|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On August 24 2022 06:36 WombaT wrote: For a thread of seemingly intelligent people (and me), why are we locked in a seemingly interminable cycle of ‘what BJ’s position is?’
The cosmic ballet… goes on. Because he refuses to elaborate or answer questions. We get past this first step in any thread by answering basic questions people ask to each other. If we can't get past the very first step to any discussion we don't get any further along that discussion.
|
On August 24 2022 10:03 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2022 05:28 BlackJack wrote:On August 24 2022 03:03 Sermokala wrote:On August 23 2022 14:12 BlackJack wrote:On August 23 2022 09:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 23 2022 07:22 BlackJack wrote:On August 23 2022 07:06 Magic Powers wrote: "after" =/= "because of"
I'm done with your lies, and I'm reinstating my policy. Not posting anything here over the next week or two either. hahah "after" is an even more broad term than "because of" which makes your claim even more untrue. Pretty sure that literally everyone that was admitted "because of" vaccine-induced myocarditis contracted the myocarditis "after" vaccination. That was a very poor attempt at trying to use semantics to obfuscate that for a full year you've been the one spreading misinformation that vaccines have "zero risks" and that nobody has been hospitalized for myocarditis after vaccination and for a full year I've been the one correcting the record. I'm not taking any sides here, but a point of clarification: he wasn't switching from "because of" to simply "after". He said "as a result of", aka "because of", aka "causation", and I'm pretty sure he was saying that your source merely pointed out that myocarditis happened sometime after the vaccine (correlation?), but that there's insufficient evidence for that example to meet the burden of "because of" / "as a result of" / "causation". I think that was his issue with the source you responded with (only correlation, not causation). It’s still blatant misinformation. The CDC recognizes vaccine induced myocarditis is real. The WHO recognizes vaccine induced myocarditis is real. It’s just blatantly false to say that it’s not a real thing or that nobody has been hospitalized for it. It’s a shame that I’m literally the only one in this thread that will call out this untruth. Maybe if there was a couple other posters that had some loyalty to the truth I wouldn’t have to take all the heat. The truth is that its a result of covid. The truth is that there are many less cases of it with the vaccine than without it. The truth is that its already known and isn't an issue for rational free thinking individuals. But the real truth that you refuse to answer is why you think its the answer to why people shouldn't get vaccinated. Why should I keep talking to you? You’re still asking me why I think people shouldn’t get vaccinated? Liquid’Drone: bj’s position is this BJ: yeah that’s my position DPB: bjs position is this Bj: yeah that’s my position Sermokala: no that’s not his position. He thinks people shouldn’t get vaccinated Do you have any idea how obnoxious that is? To tell someone that is saying “this is what I believe” “no, that’s not what you believe. You actually believe this.” Which is whatever. I’ve been dealing with that for a long time in this thread so I’m used to ignoring it by now. I’m just telling you this in case this is something you do in real life because you will lose a lot of relationships if you can’t accept what someone is telling you at face value. Because you repeatedly refuse to answer the basic question I keep asking you. You keep refusing to address the most simple points about your position in a constant state of trying to achieve gotchas that get dismissed by everyone. You constantly lie and bring up things you show you know is a lie. You keep spreading anti vax misinformation and except people to never question or respond to you. When confronted you ignore what people are saying and insist that you're somehow being attacked because you're somehow the only one that knows the truth. You keep refusing to answer even the most basic questions that people ask you with the blind resistance of someone who is afraid to question anything that they're saying. So I will constantly ask you the same basic question you keep refusing to answer. Why do you think people shouldn't be mandated to get the vaccine, when we have a list of other mandates about basic operations in the country that are no different from it. hes already answered that question. other posters have even pointed out what his position is in relation to your question. you can disagree with him but to suggest that he hasnt responded at all to your points just shows youre not reading.
|
On August 24 2022 10:10 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2022 10:03 Sermokala wrote:On August 24 2022 05:28 BlackJack wrote:On August 24 2022 03:03 Sermokala wrote:On August 23 2022 14:12 BlackJack wrote:On August 23 2022 09:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 23 2022 07:22 BlackJack wrote:On August 23 2022 07:06 Magic Powers wrote: "after" =/= "because of"
I'm done with your lies, and I'm reinstating my policy. Not posting anything here over the next week or two either. hahah "after" is an even more broad term than "because of" which makes your claim even more untrue. Pretty sure that literally everyone that was admitted "because of" vaccine-induced myocarditis contracted the myocarditis "after" vaccination. That was a very poor attempt at trying to use semantics to obfuscate that for a full year you've been the one spreading misinformation that vaccines have "zero risks" and that nobody has been hospitalized for myocarditis after vaccination and for a full year I've been the one correcting the record. I'm not taking any sides here, but a point of clarification: he wasn't switching from "because of" to simply "after". He said "as a result of", aka "because of", aka "causation", and I'm pretty sure he was saying that your source merely pointed out that myocarditis happened sometime after the vaccine (correlation?), but that there's insufficient evidence for that example to meet the burden of "because of" / "as a result of" / "causation". I think that was his issue with the source you responded with (only correlation, not causation). It’s still blatant misinformation. The CDC recognizes vaccine induced myocarditis is real. The WHO recognizes vaccine induced myocarditis is real. It’s just blatantly false to say that it’s not a real thing or that nobody has been hospitalized for it. It’s a shame that I’m literally the only one in this thread that will call out this untruth. Maybe if there was a couple other posters that had some loyalty to the truth I wouldn’t have to take all the heat. The truth is that its a result of covid. The truth is that there are many less cases of it with the vaccine than without it. The truth is that its already known and isn't an issue for rational free thinking individuals. But the real truth that you refuse to answer is why you think its the answer to why people shouldn't get vaccinated. Why should I keep talking to you? You’re still asking me why I think people shouldn’t get vaccinated? Liquid’Drone: bj’s position is this BJ: yeah that’s my position DPB: bjs position is this Bj: yeah that’s my position Sermokala: no that’s not his position. He thinks people shouldn’t get vaccinated Do you have any idea how obnoxious that is? To tell someone that is saying “this is what I believe” “no, that’s not what you believe. You actually believe this.” Which is whatever. I’ve been dealing with that for a long time in this thread so I’m used to ignoring it by now. I’m just telling you this in case this is something you do in real life because you will lose a lot of relationships if you can’t accept what someone is telling you at face value. Because you repeatedly refuse to answer the basic question I keep asking you. You keep refusing to address the most simple points about your position in a constant state of trying to achieve gotchas that get dismissed by everyone. You constantly lie and bring up things you show you know is a lie. You keep spreading anti vax misinformation and except people to never question or respond to you. When confronted you ignore what people are saying and insist that you're somehow being attacked because you're somehow the only one that knows the truth. You keep refusing to answer even the most basic questions that people ask you with the blind resistance of someone who is afraid to question anything that they're saying. So I will constantly ask you the same basic question you keep refusing to answer. Why do you think people shouldn't be mandated to get the vaccine, when we have a list of other mandates about basic operations in the country that are no different from it. hes already answered that question. other posters have even pointed out what his position is in relation to your question. you can disagree with him but to suggest that he hasnt responded at all to your points just shows youre not reading. He hasn't though people keep trying to posit what he's trying to say and he simply agrees without elaborating on any points of confusion people have.
He states that he's against vaccine mandates on seemingly two major vectors. That it has cons to it and that it doesn't stop transmission. His only offered explanation on the first is about how you get a heart condition sometimes if you get it. However he is then shown studies that say that it is at such a low rate that even compared to getting covid normally that it isn't a real con. He doesn't respond to this information and insists that people are attacking him for contradicting this information. The second has some truth to it that the protection against infection fades after some time without boosters. However when he is confronted with the fact that it was never the point to stop transmission completely and that it still shows clear improvements on not going to the hospital with it or dying. He doesn't respond to this information and then says that him getting the vaccine should tell us that he understands what the vaccine is doing.
After ignoring his basic points being refuted he turns into the common anti-vaxer argument of "if its so good then why should people have to get it to work with people who don't get it." this of course ignoring the swaths of other safety mandates in jobs that are for peoples protections that he is informed of and never responds about. then he repeats yet another antivax argument about it actually being about bodily autonomy, just like abortion, before being informed that it is a decision that effects other people but hey again he doesn't respond to this point.
But its the fact that he can't answer a basic question that keeps getting to why I think he's an anti vaxer. He understands that if he answers that basic question about why he doesn't think people should get the vaccine then it would be impossible to deny that he's an antivaxer despite his claim about being vaccinated himself. He said he would request a ban if I showed him information of him being anti vax and when I did he welched on this he went on like nothing happened and never responded to the quotes of him.
