![]() |
Originally Posted by FXLAX
(Post 3301401)
If you want to protect yourself, vaccinate. That seems to be the best way to protect yourself from the unvaccinated. No need to take liberties away for 0.2% of the total population.
I like the seatbelt analogy. This vaccine mandate is like you, as a seatbelt wearer, not letting people participate in society because they refuse to wear a seatbelt, especially when they decide not to drive and take the bus instead. But I’m not in favor of vaccine mandates at all. Part of the misfortune of Covid times is that many people are now used to getting paid for not working, or barely working at all. We certainly don’t need to add more people to the unemployment and Medicaid list, particularly with a worker shortage. Definitely don’t want those who are working to join those now staying at home. |
Originally Posted by Meat Fighter
(Post 3301677)
I'm not sure why you cannot grasp that vaccinated individuals carry a higher viral load and have a higher propensity for transmission. Those "antivax" parents could have been vaxxed and given it their kids all the same.
While the vax may have its positives in terms of individual efficacy, basing your line of reasoning on false assumptions about preventing transmission, after it being pointed out numerous time, is something to behold. Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk Here are some more numbers for you to dispute. A few Minnesota hospitals released the percentage of hospitalized with and without vaccine and amount needing ICU. News flash. Of those hospitalized. It was the unvaxxed that took the cake. https://www.google.com/amp/s/bringme...d-unvaccinated Just take a peek at the pictorials credited to the institutions. I’m sure the source is not good enough for you…it was the first I could find with the pictorials, but the pictorials are from the hospitals. Pictures are easy to understand. Good luck! If you wanna bash the hospitals reports which you likely will. Fire away I guess? |
Originally Posted by BertMacklinFBI
(Post 3301698)
Similar viral loads. The ideal your trying to grasp is similar. Not higher. But keep cherry picking the science you want to believe in, Meat Fighter. I don’t care vax or no vax. But at least speak some truths that are widely accepted.
Here are some more numbers for you to dispute. A few Minnesota hospitals released the percentage of hospitalized with and without vaccine and amount needing ICU. News flash. Of those hospitalized. It was the unvaxxed that took the cake. https://www.google.com/amp/s/bringme...d-unvaccinated Just take a peek at the pictorials credited to the institutions. I’m sure the source is not good enough for you…it was the first I could find with the pictorials, but the pictorials are from the hospitals. Pictures are easy to understand. Good luck! If you wanna bash the hospitals reports which you likely will. Fire away I guess? 1. How many of the designated unvaxxed have had one shot or are within two weeks of their second shot? 2. Why is there such a disparity between this data set and other countries like Israel or Singapore or Gibraltor or even states like Vermont that have a much higher vaccination rate? That being said, back to my original point. What is the predicate for mandating a treatment that does prevent transmission? Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by Meat Fighter
(Post 3301718)
Not going to disagree with the data or pictures. But I would ask a few questions.
1. How many of the designated unvaxxed have had one shot or are within two weeks of their second shot? 2. Why is there such a disparity between this data set and other countries like Israel or Singapore or Gibraltor or even states like Vermont that have a much higher vaccination rate? That being said, back to my original point. What is the predicate for mandating a treatment that does prevent transmission? Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk 2. I haven’t the time nor the care to investigate every country. I just provided some close to home info. But running through the googles. Singapore not overly concerned because of low amount of serious cases. Due to vaccine. people have their opinions. A random internet dude isn’t gonna change yours. Good luck out there. I seriously hope you’re wielding dual tomahawk ribeyes. Or maybe one tomahawk and one sausage links? Your screen name brings me joy. |
Originally Posted by Meat Fighter
(Post 3301677)
I'm not sure why you cannot grasp that vaccinated individuals carry a higher viral load and have a higher propensity for transmission. Those "antivax" parents could have been vaxxed and given it their kids all the same.
While the vax may have its positives in terms of individual efficacy, basing your line of reasoning on false assumptions about preventing transmission, after it being pointed out numerous time, is something to behold. Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk That sounds like some FNC talking point if you ask me. |
Originally Posted by coryk
(Post 3301820)
Source?
That sounds like some FNC talking point if you ask me. https://www.cdc.gov/media/rele.../20...-covid-19.html What is the predicate for forcing others to get vaccinated if it doesn't prevent transmission? In other words, if the vaccinated or unvaccinated can infect others then what's the rationale for forcing people to get injected to prevent infecting others? Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by Meat Fighter
(Post 3301824)
Source for what? That it doesn't prevent transmission?
https://www.cdc.gov/media/rele.../20...-covid-19.html What is the predicate for forcing others to get vaccinated if it doesn't prevent transmission? In other words, if the vaccinated or unvaccinated can infect others then what's the rationale for forcing people to get injected to prevent infecting others? Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk 1)A vaccinated person is far less likely to catch COVID than an unvaccinated person. 2)So while an infected vaccinated person can also spread COVID, they (the vaccinated person) is far less likely to have ever caught COVID in the first place. So what can we deduce from this? Simple - vaccinated people are less likely to catch and spread COVID compared to unvaccinated people. More importantly, governments across the world will soon require anyone (yes, even American FedEx pilots!) to have been vaccinated before they can enter the country. We also have verbiage in our contract that says YOU have to have all necessary vaccinations as part of your employment. You anti-vaccine nut jobs are on borrowed time, and will soon have to either get vaccinated or leave/get terminated. I predict most of you will fold and get vaccinated, as you aren’t going to quit your million dollar career over something so stupid. |
Originally Posted by Meat Fighter
(Post 3301677)
I'm not sure why you cannot grasp that vaccinated individuals carry a higher viral load and have a higher propensity for transmission
All I can find is similar viral load. |
Originally Posted by BlueMoon
(Post 3301902)
Source for the claim that vaccinated people have a “higher viral load”?
All I can find is similar viral load. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3301911)
There is no source, because he's posting false information. Infraction issued.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:17 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands