America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 2 years ago by Brewha. 164 replies replies.
4 Pages<1234>
FDA Approves First COVID-19 Vaccine
HockeyDad Offline
#101 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,128
We should sue Afghanistan and bankrupt them.
MACS Offline
#102 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,770
HockeyDad wrote:
We should sue Afghanistan and bankrupt them.


You mean take our money back?
izonfire Offline
#103 Posted:
Joined: 12-09-2013
Posts: 8,647
Enough with the victimization.
The Sackler family has suffered enough…

SLM ✊🏿
MACS Offline
#104 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,770
Still wondering how ol' Brewha is going to address post #90.

*crickets*
frankj1 Offline
#105 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
MACS wrote:
Tell me again, Brewha... why is it imperative that we all get vaccinated?

"Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease. Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation."

If this is a vaccine... why doesn't it work like one? If you're worried about spreading it to vulnerable people... you still can after the shot. Sooooo... uhhhhhh... what's the point?

just speaking from my understanding, not Brewha's...

we were told that the vaccine would protect something like 95% of people.
That means that roughly 1 out of 20 would/could still get infected.

I have no idea if previous vaccines promised and delivered 100% protection...but I think it has worked like one.
Something like 90% of new cases are unvaccinated people.
MACS Offline
#106 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,770
^I would like to see that data, because I don't believe it.

The CDC's website says you can still get it and still spread it, even after the vaccine. Just "lower incidents" of that.

Not sure about you, but when I got the measles, mumps and rubella vaccines... they actually prevented me from getting MM or R. All the vaccinations I got in the military prevented infection.
bgz Offline
#107 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
MACS wrote:
^I would like to see that data, because I don't believe it.

The CDC's website says you can still get it and still spread it, even after the vaccine. Just "lower incidents" of that.

Not sure about you, but when I got the measles, mumps and rubella vaccines... they actually prevented me from getting MM or R. All the vaccinations I got in the military prevented infection.


They probably pumped you full of all kinds of experimental sh*t.
frankj1 Offline
#108 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
many get a second dose of the MMR vaccine.
The vast majority of people no longer live near areas of outbreak (because of the vaccine) but are at risk if they do and have not had the first or second shot. No threads claiming one shot has to be miraculous or it sucks.

Different diseases, different effectiveness of the shots, different discussion... but far more effective when so close to 100% of people in the U.S. have been dosed, as would the covid vaccine be as well.
rfenst Offline
#109 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,291
Anyone ever get a routine tetanus vaccine as a kid? Guess what? Its protection was not permanent. You could need another. Yet, it's still called a vaccine... Arguing whether it should be called a vaccine is idiotic in the scheme of things. Nomenclature is irrelevant.

If your argument against the vaccine solely boils down to: it doesn't provide A) total protection; and/or B) permanent protection and is therefore not effective, please cite medical authority as to your belief.

Here is how I see it:

1. The vaccine is known to overwhelmingly decrease the risk of infection;

2. If you are fully vaccinated and still get infected, then your condition isn't likely to be nearly as severe as someone who has not been fully vaccinated and gets infected;

3. If you are fully vaccinated and still get infected then you still may be contagious to others, but to a markedly lesser degree than someone who is not fully vaccinated and gets infected; and.

4. If you are fully vaccinated and still get infected so badly that you need to be hospitalized, your chance of a temporary, bad outcome or bad permanent outcome and/or death, is markedly decreased.




HockeyDad Offline
#110 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,128
rfenst wrote:
Anyone ever get a routine tetanus vaccine as a kid? Guess what? Its protection was not permanent. You could need another. Yet, it's still called a vaccine... Arguing whether it should be called a vaccine is idiotic in the scheme of things. Nomenclature is irrelevant.

If your argument against the vaccine solely boils down to: it doesn't provide A) total protection; and/or B) permanent protection and is therefore not effective, please cite medical authority as to your belief.

Here is how I see it:

1. The vaccine is known to overwhelmingly decrease the risk of infection;

2. If you are fully vaccinated and still get infected, then your condition isn't likely to be nearly as severe as someone who has not been fully vaccinated and gets infected;

3. If you are fully vaccinated and still get infected then you still may be contagious to others, but to a markedly lesser degree than someone who is not fully vaccinated and gets infected; and.