If we can't have a simple discussion of asking people questions and answering them then we're not having a discussion. And its an extremely simple question that I keep asking in so many different ways that he just somehow can't answer. Don't you find it odd that people have to say that he answered the question without being able to say even vaugly what that answer is?
|
BJ has definitely shared his stance regarding the vaccine and how it works. He's wrong, but he has answered that question. With all the posts going every which way though I don't know what else was being asked tbh.
You're getting a bit of a dogpile, BJ, but honestly, get over yourself. Your willingness to die on every semantic molehill you find is not a commitment to the truth that somehow everyone else is lacking. It's a commitment to always being the biggest nitpicker in the room. You'd rather get someone on a technicality and be halfway through a victory lap by the time someone points out that you're literally making an argument that is either pointless or the opposite of what you claim it is.
It's exhausting, and honestly, I'm tired of reading all the posts back and forth with you. But it starts with you picking stupid arguments that make no sense and posturing as the smartestest person in the room. Walk it back, dude.
|
New patch idea - change title thread to "Coronavirus and BlackJack"
|
On August 24 2022 10:53 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2022 10:10 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 24 2022 10:03 Sermokala wrote:On August 24 2022 05:28 BlackJack wrote:On August 24 2022 03:03 Sermokala wrote:On August 23 2022 14:12 BlackJack wrote:On August 23 2022 09:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 23 2022 07:22 BlackJack wrote:On August 23 2022 07:06 Magic Powers wrote: "after" =/= "because of"
I'm done with your lies, and I'm reinstating my policy. Not posting anything here over the next week or two either. hahah "after" is an even more broad term than "because of" which makes your claim even more untrue. Pretty sure that literally everyone that was admitted "because of" vaccine-induced myocarditis contracted the myocarditis "after" vaccination. That was a very poor attempt at trying to use semantics to obfuscate that for a full year you've been the one spreading misinformation that vaccines have "zero risks" and that nobody has been hospitalized for myocarditis after vaccination and for a full year I've been the one correcting the record. I'm not taking any sides here, but a point of clarification: he wasn't switching from "because of" to simply "after". He said "as a result of", aka "because of", aka "causation", and I'm pretty sure he was saying that your source merely pointed out that myocarditis happened sometime after the vaccine (correlation?), but that there's insufficient evidence for that example to meet the burden of "because of" / "as a result of" / "causation". I think that was his issue with the source you responded with (only correlation, not causation). It’s still blatant misinformation. The CDC recognizes vaccine induced myocarditis is real. The WHO recognizes vaccine induced myocarditis is real. It’s just blatantly false to say that it’s not a real thing or that nobody has been hospitalized for it. It’s a shame that I’m literally the only one in this thread that will call out this untruth. Maybe if there was a couple other posters that had some loyalty to the truth I wouldn’t have to take all the heat. The truth is that its a result of covid. The truth is that there are many less cases of it with the vaccine than without it. The truth is that its already known and isn't an issue for rational free thinking individuals. But the real truth that you refuse to answer is why you think its the answer to why people shouldn't get vaccinated. Why should I keep talking to you? You’re still asking me why I think people shouldn’t get vaccinated? Liquid’Drone: bj’s position is this BJ: yeah that’s my position DPB: bjs position is this Bj: yeah that’s my position Sermokala: no that’s not his position. He thinks people shouldn’t get vaccinated Do you have any idea how obnoxious that is? To tell someone that is saying “this is what I believe” “no, that’s not what you believe. You actually believe this.” Which is whatever. I’ve been dealing with that for a long time in this thread so I’m used to ignoring it by now. I’m just telling you this in case this is something you do in real life because you will lose a lot of relationships if you can’t accept what someone is telling you at face value. Because you repeatedly refuse to answer the basic question I keep asking you. You keep refusing to address the most simple points about your position in a constant state of trying to achieve gotchas that get dismissed by everyone. You constantly lie and bring up things you show you know is a lie. You keep spreading anti vax misinformation and except people to never question or respond to you. When confronted you ignore what people are saying and insist that you're somehow being attacked because you're somehow the only one that knows the truth. You keep refusing to answer even the most basic questions that people ask you with the blind resistance of someone who is afraid to question anything that they're saying. So I will constantly ask you the same basic question you keep refusing to answer. Why do you think people shouldn't be mandated to get the vaccine, when we have a list of other mandates about basic operations in the country that are no different from it. hes already answered that question. other posters have even pointed out what his position is in relation to your question. you can disagree with him but to suggest that he hasnt responded at all to your points just shows youre not reading. He hasn't though people keep trying to posit what he's trying to say and he simply agrees without elaborating on any points of confusion people have. He states that he's against vaccine mandates on seemingly two major vectors. That it has cons to it and that it doesn't stop transmission. His only offered explanation on the first is about how you get a heart condition sometimes if you get it. However he is then shown studies that say that it is at such a low rate that even compared to getting covid normally that it isn't a real con. He doesn't respond to this information and insists that people are attacking him for contradicting this information. The second has some truth to it that the protection against infection fades after some time without boosters. However when he is confronted with the fact that it was never the point to stop transmission completely and that it still shows clear improvements on not going to the hospital with it or dying. He doesn't respond to this information and then says that him getting the vaccine should tell us that he understands what the vaccine is doing. After ignoring his basic points being refuted he turns into the common anti-vaxer argument of "if its so good then why should people have to get it to work with people who don't get it." this of course ignoring the swaths of other safety mandates in jobs that are for peoples protections that he is informed of and never responds about. then he repeats yet another antivax argument about it actually being about bodily autonomy, just like abortion, before being informed that it is a decision that effects other people but hey again he doesn't respond to this point. But its the fact that he can't answer a basic question that keeps getting to why I think he's an anti vaxer. He understands that if he answers that basic question about why he doesn't think people should get the vaccine then it would be impossible to deny that he's an antivaxer despite his claim about being vaccinated himself. He said he would request a ban if I showed him information of him being anti vax and when I did he welched on this he went on like nothing happened and never responded to the quotes of him. If we can't have a simple discussion of asking people questions and answering them then we're not having a discussion. And its an extremely simple question that I keep asking in so many different ways that he just somehow can't answer. Don't you find it odd that people have to say that he answered the question without being able to say even vaugly what that answer is?
I’ve answered that question many times. Vaccine mandates should be judged on a case by case basis. That’s not my opinion that’s just how it works. Why do you suppose schools mandate MMR vaccines and not flu vaccines? Do you just think that the people making these decisions are just flu anti-vaxxers? Since you think the only thing that matters is if vaccines do more good than harm and otherwise there is no moral argument against vaccine mandates does that mean you also support vaccine mandates for flu as well? Or do you just not give a shit about the people that die of the flu?
Or maybe your answer is something like “personally I draw the line just before thinking we need to mandate the flu vaccine for everyone” and if that’s your answer you should read it over and over and over until you realize that that’s an acceptable answer
Edit: also in before the people that are incapable of understanding nuanced perspectives come in to post “OMG BJ is comparing COVID to the flu! What a typical anti-vaxxer!!”
