Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss

[Sim]

https://podtail.com/en/podcast/the-joe-rogan-experience/-1747-dr-peter-a-mccullough/

Quote

Dr. Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, is a board-certified cardiologist who has testified before committees of the US and Texas Senate regarding the treatment of COVID-19 and management of the ongoing pandemic.

 

[Negatory]

3 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

Thanks for proving my point for me. 1% death rate is not worth uprooting democratic norms and traditions for. 

I know you, specifically, want COVID to be over. You can tell by how every about 3 weeks you post that you personally are over it. Cool. But you lack ability to provide a coherent fact based argument or use statistics, which significantly hurts your point.

If 1 out of 100 people die in a population die due to a disease it is not a 1% death rate. It would only be 1% if 100% of the population got the disease. Currently, they’re estimating that only about 50-100M people in the US (15-35% of the population) have had COVID, which means it is more like a 3-7% death rate in that population.

Incoming “Doesn’t change anything.” Tell me, what sort of mortality or long term effect is worth vaccinating society? I’d like to set the stage, before you answer. Polio has about a 1 in 200 chance of causing paralysis. In those cases 5-20% of the population dies. So the overall mortality risk for polio is less than 0.1%. Also, you probably know, we are approaching double the total casualties of WWII.

1 hour ago, di1630 said:

So we shut down the economy for a 1% death rate in the elderly and a 0.0007% death rate in under 65…..I bet the death rate of healthy people is remarkably low.

Same comment. Your statistics are intentionally misleading and wrong.

There’s about 212M folks in the 0-49 age range. There have been 52.8k deaths. That right there is a .024% chance of death. Oh wait, not everyone was infected, as previously talked about, so in reality it’s closer to .075-.15% chance of death. I can still buy that maybe that’s acceptable, but we’re talking you being off by a factor of at least 100.

For those 50-64, there’s about 62M people. There have been 145k deaths. That is 0.2% of the population. Which means a CFR on the order of 0.6-1.2%.

Population size source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the-us-by-sex-and-age/

COVID deaths source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/

All of your guys’ analysis also conveniently ignores the fact that over 80% of those infected by the disease have a long term symptom or side effect: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95565-8

 

I am all for having a debate about whether blanket vaccine mandates are useful, or what the cutoff is. But I am not at all interested in BS statistics, lies, or just plain feelings, which is what significantly reduces both the effectiveness and credibility of the anti vaccine side’s arguments.

[Lord Ratner]

3 hours ago, Negatory said:

Cool. Always nice to be reminded of why society is ultimately going to fall apart.

You think in the golden ages of America people said stuff like this? I’m all for people having informed opinions and not getting vaccinated, but supporting people just being assholes is stupid.

Don't take this to be patronizing, because it's not meant to be. You've more than proven yourself as a good faith debater.

 

People wildly misunderstand the benefit of individual freedom. In this case, your post points it out perfectly. Often the false choice is given between, in this case, people refusing vaccination out of spite, and those same people getting vaccinated without any spite. I'll point out that spiteful people were very much present in the golden age, and in all likelihood they represented a larger percentage of the population.

 

But that's not how people work. The people who would refuse to get the vaccine out of spite will get the vaccine if they're forced to, but it's not going to remove the spite. And that spite isn't just going to dissolve, it will be redirected and in all likelihood amplified.

 

The reason we have individual freedom is because people are flawed; you can't make them altruistic, but you can recognize that when left to their own devices, they often act in a predictable and largely beneficent manner. Start telling people what to do, and you run head first into many, many, many different wants and needs of a very diverse society, and inevitably you are unable to fulfill their desires in the way they would if left to their own devices. Now you end up taking a very mildly spiteful person, or perhaps a person who's not spiteful at all, and you and engender a much greater level of spite in them. People don't like being told what to do. And they really hate when you tell them what to do with their families.

 

This, and only this is why socialism/totalitarianism ultimately fails. We don't let people do what they want because people make the right decisions. People make the wrong decisions all the time. We give them freedom because people who are not free to make the wrong decisions tend to make much much worse decisions when their liberty is restricted.

