Why I don't "understand" complaints about vaccine mandates

[Paradoxical]

So who is forcing you to wear a mask, the tooth fairy? If you behave like an entitled, petulant, foot-stamping child who won't eat his greens, that's how you'll be treated. There's a painless alternative; wear a mask, get vaccinated and join the adults.

One that CAUSES death and heart problems.

 

[RealityChecker]

Nope.. i just stated that lockdowns in some and perhaps many cases were not necessary. But we all know that you need to create an alternate reality so that you can feel better about being wrong all the time
You really are anti science. You have all sorts of bias against science and those that do it. Like claiming that the only "good studies".. are RCT's
And not even understanding why their are other research designs.

More lies and misrepresentation. Sad and increasingly pathetic since you have now pretty much adopted my position that mandated lockdowns almost certainly di more harm than benefit to society as a whole.

What do you mean "You are wrong".. you just admitted that you said that Mask mandates caused harm. I asked you to provide evidence that mask wearing causes harm.. particularly for the time that people are wearing masks in public.
You just claimed again that school age kids to get vaccinated will cause more harm than benefit. AGain.. I ask you for the evidence of said harm caused by vaccines versus the benefit of them.
Cripes.. you really live in an alternate universe. You just proved me right.

Wrong again. How about those from the far left leaning The Atlantic:

"The benefits of mask requirements in schools might seem self-evident—they have to help contain the coronavirus, right?—but that may not be so. In Spain, masks are used in kids ages 6 and older. The authors of one study there examined the risk of viral spread at all ages. If masks provided a large benefit, then the transmission rate among 5-year-olds would be far higher than the rate among 6-year-olds.

The results don’t show that. Instead, they show that transmission rates, which were low among the youngest kids, steadily increased with age—rather than dropping sharply for older children subject to the face-covering requirement. This suggests that masking kids in school does not provide a major benefit and might provide none at all. And yet many officials prefer to double down on masking mandates, as if the fundamental policy were sound and only the people have failed."

No.. I stated that government lockdowns were not always good policy. In some if not many they were unnecessary and if there had been a mandate for masking.. and social distancing.. then the lockdowns would not have been necessary.

That is what I have said all along and you kept claiming government lockdowns were necessary. Nice to see you accepting that I was right all along.

 

[Paradoxical]

More lies and misrepresentation. Sad and increasingly pathetic since you have now pretty much adopted my position that mandated lockdowns almost certainly di more harm than benefit to society as a whole.

Wrong again. How about those from the far left leaning The Atlantic:

"The benefits of mask requirements in schools might seem self-evident—they have to help contain the coronavirus, right?—but that may not be so. In Spain, masks are used in kids ages 6 and older. The authors of one study there examined the risk of viral spread at all ages. If masks provided a large benefit, then the transmission rate among 5-year-olds would be far higher than the rate among 6-year-olds.

The results don’t show that. Instead, they show that transmission rates, which were low among the youngest kids, steadily increased with age—rather than dropping sharply for older children subject to the face-covering requirement. This suggests that masking kids in school does not provide a major benefit and might provide none at all. And yet many officials prefer to double down on masking mandates, as if the fundamental policy were sound and only the people have failed."

That is what I have said all along and you kept claiming government lockdowns were necessary. Nice to see you accepting that I was right all along.

This is nice to see. Also is like MSM where they just issue corrections to their blatant lies and go about business as usual, as if it never happened.

 

[jaeger19]

More lies and misrepresentation. Sad and increasingly pathetic since you have now pretty much adopted my position that mandated lockdowns almost certainly di more harm than benefit to society as a whole.

Whats sad and pathetic is how you have to make up stuff. Some lockdowns were necessary.. some were not. And frankly.. the key to not having a lockdown was having mask mandates, social distancing and adequate testing.. which you disagree with.

Wrong again. How about those from the far left leaning The Atlantic:

"The benefits of mask requirements in schools might seem self-evident—they have to help contain the coronavirus, right?—but that may not be so. In Spain, masks are used in kids ages 6 and older. The authors of one study there examined the risk of viral spread at all ages. If masks provided a large benefit, then the transmission rate among 5-year-olds would be far higher than the rate among 6-year-olds.

The results don’t show that. Instead, they show that transmission rates, which were low among the youngest kids, steadily increased with age—rather than dropping sharply for older children subject to the face-covering requirement. This suggests that masking kids in school does not provide a major benefit and might provide none at all. And yet many officials prefer to double down on masking mandates, as if the fundamental policy were sound and only the people have failed."

Yawn.. lets see the study. However, one critique is comparing older children to younger children since they are disparate populations.
that would be like looking at mask mandates in a CITY.. where people are in close confinement.. and then comparing that to no masks in the country where people are separated by miles.