|
On August 24 2022 05:17 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2022 16:51 Mikau313 wrote:On August 23 2022 06:55 BlackJack wrote:On August 23 2022 06:34 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2022 05:09 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 22:00 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 21:56 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 21:12 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 20:41 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 20:36 Magic Powers wrote: [quote]
If you agree that boosters make transmission less likely, then this opinion of yours
[quote]
is irrelevant. According to the scientific facts, people would be rightfully concerned having to live and work side by side with unvaccinated people. Sure they can be concerned all they want. I can't dictate how concerned they feel. Just like evil you're also misrepresenting the argument. They're rightfully concerned, not concerned. Unvaccinated people are basically saying "more of you may get infected by me, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make". Your argument is akin to saying "I don't wash myself with soap, so what? At least I'm not injecting anything into your body. What, am I hurting your feelings by being needlessly unsanitary?" You're only willing to acknowledge the rights of the unvaccinated but not the rights of the vaccinated. I could use your dishonest reframing against you. Sure the unvaccinated can be concerned about side effects from vaccines all they want. I can't dictate how concerned they feel. That is totally not dismissive and dishonest at all, or is it now? Didn’t you say that “I’ve never argued that vaccinated people should be banned from the workplace” like a page ago? So…? Do you think they should be then? Because if not you seem to be taking a lot of issue with something you agree with me on lol. If you do then that’s fine. We’ll agree to disagree. Or disagree to disagree. No they should not be banned. My point of view is that radical points of view need to get out of the debate. That is yours and JimmiC's. Well then you’re just completely ignoring the rights of the vaccinated to be able to not have to work around the unvaccinated. I think there’s no room in the debate for antivaxxers like you I don't care about covid policy since I have no impact on it, as long as I can live a normal life. Here in this thread I'm trying to mitigate the damage you're doing by spreading misinformation like the one about myocarditis and the one about protection against infection. My goal is to let people know that they benefit from more frequent boosters, and you've been deliberately spreading information that leads them away from that conclusion. You really want to talk about myocarditis again? Are you referencing the time you claimed that "nobody" had been admitted to the hospital for myocarditis after vaccination and I had to correct you by stating that according to the CDC 96% of people diagnosed with vaccine induced myocarditis were admitted to the hospital? On September 19 2021 21:22 Magic Powers wrote:On September 19 2021 20:57 BlackJack wrote:On September 19 2021 06:23 Magic Powers wrote:Myocarditis is a plausible but unproven side effect of the Pfizer vaccine, and it can be easily and safely treated. No one has died from it and no one has been hospitalized. I'm gonna say this very openly right now that it's become obvious to me that you're approaching this situation personally, not fact oriented. You're putting words into my mouth and interpreting the things I actually say in the worst light possible. You're not interested in what's true and what's false. This whole thing is therefore clearly about you and nothing else. I'll say it one last time, if you try to engage with me again in this manner I will write a complaint to the moderators, because you've been causing significant disruptions in this thread with your very personal cruisade. Magic Powers: Vaccination (especially Pfizer) contains no risk other than a sore arm for a few days and in few cases maybe a day of (harmless) side effects.WHO: Clinicians should be aware of the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis with mRNA vaccinesNow I don't know who to believe + Show Spoiler + People are fallible, objective reality is not. You should never trust any source, you should always check multiple independent sources.
From the CDC:
Cases of myocarditis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)external icon have occurred: After (not because of) mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna), especially in male adolescents and young adults, More often after the second dose Usually within several days after vaccination Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis who received care responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly. Patients can usually return to their normal daily activities after their symptoms improve. Those who have been diagnosed with myocarditis should consult with their cardiologist (heart doctor) about return to exercise or sports. More information will be shared as it becomes available.
Furthermore, no hospitalizations or deaths have occured as a result of myocarditis after vaccination. No chronic cases either. + Show Spoiler + Sorry if it's considered misinformation to correct your untruths. If something is common in unvaxxed people when they contract Covid, and getting the vaccine makes that thing go from 'common' to 'almost doesn't happen' the conclusion isn't "vaccines cause myocarditis", it's "vaccines prevent myocarditis". We wouldn’t say either of those things because we have an entire language at our disposal to be precise. We actually don’t have to say things that are factually incorrect.
The problem arises when you selectively apply that precise language.
When you say: * People have been hospitalised with myocarditis after taking the vaccine
But then neglect to say * The amount of people who were hospitalised with myocarditis was almost statistically insignificant; * The vast majority of people who got myocarditis after the vaccine were fine; * Chances of somebody getting myocarditis are astronomically higher from contracting Covid than they are from taking the vaccine even if a causal link between the vaccine and myocarditis were to be established; * Taking the vaccine reduces your chance of contracting myocarditis as a result of Covid to almost 0. * If your goal is to minimize your chance of getting myocarditis taking the vaccine is the objectively correct choice.
You are still (intentionally) spreading misinformation, even when you make a precise and true statement initially.
|
On August 24 2022 15:26 Mikau313 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2022 05:17 BlackJack wrote:On August 23 2022 16:51 Mikau313 wrote:On August 23 2022 06:55 BlackJack wrote:On August 23 2022 06:34 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2022 05:09 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 22:00 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 21:56 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 21:12 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 20:41 BlackJack wrote: [quote]
Sure they can be concerned all they want. I can't dictate how concerned they feel. Just like evil you're also misrepresenting the argument. They're rightfully concerned, not concerned. Unvaccinated people are basically saying "more of you may get infected by me, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make". Your argument is akin to saying "I don't wash myself with soap, so what? At least I'm not injecting anything into your body. What, am I hurting your feelings by being needlessly unsanitary?" You're only willing to acknowledge the rights of the unvaccinated but not the rights of the vaccinated. I could use your dishonest reframing against you. Sure the unvaccinated can be concerned about side effects from vaccines all they want. I can't dictate how concerned they feel. That is totally not dismissive and dishonest at all, or is it now? Didn’t you say that “I’ve never argued that vaccinated people should be banned from the workplace” like a page ago? So…? Do you think they should be then? Because if not you seem to be taking a lot of issue with something you agree with me on lol. If you do then that’s fine. We’ll agree to disagree. Or disagree to disagree. No they should not be banned. My point of view is that radical points of view need to get out of the debate. That is yours and JimmiC's. Well then you’re just completely ignoring the rights of the vaccinated to be able to not have to work around the unvaccinated. I think there’s no room in the debate for antivaxxers like you I don't care about covid policy since I have no impact on it, as long as I can live a normal life. Here in this thread I'm trying to mitigate the damage you're doing by spreading misinformation like the one about myocarditis and the one about protection against infection. My goal is to let people know that they benefit from more frequent boosters, and you've been deliberately spreading information that leads them away from that conclusion. You really want to talk about myocarditis again? Are you referencing the time you claimed that "nobody" had been admitted to the hospital for myocarditis after vaccination and I had to correct you by stating that according to the CDC 96% of people diagnosed with vaccine induced myocarditis were admitted to the hospital? On September 19 2021 21:22 Magic Powers wrote:On September 19 2021 20:57 BlackJack wrote:On September 19 2021 06:23 Magic Powers wrote:Myocarditis is a plausible but unproven side effect of the Pfizer vaccine, and it can be easily and safely treated. No one has died from it and no one has been hospitalized. I'm gonna say this very openly right now that it's become obvious to me that you're approaching this situation personally, not fact oriented. You're putting words into my mouth and interpreting the things I actually say in the worst light possible. You're not interested in what's true and what's false. This whole thing is therefore clearly about you and nothing else. I'll say it one last time, if you try to engage with me again in this manner I will write a complaint to the moderators, because you've been causing significant disruptions in this thread with your very personal cruisade. Magic Powers: Vaccination (especially Pfizer) contains no risk other than a sore arm for a few days and in few cases maybe a day of (harmless) side effects.WHO: Clinicians should be aware of the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis with mRNA vaccinesNow I don't know who to believe + Show Spoiler + People are fallible, objective reality is not. You should never trust any source, you should always check multiple independent sources.
From the CDC:
Cases of myocarditis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)external icon have occurred: After (not because of) mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna), especially in male adolescents and young adults, More often after the second dose Usually within several days after vaccination Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis who received care responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly. Patients can usually return to their normal daily activities after their symptoms improve. Those who have been diagnosed with myocarditis should consult with their cardiologist (heart doctor) about return to exercise or sports. More information will be shared as it becomes available.
Furthermore, no hospitalizations or deaths have occured as a result of myocarditis after vaccination. No chronic cases either. + Show Spoiler + Sorry if it's considered misinformation to correct your untruths. If something is common in unvaxxed people when they contract Covid, and getting the vaccine makes that thing go from 'common' to 'almost doesn't happen' the conclusion isn't "vaccines cause myocarditis", it's "vaccines prevent myocarditis". We wouldn’t say either of those things because we have an entire language at our disposal to be precise. We actually don’t have to say things that are factually incorrect. The problem arises when you selectively apply that precise language. When you say: * People have been hospitalised with myocarditis after taking the vaccine But then neglect to say * The amount of people who were hospitalised with myocarditis was almost statistically insignificant; * The vast majority of people who got myocarditis after the vaccine were fine; * Chances of somebody getting myocarditis are astronomically higher from contracting Covid than they are from taking the vaccine even if a causal link between the vaccine and myocarditis were to be established; * Taking the vaccine reduces your chance of contracting myocarditis as a result of Covid to almost 0. * If your goal is to minimize your chance of getting myocarditis taking the vaccine is the objectively correct choice. You are still (intentionally) spreading misinformation, even when you make a precise and true statement initially.
Ok so if someone says something that’s untrue I’m not allowed to just say “that’s not true according to this” without saying all that other stuff as well? Well it’s a lot to write but okay. Maybe I can make it my signature so it’s in every post.
|
On August 24 2022 17:27 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2022 15:26 Mikau313 wrote:On August 24 2022 05:17 BlackJack wrote:On August 23 2022 16:51 Mikau313 wrote:On August 23 2022 06:55 BlackJack wrote:On August 23 2022 06:34 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2022 05:09 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 22:00 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 21:56 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 21:12 Magic Powers wrote: [quote]
Just like evil you're also misrepresenting the argument. They're rightfully concerned, not concerned. Unvaccinated people are basically saying "more of you may get infected by me, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make". Your argument is akin to saying "I don't wash myself with soap, so what? At least I'm not injecting anything into your body. What, am I hurting your feelings by being needlessly unsanitary?" You're only willing to acknowledge the rights of the unvaccinated but not the rights of the vaccinated.