 

This is also why the perpetrators of totalitarianism are often quite intelligent. Intelligent people see what actions, taken collectively, would produce the most human flourishing. When they run head first into less intelligent stubborn people, it drives them mad because they see what can be while others do not. But their attempts to trade Liberty for Paradise always fail. This also ignores the history of very intelligent people failing to follow their own logical, common-good edicts. Turns out even the leaders don't tend to like the prescriptions for a utopian society.

 

This is why people like me, fully vaccinated, support those who choose not to. Not because I give a shit about what they think about vaccines, but because I want to live in a society where most people act mostly good. And that doesn't happen when people no longer feel in control of their destiny.

 

Cherry picking the one issue that you care more about than they do and characterizing their decision as being an asshole is disingenuous. The totality of their decisions are almost certainly largely in line with a society that promotes human flourishing. But they're not going to align 100%. Falling into the trap of thinking that someone who disagrees with you on one issue should be characterized as an asshole because of it is, simply put, being an asshole yourself.

 

And if you're ignorant enough (I don't think you are) to think that half of the population are assholes and you just happen to be on the team of good people, then a few steps back might be required to recalibrate your perception of both "sides."

Edited December 14, 2021 by Lord Ratner

[Negatory]

Unbridled libertarian policies that prioritize individual liberty over all else sound good until you implement them. Just like socialist policies. It’s why unbridled capitalism in the 1800s HAD to be regulated, for example.

I am of the opinion that there should be a balance of individualism and collectivism in an ideally functioning society. I believe your viewpoint is unrealistic for the same reason that I believe a communist viewpoint is unrealistic.

If individuals are not expected, even to the smallest extent, to make sacrifices for the good of their country or countrymen - in any case - what is the point of that society?

See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Edited December 14, 2021 by Negatory

[Lord Ratner]

11 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Unbridled libertarian policies that prioritize individual liberty over all else sound good until you implement them. Just like socialist policies. It’s why unbridled capitalism in the 1800s HAD to be regulated, for example.

I am of the opinion that there should be a balance of individualism and collectivism in an ideally functioning society. I believe your viewpoint is unrealistic for the same reason that I believe a communist viewpoint is unrealistic.

If individuals are not expected, even to the smallest extent, to make sacrifices for the good of their country or countrymen - in any case - what is the point of that society?

See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

You're failing to look at the numbers. Unbridled libertarianism implies that if only three people out of 300 million want it, then they should get it. This issue is nowhere near that imbalance. You have a pretty even split across the country of people who are pro-mandates and people who are against. Even if that split was only 33/66, you would not be anywhere near approaching the threshold for "unbridled."

In the case of a pandemic, an easy threshold to use would be what people are doing on their own. People didn't need to be harassed to stay at home and wear masks back in March of 2020. The streets were empty and the masks were sold out. Yeah, you had a fringe element that had no interest in participating in any measures, but that was not representative of any meaningful portion of the population. Two weeks to stop the spread had wide bipartisan buy-in. There's your threshold for a mandate.

 

Now, many months after those two agreed upon weeks, we have a very different debate with a very different split.

 

Again, you are falling into the trap of choosing your belief and interpreting it was "right." Our system is designed to take these controversial topics with no clear majority (and thus no "right" answer) and put them into stasis until the natural process of societal evolution determines and outcome. Relying on the power of the state to predetermine society's decision is, and always will be, a recipe for disaster.

 

In fact there are very few cases that call for such measures, and one could argue that the abolition of slavery might have been the only one in American history. Even then, there's a compelling argument that the tide was already turning in a very dramatic fashion, and hundreds of thousands of lives and many decades of strife could have been avoided with a little bit of patience. The obvious and understandable counter to that is one cannot have patience in regards to a matter as morally abhorrent as slavery. I lean towards the latter, but I understand the former.

 

But the civil rights movement, women's right to vote, and gay rights in America were all politically fought well after the public perception had changed.

 

1% of the population that was already well within the acceptable range for "dying of old age" is not by any stretch of the imagination ad issue comparable to slavery, so no, it is absolutely not worth sacrificing liberty for those deaths. Call me when it's a bunch of kids dying.

[ViperMan]

3 hours ago, Negatory said:

Cool. Always nice to be reminded of why society is ultimately going to fall apart.

You think in the golden ages of America people said stuff like this? I’m all for people having informed opinions and not getting vaccinated, but supporting people just being assholes is stupid.

A couple things. First, society is in a constant state of creative destruction, and that has to be guarded against at all times, and in all places. If you think any previous epoch in history achieved "stasis" I think you need to pick up a history book. Which is to say this, if you think mandating people to do things - any things - against their will is going to lead to a more stable society, I think you need to re-evaluate some assumptions about people.

And second, yes, all golden ages have had their contrarians, and they tend to be the people who are most celebrated in our history books: Plato, Galileo, Copernicus, Gandhi, Jesus. I guarantee you, guarantee you, most people had the opinion that those people were assholes. And don't forget the most important, and underlying, point: a dynamic society - a society that is capable of inventing vaccines like the ones we have - enables assholes, tolerates assholes, and makes room for assholes. In fact, it's a lot of these assholes who are responsible for some of the greatest things we have in our lives. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Certain people will always be stupid and will make stupid decisions - let them.

3 hours ago, Negatory said:

Which is why your point is asinine. 800k people have perished. 1 out of every 100 folks over the age of 65. With most of the cases being mild.

https://dnyuz.com/2021/12/13/as-u-s-nears-800000-virus-deaths-1-of-every-100-older-americans-has-perished/

This is a can of worms, but in short, I would say that COVID was a "contributing factor" in that approximate number of deaths. The root cause? I don't buy that for one second. Remember, the medical establishment is a self-interested bureaucracy just like any other. For instance, see how skin biopsies and excisions from medicare fee-for-service recipients doubled over the 13 year period from 2004 to 2017, with the death rate remaining constant (hint: over-diagnosis for $$$)...which leads me back to my fundamental point - you should be the one choosing what goes in your body, not anyone else. I'm baffled by how that has somehow become a controversial statement.

What we have successfully done, is miss an opportunity to honestly address the ongoing health crisis in this country with respect to obesity and our collective lifestyles. Voices early on in the pandemic were identifying obesity as a major co-morbidity with this disease, but no one wanted to hear that. Now, lo and behold, we see articles that are saying exactly that - fat tissue is targeted by the virus. Look at the morbidity of places like Japan, where obesity is not a thing - waaaaaaaay less. So I would invite you to peel back the onion beyond the one thin layer you seem content with and get closer to the root causes of this crisis.

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, Negatory said:

I know you, specifically, want COVID to be over. You can tell by how every about 3 weeks you post that you personally are over it. Cool. But you lack ability to provide a coherent fact based argument or use statistics, which significantly hurts your point.

If 1 out of 100 people die in a population die due to a disease it is not a 1% death rate. It would only be 1% if 100% of the population got the disease. Currently, they’re estimating that only about 50-100M people in the US (15-35% of the population) have had COVID, which means it is more like a 3-7% death rate in that population.

For comparison's sake, in Texas (where I could find numbers), COVID has "killed" approximately 2200 vaccinated individuals from Jan to Oct this year (https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/cases-and-deaths-by-vaccination-status-11082021.pdf). In 2019 (in Texas), the flu/pneumonia killed ~3100 people (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/flu_pneumonia_mortality/flu_pneumonia.htm).

There's your numbers. Get the vaccine or don't. It's your choice. I don't care. The pandemic is over. I'm going back to normal.

[glockenspiel]

Surveying the crowd: anyone support the mandatory CV19 testing of unvaccinated asymptomatic covid recovered (confirmed with previous positive PCR and positive TDETECT) individuals while not mandating CV19 testing for any vaccinated individuals? 

same question applies for masking.

Considering cv19 recovered asymptomatic spread is non-existant (see Arron Siri foia request, the CDC has ZERO documented cases of spread after infection recovery) , and reinfection is almost non-existence (usually false positive PCR), how is this based in good science and for that matter faith? 

or is it just a tool to get more SM vaccinated?

[Lord Ratner]

5 minutes ago, glockenspiel said:

Surveying the crowd: anyone support the mandatory CV19 testing of unvaccinated asymptomatic covid recovered (confirmed with previous positive PCR and positive TDETECT) individuals while not mandating CV19 testing for any vaccinated individuals? 

same question applies for masking.

