Apologies for typos; on my phone
Fully vaxxed man in California tests positive for Omicron
-
lol all you ppl who put poison in their bodies for a sense of security to realize you now have no freedom and no security.
How does it feel knowing you have been violated and you can never get that back?Looks like there are still people out there who think the MRNA vaccines (or maybe all covid vaccines) are "poison" and they are ~0-30% effective, even before six months have passed since injection. Are you actually a Phd scholar? I've never met a PhD economist who thinks/speaks like this, not even from a LRM. Where do people such as yourself come from? Not accusing, just curious. All the HRMs and the few LRMs I work with are glad to be vaccinated. There must be a disconnect somewhere. So you would argue that all those Harvard, MIT, Columbia, etc. STEM and biology professors, including the younger ones, are m0rons for following campus mandates and getting vaccinated (or "poisoned", according to you)? They must be missing out on some major piece of information evidently, since I would consider most of the people to be quite intelligent. I would be interested in seeing a public debate between those academics and people who think like you, just to see what happens. Any credible source for the mrna vaccines being poisonous? I can ask a biology professor at my school this question. Or my physician, or just read up the biology on my own (I have). I'm pretty sure the professor's response will be different than yours, but I'm trying to understand is why you think that. Is it that you disagree with the constitutionality of the federal vaccine mandate attempt, so you feel validated in saying that the vaccine is poisonous as a spirited response to perceived government overreach? If you are a professor or a graduate student, then odds are you are already vaccinated because of campus mandates. If you aren't, then why are you on this site? Seems like a useless site for anyone outside of academia.
I'm a HRM and you'd have to be blind to not see that the vaccine only offers a meaningful risk reduction for very old people (+70).
Other than that, there is not even conclusive evidence of reduced transmission risk which is the only rationale behind mandates.
The "vaccine" is at best a flimsy prophylactic that works mostly in improving outcomes for the very old. No logic whatsoever on forcing these on kids or any other population not at risk of death.
-
harvard prof
https://twitter.com/MartinKulldorffWhat's your point with this? I think he has a problem with the broad-based mandates with no policy nuance but I don’t hear him saying that the vaccines are poison. You can be against current covid policy but still think the vaccines aren't poison.
-
-
I'm a HRM and you'd have to be blind to not see that the vaccine only offers a meaningful risk reduction for very old people (+70).
Other than that, there is not even conclusive evidence of reduced transmission risk which is the only rationale behind mandates.
The "vaccine" is at best a flimsy prophylactic that works mostly in improving outcomes for the very old. No logic whatsoever on forcing these on kids or any other population not at risk of death.
I like you. We should hang out sometime, maybe get some ramen.
-
I'm a HRM and you'd have to be blind to not see that the vaccine only offers a meaningful risk reduction for very old people (+70).
Other than that, there is not even conclusive evidence of reduced transmission risk which is the only rationale behind mandates.
The "vaccine" is at best a flimsy prophylactic that works mostly in improving outcomes for the very old. No logic whatsoever on forcing these on kids or any other population not at risk of death.I disagree partly. Mitigation of hospital burden is the main rationale behind the mandates, not just reducing transmission. And I'm not saying you have to agree with the current policy (I don’t either). I'm strictly talking about vaccine safety and the highly-upvoted posts on here that claim that the mrna vaccines will kill you in a few years, turn you into a walking bag of comorbidities, etc. I'm curious to know why so many people actually feel that way since I presume this site mostly attracts academics who (I think) would know better.
-
Why do anti-vax people focus on the transmission so much? Just because vaccines for other diseases help to stop transmission, this does not mean that this is needed for a vaccine mandate to be socially optimal (transmission rate is lower - while > 0 - btw when vaxxed, but let's ignore that). If too many people are unvaxxed and develop series symptoms, there is an externality that you create for the health care system. Italy, Portugal, India, New York can all tell you stories about this (and all these places had social distancing/masking etc.). So if you want to have the old life back, without any such measures to reduce transmission and at the same time care about avoiding having full ICUs (which means that necessary surgeries have to be postponed for other people) vaxxing is the only way.
lol all you ppl who put poison in their bodies for a sense of security to realize you now have no freedom and no security.