I could use your dishonest reframing against you. Sure the unvaccinated can be concerned about side effects from vaccines all they want. I can't dictate how concerned they feel.
That is totally not dismissive and dishonest at all, or is it now? Didn’t you say that “I’ve never argued that vaccinated people should be banned from the workplace” like a page ago? So…? Do you think they should be then? Because if not you seem to be taking a lot of issue with something you agree with me on lol. If you do then that’s fine. We’ll agree to disagree. Or disagree to disagree. No they should not be banned. My point of view is that radical points of view need to get out of the debate. That is yours and JimmiC's. Well then you’re just completely ignoring the rights of the vaccinated to be able to not have to work around the unvaccinated. I think there’s no room in the debate for antivaxxers like you I don't care about covid policy since I have no impact on it, as long as I can live a normal life. Here in this thread I'm trying to mitigate the damage you're doing by spreading misinformation like the one about myocarditis and the one about protection against infection. My goal is to let people know that they benefit from more frequent boosters, and you've been deliberately spreading information that leads them away from that conclusion. You really want to talk about myocarditis again? Are you referencing the time you claimed that "nobody" had been admitted to the hospital for myocarditis after vaccination and I had to correct you by stating that according to the CDC 96% of people diagnosed with vaccine induced myocarditis were admitted to the hospital? On September 19 2021 21:22 Magic Powers wrote:On September 19 2021 20:57 BlackJack wrote:On September 19 2021 06:23 Magic Powers wrote:Myocarditis is a plausible but unproven side effect of the Pfizer vaccine, and it can be easily and safely treated. No one has died from it and no one has been hospitalized. I'm gonna say this very openly right now that it's become obvious to me that you're approaching this situation personally, not fact oriented. You're putting words into my mouth and interpreting the things I actually say in the worst light possible. You're not interested in what's true and what's false. This whole thing is therefore clearly about you and nothing else. I'll say it one last time, if you try to engage with me again in this manner I will write a complaint to the moderators, because you've been causing significant disruptions in this thread with your very personal cruisade. Magic Powers: Vaccination (especially Pfizer) contains no risk other than a sore arm for a few days and in few cases maybe a day of (harmless) side effects.WHO: Clinicians should be aware of the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis with mRNA vaccinesNow I don't know who to believe + Show Spoiler + People are fallible, objective reality is not. You should never trust any source, you should always check multiple independent sources.
From the CDC:
Cases of myocarditis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)external icon have occurred: After (not because of) mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna), especially in male adolescents and young adults, More often after the second dose Usually within several days after vaccination Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis who received care responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly. Patients can usually return to their normal daily activities after their symptoms improve. Those who have been diagnosed with myocarditis should consult with their cardiologist (heart doctor) about return to exercise or sports. More information will be shared as it becomes available.
Furthermore, no hospitalizations or deaths have occured as a result of myocarditis after vaccination. No chronic cases either. + Show Spoiler + Sorry if it's considered misinformation to correct your untruths. If something is common in unvaxxed people when they contract Covid, and getting the vaccine makes that thing go from 'common' to 'almost doesn't happen' the conclusion isn't "vaccines cause myocarditis", it's "vaccines prevent myocarditis". We wouldn’t say either of those things because we have an entire language at our disposal to be precise. We actually don’t have to say things that are factually incorrect. The problem arises when you selectively apply that precise language. When you say: * People have been hospitalised with myocarditis after taking the vaccine But then neglect to say * The amount of people who were hospitalised with myocarditis was almost statistically insignificant; * The vast majority of people who got myocarditis after the vaccine were fine; * Chances of somebody getting myocarditis are astronomically higher from contracting Covid than they are from taking the vaccine even if a causal link between the vaccine and myocarditis were to be established; * Taking the vaccine reduces your chance of contracting myocarditis as a result of Covid to almost 0. * If your goal is to minimize your chance of getting myocarditis taking the vaccine is the objectively correct choice. You are still (intentionally) spreading misinformation, even when you make a precise and true statement initially. Ok so if someone says something that’s untrue I’m not allowed to just say “that’s not true according to this” without saying all that other stuff as well? Well it’s a lot to write but okay. Maybe I can make it my signature so it’s in every post.
But it's not untrue within the full context of what's being talked about, at most it's described somewhat imprecise.
But, as others have already pointed out, focusing on nitpicking single points based on semantics while ignoring the greater context just to get your little gotcha moment have become somewhat of a specialty of you here. It's hard to argue that isn't intentional at this point either.
It's just awfully convenient for somebody who claims to care about 'using precise language' and 'pointing out untruths' to keep lying by omission about most things pro-vaccine and only applying your rigour when it comes to defending anti-vaccine points.
|
On August 24 2022 17:27 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2022 15:26 Mikau313 wrote:On August 24 2022 05:17 BlackJack wrote:On August 23 2022 16:51 Mikau313 wrote:On August 23 2022 06:55 BlackJack wrote:On August 23 2022 06:34 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2022 05:09 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 22:00 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 21:56 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 21:12 Magic Powers wrote: [quote]
Just like evil you're also misrepresenting the argument. They're rightfully concerned, not concerned. Unvaccinated people are basically saying "more of you may get infected by me, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make". Your argument is akin to saying "I don't wash myself with soap, so what? At least I'm not injecting anything into your body. What, am I hurting your feelings by being needlessly unsanitary?" You're only willing to acknowledge the rights of the unvaccinated but not the rights of the vaccinated.
I could use your dishonest reframing against you. Sure the unvaccinated can be concerned about side effects from vaccines all they want. I can't dictate how concerned they feel.
That is totally not dismissive and dishonest at all, or is it now? Didn’t you say that “I’ve never argued that vaccinated people should be banned from the workplace” like a page ago? So…? Do you think they should be then? Because if not you seem to be taking a lot of issue with something you agree with me on lol. If you do then that’s fine. We’ll agree to disagree. Or disagree to disagree. No they should not be banned. My point of view is that radical points of view need to get out of the debate. That is yours and JimmiC's. Well then you’re just completely ignoring the rights of the vaccinated to be able to not have to work around the unvaccinated. I think there’s no room in the debate for antivaxxers like you I don't care about covid policy since I have no impact on it, as long as I can live a normal life. Here in this thread I'm trying to mitigate the damage you're doing by spreading misinformation like the one about myocarditis and the one about protection against infection. My goal is to let people know that they benefit from more frequent boosters, and you've been deliberately spreading information that leads them away from that conclusion. You really want to talk about myocarditis again? Are you referencing the time you claimed that "nobody" had been admitted to the hospital for myocarditis after vaccination and I had to correct you by stating that according to the CDC 96% of people diagnosed with vaccine induced myocarditis were admitted to the hospital? On September 19 2021 21:22 Magic Powers wrote:On September 19 2021 20:57 BlackJack wrote:On September 19 2021 06:23 Magic Powers wrote:Myocarditis is a plausible but unproven side effect of the Pfizer vaccine, and it can be easily and safely treated. No one has died from it and no one has been hospitalized. I'm gonna say this very openly right now that it's become obvious to me that you're approaching this situation personally, not fact oriented. You're putting words into my mouth and interpreting the things I actually say in the worst light possible. You're not interested in what's true and what's false. This whole thing is therefore clearly about you and nothing else. I'll say it one last time, if you try to engage with me again in this manner I will write a complaint to the moderators, because you've been causing significant disruptions in this thread with your very personal cruisade. Magic Powers: Vaccination (especially Pfizer) contains no risk other than a sore arm for a few days and in few cases maybe a day of (harmless) side effects.WHO: Clinicians should be aware of the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis with mRNA vaccinesNow I don't know who to believe + Show Spoiler + People are fallible, objective reality is not. You should never trust any source, you should always check multiple independent sources.
From the CDC:
Cases of myocarditis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)external icon have occurred: After (not because of) mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna), especially in male adolescents and young adults, More often after the second dose Usually within several days after vaccination Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis who received care responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly. Patients can usually return to their normal daily activities after their symptoms improve. Those who have been diagnosed with myocarditis should consult with their cardiologist (heart doctor) about return to exercise or sports. More information will be shared as it becomes available.
