu vaccine is at preventing flu (flu vaccines hover in the 40-60% efficacy range).  Guess we need to reclassify flu as "not a vaccine" since it's not 100% bullet-proof either.

Seriously...what is the level of data you would need to change your mind?  Because I'm starting to think that there isn't any.  That no amount of scientific research, no number of papers, no mountain of statistics, is going to convince you.

And y'all think I'm the one that's "lost my whole identity".  

[glockenspiel]

10 minutes ago, pawnman said:

 https://institutions.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-likely-are-you-to-spread-covid-19-if-youre-vaccinated/

Vaccines reduce the odds you transmit even the Delta variant by 63%, ASSUMING YOU HAVE IT.

A 63% drop in transmission, combined with a risk of 1 in 5000 of even getting it in the first place, is what I would call a "huge" reduction.

The Covid vaccines is more effective at preventing Covid than the flu vaccine is at preventing flu (flu vaccines hover in the 40-60% efficacy range).  Guess we need to reclassify flu as "not a vaccine" since it's not 100% bullet-proof either.

Seriously...what is the level of data you would need to change your mind?  Because I'm starting to think that there isn't any.  That no amount of scientific research, no number of papers, no mountain of statistics, is going to convince you.

And y'all think I'm the one that's "lost my whole identity".  

But have you seen the Kentucky study? 

[VMFA187]

13 minutes ago, pawnman said:

 https://institutions.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-likely-are-you-to-spread-covid-19-if-youre-vaccinated/

Vaccines reduce the odds you transmit even the Delta variant by 63%, ASSUMING YOU HAVE IT.

A 63% drop in transmission, combined with a risk of 1 in 5000 of even getting it in the first place, is what I would call a "huge" reduction.

The Covid vaccines is more effective at preventing Covid than the flu vaccine is at preventing flu (flu vaccines hover in the 40-60% efficacy range).  Guess we need to reclassify flu as "not a vaccine" since it's not 100% bullet-proof either.

Seriously...what is the level of data you would need to change your mind?  Because I'm starting to think that there isn't any.  That no amount of scientific research, no number of papers, no mountain of statistics, is going to convince you.

And y'all think I'm the one that's "lost my whole identity".  

10 years of research, like any other vaccine. And transparency - Release those documents that they want 55 years to review before it is released to the public. 

[pawnman]

5 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

10 years of research, like any other vaccine. And transparency - Release those documents that they want 55 years to review before it is released to the public. 

Oh, I agree on the releasing documents.  Preferably the day they come in.

What's your logic on the 10 years...you can be retired by then and not forced to get the vaccine?

[Sim]

2 hours ago, VMFA187 said:

Why would they not be able to release data on the "vaccine" for 55 years? Sounds super sketch.

To be fare, their position wasn't "release data in 55 years", but at the current rate of release, it would take 55 years to release it all. 

[FLEA]

Just now, Sim said:

To be fare, their position wasn't "release data in 55 years", but at the current rate of release, it would take 55 years to release it all. 

Shouldn't take any time at all. None of the data is classified and there is a significant public interest in it. 

Their argument doesn't make sense because they are basically saying they need 55 years to review the data to be released but supposedly this data was all reviewed in a year to approve the vaccines. 

 

[VMFA187]

47 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Oh, I agree on the releasing documents.  Preferably the day they come in.

What's your logic on the 10 years...you can be retired by then and not forced to get the vaccine?

That's how long a typical vaccine takes to get past the requirements to be deemed safe for use. 

[pawnman]

3 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

That's how long a typical vaccine takes to get past the requirements to be deemed safe for use. 

So if I told you mRNA vaccines have been in development for 30 years...?

[VMFA187]

2 minutes ago, pawnman said:

So if I told you mRNA vaccines have been in development for 30 years...?

THIS vaccine. I don't care about the technology behind it. No knowledge of future complications exist because of the rush to get it to market. If you are comfortable with that, cool - Take it and be happy. Why do you feel compelled to force others to have to take it?

I believe in gun ownership but I'm not forcing everyone to have one in their home. 

[HU&W]

27 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Shouldn't take any time at all. None of the data is classified and there is a significant public interest in it. 

Their argument doesn't make sense because they are basically saying they need 55 years to review the data to be released but supposedly this data was all reviewed in a year to approve the vaccines. 

 

It makes perfect sense.  The data might show that someone important lied to gain power or profit.  In 55 years, all of the beneficiaries who could be held accountable for data inconsistencies will be dead.  

[Sim]

Correctly injecting "vax" would solve some of the "negative" issues. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-blood-clotting-information-for-healthcare-professionals/information-for-healthcare-professionals-on-blood-clotting-following-covid-19-vaccination

 

[SpeedOfHeat]

Pawnman simply cannot comprehend false equivalencies.  This is not the flu shot.  Or the small pox shot.  Or any other shot that we've taken as part of the standard DoD regimen.

Know how I know?  Because I don't take THREE flu shots within 7 months.  Putting the MRNA technology, the testing trials, the FDA approval, etc. etc. aside, the number of shots alone puts this in a different category. 

And if you think it will end with 3, you're on crack.  They're already rushing to create another shot that's tweaked for Omicron.  And why not..... there's already a line of tripple-vax'd, double-masked basement dwelling covidian freaks clawing to be first in line to roll up their sleeve yet again.  Pfizer and Moderna are thrilled, and on and on it goes. 