Considering cv19 recovered asymptomatic spread is non-existant (see Arron Siri foia request, the CDC has ZERO documented cases of spread after infection recovery) , and reinfection is almost non-existence (usually false positive PCR), how is this based in good science and for that matter faith? 

or is it just a tool to get more SM vaccinated?

No. Now that it has been adequately shown that vaccination does not meaningfully impact transmission, no mandates of any kind are justified in my opinion. Private organizations are free to do as they see fit, and to a lesser extent so are states, but the federal government should excuse themselves from any further decision making.

[tac airlifter]

1 hour ago, glockenspiel said:

Surveying the crowd: anyone support the mandatory CV19 testing of unvaccinated asymptomatic covid recovered (confirmed with previous positive PCR and positive TDETECT) individuals while not mandating CV19 testing for any vaccinated individuals? 

same question applies for masking.

Considering cv19 recovered asymptomatic spread is non-existant (see Arron Siri foia request, the CDC has ZERO documented cases of spread after infection recovery) , and reinfection is almost non-existence (usually false positive PCR), how is this based in good science and for that matter faith? 

or is it just a tool to get more SM vaccinated?

The order is in direct conflict with science, and only serves to further support the narrative that government policies are unfair and unscientific. 

[brickhistory]

55 minutes ago, Justonethought said:

Just checking in...is anyone on this thread a PHD?  Asking for a friend.  There is a fabled saying some on this board point out when and only when it suits them: "Better to be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt,"

Reset self-awareness C/B, run self-test again before writing up.

 

[Prosuper]

Just listened to 3 hours of Joe Rogan's interview of Dr. David A. McCullough on Spotify. More or less he said if morbidly obese and get Covid you will have a hard time. 12% who get the vaccine will get myocarditis. Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin  and monoclonal antibodies are the best treatment before you can't breath and thrown on a ventilator. But most hospitals for us peasant's will not prescribe it  Most of the high level guys at NIH, NDA and the CDC have blinders on or arrogantly ignoring front line Dr's  because they refuse to say they are not the smartest guys in the room. He did stop short by not saying that big pharma is pushing this with the 30 billion of profits they had. He also said he has legal bills.

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fopen.spotify.com%2Fepisode%2F0aZte37vtFTkYT7b0b04Qz%3Fsi%3D_577w9a0SHiVpkfQZjFPiA%26fbclid%3DIwAR1E3jmn0zngDUupUJzhrSJ_bEXThBxOE0_54iPa1ki-FIFECYQbhjStpAE&h=AT0Q7Yuu6MBq96PJ6Eutzsn8M0saOlWhE2t4UGi3ZDvC9AlK0onqIyfUXf9CKBb31kn_-wMxZXYrozJd9G_fDKwAwLnh58aNQevwJHIzw8coLTI-VlWbvV0X6phwE3koUfU65G5HhmtymVc1T-k

Edited December 14, 2021 by Prosuper
content

[BashiChuni]

8 hours ago, Justonethought said:

Just checking in...is anyone on this thread a PHD?  Asking for a friend.  There is a fabled saying some on this board point out when and only when it suits them: "Better to be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt,"

Yeah cause the PHd and “experts” have done SO well!

last I checked the constitution didn’t have a clause for PHD’s and non elected officials (looking at you CDC director) to mandate taking away peoples freedom of choice or freedom to make individual choices about their own level of risk tolerance. 

[Lord Ratner]

9 hours ago, Justonethought said:

Just checking in...is anyone on this thread a PHD?  Asking for a friend.  There is a fabled saying some on this board point out when and only when it suits them: "Better to be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt,"

Rather fitting username...

[pawnman]

8 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

Yeah cause the PHd and “experts” have done SO well!

last I checked the constitution didn’t have a clause for PHD’s and non elected officials (looking at you CDC director) to mandate taking away peoples freedom of choice or freedom to make individual choices about their own level of risk tolerance. 

You know how everyone here laments reporters with no aviation experience critiquing aircraft mishaps?

Try applying some of that same logic to other areas of your life.

[M2]

The Navy's on board...