Furthermore, no hospitalizations or deaths have occured as a result of myocarditis after vaccination. No chronic cases either. + Show Spoiler + Sorry if it's considered misinformation to correct your untruths. If something is common in unvaxxed people when they contract Covid, and getting the vaccine makes that thing go from 'common' to 'almost doesn't happen' the conclusion isn't "vaccines cause myocarditis", it's "vaccines prevent myocarditis". We wouldn’t say either of those things because we have an entire language at our disposal to be precise. We actually don’t have to say things that are factually incorrect. The problem arises when you selectively apply that precise language. When you say: * People have been hospitalised with myocarditis after taking the vaccine But then neglect to say * The amount of people who were hospitalised with myocarditis was almost statistically insignificant; * The vast majority of people who got myocarditis after the vaccine were fine; * Chances of somebody getting myocarditis are astronomically higher from contracting Covid than they are from taking the vaccine even if a causal link between the vaccine and myocarditis were to be established; * Taking the vaccine reduces your chance of contracting myocarditis as a result of Covid to almost 0. * If your goal is to minimize your chance of getting myocarditis taking the vaccine is the objectively correct choice. You are still (intentionally) spreading misinformation, even when you make a precise and true statement initially. Ok so if someone says something that’s untrue I’m not allowed to just say “that’s not true according to this” without saying all that other stuff as well? Well it’s a lot to write but okay. Maybe I can make it my signature so it’s in every post. I mean, you could try just giving people good faith and taking them for what they mean to say, instead of leaping on every factual inaccuracy you find. That would be a start.
Folks are human. We slip up, even when we know what we're doing or talking about. Anyone who wants to find something "wrong" will find it. Nobody likes the guy who has to point out every little thing that isn't technically correct. And it's not because of some "inconvenient truth" dynamic. It's because you could just take people for what they obviously mean to say, and just be cool about shit.
|
As an aside from the riveting pointless gotcha. It is a known proven result that catching covid is much more dangerous than the vaccine when it comes to myocarditis. This is a strength of the vaccine not a weakness. Because more and severe cases are worse.
The overall risk of myocarditis – inflammation of the heart muscle – is substantially higher immediately after being infected with COVID-19 than it is in the weeks following vaccination for the coronavirus, a large new study in England shows.
The detailed analysis of nearly 43 million people was published Monday in the American Heart Association journal Circulation.
The analysis showed people infected with COVID-19 before receiving a vaccine were 11 times more at risk for developing myocarditis within 28 days of testing positive for the virus. But that risk was cut in half if a person was infected after receiving at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.
"It is important for the public to understand that myocarditis is rare, and the risk of developing myocarditis after a COVID-19 vaccine is also rare," co-author Nicholas Mills said in the release. Mills is a professor and the Butler British Heart Foundation Chair of Cardiology at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. "This risk should be balanced against the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines in preventing severe COVID-19 infection. It is also crucial to understand who is at a higher risk for myocarditis and which vaccine type is associated with increased myocarditis risk
It does however say that Men under 40 when only looking at myocarditis that Moderna had slightly higher instances and it worth considering which brand people take and what boosters.
“The risk of hospital admission or death from myocarditis is greater after SARS- CoV-2 infection than COVID-19 vaccination and remains modest after sequential doses including a booster dose of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine,” the researchers wrote. “However, the risk of myocarditis after vaccination is higher in younger men, particularly after a second dose of the [Moderna] vaccine.”
“These findings may justify some reconsideration of the selection of vaccine type, the timing of vaccine doses, and the net benefit of booster doses in young people, particularly in young men,” the researchers wrote.
https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-poses-higher-risk-for-myocarditis-than-vaccines
https://www.healio.com/news/cardiology/20220822/myocarditis-risk-significantly-higher-with-covid19-vs-vaccination
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2022-08-myocarditis-significantly-higher-covid-infection.html
|
On August 24 2022 13:42 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2022 10:53 Sermokala wrote:On August 24 2022 10:10 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 24 2022 10:03 Sermokala wrote:On August 24 2022 05:28 BlackJack wrote:On August 24 2022 03:03 Sermokala wrote:On August 23 2022 14:12 BlackJack wrote:On August 23 2022 09:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 23 2022 07:22 BlackJack wrote:On August 23 2022 07:06 Magic Powers wrote: "after" =/= "because of"
I'm done with your lies, and I'm reinstating my policy. Not posting anything here over the next week or two either. hahah "after" is an even more broad term than "because of" which makes your claim even more untrue. Pretty sure that literally everyone that was admitted "because of" vaccine-induced myocarditis contracted the myocarditis "after" vaccination. That was a very poor attempt at trying to use semantics to obfuscate that for a full year you've been the one spreading misinformation that vaccines have "zero risks" and that nobody has been hospitalized for myocarditis after vaccination and for a full year I've been the one correcting the record. I'm not taking any sides here, but a point of clarification: he wasn't switching from "because of" to simply "after". He said "as a result of", aka "because of", aka "causation", and I'm pretty sure he was saying that your source merely pointed out that myocarditis happened sometime after the vaccine (correlation?), but that there's insufficient evidence for that example to meet the burden of "because of" / "as a result of" / "causation". I think that was his issue with the source you responded with (only correlation, not causation). It’s still blatant misinformation. The CDC recognizes vaccine induced myocarditis is real. The WHO recognizes vaccine induced myocarditis is real. It’s just blatantly false to say that it’s not a real thing or that nobody has been hospitalized for it. It’s a shame that I’m literally the only one in this thread that will call out this untruth. Maybe if there was a couple other posters that had some loyalty to the truth I wouldn’t have to take all the heat. The truth is that its a result of covid. The truth is that there are many less cases of it with the vaccine than without it. The truth is that its already known and isn't an issue for rational free thinking individuals. But the real truth that you refuse to answer is why you think its the answer to why people shouldn't get vaccinated. Why should I keep talking to you? You’re still asking me why I think people shouldn’t get vaccinated? Liquid’Drone: bj’s position is this BJ: yeah that’s my position DPB: bjs position is this Bj: yeah that’s my position Sermokala: no that’s not his position. He thinks people shouldn’t get vaccinated Do you have any idea how obnoxious that is? To tell someone that is saying “this is what I believe” “no, that’s not what you believe. You actually believe this.” Which is whatever. I’ve been dealing with that for a long time in this thread so I’m used to ignoring it by now. I’m just telling you this in case this is something you do in real life because you will lose a lot of relationships if you can’t accept what someone is telling you at face value. Because you repeatedly refuse to answer the basic question I keep asking you. You keep refusing to address the most simple points about your position in a constant state of trying to achieve gotchas that get dismissed by everyone. You constantly lie and bring up things you show you know is a lie. You keep spreading anti vax misinformation and except people to never question or respond to you. When confronted you ignore what people are saying and insist that you're somehow being attacked because you're somehow the only one that knows the truth. You keep refusing to answer even the most basic questions that people ask you with the blind resistance of someone who is afraid to question anything that they're saying. So I will constantly ask you the same basic question you keep refusing to answer. Why do you think people shouldn't be mandated to get the vaccine, when we have a list of other mandates about basic operations in the country that are no different from it. hes already answered that question. other posters have even pointed out what his position is in relation to your question. you can disagree with him but to suggest that he hasnt responded at all to your points just shows youre not reading. He hasn't though people keep trying to posit what he's trying to say and he simply agrees without elaborating on any points of confusion people have. He states that he's against vaccine mandates on seemingly two major vectors. That it has cons to it and that it doesn't stop transmission. His only offered explanation on the first is about how you get a heart condition sometimes if you get it. However he is then shown studies that say that it is at such a low rate that even compared to getting covid normally that it isn't a real con. He doesn't respond to this information and insists that people are attacking him for contradicting this information. The second has some truth to it that the protection against infection fades after some time without boosters. However when he is confronted with the fact that it was never the point to stop transmission completely and that it still shows clear improvements on not going to the hospital with it or dying. He doesn't respond to this information and then says that him getting the vaccine should tell us that he understands what the vaccine is doing. After ignoring his basic points being refuted he turns into the common anti-vaxer argument of "if its so good then why should people have to get it to work with people who don't get it." this of course ignoring the swaths of other safety mandates in jobs that are for peoples protections that he is informed of and never responds about. then he repeats yet another antivax argument about it actually being about bodily autonomy, just like abortion, before being informed that it is a decision that effects other people but hey again he doesn't respond to this point. But its the fact that he can't answer a basic question that keeps getting to why I think he's an anti vaxer. He understands that if he answers that basic question about why he doesn't think people should get the vaccine then it would be impossible to deny that he's an antivaxer despite his claim about being vaccinated himself. He said he would request a ban if I showed him information of him being anti vax and when I did he welched on this he went on like nothing happened and never responded to the quotes of him. If we can't have a simple discussion of asking people questions and answering them then we're not having a discussion. And its an extremely simple question that I keep asking in so many different ways that he just somehow can't answer. Don't you find it odd that people have to say that he answered the question without being able to say even vaugly what that answer is? I’ve answered that question many times. Vaccine mandates should be judged on a case by case basis. That’s not my opinion that’s just how it works. Why do you suppose schools mandate MMR vaccines and not flu vaccines? Do you just think that the people making these decisions are just flu anti-vaxxers? Since you think the only thing that matters is if vaccines do more good than harm and otherwise there is no moral argument against vaccine mandates does that mean you also support vaccine mandates for flu as well? Or do you just not give a shit about the people that die of the flu? Or maybe your answer is something like “personally I draw the line just before thinking we need to mandate the flu vaccine for everyone” and if that’s your answer you should read it over and over and over until you realize that that’s an acceptable answer Edit: also in before the people that are incapable of understanding nuanced perspectives come in to post “OMG BJ is comparing COVID to the flu! What a typical anti-vaxxer!!” Yes I am for a flu vaccine in workplaces and where it is judged to provide a cost-effective solution to flu outbreaks. There are flu vaccine mandates in such workplaces already where it is not already strongly recommended by experts.
