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.

MACS wrote:

This “freedom is selfish” indoctrination is growing.

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

HockeyDad wrote:

Yes but the “Pride in Stupidity” movement clearly owns the day.

Brewha 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

BuckyB93 wrote:

B.S. At what rate of protection or inoculation do you deem it "effective."

rfenst wrote:

B.S. At what rate of protection or inoculation do you deem it "effective."

rfenst 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.

Brewha 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.

MACS wrote:

Since when is a social responsibility to get vaccines? You making up the rules for social responsibility oh great one?

BuckyB93 wrote:

Since when is a social responsibility to get vaccines? You making up the rules for social responsibility oh great one?

BuckyB93 wrote:

Since when is a social responsibility to get vaccines? You making up the rules for social responsibility oh great one?

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.

BuckyB93 wrote:

Seriously?

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

Brewha 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.

HockeyDad wrote: