Ban on COVID-19 vaccine requirement for students signed into law

globalhawk

HR All-American
Dec 16, 2003
4,750
5,099
113
So you do consider them to be the only experts on the subject? If so, why wasnt the phrase "listen to CDC and only the CDC"?
Still waiting on you to tell me what I believe as well....
That it was stated that the vaccine prevents Covid. Does the flu vaccine prevent you from getting the flu ?
 

notlongago

HR All-American
Jul 28, 2012
4,362
1,962
113
That it was stated that the vaccine prevents Covid. Does the flu vaccine prevent you from getting the flu ?
Why do you keep ignoring questions - is the CDC the only source we should believe? If so, why werent we told to only listen to the CDC?

And everyone knows the efficacy of the flu vaccine is roughly 40%-60% depending on the year (FWIW, the covid vaccine was supposed to have ~95% efficacy). And no one ever claimed the flu vaccine eliminates your risk of contraction. (this year, it was almost useless at somewhere around 16% efficacy). And judging by your question, we're good to compare covid to the flu now? Remember, that was a blasphemous comparison not long ago either.
 

ExcellentBread

Scout Team
Oct 17, 2002
103
145
43
Why do you keep ignoring questions - is the CDC the only source we should believe? If so, why werent we told to only listen to the CDC?

And everyone knows the efficacy of the flu vaccine is roughly 40%-60% depending on the year (FWIW, the covid vaccine was supposed to have ~95% efficacy). And no one ever claimed the flu vaccine eliminates your risk of contraction. (this year, it was almost useless at somewhere around 16% efficacy). And judging by your question, we're good to compare covid to the flu now? Remember, that was a blasphemous comparison not long ago either.
They were supposed to have 95% efficacy? Do you think people were just guessing and throwing out numbers? Do you even know what efficacy means vs effectiveness?

The vaccines WERE 95% effective at one point. That was a real measure. They saved tons of lives and bought time on this planet for many who would already have died from covid. The vaccines are still very effective but not as much as they were when the virus genetically similar to the origin.
 

globalhawk

HR All-American
Dec 16, 2003
4,750
5,099
113
Why do you keep ignoring questions - is the CDC the only source we should believe? If so, why werent we told to only listen to the CDC?

And everyone knows the efficacy of the flu vaccine is roughly 40%-60% depending on the year. And no one ever claimed the flu vaccine eliminates your risk of contraction. (this year, it was almost useless at somewhere around 16% efficacy). And judging by your question, we're good to compare covid to the flu now? Remember, that was a blasphemous comparison not long ago either.
Dude. What are your friggin’ sources? What told you that the Covid vaccine stopped you from getting infected? You are making this claim. Do you trust the CDC? You claimed the Covid vaccine was supposed to stop infection. You just stated of course the flu shot doesn’t prevent infection. You are confusing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman

notlongago

HR All-American
Jul 28, 2012
4,362
1,962
113
Dude. What are your friggin’ sources? What told you that the Covid vaccine stopped you from getting infected? You are making this claim. Do you trust the CDC? You claimed the Covid vaccine was supposed to stop infection. You just stated of course the flu shot doesn’t prevent infection. You are confusing.
Do you consider the CDC, and the CDC alone to be "experts" on the subject? Should we listen to people like fauchi? Our individual family practitioners? virologists on CNN?
 

globalhawk

HR All-American
Dec 16, 2003
4,750
5,099
113
Do you consider the CDC, and the CDC alone to be "experts" on the subject? Should we listen to people like fauchi? Our individual family practitioners?
The one and only, no. What were better sources than the pharma companies and the CDC? You are showing your political bias here. Your individual practitioner would call you a nut right now.
 

notlongago

HR All-American
Jul 28, 2012
4,362
1,962
113
The one and only, no. What were better sources than the pharma companies and the CDC? You are showing your political bias here. Your individual practitioner would call you a nut right now.
Ive been asking you. Youre the one who said no one claimed the vaccine would prevent transmission (which of course is incredibly incorrect). Im just trying to clarify your actual position and who consider credible so you cant move the goal posts again.

Out of curiosity, what is my political bias? Wanna take a stab at my position on other "politcal" issues? LGBTQ+ issues? Legalization of recreational drugs? Foreign policy? Thoughts on immigration? Guns? 1st amendment vs censorship? Go ahead an continue to tell me what I believe - youve been wildly wrong so far, so im sure it'd be entertaining.
 

globalhawk

HR All-American
Dec 16, 2003
4,750
5,099
113
Ive been asking you. Youre the one who said no one claimed the vaccine would prevent transmission (which of course is incredibly incorrect). Im just trying to clarify your actual position and who consider credible so you cant move the goal posts again.

Out of curiosity, what is my political bias? Wanna take a stab at my position on other "politcal" issues? LGBTQ+ issues? Legalization of recreational drugs? Foreign policy? Thoughts on immigration? Guns? 1st amendment vs censorship? Go ahead an continue to tell me what I believe - youve been wildly wrong so far, so im sure it'd be entertaining.
I am walking away. Your argument was that the vax didn't do what it was originally intended to do. Is this correct? You can't admit you are wrong with that statement.
 

notlongago

HR All-American
Jul 28, 2012
4,362
1,962
113
I am walking away. Your argument was that the vax didn't do what it was originally intended to do. Is this correct? You can't admit you are wrong with that statement.
Solid technique - cant answer questions, get called out on making false assumptions, so just take your ball and go home. Very adult of you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ICHerky

globalhawk

HR All-American
Dec 16, 2003
4,750
5,099
113
Solid technique - cant answer questions, get called out on making false assumptions, so just take your ball and go home. Very adult of you.
What is your source that the vaccine did not serve its original intent? Answer that and we can continue.
 

notlongago

HR All-American
Jul 28, 2012
4,362
1,962
113
What is your source that the vaccine did not serve its original intent? Answer that and we can continue.
Since the original intent was to stop symptomatic infections, start there. Moderna and Phizer both said 95% effective in stopping symptomatic infections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ICHerky

globalhawk

HR All-American
Dec 16, 2003
4,750
5,099
113
Since the original intent was to stop symptomatic infections, start there. Moderna and Phizer both said 95% effective in stopping symptomatic infections.
They were. The same post from previously in this thread:

The vaccines WERE 95% effective at one point. That was a real measure. They saved tons of lives and bought time on this planet for many who would already have died from covid. The vaccines are still very effective but not as much as they were when the virus genetically similar to the origin.
 

notlongago

HR All-American
Jul 28, 2012
4,362
1,962
113
They were. The same post from previously in this thread:

The vaccines WERE 95% effective at one point. That was a real measure. They saved tons of lives and bought time on this planet for many who would already have died from covid. The vaccines are still very effective but not as much as they were when the virus genetically similar to the origin.
Sounds like you agree, the vaccine doesn't do today what it was originally designed and promised to do, correct?
 

globalhawk

HR All-American
Dec 16, 2003
4,750
5,099
113
The makers of the vaccine.
What part of this is giving you fits? This is not nearly as hard as you make it out to be.
95 effective. Then because of variants it became less effective. I am not understanding how it didn't do what it was originally intended.
 

notlongago

HR All-American
Jul 28, 2012
4,362
1,962
113
95 effective. Then because of variants it became less effective. I am not understanding how it didn't do what it was originally intended.
Because it doesn't do what it was designed and promised to do today does it?
My descriptor of "preemptive therapeutic" is much more apt isn't it?
So I'll ask you again; Sounds like you agree, the vaccine doesn't do today what it was originally designed and promised to do, correct?
It feels like you want to have a semantic argument, but you can't even organize your own thoughts on the matter.
 

globalhawk

HR All-American
Dec 16, 2003
4,750
5,099
113
Because it doesn't do what it was designed and promised to do today does it?
My descriptor of "preemptive therapeutic" is much more apt isn't it?
So I'll ask you again; Sounds like you agree, the vaccine doesn't do today what it was originally designed and promised to do, correct?
It feels like you want to have a semantic argument, but you can't even organize your own thoughts on the matter.
Our disagreement: Are you not aware of the amount of people contracting covid while being vaxxed or do you not know the function of a vaccine?
 

notlongago

HR All-American
Jul 28, 2012
4,362
1,962
113
Our disagreement: Are you not aware of the amount of people contracting covid while being vaxxed or do you not know the function of a vaccine?
We've now established the vaccine was designed and promised to prevent symptomatic infections, which it's not doing today, correct?
As of now, all that can be said for it is people vaccinated are less likely to contract a servere illness, yes? i.e. a preemptive therapeutic.
 
Last edited:

globalhawk

HR All-American
Dec 16, 2003
4,750
5,099
113
We've now established the vaccine was designed and promised to prevent symptomatic infections, which it's not doing today, correct?
As of now, all that can said for it is people vaccinated are less likely to contract a servere illness, yes? i.e. a preemptive therapeutic.
Not promised. It was what was proven at the time. It was 95% effective. I am done with you. JFC.
 

notlongago

HR All-American
Jul 28, 2012
4,362
1,962
113
Not promised. It was what was proven at the time. It was 95% effective. I am done with you. JFC.
I knew you wanted a semantics argument. We were told the vaccine stops symptomatic infections. That is not the case. You wanna redefine, rename, etc great. Buts it's not doing what it was supposed to do.
 

globalhawk

HR All-American
Dec 16, 2003
4,750
5,099
113
I knew you wanted a semantics argument. We were told the vaccine stops symptomatic infections. That is not the case. You wanna redefine, rename, etc great. Buts it's not doing what it was supposed to do.
Phuq. It is not doing what it is supposed to do.
 

Pinehawk

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2003
20,272
14,938
113
No. Biden made quite a blunder when he misspoke. The CDC NEVER stated what you believe.

Oh really?

“A day after Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky suggested people vaccinated against COVID-19 would not become infected with or transmit the disease, the CDC backtracked the comments.

“Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick,” Walensky told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Monday. “And that it’s not just in the clinical trials, it’s also in real-world data.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: notlongago

globalhawk

HR All-American
Dec 16, 2003
4,750
5,099
113
Oh really?

“A day after Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky suggested people vaccinated against COVID-19 would not become infected with or transmit the disease, the CDC backtracked the comments.

“Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick,” Walensky told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Monday. “And that it’s not just in the clinical trials, it’s also in real-world data.”
Ok. I am wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pinehawk

Urohawk

HR Heisman
Sep 30, 2001
6,989
8,430
113
  • Like
Reactions: lucas80 and dgordo

Urohawk

HR Heisman
Sep 30, 2001
6,989
8,430
113
Why do you keep ignoring questions - is the CDC the only source we should believe? If so, why werent we told to only listen to the CDC?

And everyone knows the efficacy of the flu vaccine is roughly 40%-60% depending on the year (FWIW, the covid vaccine was supposed to have ~95% efficacy). And no one ever claimed the flu vaccine eliminates your risk of contraction. (this year, it was almost useless at somewhere around 16% efficacy). And judging by your question, we're good to compare covid to the flu now? Remember, that was a blasphemous comparison not long ago either.
The covid vaccine does 90%+ efficacy on preventing death and hospitalization. It's not the flu. It's approaching the flu as it mutates but it didn't start off that way and you're a dumbass if you think so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lucas80

notlongago

HR All-American
Jul 28, 2012
4,362
1,962
113
The covid vaccine does 90%+ efficacy on preventing death and hospitalization. It's not the flu. It's approaching the flu as it mutates but it didn't start off that way and you're a dumbass if you think so.
I'm not going to argue whether that's correct or not, it's not the point. The point is it's not doing today what it was designed and billed to do, is it?
Did I say it started like a flu? No. In fact, I haven't brought up the flu at all. Don't read what isn't written.
 

Pinehawk

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2003
20,272
14,938
113
Why don’t we have an omicron variant vaccine/booster by now?
They create new flu strain vaccines each year. But, we’re still administering the same outdated Covid vaccine that was developed for the delta strain 18 months ago.
 

Urohawk

HR Heisman
Sep 30, 2001
6,989
8,430
113
I'm not going to argue whether that's correct or not, it's not the point. The point is it's not doing today what it was designed and billed to do, is it?
Did I say it started like a flu? No. In fact, I haven't brought up the flu at all. Don't read what isn't written.
Why do you keep ignoring questions - is the CDC the only source we should believe? If so, why werent we told to only listen to the CDC?

And everyone knows the efficacy of the flu vaccine is roughly 40%-60% depending on the year (FWIW, the covid vaccine was supposed to have ~95% efficacy). And no one ever claimed the flu vaccine eliminates your risk of contraction. (this year, it was almost useless at somewhere around 16% efficacy). And judging by your question, we're good to compare covid to the flu now? Remember, that was a blasphemous comparison not long ago either.
Except you did bring up the flu.....
 

artradley

HR Legend
Apr 26, 2013
30,091
52,918
113
Are they dying or being hospitalized at the same rate as the stupid douches who didn't get vaccinated? Or, is their boosted immune system offering them heightened protection?

If Covid affected the entire population the way it affected children, most Americans would have never heard of it.
 

artradley

HR Legend
Apr 26, 2013
30,091
52,918
113
They were supposed to have 95% efficacy? Do you think people were just guessing and throwing out numbers? Do you even know what efficacy means vs effectiveness?

The vaccines WERE 95% effective at one point. That was a real measure. They saved tons of lives and bought time on this planet for many who would already have died from covid. The vaccines are still very effective but not as much as they were when the virus genetically similar to the origin.

Would it make the most sense to base today’s policy on the effectiveness today, or the effectiveness from eighteen months ago?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pinehawk

lucas80

HR King
Gold Member
Jan 30, 2008
93,816
119,494
113
If Covid affected the entire population the way it affected children, most Americans would have never heard of it.
Covid is still out there, still mutating, and we do not know the long term effects on children and adults.
 

artradley

HR Legend
Apr 26, 2013
30,091
52,918
113
Covid is still out there, still mutating, and we do not know the long term effects on children and adults.

It’s been two years. We actually do know a great deal about the long term effects. And it is a fact that it is not a significant health issue among children; certainly not one that justifies any kind of government mandates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pinehawk