But again you dodge the question by trying to posit a different question without giving any sort of argument or point about what you think about the vaccine mandates. You don't even say if you are against flu vaccine mandates but somehow think that fighting on the front of it being the flu is an argument that you would win. You feel the need to pre emt this criticism because you know how much anti-vax propaganda is saying that covid is just the flu.
So again why do you think people shouldn't be mandated to get the vaccine that makes the covid vaccine different than other vacines?
|
Norway28256 Posts
I get a flu (or covid) vaccine mandate if you're working in a nursing home or similar. Otherwise it seems like crazy overkill for flu/omicron. (More understandable for earlier strains that were more dangerous and where vaccines were more efficient in hindering spread.)
I actually think this whole discussion, even though some posters are trying to make it be about vaccine efficiency or whatnot (in reality, I think there disagreement on this particular topic is pretty small - everybody here agrees that the vaccines are very good at hindering serious illness and death), is actually more about the value of what I like to describe as perceived autonomy. Myself, I think this, that people should be allowed to themselves steer the direction of their life even if it entails them making stupid decisions, is a significant independent value. Even acknowledging that experts or whatnot can make better decisions for people than what they can themselves make, the consequences of people making bad choices must be very dire before I want to strip people of the power to make bad choices. Again - if talking about some health care workers, I can see the criteria be there, but for most, I think it wasn't. During the early stages of covid I also thought harsh measures were warranted - but mostly for the pre-vaccine rollout stage.
What more is, strongarming people isn't without cost. Public trust in experts and institutions is an invaluable currency for a functional society. This trust is, the way I perceive it, eroded every time people are forced to act against their wishes. I also acknowledge that it sucks when there are big influential political and media players who actively try to erode said trust, and I understand why Americans felt more 'forced to force' people than what the case is for me as a Norwegian, but I still wish people could understand that opposition to vaccine mandates isn't necessarily a calculation of whether vaccines are good or not - there are other factors people might attribute different degrees of worth to which can make people reach different conclusions.
|
No one outside of healthcare workers were anywhere close to forced in America because of the Government. Some private businesses were pretty harsh, like Tyson meats because of the shurdowns from not having anyone to work was costing them billions, but otherwise all the rules just involved people being required to test weekly or every 3 days. Or needing a rapid test before you went into the mall.
I think these mandates have been represented by Fox and rightwing news outlets. They did not force people to get vaccinated, they made it inconvenient to not be vaccinated.
The government and healthcare has only so many levers, they predicted with enough vaccination coverage they would be able to open up, and lockdowns sucked for tons of reasons. They were correct, the people who really really did not want to get it for whatever non logical reason did not, those that were encouraged to and did were better off from a health perspective. On top of that because the situation is much better (in large part because vaccination) most of the "mandates" have been reversed. You can now go the mall unvaccinated, untested just like everyone else.
The other thing that gets missed over and over again. Is this is not about individuals it is about an entire system. Every new research paper that comes out, the last I posed was from this summer, states that vaccination reduces transmission and that it greatly reduces severity. Which means it was better for the entire health system which is built for everyone, not just "you". I can not just drive on the left side of the road because I think its cooler, it would mess up the whole system, to live in massive societies which have huge benefits to the individuals we do have to make some sacrifices which includes doing things we do not want to do.
Edit: literally no one was forced to get vaccinated. The amount that lost their jobs would be less then .01%, lets not pretend these mandates were something they were not.
|
On August 24 2022 21:01 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2022 17:27 BlackJack wrote:On August 24 2022 15:26 Mikau313 wrote:On August 24 2022 05:17 BlackJack wrote:On August 23 2022 16:51 Mikau313 wrote:On August 23 2022 06:55 BlackJack wrote:On August 23 2022 06:34 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2022 05:09 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 22:00 Magic Powers wrote:On August 22 2022 21:56 BlackJack wrote: [quote]
Didn’t you say that “I’ve never argued that vaccinated people should be banned from the workplace” like a page ago? So…? Do you think they should be then? Because if not you seem to be taking a lot of issue with something you agree with me on lol. If you do then that’s fine. We’ll agree to disagree. Or disagree to disagree. No they should not be banned. My point of view is that radical points of view need to get out of the debate. That is yours and JimmiC's. Well then you’re just completely ignoring the rights of the vaccinated to be able to not have to work around the unvaccinated. I think there’s no room in the debate for antivaxxers like you I don't care about covid policy since I have no impact on it, as long as I can live a normal life. Here in this thread I'm trying to mitigate the damage you're doing by spreading misinformation like the one about myocarditis and the one about protection against infection. My goal is to let people know that they benefit from more frequent boosters, and you've been deliberately spreading information that leads them away from that conclusion. You really want to talk about myocarditis again? Are you referencing the time you claimed that "nobody" had been admitted to the hospital for myocarditis after vaccination and I had to correct you by stating that according to the CDC 96% of people diagnosed with vaccine induced myocarditis were admitted to the hospital? On September 19 2021 21:22 Magic Powers wrote:On September 19 2021 20:57 BlackJack wrote:On September 19 2021 06:23 Magic Powers wrote:Myocarditis is a plausible but unproven side effect of the Pfizer vaccine, and it can be easily and safely treated. No one has died from it and no one has been hospitalized. I'm gonna say this very openly right now that it's become obvious to me that you're approaching this situation personally, not fact oriented. You're putting words into my mouth and interpreting the things I actually say in the worst light possible. You're not interested in what's true and what's false. This whole thing is therefore clearly about you and nothing else. I'll say it one last time, if you try to engage with me again in this manner I will write a complaint to the moderators, because you've been causing significant disruptions in this thread with your very personal cruisade. Magic Powers: Vaccination (especially Pfizer) contains no risk other than a sore arm for a few days and in few cases maybe a day of (harmless) side effects.WHO: Clinicians should be aware of the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis with mRNA vaccinesNow I don't know who to believe + Show Spoiler + People are fallible, objective reality is not. You should never trust any source, you should always check multiple independent sources.
From the CDC:
Cases of myocarditis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)external icon have occurred: After (not because of) mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna), especially in male adolescents and young adults, More often after the second dose Usually within several days after vaccination Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis who received care responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly. Patients can usually return to their normal daily activities after their symptoms improve. Those who have been diagnosed with myocarditis should consult with their cardiologist (heart doctor) about return to exercise or sports. More information will be shared as it becomes available.
Furthermore, no hospitalizations or deaths have occured as a result of myocarditis after vaccination. No chronic cases either. + Show Spoiler + Sorry if it's considered misinformation to correct your untruths. If something is common in unvaxxed people when they contract Covid, and getting the vaccine makes that thing go from 'common' to 'almost doesn't happen' the conclusion isn't "vaccines cause myocarditis", it's "vaccines prevent myocarditis". We wouldn’t say either of those things because we have an entire language at our disposal to be precise. We actually don’t have to say things that are factually incorrect. The problem arises when you selectively apply that precise language. When you say: * People have been hospitalised with myocarditis after taking the vaccine But then neglect to say * The amount of people who were hospitalised with myocarditis was almost statistically insignificant; * The vast majority of people who got myocarditis after the vaccine were fine; * Chances of somebody getting myocarditis are astronomically higher from contracting Covid than they are from taking the vaccine even if a causal link between the vaccine and myocarditis were to be established; * Taking the vaccine reduces your chance of contracting myocarditis as a result of Covid to almost 0. * If your goal is to minimize your chance of getting myocarditis taking the vaccine is the objectively correct choice. You are still (intentionally) spreading misinformation, even when you make a precise and true statement initially. Ok so if someone says something that’s untrue I’m not allowed to just say “that’s not true according to this” without saying all that other stuff as well? Well it’s a lot to write but okay. Maybe I can make it my signature so it’s in every post. I mean, you could try just giving people good faith and taking them for what they mean to say, instead of leaping on every factual inaccuracy you find. That would be a start. Folks are human. We slip up, even when we know what we're doing or talking about. Anyone who wants to find something "wrong" will find it. Nobody likes the guy who has to point out every little thing that isn't technically correct. And it's not because of some "inconvenient truth" dynamic. It's because you could just take people for what they obviously mean to say, and just be cool about shit.