4. If you are fully vaccinated and still get infected so badly that you need to be hospitalized, your chance of a temporary, bad outcome or bad permanent outcome and/or death, is markedly decreased.




Nomenclature is very relevant. When people heard “vaccine” they thought they were hearing “immunity” and nobody lifted a finger to correct that during the push to get everyone vaccinated. It is perceived by many as false advertising by the government.

My logic for taking the vaccine matches points 1,2, and 4.

Point 3 is incorrect because if you still get infected you ARE contagious to others and perhaps at a markedly GREATER degree than someone not vaccinated. This also is not how it was originally “sold” by the government and CDC. Vax up or mask up. This is why we brought back mask mandates for everyone where I live.

My county is 78% vaccinated. My city is >90% vaccinated. We have an indoor mask mandate with no published criteria for when it will end. Most recent case data for unvaccinated versus vaccinated is 60 to 13.

Now for additional points:

#4. The vaccine loses effectiveness after a short period of time. You will be taking a Covid shot annually.

#5. We have eliminated the flu.

#6. 5G cellular reception is vastly improved.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#111 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,412
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pfizer-scheme-to-churn-out-variant-specific-vaccines-will-lead-to-more-variants-experts-warn/
DrMaddVibe Offline
#112 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,412
rfenst wrote:
Anyone ever get a routine tetanus vaccine as a kid? Guess what? Its protection was not permanent. You could need another. Yet, it's still called a vaccine... Arguing whether it should be called a vaccine is idiotic in the scheme of things. Nomenclature is irrelevant.



https://youtu.be/JKP7NY6z388
BuckyB93 Offline
#113 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,184
rfenst wrote:
Anyone ever get a routine tetanus vaccine as a kid? Guess what? Its protection was not permanent. You could need another. Yet, it's still called a vaccine... Arguing whether it should be called a vaccine is idiotic in the scheme of things. Nomenclature is irrelevant.

If your argument against the vaccine solely boils down to: it doesn't provide A) total protection; and/or B) permanent protection and is therefore not effective, please cite medical authority as to your belief.

Here is how I see it:

1. The vaccine is known to overwhelmingly decrease the risk of infection;

2. If you are fully vaccinated and still get infected, then your condition isn't likely to be nearly as severe as someone who has not been fully vaccinated and gets infected;

3. If you are fully vaccinated and still get infected then you still may be contagious to others, but to a markedly lesser degree than someone who is not fully vaccinated and gets infected; and.

4. If you are fully vaccinated and still get infected so badly that you need to be hospitalized, your chance of a temporary, bad outcome or bad permanent outcome and/or death, is markedly decreased.


Tetanus boosters every 10 years not 10 months - so it's a bad analogy. Name one other "vaccine" that needs to be "boostered" on a 6 month schedule.

2, 3, 4 this was not what was advertised when the COVID shot came out.

Too simplify the requirements for a formal FDA approval it needs to be safe and effective.
Safe: TDB.
Effective: I'd say no based on what we are finding today. You can still get it after the shot, you can still transmit it after the shot, and it's looking like you need biannually boosters.
Brewha Offline
#114 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,170
MACS wrote:
Tell me again, Brewha... why is it imperative that we all get vaccinated?

"Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease. Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation."

If this is a vaccine... why doesn't it work like one? If you're worried about spreading it to vulnerable people... you still can after the shot. Sooooo... uhhhhhh... what's the point?

By mandating vaccination we have eliminated or practically controlled a great number of deadly diseases. COVID is no different in this than polio.

Getting vaccinated IS the socially responsible thing to do.

But because so many put their own “personal freedom” above their responsibilities, we have hospitals overwhelmed with children dying from the disease.




Say - should the “my body, my choice” thing be extended to women?
rfenst Offline
#115 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,291
BuckyB93 wrote:
Tetanus boosters every 10 years not 10 months - so it's a bad analogy. Name one other "vaccine" that needs to be "boostered" on a 6 month schedule. None that I know of for normally healthy individuals. But arguing over what to call it is useless.

2, 3, 4 this was not what was advertised when the COVID shot came out. True. The science has, IMO, adapted to the current/changing scenario.
Too simplify the requirements for a formal FDA approval it needs to be safe and effective. True.
Safe: TDB. I choose to rely on what's known already when comparing the risk vs. benefit.
Effective: I'd say no based on what we are finding today. You can still get it after the shot, you can still transmit it after the shot, and it's looking like you need biannually boosters. Depends on how one defines "effective." So what, if it helps provide adequate protection.


YMMV.
HockeyDad Offline
#116 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,128
The science may also adapt to the current/changing scenario and determine that the vaccine is useless or harmful. That’s how science works.

You must get the vaccine. YMMV.

Get the vaccine. It’s effective depending on how you define effective.

Not good advertising slogans. Sometimes “just OK” is not OK.




Maybe try “15 minutes could save you 15% off your hospital stay.”

“Like a Good Neighbor, Vaccine is There.”

“The few, the proud, the vaccine.”
BuckyB93 Offline
#117 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,184
Depends on how one defines "effective." Sounds like lawyer speak... not science. Pretty pathetic.

Depends on what the meaning of the the word is, is
MACS Offline
#118 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,770
Brewha wrote:
By mandating vaccination we have eliminated or practically controlled a great number of deadly diseases. COVID is no different in this than polio.

Getting vaccinated IS the socially responsible thing to do.

But because so many put their own “personal freedom” above their responsibilities, we have hospitals overwhelmed with children dying from the disease.




Say - should the “my body, my choice” thing be extended to women?


That dog don't hunt. I'm personally anti-abortion, but what other people do in that situation is none of my business.

Where have you read hospitals are overwhelmed with children dying from covid? *sniff* smells like a whole lotta bullshit to me.
RayR Offline
#119 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,884
Brewha wrote:
By mandating vaccination we have eliminated or practically controlled a great number of deadly diseases. COVID is no different in this than polio.

Getting vaccinated IS the socially responsible thing to do.

But because so many put their own “personal freedom” above their responsibilities, we have hospitals overwhelmed with children dying from the disease.

Say - should the “my body, my choice” thing be extended to women?


Ya, where are these "hospitals overwhelmed with children dying from the disease"?

Polio was far different from COVID in that it disproportionately affected children and was far scarier. You could be infected but asymptomatic or fine one day and be paralyzed and in an iron lung the next.
The polio vaccine in 1954 was experimental too and the results weren't known until a year later when infections had dropped by 80%. In the rush to jab, there was a major mishap, Cutter Laboratories produced a vaccine lot that was not inactivated properly - which eventually gave polio to an estimated 40,000 children, with 10 of them dying.
HockeyDad Offline
#120 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,128
Brewha wrote:
Getting vaccinated IS the socially responsible thing to do.

But because so many put their own “personal freedom” above their responsibilities, we have hospitals overwhelmed with children dying from the disease.


This “freedom is selfish” indoctrination is growing.

It goes along side the theme that your rights come from the government.
RayR Offline
#121 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,884
Brewha's motto: Freedom is Slavery to the Government
Brewha Offline
#122 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,170
MACS wrote:
That dog don't hunt. I'm personally anti-abortion, but what other people do in that situation is none of my business.

Where have you read hospitals are overwhelmed with children dying from covid? *sniff* smells like a whole lotta bullshit to me.

If I remember right, you don’t believe that news services, the CDC, or WHO can be trusted. So why ask where?

Nice ducking of the social responsibility issue.
Brewha Offline
#123 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,170
HockeyDad wrote:
This “freedom is selfish” indoctrination is growing.

It goes along side the theme that your rights come from the government.


Yes but the “Pride in Stupidity” movement clearly owns the day.
RayR Offline
#124 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,884
Brewha wrote:
Yes but the “Pride in Stupidity” movement clearly owns the day.


The “Pride in Stupidity” movement is the Progressive Movement.
rfenst Offline
#125 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,291
BuckyB93 wrote:
Depends on how one defines "effective." Sounds like lawyer speak... not science. Pretty pathetic.

Depends on what the meaning of the the word is, is

B.S. At what rate of protection or inoculation do you deem it "effective."
DrMaddVibe Offline
#126 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,412
rfenst wrote:
B.S. At what rate of protection or inoculation do you deem it "effective."



Um..you do know that after 90 days it's loses almost HALF of it's efficacy?

90 days!

Does that really sound like something you're going to re-up on?
BuckyB93 Offline
#127 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,184
rfenst wrote:
B.S. At what rate of protection or inoculation do you deem it "effective."


You tell me counselor. Does a vaccine that doesn't protect the individual from being reinfected or transmitting it within merely months of being inoculated sound effective to you?

If so, you have a low threshold of what constitutes effective.

And I'm not talking about the quoted 95% or what ever number they've been using COVID vaccine effectiveness. I get it, nothing is 100%. But they are talking about everyone will need a booster within months, not the 5% of special cases. Everyone!

This isn't science, this is shooting from the hip and making it up as you go along.

I'll let you go through the list of common vaccines for common illnesses (polio, mumps, Hep, measles, small pox, HPV, tetanus, tuberculosis...) Find one, that after full inoculation, recommends that it be boostered within months and possibly on an ongoing basis. You'll probably mention the seasonal/annual flu shots - OK there's one but that is only historically been 50% ish effective. That's a coin flip. I wouldn't classify it as effective. Vegas wouldn't even take bets on those odds.

Maybe you want to establish a "new normal" on the definition and criteria for effectiveness. That way we can shoehorn the COVID vax into that "new normal" while ignoring precedent on what we have been accustomed to and what we should expect from effective vaccines.
MACS Offline
#128 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,770
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtFapXG1zbo

Ireland and Israel report that half of hospitalizations are vaccinated.
MACS Offline
#129 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,770
Brewha wrote:
If I remember right, you don’t believe that news services, the CDC, or WHO can be trusted. So why ask where?

Nice ducking of the social responsibility issue.


Ducking? How did I duck "social responsibility"? What is my responsibility to society? I worked, I paid my taxes, I raised my kid right, I served my country AND my community when I got home. I dare say I'VE done more for society than some libtard f--kwit like you.
Brewha Offline
#130 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,170
MACS wrote:
Ducking? How did I duck "social responsibility"? What is my responsibility to society? I worked, I paid my taxes, I raised my kid right, I served my country AND my community when I got home. I dare say I'VE done more for society than some libtard f--kwit like you.

You don’t have to make it about you MACS - I was selling the idea that people have a social responsibility to get vaccinated for each other. And some people simply don’t give a f*ck about that.

You ducked commenting on the issue - the though that it is a social responsibility to get vaccinated.

Now personally, you can say “it’s not a social responsibility”, or maybe “f*ck them, who cares”.
BuckyB93 Offline
#131 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,184
Since when is a social responsibility to get vaccines? You making up the rules for social responsibility oh great one?
MACS Offline
#132 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,770
BuckyB93 wrote:
Since when is a social responsibility to get vaccines? You making up the rules for social responsibility oh great one?


20 years of service to my country and I took every vaccine... (except the flu vaccine once I could get away with it). They don't get to tell me which ones I have to take any more.

FREEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOM!
RayR Offline
#133 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,884
Brewha doesn't want you to have freedom. Your "social responsibility" is to follow the rest of the lemmings over the cliff because that's where he's going and he needs the company.
HockeyDad Offline
#134 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,128
BuckyB93 wrote:
Since when is a social responsibility to get vaccines? You making up the rules for social responsibility oh great one?


Sounds like a policy from China.
Brewha Offline
#135 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,170
BuckyB93 wrote:
Since when is a social responsibility to get vaccines? You making up the rules for social responsibility oh great one?

Seriously?

If you carry the virus asymptotically and give it to others, no biggie?

Mr. B, is there such a thing as “social responsibility” ?
rfenst Offline
#136 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,291
BuckyB93 wrote:
You tell me counselor. Does a vaccine that doesn't protect the individual from being reinfected or transmitting it within merely months of being inoculated sound effective to you? Yes, thus far, given circumstances.

If so, you have a low threshold of what constitutes effective. That's a medical question I can't answer.

And I'm not talking about the quoted 95% or what ever number they've been using COVID vaccine effectiveness. I get it, nothing is 100%. But they are talking about everyone will need a booster within months, not the 5% of special cases. Everyone! So, I don't have aq problem with increasing the dosage via a booster. Just like when one of a persons meds aren't working as well and the doctor increases the dosage.

This isn't science, this is shooting from the hip and making it up as you go along. It is the best we can do, love it or leave it

I'll let you go through the list of common vaccines for common illnesses (polio, mumps, Hep, measles, small pox, HPV, tetanus, tuberculosis...) Find one, that after full inoculation, recommends that it be boostered within months and possibly on an ongoing basis. You'll probably mention the seasonal/annual flu shots - OK there's one but that is only historically been 50% ish effective. That's a coin flip. I wouldn't classify it as effective. Vegas wouldn't even take bets on those odds.

Maybe you want to establish a "new normal" on the definition and criteria for effectiveness. That way we can shoehorn the COVID vax into that "new normal" while ignoring precedent on what we have been accustomed to and what we should expect from effective vaccines.
Siht happens and things change in response.
Obviously our mileages vary.
HockeyDad Offline
#137 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,128
Brewha wrote:
Seriously?

If you carry the virus asymptotically and give it to others, no biggie?


As it turns out you can do that regardless of being vaccinated. Therefore the socially responsible thing to do is to wear three masks.
RayR Offline
#138 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,884
HockeyDad wrote:
As it turns out you can do that regardless of being vaccinated. Therefore the socially responsible thing to do is to wear three masks.


Correct, if masks work as Brewha believes and the virus can be transmitted by vaxxed individuals, then why doesn't he triple up on his social responsibility?

Brewha is operating on 98% authoritarian propaganda.

"Authoritarianism indoctrinates its votaries and buffaloes others into a false and oversimplified worldview, in which the only important factor is vaccination. But the causes of hospitalization and death are multifarious."


https://www.aier.org/article/98-propaganda/
bgz Offline
#139 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
I think it's funny... viruses going around killing people... do I get a vaccine?.... nah... don't trust those guys...

Wear a mask? Nah... cheap China product... don't trust that sh*t.

Fk it... going to go to this huge event about truck nuts!!. I trust those guys... none of them are vaccinated nor wear masks... none of them are going to get covid and die because we're muricans!!!

Murica!!! We're never going to win another election because are percentages are dwindling daily!!!!

It's better to be wrong than do what a liberal recommends... because well, that's freedom and this is Murica... I can choose to be stupid and die if I want to.
bgz Offline
#140 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
On a serious note... I've said it over and over again... most people are stupid.

Apparently 44% of white Christians refuse the vaccine... and say they'll never get it.

I thought that number would be higher...

Doesn't mean I'm wrong... it just puts a lower bound on the true percentage.
tailgater Offline
#141 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
I find the blind enthusiasm to get the vaccine and force others to get the vaccine both amusing and disturbing.

I watch the daily news for the regular reasons: Big events. Weather.
But I get daily Covid 19 updates.
Anything to push an agenda is discussed and embraced.

But woe be the news that contradicts the narrative.
Case in point:
Data now indicates that actually getting the 'Rona 1.0 and gaining the natural antibodies provides a significant advantage when exposed to the Delta variant. Significant. (this means it helps bigly)
Mother nature kicks Phizer's azz.

We need to stop pushing a vaccine on the young and healthy. Give it to the at-risk population who may not survive the antibody-giving bout of Corona to begin with. Let the young get their virus and go back to living large.
Because if these reports prove out to be true, the vaccine is literally hurting people who shouldn't have taken it.
Literally.

But never mind that.
Probably just anecdotal evidence.

So let's listen to bgz. he's wicked smart. He's told us many times.
He may even have been recipient of a certain phone call.