How does it feel knowing you have been violated and you can never get that back?Looks like there are still people out there who think the MRNA vaccines (or maybe all covid vaccines) are "poison" and they are ~0-30% effective, even before six months have passed since injection. Are you actually a Phd scholar? I've never met a PhD economist who thinks/speaks like this, not even from a LRM. Where do people such as yourself come from? Not accusing, just curious. All the HRMs and the few LRMs I work with are glad to be vaccinated. There must be a disconnect somewhere. So you would argue that all those Harvard, MIT, Columbia, etc. STEM and biology professors, including the younger ones, are m0rons for following campus mandates and getting vaccinated (or "poisoned", according to you)? They must be missing out on some major piece of information evidently, since I would consider most of the people to be quite intelligent. I would be interested in seeing a public debate between those academics and people who think like you, just to see what happens. Any credible source for the mrna vaccines being poisonous? I can ask a biology professor at my school this question. Or my physician, or just read up the biology on my own (I have). I'm pretty sure the professor's response will be different than yours, but I'm trying to understand is why you think that. Is it that you disagree with the constitutionality of the federal vaccine mandate attempt, so you feel validated in saying that the vaccine is poisonous as a spirited response to perceived government overreach? If you are a professor or a graduate student, then odds are you are already vaccinated because of campus mandates. If you aren't, then why are you on this site? Seems like a useless site for anyone outside of academia.
I'm a HRM and you'd have to be blind to not see that the vaccine only offers a meaningful risk reduction for very old people (+70).
Other than that, there is not even conclusive evidence of reduced transmission risk which is the only rationale behind mandates.
The "vaccine" is at best a flimsy prophylactic that works mostly in improving outcomes for the very old. No logic whatsoever on forcing these on kids or any other population not at risk of death. -
if you want to have the old life back, without any such measures to reduce transmission and at the same time care about avoiding having full ICUs (which means that necessary surgeries have to be postponed for other people) vaxxing is the only way
^weapons-grade retart
-
no one is saying that every person jabbed is going to die except the hard core conspiracy theorists (who sometimes get proven right recently).
most people are saying the risk reward is not in favor for the young, thin, and healthy. they should not be jabbed.You haven't been on here recently then if you think nobody is saying people are going to die or turn into who knows what after getting vaccinated. Those posts are all over the place, and they get the most upvotes. And I disagree with your blanket cost/benefit assessment for various reasons. But I do think that the federal mandate is too broad and overreaching.
-
Free-riding on 3/4 of the Western civilization imposing measures to various degrees does not mean your red state approach is a long-term model for society as a whole. But I guess that is hard to grasp if your world spans from the local Walmart to the LAC that you teach at.
if you want to have the old life back, without any such measures to reduce transmission and at the same time care about avoiding having full ICUs (which means that necessary surgeries have to be postponed for other people) vaxxing is the only way
^weapons-grade retart
-
I'm a HRM and you'd have to be blind to not see that the vaccine only offers a meaningful risk reduction for very old people (+70).
Other than that, there is not even conclusive evidence of reduced transmission risk which is the only rationale behind mandates.
The "vaccine" is at best a flimsy prophylactic that works mostly in improving outcomes for the very old. No logic whatsoever on forcing these on kids or any other population not at risk of death.I disagree partly. Mitigation of hospital burden is the main rationale behind the mandates, not just reducing transmission. And I'm not saying you have to agree with the current policy (I don’t either). I'm strictly talking about vaccine safety and the highly-upvoted posts on here that claim that the mrna vaccines will kill you in a few years, turn you into a walking bag of comorbidities, etc. I'm curious to know why so many people actually feel that way since I presume this site mostly attracts academics who (I think) would know better.
Even with the rational of reducing hospital burden the solution is again only "vaccinate" the population at risk (this is always the solution in any crappy model of infection you come up with with the objective function of minimizing hospital load). Global vaccination only works for sterilizing vaccines (which again there is no evidence).
The long-term effects is actually a legitimate discussion (that is often trivialized equating anyone asking these as a "flat-earther"). If you are a scientist you should know that the only way to test whether or not there are long-term effects is having a treatment and control groups over an extended period of time. For example, whether the vaccine increases the risk of cancer 5 to 10 years down the road cannot be handwaived by the lazy answer of saying "there is no evidence of long-term effects, therefore the vaccines are safe". It's like saying that printing money today won't cause inflation in 5 years because the prices remain the same today.