If these were just "slip ups" it would not be very difficult to just correct the slip ups on the next post and not have to go back and forth over and over by suggesting the slip ups were true because you can get 5 other guys in the thread to go along with it
|
On August 25 2022 04:13 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2022 13:42 BlackJack wrote:On August 24 2022 10:53 Sermokala wrote:On August 24 2022 10:10 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 24 2022 10:03 Sermokala wrote:On August 24 2022 05:28 BlackJack wrote:On August 24 2022 03:03 Sermokala wrote:On August 23 2022 14:12 BlackJack wrote:On August 23 2022 09:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 23 2022 07:22 BlackJack wrote: [quote]
hahah "after" is an even more broad term than "because of" which makes your claim even more untrue.
Pretty sure that literally everyone that was admitted "because of" vaccine-induced myocarditis contracted the myocarditis "after" vaccination.
That was a very poor attempt at trying to use semantics to obfuscate that for a full year you've been the one spreading misinformation that vaccines have "zero risks" and that nobody has been hospitalized for myocarditis after vaccination and for a full year I've been the one correcting the record. I'm not taking any sides here, but a point of clarification: he wasn't switching from "because of" to simply "after". He said "as a result of", aka "because of", aka "causation", and I'm pretty sure he was saying that your source merely pointed out that myocarditis happened sometime after the vaccine (correlation?), but that there's insufficient evidence for that example to meet the burden of "because of" / "as a result of" / "causation". I think that was his issue with the source you responded with (only correlation, not causation). It’s still blatant misinformation. The CDC recognizes vaccine induced myocarditis is real. The WHO recognizes vaccine induced myocarditis is real. It’s just blatantly false to say that it’s not a real thing or that nobody has been hospitalized for it. It’s a shame that I’m literally the only one in this thread that will call out this untruth. Maybe if there was a couple other posters that had some loyalty to the truth I wouldn’t have to take all the heat. The truth is that its a result of covid. The truth is that there are many less cases of it with the vaccine than without it. The truth is that its already known and isn't an issue for rational free thinking individuals. But the real truth that you refuse to answer is why you think its the answer to why people shouldn't get vaccinated. Why should I keep talking to you? You’re still asking me why I think people shouldn’t get vaccinated? Liquid’Drone: bj’s position is this BJ: yeah that’s my position DPB: bjs position is this Bj: yeah that’s my position Sermokala: no that’s not his position. He thinks people shouldn’t get vaccinated Do you have any idea how obnoxious that is? To tell someone that is saying “this is what I believe” “no, that’s not what you believe. You actually believe this.” Which is whatever. I’ve been dealing with that for a long time in this thread so I’m used to ignoring it by now. I’m just telling you this in case this is something you do in real life because you will lose a lot of relationships if you can’t accept what someone is telling you at face value. Because you repeatedly refuse to answer the basic question I keep asking you. You keep refusing to address the most simple points about your position in a constant state of trying to achieve gotchas that get dismissed by everyone. You constantly lie and bring up things you show you know is a lie. You keep spreading anti vax misinformation and except people to never question or respond to you. When confronted you ignore what people are saying and insist that you're somehow being attacked because you're somehow the only one that knows the truth. You keep refusing to answer even the most basic questions that people ask you with the blind resistance of someone who is afraid to question anything that they're saying. So I will constantly ask you the same basic question you keep refusing to answer. Why do you think people shouldn't be mandated to get the vaccine, when we have a list of other mandates about basic operations in the country that are no different from it. hes already answered that question. other posters have even pointed out what his position is in relation to your question. you can disagree with him but to suggest that he hasnt responded at all to your points just shows youre not reading. He hasn't though people keep trying to posit what he's trying to say and he simply agrees without elaborating on any points of confusion people have. He states that he's against vaccine mandates on seemingly two major vectors. That it has cons to it and that it doesn't stop transmission. His only offered explanation on the first is about how you get a heart condition sometimes if you get it. However he is then shown studies that say that it is at such a low rate that even compared to getting covid normally that it isn't a real con. He doesn't respond to this information and insists that people are attacking him for contradicting this information. The second has some truth to it that the protection against infection fades after some time without boosters. However when he is confronted with the fact that it was never the point to stop transmission completely and that it still shows clear improvements on not going to the hospital with it or dying. He doesn't respond to this information and then says that him getting the vaccine should tell us that he understands what the vaccine is doing. After ignoring his basic points being refuted he turns into the common anti-vaxer argument of "if its so good then why should people have to get it to work with people who don't get it." this of course ignoring the swaths of other safety mandates in jobs that are for peoples protections that he is informed of and never responds about. then he repeats yet another antivax argument about it actually being about bodily autonomy, just like abortion, before being informed that it is a decision that effects other people but hey again he doesn't respond to this point. But its the fact that he can't answer a basic question that keeps getting to why I think he's an anti vaxer. He understands that if he answers that basic question about why he doesn't think people should get the vaccine then it would be impossible to deny that he's an antivaxer despite his claim about being vaccinated himself. He said he would request a ban if I showed him information of him being anti vax and when I did he welched on this he went on like nothing happened and never responded to the quotes of him. If we can't have a simple discussion of asking people questions and answering them then we're not having a discussion. And its an extremely simple question that I keep asking in so many different ways that he just somehow can't answer. Don't you find it odd that people have to say that he answered the question without being able to say even vaugly what that answer is? I’ve answered that question many times. Vaccine mandates should be judged on a case by case basis. That’s not my opinion that’s just how it works. Why do you suppose schools mandate MMR vaccines and not flu vaccines? Do you just think that the people making these decisions are just flu anti-vaxxers? Since you think the only thing that matters is if vaccines do more good than harm and otherwise there is no moral argument against vaccine mandates does that mean you also support vaccine mandates for flu as well? Or do you just not give a shit about the people that die of the flu? Or maybe your answer is something like “personally I draw the line just before thinking we need to mandate the flu vaccine for everyone” and if that’s your answer you should read it over and over and over until you realize that that’s an acceptable answer Edit: also in before the people that are incapable of understanding nuanced perspectives come in to post “OMG BJ is comparing COVID to the flu! What a typical anti-vaxxer!!” Yes I am for a flu vaccine in workplaces and where it is judged to provide a cost-effective solution to flu outbreaks. There are flu vaccine mandates in such workplaces already where it is not already strongly recommended by experts. But again you dodge the question by trying to posit a different question without giving any sort of argument or point about what you think about the vaccine mandates. You don't even say if you are against flu vaccine mandates but somehow think that fighting on the front of it being the flu is an argument that you would win. You feel the need to pre emt this criticism because you know how much anti-vax propaganda is saying that covid is just the flu. So again why do you think people shouldn't be mandated to get the vaccine that makes the covid vaccine different than other vacines?
You couldn't infer from my post that I would also be against flu vaccine mandates?
I'm not sure how else I can explain my position if you're not satisfied with my answer that vaccine mandates should be judged on a case by case basis. Are you trying to argue that if I'm in favor of some vaccine mandates then I have to be in favor of all vaccine mandates?
|
Can you define what a "mandate" means to you? And are all bad?
