I weighed the pros and cons and acording too cdc my recovery rate is 99.7 % and i havnt had the common flu in 15 years with no flu shot so i will pass
@mke12009 You failed to factor in long term, possibly permanent damage many are suffering that will probably shorten their lifespan. In addition you can spread the virus, so in essence, by only focusing on your own chances of survival you are ignoring the damage you can cause to others. Ignoring the possibility of giving it to someone is selfishness.
@FunCartel maybe you should know people that did get shot still got sick also so go attack them also
@mke12009 That was not an attack. I was stating facts. Maybe you should compare the death toll from Covid to the death toll from vaccinations.
As far as saying your approach is selfish, well it is. You stated you won’t get vaccinated because you determined you most likely would survive it if you got it. You completely ignore that you could give it to someone and they could die. That is pretty much the definition of selfishness. I don’t know if you are a selfish person but in the case of your reasoning and logic in this instance you are being selfish.
@FunCartel you did attach me if you want too attach you should attach both sides. If your so trusting you should not worry about others if you got shot cause you shouldnt get sick as long as your fully vacinented thats the whole purpose in getting it.
@mke12009 Bingo. You say I should not worry about others. That would be selfish. But I do worry about others. And if you want to stick to facts, the fewer people that are vaccinated the more variants develop, and they strike younger and younger people. I worry about them.
BTW, attaching someone is not necessarily a personal attack. I don’t think you understand that.
Why would @FunCartel need to attack (not attach, completely different verb) both sides ? One he agrees with , the other he doesn't. Both sides are not wrong in this argument
@pmvines Exactly. He can choose not to get the vaccine. I was pointing out the flaws in his logic regarding it. I disagreed, but I did not attack.
@FunCartel i simply said if you beleive in the shots .You shouldnt be concerned on people that didnt. Evreyone has a right too trust there medical proffessiionals of there choice with out being attached. People are still getting covid that received shots. People get the flu who had the regular flu shots which been out for decades. So i dont see how on earth you could be so set on something that has been around less than a year and not aproved by the fda
@mke12009 - no vaccine is 100% effective. Flu shots have a roughly 60% chance of effectiveness each flu season. The reason why people get Covid after vaccination is because there are mutations and variants for which their original vaccination was not designed. All Covid vaccinations out today have been authorized for Emergency Use - and all their companies are in the FDA approval process. Pfizer may be FDA approved as early as June.
@FunCartel also my father in law got paralized from the waist down from the flu vaciine they told him its alergic reactiion he was forced too take in the airforce. Are you going too attach him also if he dont get the vacine ?
You are off topic, @mke12009 - and you are pushing for an argument when there is none. Consider backing off this thread. Thanks. [-Sid]
Strawberry Soup
@tribbler
I'm always amazed how easily people will accept conspiracy theories but have such difficulty in accepting a far more logical truth.
Someone said the vaccines have been through a clinical trial. False.
This is untrue. For example, the Pfizer Stage 3 Clinical Trial results with 43,000 participants worldwide was published in November.
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine
The vaccines are not “approved”.
False. Just because the American regulator can't get its act together doesn't mean others haven't. In the age of the internet anybody who considers only the regulator in their home country is an idiot of the first water.
The clinical trials are ongoing through 2023.
The main clinical trials for the general population are complete, but the trials on sub-groups will take several years. For example, taking the vaccine when you have any underlying medical condition is contraindicated because the the trial for people with that condition has not yet be done. A famous example is pregnant women. Different ethnicities and age groups. It takes a while to get through this stuff. But if none of them apply to you, you're golden.
If you’ve taken the vaccine YOU are the clinical trial.
If you want to look at it like that, then the results couldn't be clearer - take the vaccine. Over 919 million doses of various vaccines have been administered so far, and the one thing we can say with absolute certainty is that all of the vaccines available in the USA are impossibly safe. I mean safer than driving to the clinic for the injection.
i havnt had the common flu in 15 years with no flu shot
Completely irrelevant. I haven't have ebola ever and I've never had an ebola shot.