That is what I have said all along and you kept claiming government lockdowns were necessary. Nice to see you accepting that I was right all along.

Yeah.. and you have no evidence to back any of it up. No evidence of harm from masks.. kids or adults.. no evidence of long term harm from vaccinations as you claim.. no evidence of harm vs benefits of vaccination as you claim.. etc.

 

[jaeger19]

I spent well over 15 minutes I recall reading your link. One of the reasons I no longer will read links without an excerpt or detailed explanation from the poster about the link. Now, you can huff and puff and try to bully me into silence all you want. But the piece was absolute garbage. it was a SURVEY! It wasn't anything close to science. At best, all it says is that people who CLAIMED to wear masks did not catch h Covid as much as those who CLAIMED they didn't wear masks. That's IT! that's ALL. I really don't give a rat's ass as to how someone cannot personally observe symptoms. Fact remains that this alleged doctor did NOT observe anything at all. He took the words of respondents. He didn't observe even one of them to see if they were lying, how they wore masks, what masks they wore, where they wore them, when they were around people who did and didn't wear masks, what locations they went to, how close to others they were, if the people they were near were infected or not, how old they were, and a whole host of other conditions that would play a part in people getting infected, such as population density and being in areas that had high infection rates.

Get back to me when you have some SCIENCE and not some high skool paper.

Dude.. you could have spent 6 days reading just one of the articles in that link and you STILL wouldn;t understand scientific research methodology.

The piece was NOT "a survey". Thats false. It followed people that had diagnosed with covid and were still in the infectious stage.. (BASED ON LAB TESTING). It then followed to the home and had them report their mask use. cleaning hands and social distancing. It then looked at the incidence of in home transmission of the virus from the infected person to someone in the household. AGain.. based on LAB TESTING.

Now.. you are like.. but but He took the words of respondents. He didn't observe even one of them to see if they were lying, how they wore masks, what masks they wore, where they wore them, when they were around people who did and didn't wear masks, what locations they went to, how close to others they were, if the people they were near were infected or not, how old they were, and a whole host of other conditions that would play a part in people getting infected, such as population density and being in areas that had high infection rates.

He wouldn;t need to see if they were lying.
Number one.. Do you really think people who were actually WEARING masks.. were lying and telling him they weren;t wearing them?
Likely not. So those not reporting wearing masks.. were likely all truthful
Now.. those that were NOT wearing masks... but reporting they were wearing masks.. or saying they were wearing them correctly etc?

If they were lying.. then those folks.. WOULD HAVE THE SAME INFECTION RATE AS THE ONES NOT WEARING MASKS.

Lying that they were wearing masks.. not wearing masks correctly, wearing cheap masks etc.. all that would DECREASE the likelihood that there would be a significant difference between mask wearers and non mask wearers.

What you have a hard time grasping.. is that by following people..and "making sure they are not lying etc"... the researcher is actually introducing his own influence into the study.
Just like if you wanted to study how much young men masturbate... following them around 24/7 is definitely change their behavior and skew your study.
Self reported results are an important part of scientific study.

 

[Paradoxical]

Dude.. you could have spent 6 days reading just one of the articles in that link and you STILL wouldn;t understand scientific research methodology.

The piece was NOT "a survey". Thats false. It followed people that had diagnosed with covid and were still in the infectious stage.. (BASED ON LAB TESTING). It then followed to the home and had them report their mask use. cleaning hands and social distancing. It then looked at the incidence of in home transmission of the virus from the infected person to someone in the household. AGain.. based on LAB TESTING.


He wouldn;t need to see if they were lying.
Number one.. Do you really think people who were actually WEARING masks.. were lying and telling him they weren;t wearing them?
Likely not. So those not reporting wearing masks.. were likely all truthful
Now.. those that were NOT wearing masks... but reporting they were wearing masks.. or saying they were wearing them correctly etc?

If they were lying.. then those folks.. WOULD HAVE THE SAME INFECTION RATE AS THE ONES NOT WEARING MASKS.

Lying that they were wearing masks.. not wearing masks correctly, wearing cheap masks etc.. all that would DECREASE the likelihood that there would be a significant difference between mask wearers and non mask wearers.

What you have a hard time grasping.. is that by following people..and "making sure they are not lying etc"... the researcher is actually introducing his own influence into the study.
Just like if you wanted to study how much young men masturbate... following them around 24/7 is definitely change their behavior and skew your study.
Self reported results are an important part of scientific study.

That doctor "followed" NO ONE! NO ONE!!!!

 

[jaeger19]

That doctor "followed" NO ONE! NO ONE!!!!

Umm..yes the study did.
The study followed primary infection and secondary infections through lab testing.

 

[Paradoxical]

Umm..yes the study did.
The study followed primary infection and secondary infections through lab testing.