I got the original two shots.  But now it's clear that the efficacy wanes incredibly fast.  3 shots in 7 months, and more already on the horizon?  No thanks.  Not the same as other vaccines, and I'm not lining up every 6 months for a disease that the statistics clearly demonstrate is not a substantial risk to me.

Likewise, I'm not going to have my kids jumping through these hoops.  "OK boys, get back in the truck.... we're headed to CVS for the 3rd time this year..... there's a new variant."  GMAFB.

The "risks of driving" analogy is another false equivalency.  Pawnman, yes, my kids wear seat belts.  That's not the same as wearing a mask 8 hours a day at school or taking jabs every 6 months indefinitely.

It's hilarious to watch you argue which is riskier, the disease or the shot?  Because the risk to kids is absolutely infentesimal, for BOTH.

Look at the data for hospitalizations and deaths in the 0-17 age group  (Just the raw numbers.....without critical details on BMI/comorbidities, or Vax status.)  The risk is statistically zero.  Now imagine if the data included health conditions and relative risk to an average healthy kid.  And then imagine the data also somehow captured all the asymptomatic, undetected, or unreported cases.

Calculating covid risk to kids is an exercise in multiplying by zero.  It's stupid.  You've been had.

Edited December 4, 2021 by SpeedOfHeat

[Sim]

Did anyone discuss that DAF/A1 released a policy that you can't PCS without CV19 jab? 

[pawnman]

13 hours ago, Sim said:

Did anyone discuss that DAF/A1 released a policy that you can't PCS without CV19 jab? 

I suspect it's just to keep people within the same chain of command while exemptions and/or separations are processed.

[brabus]

On 12/3/2021 at 2:22 PM, SpeedOfHeat said:

Calculating covid risk to kids is an exercise in multiplying by zero.  It's stupid.  You've been had.

You can throw on healthy adults to age 60-70 as well. Hopefully the courts keep smacking down these bullshit mandates. It’s over, get it if you want and be happy, but you can fuck right off on your high horse opinion of what somebody else should do. 

[Mark1]

54 minutes ago, brabus said:

You can throw on healthy adults to age 60-70 as well. Hopefully the courts keep smacking down these bullshit mandates. It’s over, get it if you want and be happy, but you can fuck right off on your high horse opinion of what somebody else should do. 

Agreed.  And for those who joined the military voluntarily and have come to believe that they're entitled to resist orders based on personal opinion and desire; they can fuck right off on their high horse of self-righteousness too.  Snowflakes.

Edited December 4, 2021 by Mark1

[brabus]

44 minutes ago, Mark1 said:

Agreed.  And for those who joined the military voluntarily and have come to believe that they're entitled to resist orders based on personal opinion and desire; they can fuck right off on their high horse of self-righteousness too.  Snowflakes.

False equivalency. The mil members in your example are concerned about their personal health and not trying to tell anyone else how to conduct their personal health decisions/force an opinion on others. The other side of the argument are trying to force their will on others. Different situations/approaches and not comparable…one side is filled with moral high ground pricks and the other just wants liberty for everyone.

Edited December 5, 2021 by brabus

[Mark1]

45 minutes ago, brabus said:

False equivalency. The mil members in your example are concerned about their personal health and not trying to tell anyone else how to conduct their personal health decisions/force an opinion on others. The other side of the argument are trying to force their will on others. Different situations/approaches and not comparable…one side is filled with moral high ground pricks and the other just wants liberty for everyone.

Concerned about their personal health?  WTF.  Are you telling me it's acceptable to disobey an order if it's a threat to your personal health (which doesn't apply in this scenario, but I'll grant it for the sake of argument)?

Taking Hamburger Hill was a threat to personal health.  Landing at Normandy was a threat to personal health.  Helicopter infil onto Takur Ghar to recover Neil Roberts was a threat to personal health.  Stepping outside the wire for a routine low-risk patrol is a threat to personal health.  Spending countless hours breathing aircraft exhaust, exposed to loud noises and high speed heavy machinery that could end you at any moment, is a threat to personal health.

You mean to tell me every individual military member is empowered to refuse to do all of those things (and literally every other fucking thing the military does) because they might get hurt?  Shit, I must have missed that memo.

The foundation of military service is literally a concept of sacrificing personal well-being for a collective good.  As I said...snowflakes.

[brabus]

Ah, the old go off on an enraged strawman tirade move. I have no questions on which group you’re in.

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, Mark1 said:

Concerned about their personal health?  WTF.  Are you telling me it's acceptable to disobey an order if it's a threat to your personal health (which doesn't apply in this scenario, but I'll grant it for the sake of argument)?

Taking Hamburger Hill was a threat to personal health.  Landing at Normandy was a threat to personal health.  Helicopter infil onto Takur Ghar to recover Neil Roberts was a threat to personal health.  Stepping outside the wire for a routine low-risk patrol is a threat to personal health.  Spending countless hours breathing aircraft exhaust, exposed to loud noises and high speed heavy machinery that could end you at any moment, is a threat to personal health.

You mean to tell me every individual military member is empowered to refuse to do all of those things (and literally every other fucking thing the military does) because they might get hurt?  Shit, I must have missed that memo.

The foundation of military service is literally a concept of sacrificing personal well-being for a collective good.  As I said...snowflakes.

You can't issue an order (for anything in the military) unless there is a military neccesity for that order. 

A lot of people would disagree that there is a military neccesity for the CV19 vaccine seeing as how it doesn't impact readiness and doesn't provide an intrinsic health benefit to the force. 

Regardless, really no reason to call anyone a snow flake over a philosophical difference of opinion. Especially when you don't understand the nuance of another person's perspective.