Ignoring the possibility of giving it to someone is selfishness.
True. Not getting the vaccine is deliberatly putting the lives of others at risk. It is extreme selfishness.
In the UK we have completed the initial programme of one dose to everybody over 50. The take up rate has been 95%, which is astonishingly high. Vaccinations continue, with targetted programmes for certain groups, so the final figure will be higher.
@CuddleDuncan
Brilliant. Seriously.
You're lucky Management agrees or you would be censored. I would rather see debate, or even ridicule, than censorship. Idiocy doesn’t stand up for long in the light if day. No one is ever persuaded by a censor. Give the audience credit for some intelligence. I know disinformation when I see it...or you debunk it.
All right everyone, mark off "Cries about censorship despite not knowing what censorship is" on your Official CC Bingo Cards.
As a reminder, the last two spots were "Doesn't understand what 'theory' means" earlier tonight, and "A straight dude acts like a victimized minority" from yesterday.
Anyone get a bingo?
And we have our first example of ridicule. Well done for step 1. Now, Explain real censorship, @DarkLordChungus
@EasyPeasy
Strangely enough, posting dumb crap online, on platforms owned by private companies, and then having the dumb crap you posted altered or erased is not censorship. It's just the owners/moderators/whatever saying "You're not welcome to use our platform in this manner."
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient."[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies.
@DarkLordChungus
Simplified it for you
I would like to thank @CuddleDuncan for debunking misinformation.
...And @DarkLordChungus for mocking idiocy. Ooh, how horrible it is to not be allowed to scream "fire" in a crowded, unburning theater. Censorship! For surely harmful lies are things everyone can spot easily right off, and preventing people from telling said lies is a horrible thing to do.
@EasyPeasy, say things that aren't true elsewhere, if you like. No one's stopping you. But you aren't going to spread misinformation here.
It's as much censorship as it was when your parents soaped your mouth for swearing—and with much better justification.
There are several types of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment and the Freedom of Speech is limited in who it is given to. So censorship is practiced in our own laws. There is no such thing as pure free speech or expression. I do not see the point of arguing about it here.
@DarrenWalker Please cite a single lie or a single post of misinformation I have authored. None exist
@DarrenWalker
Thank you.
I wonder if this is a distinctly American issue. By that I mean, there's no concrete frame of reference when it comes to censorship. People just shout about it whenever it suits them, and it cheapens the word considerably. It robs it of its ability to instill fear, save for those who feel the odd need to be frightened of everything.
Personally, I think such people should be provided express trips to Turkey, Hungary, Russia, or North Korea.
FYI, not making any First Amendment argument as it doesn't apply to CC.
Not arguing for a right to yell Fire in a theater.
A fun, helpful comic that also applies to the topic of "censorship".
@EasyPeasy You are arguing for a right to free speech and making the claim that it is censored here. As such, I was pointing out that the supreme law of the land here does not even support your assertion that censorship is wrong. Yelling fire in a theater is a famous example, but censorship extends to threats, lies, fraud, etc. And for very good reasons.
@FunCartel
Thank you for articulating intelligently in your own words without the crutch of cartoons or memes others had to create.
We can agree to disagree on why ideas on the pandemic and vaccination need open discussion. I prefer to confront misinformation and hate speech, not bury it.
I am vaccinated and do not support any conspiracy theories on that or any topic.
Adios
@EasyPeasy requests, "Please cite a single lie or a single post of misinformation I have authored." All right, let's grab the low-hanging fruit!
You're lucky Management agrees or you would be censored.
Remarkably, it's not actually the moderators' agreement that matters here. I've said lots of things I'm pretty sure members of the moderation team don't agree with! The question is whether something a user says agrees with reality... or is so wrong it would cause harm if believed.
Furthermore, even if the people running the block party kick somebody out for something harmless like, oh I don't know, talking about Mario Kart too much, this is only censorship in the broadest possible sense of the word.
So melodramatic.