He never met these individuals. He never followed them as you said. Looking at lab reports is not "following" them. STOP being so damn disingenuous.

His report boils down to this:

people told me they wore masks (not sure how often, where or what kind, or how they wore them), and they tested positive x amount of times.
People told me they didn't wear masks ALL the time but maybe some time and they were tested positive x amount of times.

Therefore, I am a "scientist" and I conclude from this that those who CLAIM they wear masks get infected 10% less than those who told me they didn't. Thus, masks "work"

Does that pretty much sum it up?

 

[jaeger19]

He never met these individuals. He never followed them as you said. Looking at lab reports is not "following" them. STOP being so damn disingenuous.

His report boils down to this:

people told me they wore masks (not sure how often, where or what kind, or how they wore them), and they tested positive x amount of times.
People told me they didn't wear masks ALL the time but maybe some time and they were tested positive x amount of times.

Therefore, I am a "scientist" and I conclude from this that those who CLAIM they wear masks get infected 10% less than those who told me they didn't. Thus, masks "work"

Does that pretty much sum it up?

Bwaaaah..no. not at all.
Stop being silly.

 

[RAMOSS]

The sad truth is that politics has increasingly led many top healthcare bureaucrats to impose authoritarian government mandates on Americans. Those mandates often were based on little or no credible scientific evidence that they would benefit society as a whole more than they would be detrimental to the lives of most Americans. Dr. Bhattacharya, who was part of the "Great Barrington Declaration" and is a professor of Medicine at Stanford Medical School. Here he explains why this zealous and authoritarian politicization of the pandemic is

Google The Great Barrington Declaration and/or read this interview to better understand Dr. Bhattacharya's perspective that happens to be very similar to my own here:

I hope you realize that the epoc times is not a credible source. Links to epoc times do not give valid information, nor do youtube videos from people involved with the epoc times.

 

[RealityChecker]

I hope you realize that the epoc times is not a credible source. Links to epoc times do not give valid information, nor do youtube videos from people involved with the epoc times.

I hope you realize that attacking the Epoch Times and claiming their reporting is false is not credible evidence anything in their article was not true. If you believe it was then provide some evidence as attacking the messenger is what people who have no evidence generally do.

 

[RAMOSS]

It has been shown time and again masks do help prevent the spread of COVID.

Stop lying about masks.

In fact, mask wearing reduces infections by 53% according to a new study

Mask-wearing linked to 53% cut in Covid incidence, global study finds

Researchers said results highlight the need to continue with face coverings, social distancing and handwashing alongside vaccine programmes

www.theguardian.com

 

[RAMOSS]

I hope you realize that attacking the Epoch Times and claiming their reporting is false is not credible evidence anything in their article was not true. If you believe it was then provide some evidence as attacking the messenger is what people who have no evidence generally do.

You can believe all that all you want. It still won't make the claims from the epoch times true, nor will your claiming that make people believe you one bit

 

[snakestretcher]

One that CAUSES death and heart problems.

How often? You have no idea do you; just another of your clickbait troll posts.

More lies and misrepresentation. Sad and increasingly pathetic since you have now pretty much adopted my position that mandated lockdowns almost certainly di more harm than benefit to society as a whole.

Wrong again. How about those from the far left leaning The Atlantic:

"The benefits of mask requirements in schools might seem self-evident—they have to help contain the coronavirus, right?—but that may not be so. In Spain, masks are used in kids ages 6 and older. The authors of one study there examined the risk of viral spread at all ages. If masks provided a large benefit, then the transmission rate among 5-year-olds would be far higher than the rate among 6-year-olds.

The results don’t show that. Instead, they show that transmission rates, which were low among the youngest kids, steadily increased with age—rather than dropping sharply for older children subject to the face-covering requirement. This suggests that masking kids in school does not provide a major benefit and might provide none at all. And yet many officials prefer to double down on masking mandates, as if the fundamental policy were sound and only the people have failed."

That is what I have said all along and you kept claiming government lockdowns were necessary. Nice to see you accepting that I was right all along.

Maybe then you could explain Australia's success with lockdowns. Unlike conservative Americans they don't piss around whining about 'freedom' or rights 'violation'. They see a problem and deal with it.

 

[code1211]

Problem is "science" became woke.

With his typical directness, Trump defined what everything woke turns to.

 

[code1211]

An answer to the question.

Which question do you reference here?

 

[Big Eye]

And VACCINATED people are less of a danger than UNVACCINATED people.







COVID deaths overall are under counted.



What "long term consequences" ?

There is ample evidence from around the world that these vaccinations do not restrict infection to a worthwhile level...you still seem confused...it's now 2021 not 2020 lol...

 

[Big Eye]

Just another rant by someone who gets their information from Twitter and Antivaxx websites.



That is what SCIENCE shows. But you wouldn't know with those blinders you wear.



GIBRALTAR



Vaccines are currently the best way of pev3enting death/serious illness.

The only thing you almost got right there was your last statement...but you forgot to mention that only applies to at risk people.

****ing hell you nearly got something right...close but no cigar.

 

[Big Eye]

Give it a rest mate; your absurdly conspiratorial posts are becoming embarrassing to read.

You are in favour of GOF research being carried out by the CCP with US funding...in a city where a new virus has broken out ...and apparently caused chaos...but you're still in favour of it ...****ing hell.

 

[Fledermaus]

The only thing you almost got right there was your last statement...but you forgot to mention that only applies to at risk people.

****ing hell you nearly got something right...close but no cigar.

There is ample evidence from around the world that these vaccinations do not restrict infection to a worthwhile level...you still seem confused...it's now 2021 not 2020 lol...

More antivaxxer foolishness.

 

[Fledermaus]

You are in favour of GOF research being carried out by the CCP with US funding...in a city where a new virus has broken out ...and apparently caused chaos...but you're still in favour of it ...****ing hell.

Perhaps because snake understands the meaning of GOF.

 

[Fledermaus]

Which question do you reference here?

Intentional ignorance noted .

 

[code1211]

Well the evidence that the vaccine reduce the severity of COVID is undeniable. The problem is the active immunity appears to be weaken far faster than had been hoped. The increase in deaths with COVID in 2021 vs 2020 is certainly alarming but appears to have been largely due to the delta strain with a much higher R0 (so it infected many people).

Well they are torn between competing narratives. It certainly undermines the Biden administrations claims to how much better they'd be than Trump's at dealing with COVID, but they also really like the public's acceptance of the government's expanded authoritarian mandates. The Woke folks love power more than anything. The problem is the American people are now becoming far more skeptical about the public health establishment and its zeal for catering to the "special interests" of big drug companies. They appear to have painted themselves into a corner and are setting up the Democratic party for an epic defeat in 2022.

Actually, while the effectiveness of vaccines is waning far faster than was hoped I still think for older people and those at high risk of COVID they make sense and I plan on getting a booster shot in the not too distant future. For those at low risk from COVID vaccines appear to work less well than naturally acquired active immunity. I suspect at least half of all Americans now have recovered from COVID and for them COVID likely poses less of a risk than does the seasonal flu. Now with even more effective treatments for COVID these vaccine mandates make even less sense for school age kids and young adults but the fake news and the Woke folks cannot admit this reality.

Right, I think despite the best efforts of the fake news media and their censors to hide the truth from the American public the truth about COVID seems to be gaining traction much to the chagrin of those hoping to profit financially and/or politically from this pandemic.

I believe it likely 2022 will see a much lower number of "deaths with COVID", which is not the same as deaths primarily caused by the SARS-CoV2. I expect over the next few years this likely man-made virus will end up being not much different than the 4 human coronaviruses that mostly cause about 20% of all colds. We may see one more surge of new cases in places where fewer people are vaccinated this winter mostly in northern states and then COVID will fade away to be no more of a concern than the flu or perhaps even colds.

I just noticed that the early stages of the Holiday Wave of 2020 is mirrored by the current wave of covid cases rising in 2021 that started on virtually the same day year over year.

October 20 seems to have become the annual Covid Holiday Wave start date.

Current polling indicates that Biden is now recognized as a moron and the Democrats are recognized as lying butt holes. It's a long time to election day, 2022. That said, 2022 will be interesting.

The effectiveness of the vaccines in creating an immune response may be waning and may not be. The Body does not continue to fight a threat that is no longer inside the body.

The body does "remember" the threat, though, and is ready to re-enact what it did before. I heard a couple doctors discussing this on Doctor Radio. Our immune system is an amazing system!

The politically driven "narratives" issued by our propagandists are being recognized for what they are. We are all seeing the impact of the folks like Lester Holt who believe in their hearts that "fairness is overrated".

Will 2022 show improvements in the survivability of the Coronavirus by humans? Likely.

Will the Chinese issue a new Coronavirus to replace this one? Also likely.

Will the US be urged to shut down again? Only if the narrative makers decide they need to impact an election again.

United States COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer

United States Coronavirus update with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, mortality and recovery rates, current active cases, recoveries, trends and timeline.

www.worldometers.info

 

[Big Eye]

Perhaps because snake understands the meaning of GOF.

Snake seems to have very little understanding of reality...anyone that thinks it's a good idea to outsource and fund research by the CCP into something that could be used as a bioweapon is ****ing clueless...as reality has proven.

 

[Fledermaus]

Snake seems to have very little understanding of reality...anyone that thinks it's a good idea to outsource and fund research by the CCP into something that could be used as a bioweapon is ****ing clueless...as reality has proven.

First sentence is 100% Projection