No, we're not going to forget
- Thread starter naturalbornhawk
- Start date
There’s a new goosebumps series out and it’s definitely crappie season now.
The Epoch Times?! JFC some of you people are dumb beyond saving. Don't get vaccinated then. We could use less of the idiocy.
I haven't been stabbed yet, no reason to start now.
I'll stay alive and healthy because I won't get vaccinated.
My shot only works if you get one, my mask only works if you wear one...
Been stabbed 3 times no problem for me or the other 50 people who got vaxed at work.
Had a Doctor appointment yesterday. Doctor asked if I wanted the flu and covid shots. I said I'd get the flu shot, but thought I'd hold back and skip the Covid shot.
And, to my surprise he said, paraphrasing here, 'Yeah, I probably wouldn't recommend it for you. I'm only recommending it to people over 65 or with chronic conditions at this point. I would have to vaccinate 10,000 people to prevent 10 hospitalizations. And, it doesn't even prevent transmission, and that's from the CDC.'
I told him that I'd already had the initial two doses, and one booster, and have had Covid previously.
He said that was all the protection I needed. But, talk to your doctor and see what they tell you.
And, to my surprise he said, paraphrasing here, 'Yeah, I probably wouldn't recommend it for you. I'm only recommending it to people over 65 or with chronic conditions at this point. I would have to vaccinate 10,000 people to prevent 10 hospitalizations. And, it doesn't even prevent transmission, and that's from the CDC.'
I told him that I'd already had the initial two doses, and one booster, and have had Covid previously.
He said that was all the protection I needed. But, talk to your doctor and see what they tell you.
Sounds like you have a doctor who isn't beholden to Pfizer.
I'm not going to tell people they're wrong for getting the covid shots. Odds are better for them to have a less severe bout of the vid if they've been vaccinated. They are introducing themselves to the risk of side effects, so it's up to them to decide if it makes more sense to them to better protect themselves from a virus that 98/99% of people get over anyway and risk potential side effects of the shot, both known short term effects and possible unknown long term effects than it is to continue to ride it out.
At this point the shots seem like wearing a rain coat in a hurricane. You're still gonna get wet, but MAYBE not as soaked as you would otherwise.
All MDs that Joe doesn't agree with are incorrect.
Again: read the data.
Even @Pinehawk has posted that the vaccines, 4 months out, are 30% effective at preventing infections. The "doctor" being mentioned is misinformed on that fact.
Same thing.
And here you are, STILL not understanding the implications of that number.
I'm going to trust the medical professional on this. But, you go ahead and do your own research...
Apparently not, because you'd already cited that from the science literature, the vaccines DO prevent 30% of potential infections.
Yet, here you are, pretending they don't, just because some anecdotal story about a "doctor" says so....
Is it?
Let's say, for the sake of easier math, the number is 25% effective.
So, if I expose 800 people to the new Covids, who are "unboosted", and normally 400 of them will become infected (half), then how many will become infected in an identical population that IS boosted?
(Can you calculate what "75% of 400" is here?)
how many of the boosted will suffer some side effect they otherwise wouldn't have if they didn't take the shot? You look at this through a vacuum that these things are perfect and that's before you account for their 70% fail rate.
Last edited:
Joes Place ignores demographic data when it doesn't help his narrative. Even before there was a vaccine, 80% of people catching COVID had no symptoms or mild symptoms. The only people who had to worry were people over 50 and unhealthy people. Joes Place ignores the risk - benefit calculation of different groups in every discussion. My 27 year old son should not have been forced to be vaccinated. He has a much higher risk of cardio vascular side effects than he has of severe COVID illness, and was better off with natural immunity.
That's basically what my doctor said. He's just not really recommending it for people under 65, unless they have other factors.
1/7th to 1/2
You are 7x MORE likely to get myocarditis from the virus, than from the vaccine
You are 50% protected against myocarditis if you get the virus AFTER being vaccinated.
What am I "ignoring"
I've asked how many people would be "infected" with a 25% effective vaccine, if normally 400 would have been infected.
Can you compute than answer here?
What is "75% of 400"?
Your shot is 100% worthless if you get it and still get covid.
So, despite the evidence AND your earlier acknowledgement, now "30%" = "0%"
Is that your contention, here?
And just imagine....7x MORE of them had permanent heart damage from the VIRUS!!!!
You're overgeneralizing things the situation. I think you're missing some relevant variables.
No, I'm saying the 70% of the time the vaccine fails, it fails at 100%, there's no way to prove that once the vaccine failed to protect you from illness that it's doing anything to prevent severe illness or death. The overwhelming majority of cases don't result in severe illness or death without the vaccine. 1-2% of people have severe complications from Covid the other 98-99% are sick for a few days (If they show symptoms at all).
Sorry I'm not willing to say something did its job, after it failed to................. do its job.
Sudafed doesn't stop you from getting the sniffles, but it helps if you do... Sudafed isn't a vaccine, and if that's what these shots are supposed to do, if that's considered working, then they aren't vaccines either. They're not a prophylactic.
Last edited:
Uh....no
When it "fails" to prevent an actual infection, it has still shown high effectiveness at preventing serious disease cases.
And 50% effectiveness at preventing myocarditis cases, compared with un-boosted people who contract it.
So, once again: if 400 people would have caught the disease, do you concur that 25% effective means then only 300 would have become infected?
Are your facts the same today as they were in 2020?
For example, in 2020 your facts were 95% efficacy of the vaccine to prevent infection and spread, and there was no such think as infection without symptoms.
Since then your facts include the claim that vaccines provide better immunity than prior infection.
Seems like your facts are somewhat fluid.
We've all been assured by the resident off topic "scientists" (there were several, it's not just Joe) on this board that there is zero possibility the COVID mRNA vaccines could alter one's DNA. Well this guy, who I'd be willing to bet knows a hell of a lot more about it than anyone who frequents this board begs to differ.
Joe is full of it and has been for a long time.
Between March 2020 and January 2021, the CDC concludes that there is a 7.5-fold greater risk of myocarditis in a young person (sex unspecified) aged 16 to 39 if he or she has Covid than if he or she has not been infected. [2]. To make an exact comparison with the post-vaccination risk, we would need to have data for the same age groups, which is not the case for the CDC's pharmacovigilance data. This can be approached with the results of a June 2021 report [3 ]. In it, the CDC published that for boys and young men aged 12 to 24, the risk of myocarditis was 100 times higher within 21 days of the second dose of mRNA than expected; this should have been enough to withdraw these products from the market.
According to the CDC, there is a 7.5-fold increase in the risk of myocarditis in a 16-39 year-old due to COVID, and a 100-fold increase in the risk in a 12-24 year-old due to the 2nd dose of mRNA vaccine. This result is unambiguous and should have been enough to end the debate.
Dude I promise you the shots are perfect and not at all broken. They are doing EXACTLY what they were intended to do.