Full disclosure: I know the vaccine works. We should give it to everyone who is at risk. And anyone else who simply wants it for their own piece of mind. Science be damned.
But stop hurting our kids. Stop mandating an unnecessary injection that will create future weakness towards future variants. Let nature do her thing.

This isn't polio or measles/mumps/rubella. Those diseases hurt kids. So we vaccinate the kids.
Covid doesn't. But the media and fauci have convinced people we still need to vaccinate them.
Stupid F*cks.
bgz Offline
#142 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
My kids aren't vaccinated...

Nothing in any of my arguments or commentary had anything to do with kids.

It had to do with the stupidity of the population in general.

You got your vaccine... I don't consider you to be stupid... an azzhole yes, stupid no.

I just assume everyone is stupid by default until being shown otherwise.

And yes... I'm smart... you should listen to me... as it's rare when I give free advice... I don't recall giving advice on vaccines or masks though.

I think you have me confused with someone else.
MACS Offline
#143 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,770
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IBo1KvNSX4

Remember Sweden did not lock down or have overly restrictive mandates? Anyone wonder how they did, or how they're doing?
tailgater Offline
#144 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
bgz wrote:
My kids aren't vaccinated...

Nothing in any of my arguments or commentary had anything to do with kids.

It had to do with the stupidity of the population in general.

You got your vaccine... I don't consider you to be stupid... an azzhole yes, stupid no.

I just assume everyone is stupid by default until being shown otherwise.

And yes... I'm smart... you should listen to me... as it's rare when I give free advice... I don't recall giving advice on vaccines or masks though.

I think you have me confused with someone else.


Of course I'm an azzhole.
Thanks for the update, captain obvious.

Honest question:
When (not if) the CDC recommends, and then mandates the vaccine for kids, will you comply willingly? (we all comply in the end. Some are just more easily convinced of what they agree with.)

Maybe it's not a nationwide mandate. Maybe it's your local schools via the CDC "recommendation". Which is simply the feds washing their hands of responsibility. That's one thing they learned during the pandemic. To wash their hands of everything.

bgz Offline
#145 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
I don't know the answer yet. Old adults... no brainer. Kids are a tougher decission.
HockeyDad Offline
#146 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,128
bgz wrote:
I don't know the answer yet. Old adults... no brainer. Kids are a tougher decission.


It’s not a decision. I heard it’s a social responsibility. Get them kids the jab.
RayR Offline
#147 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,884
That's right, it's not their body, it's not their choice...get them kids the jab!
Tell them they have to take the jab like an adult or get BANNED From Society like an adult!!

https://youtu.be/N1LAyEO1zGI





tailgater Offline
#148 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
bgz wrote:
I don't know the answer yet. Old adults... no brainer. Kids are a tougher decission.


The only thing saving us from having to make that decision is the lack of approvals for those under 12.

On the one hand, I'd like to see a vaccine approved for all ages. Some kids have comorbidities. And future variants could impact the young, at which case the risk/benefit ratio becomes inverse from what it is today.

But even keeping the status quo. With just the original C19 and the Delta variant haunting our citizenry, you know and I know that there will be a push to jab the kids as soon as the CDC gives the green light.

I've previously rejected the notion of having covid "chickenpox parties".
We're now approaching a scary juncture where that might prove to be the prudent course.

MACS Offline
#149 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,770
OMG!! Tailgater is advocating for super spreader events among children!!

OH! The HUGE MANATEE!!

Sarcasm
bgz Offline
#150 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
tailgater wrote:
The only thing saving us from having to make that decision is the lack of approvals for those under 12.

On the one hand, I'd like to see a vaccine approved for all ages. Some kids have comorbidities. And future variants could impact the young, at which case the risk/benefit ratio becomes inverse from what it is today.

But even keeping the status quo. With just the original C19 and the Delta variant haunting our citizenry, you know and I know that there will be a push to jab the kids as soon as the CDC gives the green light.

I've previously rejected the notion of having covid "chickenpox parties".
We're now approaching a scary juncture where that might prove to be the prudent course.



Went the the RMCF last weekend, that was basically a giant covid party.

We were all vaccinated... none of us caught the rona..., might be anecdotal evidence of something.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages<1234>