skywatch

So that’s a “yes, I got nothing”. Thanks. I know it is hard to comprehend, but I am fully vaccinated for Covid and for everything else that makes medical sense for me, where risk of illness outweighs potential harm from a vaccine.

I just happen to side with those that think one-size-all vaccinations for people that have already had Covid, or who are at no risk from it statistically, like children, are lazy, irresponsible, shortsighted, and against every notion of personal responsibility and independence our system of government should be promoting and protecting.

Flyfalcons

They are also against science, which is clearly showing that previously infected individuals have every bit of, if not more protection, than the vaccinated.

rickair7777

I don't think they're against science, I think they selectively emphasize the science that furthers whatever agenda is at hand. Politics tends to do that with other disciplines too, such as history, anthropology, sociology, etc.

400000Dead

The persecution party continues...

Everyone is complaining about not allowing previous infections as a valid alternative, but you're not thinking it through.

How do we test for it? Who will pay for it since a test costs 30x as much as the vaccine and requires 10x the manpower?

And even if we establish all that BLOOD testing infrastructure, there's no guarantee that any of the anti vax whiners will comply. This test will just become the new "tyranny."

Finally, there's no science behind comparing recovered individuals with the vaccinated. Because immunity will vary wildly by the exposure and severity.

So why throw in all these variables and pay billions to set up testing for people who won't comply anyway?

400000Dead

Col. "Let them die" Galaxyflyer says that weren't that many dead anyway.

It's amazing the lies we tell ourselves to keep our consciences clear.

Flyfalcons

Ah, but we do know. People with infection-conferred immunity have more robust immune responses to a second infection, as well as having better protection against a wider range of variants. At this point, you're actively denying science in the name of your narrative.

400000Dead

Based on how much exposure? Got a peer reviewed study?

Also I love how you ignored all of logistical problems and zeroed in on the talking point.

You're not looking to solve problems. Only win internet points.

eligible2flow

Do you have a source on that?

Source?

A source. I need a source.

Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.

No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.

You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.

Do you have a degree in that field?

A college degree? In that field?

Then your arguments are invalid.

No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation does not equal causation.

CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.

You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.

Nope, still haven't.

I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron.

Flyfalcons

Source:

Delta does not appear to make children sicker; Secondary immune response stronger after infection than after shot

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/delta-does-not-appear-make-children-sicker-secondary-immune-response-stronger-2021-10-08/

400000Dead

Okay I laughed. The last 18 months of APC condensed into a single post.

You must have a degree in satire.