-
Free-riding on 3/4 of the Western civilization imposing measures to various degrees does not mean your red state approach is a long-term model for society as a whole. But I guess that is hard to grasp if your world spans from the local Walmart to the LAC that you teach at.
if you want to have the old life back, without any such measures to reduce transmission and at the same time care about avoiding having full ICUs (which means that necessary surgeries have to be postponed for other people) vaxxing is the only way
^weapons-grade retart
what’s your favorite way to terminate a pregnancy, sh¡tlíb?
-
Yes they are. They a feeble minded who will do anything to fit in within “The Academy” and be in their good side.
lol all you ppl who put poison in their bodies for a sense of security to realize you now have no freedom and no security.
How does it feel knowing you have been violated and you can never get that back?Looks like there are still people out there who think the MRNA vaccines (or maybe all covid vaccines) are "poison" and they are ~0-30% effective, even before six months have passed since injection. Are you actually a Phd scholar? I've never met a PhD economist who thinks/speaks like this, not even from a LRM. Where do people such as yourself come from? Not accusing, just curious. All the HRMs and the few LRMs I work with are glad to be vaccinated. There must be a disconnect somewhere. So you would argue that all those Harvard, MIT, Columbia, etc. STEM and biology professors, including the younger ones, are m0rons for following campus mandates and getting vaccinated (or "poisoned", according to you)? They must be missing out on some major piece of information evidently, since I would consider most of the people to be quite intelligent. I would be interested in seeing a public debate between those academics and people who think like you, just to see what happens. Any credible source for the mrna vaccines being poisonous? I can ask a biology professor at my school this question. Or my physician, or just read up the biology on my own (I have). I'm pretty sure the professor's response will be different than yours, but I'm trying to understand is why you think that. Is it that you disagree with the constitutionality of the federal vaccine mandate attempt, so you feel validated in saying that the vaccine is poisonous as a spirited response to perceived government overreach? If you are a professor or a graduate student, then odds are you are already vaccinated because of campus mandates. If you aren't, then why are you on this site? Seems like a useless site for anyone outside of academia.
-
It is not hand-waived. You will not have a dormant piece of mRNA lying around which gets activated 5 years later by coincidence and suddenly causes cancer. This idea is bogus and there is not a single vaccine or other medication that affects the body this way in the "long term". All pharmaceutical products that have actual long-term effects also have measurable effects in the build-up to the long term. It is completely out of the current scientific scope to assume that there will be long term consequences. Of course, you can refute the collective wisdom of science on the basis that many things known to be false today have once been claimed by science. But I am not sure whether this is a good model for a society.
I'm a HRM and you'd have to be blind to not see that the vaccine only offers a meaningful risk reduction for very old people (+70).
Other than that, there is not even conclusive evidence of reduced transmission risk which is the only rationale behind mandates.
The "vaccine" is at best a flimsy prophylactic that works mostly in improving outcomes for the very old. No logic whatsoever on forcing these on kids or any other population not at risk of death.I disagree partly. Mitigation of hospital burden is the main rationale behind the mandates, not just reducing transmission. And I'm not saying you have to agree with the current policy (I don’t either). I'm strictly talking about vaccine safety and the highly-upvoted posts on here that claim that the mrna vaccines will kill you in a few years, turn you into a walking bag of comorbidities, etc. I'm curious to know why so many people actually feel that way since I presume this site mostly attracts academics who (I think) would know better.
Even with the rational of reducing hospital burden the solution is again only "vaccinate" the population at risk (this is always the solution in any crappy model of infection you come up with with the objective function of minimizing hospital load). Global vaccination only works for sterilizing vaccines (which again there is no evidence).
The long-term effects is actually a legitimate discussion (that is often trivialized equating anyone asking these as a "flat-earther"). If you are a scientist you should know that the only way to test whether or not there are long-term effects is having a treatment and control groups over an extended period of time. For example, whether the vaccine increases the risk of cancer 5 to 10 years down the road cannot be handwaived by the lazy answer of saying "there is no evidence of long-term effects, therefore the vaccines are safe". It's like saying that printing money today won't cause inflation in 5 years because the prices remain the same today. -
mandates are r a p e
harvard prof
https://twitter.com/MartinKulldorffWhat's your point with this? I think he has a problem with the broad-based mandates with no policy nuance but I don’t hear him saying that the vaccines are poison. You can be against current covid policy but still think the vaccines aren't poison.