Navy to Start Separating Unvaccinated Sailors

The Navy will start processing unvaccinated active-duty sailors for separation under a new policy guidance released Wednesday. Thousands of sailors risk ending their career’s early and repaying bonuses and education fees for failing to be fully vaccinated against the coronavirus by the end of November.

“We want every sailor to receive the vaccine and stay Navy. And if a sailor gets their shot, we will honor that and make every effort to retain them,” Rear Adm. James Waters, the Navy’s director of military personnel plans and policy, told reporters. “On the other hand, those who continue to refuse the vaccine will be required to leave the Navy.”

Wednesday’s guidance comes two weeks after the Navy’s COVID-19 vaccine deadline for active-duty sailors. As of Dec. 9, the Navy has 5,731 sailors who remain unvaccinated, representing 1.65 percent of the active-duty force. Of the unvaccinated, 326 have temporary medical exemptions and seven have a permanent medical exemption. The service received 2,705 religious accommodation requests but has not approved any of them... (full story at title link)

[ViperMan]

3 hours ago, pawnman said:

You know how everyone here laments reporters with no aviation experience critiquing aircraft mishaps?

Try applying some of that same logic to other areas of your life.

Comments like this invariably need to take a long hard look in the mirror.

[bennynova]

55 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Comments like this invariably need to take a long hard look in the mirror.

I do not think I’m smarter than the medical professionals, rather thinking that the many medical professional who are against a mandatory vaccine, yet are being hushed by big pharma, media, and CDC, are probably smarter than those desk types at the CDC and big pharma.     The drs at the CDC and big pharma are just politicians and pawns now...and dont have our true best interest in mind.

Edited December 15, 2021 by bennynova

[pawnman]

3 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Comments like this invariably need to take a long hard look in the mirror.

So... aligning with medical experts means in going against expert guidance? 

You may find some medical professionals who aren't on board with mandates. I don't think you're gonna find many credible ones who will say "most people shouldn't get the vaccine".

[VMFA187]

7 hours ago, pawnman said:

You know how everyone here laments reporters with no aviation experience critiquing aircraft mishaps?

Try applying some of that same logic to other areas of your life.

Says a dude on who has never flown a military aircraft posting on a military aviation site. 😆

[Lord Ratner]

29 minutes ago, pawnman said:

So... aligning with medical experts means in going against expert guidance? 

You may find some medical professionals who aren't on board with mandates. I don't think you're gonna find many credible ones who will say "most people shouldn't get the vaccine".

Mandates are not a medical issue. The only part of mandates that is remotely medical is the technical aspects of how a mandate could stop the spread. We're well past the point of proving that mandates won't do that (pesky human nature), so now mandates are entirely a policy issue.

Whether or not the vaccine works or is safe is certainly a medical issue, best left to medical professionals to determine. But there aren't a lot of people here fighting over the safety of the vaccine, rather their freedom to determine that for themselves.

But this is far more about the compliant being upset at the noncompliant. Often when a rule is nonsensical, those who followed the rule will defend it regardless of the actual justification of the rule. It's human nature, no one wants to feel like they chose incorrectly, and to a greater extent, people tend to want others to do as they do. Religion, political beliefs, and drug addiction are all areas where this effect is observable.

Plenty of republicans are still doing it with Trump, so it's not even a conservative/liberal disposition. We simply don't like what's different.

[Waingro]

20 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

Says a dude on who has never flown a military aircraft posting on a military aviation site. 😆

One of the most frequent posters to this site, an admin, is a retired intel officer. 

[Sim]

51 minutes ago, pawnman said:

So... aligning with medical experts means in going against expert guidance? 

You may find some medical professionals who aren't on board with mandates. I don't think you're gonna find many credible ones who will say "most people shouldn't get the vaccine".

https://podtail.com/en/podcast/the-joe-rogan-experience/-1747-dr-peter-a-mccullough/

Just take few hours of your life and listen... 

[BashiChuni]

Why are all these fully vaxed sports teams getting the COVID??!?

[BR_MIST]

I've got an odd shot question. I'm in UPT AD almost finished and I have a religious accommodation request in for the shot. If it gets denied and the AF moves to separate me over it, is it even possible to go to a guard unit in a state that has said they will NOT be separating people because of the shot?