And are you OK with all the currently existing (non covid) vaccine mandates for public schools?
|
On August 25 2022 06:34 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2022 04:13 Sermokala wrote:On August 24 2022 13:42 BlackJack wrote:On August 24 2022 10:53 Sermokala wrote:On August 24 2022 10:10 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 24 2022 10:03 Sermokala wrote:On August 24 2022 05:28 BlackJack wrote:On August 24 2022 03:03 Sermokala wrote:On August 23 2022 14:12 BlackJack wrote:On August 23 2022 09:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
I'm not taking any sides here, but a point of clarification: he wasn't switching from "because of" to simply "after". He said "as a result of", aka "because of", aka "causation", and I'm pretty sure he was saying that your source merely pointed out that myocarditis happened sometime after the vaccine (correlation?), but that there's insufficient evidence for that example to meet the burden of "because of" / "as a result of" / "causation". I think that was his issue with the source you responded with (only correlation, not causation). It’s still blatant misinformation. The CDC recognizes vaccine induced myocarditis is real. The WHO recognizes vaccine induced myocarditis is real. It’s just blatantly false to say that it’s not a real thing or that nobody has been hospitalized for it. It’s a shame that I’m literally the only one in this thread that will call out this untruth. Maybe if there was a couple other posters that had some loyalty to the truth I wouldn’t have to take all the heat. The truth is that its a result of covid. The truth is that there are many less cases of it with the vaccine than without it. The truth is that its already known and isn't an issue for rational free thinking individuals. But the real truth that you refuse to answer is why you think its the answer to why people shouldn't get vaccinated. Why should I keep talking to you? You’re still asking me why I think people shouldn’t get vaccinated? Liquid’Drone: bj’s position is this BJ: yeah that’s my position DPB: bjs position is this Bj: yeah that’s my position Sermokala: no that’s not his position. He thinks people shouldn’t get vaccinated Do you have any idea how obnoxious that is? To tell someone that is saying “this is what I believe” “no, that’s not what you believe. You actually believe this.” Which is whatever. I’ve been dealing with that for a long time in this thread so I’m used to ignoring it by now. I’m just telling you this in case this is something you do in real life because you will lose a lot of relationships if you can’t accept what someone is telling you at face value. Because you repeatedly refuse to answer the basic question I keep asking you. You keep refusing to address the most simple points about your position in a constant state of trying to achieve gotchas that get dismissed by everyone. You constantly lie and bring up things you show you know is a lie. You keep spreading anti vax misinformation and except people to never question or respond to you. When confronted you ignore what people are saying and insist that you're somehow being attacked because you're somehow the only one that knows the truth. You keep refusing to answer even the most basic questions that people ask you with the blind resistance of someone who is afraid to question anything that they're saying. So I will constantly ask you the same basic question you keep refusing to answer. Why do you think people shouldn't be mandated to get the vaccine, when we have a list of other mandates about basic operations in the country that are no different from it. hes already answered that question. other posters have even pointed out what his position is in relation to your question. you can disagree with him but to suggest that he hasnt responded at all to your points just shows youre not reading. He hasn't though people keep trying to posit what he's trying to say and he simply agrees without elaborating on any points of confusion people have. He states that he's against vaccine mandates on seemingly two major vectors. That it has cons to it and that it doesn't stop transmission. His only offered explanation on the first is about how you get a heart condition sometimes if you get it. However he is then shown studies that say that it is at such a low rate that even compared to getting covid normally that it isn't a real con. He doesn't respond to this information and insists that people are attacking him for contradicting this information. The second has some truth to it that the protection against infection fades after some time without boosters. However when he is confronted with the fact that it was never the point to stop transmission completely and that it still shows clear improvements on not going to the hospital with it or dying. He doesn't respond to this information and then says that him getting the vaccine should tell us that he understands what the vaccine is doing. After ignoring his basic points being refuted he turns into the common anti-vaxer argument of "if its so good then why should people have to get it to work with people who don't get it." this of course ignoring the swaths of other safety mandates in jobs that are for peoples protections that he is informed of and never responds about. then he repeats yet another antivax argument about it actually being about bodily autonomy, just like abortion, before being informed that it is a decision that effects other people but hey again he doesn't respond to this point. But its the fact that he can't answer a basic question that keeps getting to why I think he's an anti vaxer. He understands that if he answers that basic question about why he doesn't think people should get the vaccine then it would be impossible to deny that he's an antivaxer despite his claim about being vaccinated himself. He said he would request a ban if I showed him information of him being anti vax and when I did he welched on this he went on like nothing happened and never responded to the quotes of him. If we can't have a simple discussion of asking people questions and answering them then we're not having a discussion. And its an extremely simple question that I keep asking in so many different ways that he just somehow can't answer. Don't you find it odd that people have to say that he answered the question without being able to say even vaugly what that answer is? I’ve answered that question many times. Vaccine mandates should be judged on a case by case basis. That’s not my opinion that’s just how it works. Why do you suppose schools mandate MMR vaccines and not flu vaccines? Do you just think that the people making these decisions are just flu anti-vaxxers? Since you think the only thing that matters is if vaccines do more good than harm and otherwise there is no moral argument against vaccine mandates does that mean you also support vaccine mandates for flu as well? Or do you just not give a shit about the people that die of the flu? Or maybe your answer is something like “personally I draw the line just before thinking we need to mandate the flu vaccine for everyone” and if that’s your answer you should read it over and over and over until you realize that that’s an acceptable answer Edit: also in before the people that are incapable of understanding nuanced perspectives come in to post “OMG BJ is comparing COVID to the flu! What a typical anti-vaxxer!!” Yes I am for a flu vaccine in workplaces and where it is judged to provide a cost-effective solution to flu outbreaks. There are flu vaccine mandates in such workplaces already where it is not already strongly recommended by experts. But again you dodge the question by trying to posit a different question without giving any sort of argument or point about what you think about the vaccine mandates. You don't even say if you are against flu vaccine mandates but somehow think that fighting on the front of it being the flu is an argument that you would win. You feel the need to pre emt this criticism because you know how much anti-vax propaganda is saying that covid is just the flu. So again why do you think people shouldn't be mandated to get the vaccine that makes the covid vaccine different than other vacines? You couldn't infer from my post that I would also be against flu vaccine mandates? I'm not sure how else I can explain my position if you're not satisfied with my answer that vaccine mandates should be judged on a case by case basis. Are you trying to argue that if I'm in favor of some vaccine mandates then I have to be in favor of all vaccine mandates? I repeat a simple question. A simple question you refuse to answer in anything but misdirecting questions in response. I am hopeful now that we are reaching near where you will answer such a simple question. Simply stating that you look at things on a case-by-case basis isn't an answer to any question about the vaccine or anything that people were asking you.
Now that we've gotten to the point where you agree that it is a case-by-case basis about vaccines. My question remains about why you have a problem with the covid vaccine to where you don't think it shouldn't be mandated like any number of the other mandates that we have and accept.
People in elementary and middle schools should be getting a flu vaccine every year. They work in an environment that contains a massive amount of vectors for outbreaks in the kids that go to these schools. I don't really understand why people won't listen to the science on that front but society has at least come to accept the level of death that comes with flu season every year. Covid however is not the flu, covid is much worse by any metric measurable. It is the modern plague with the capability of breaking down society if it wasn't handled with the levels of modern care that our hospitals employ. Even with the lockdowns that forced so much suffering it still caused the system to almost buckle while cranking up the deaths from a thousand other things that normally go on at hospitals.
If you want the question framed yet another way now what about the case of the covid vaccine that you believe that it shouldn't be mandated?
|
On August 25 2022 14:41 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2022 06:34 BlackJack wrote:On August 25 2022 04:13 Sermokala wrote:On August 24 2022 13:42 BlackJack wrote:On August 24 2022 10:53 Sermokala wrote:On August 24 2022 10:10 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 24 2022 10:03 Sermokala wrote:On August 24 2022 05:28 BlackJack wrote:On August 24 2022 03:03 Sermokala wrote:On August 23 2022 14:12 BlackJack wrote: [quote]
It’s still blatant misinformation. The CDC recognizes vaccine induced myocarditis is real. The WHO recognizes vaccine induced myocarditis is real. It’s just blatantly false to say that it’s not a real thing or that nobody has been hospitalized for it. It’s a shame that I’m literally the only one in this thread that will call out this untruth. Maybe if there was a couple other posters that had some loyalty to the truth I wouldn’t have to take all the heat. The truth is that its a result of covid. The truth is that there are many less cases of it with the vaccine than without it. The truth is that its already known and isn't an issue for rational free thinking individuals. But the real truth that you refuse to answer is why you think its the answer to why people shouldn't get vaccinated. Why should I keep talking to you? You’re still asking me why I think people shouldn’t get vaccinated? Liquid’Drone: bj’s position is this BJ: yeah that’s my position DPB: bjs position is this Bj: yeah that’s my position Sermokala: no that’s not his position. He thinks people shouldn’t get vaccinated Do you have any idea how obnoxious that is? To tell someone that is saying “this is what I believe” “no, that’s not what you believe. You actually believe this.” Which is whatever. I’ve been dealing with that for a long time in this thread so I’m used to ignoring it by now. I’m just telling you this in case this is something you do in real life because you will lose a lot of relationships if you can’t accept what someone is telling you at face value. Because you repeatedly refuse to answer the basic question I keep asking you. You keep refusing to address the most simple points about your position in a constant state of trying to achieve gotchas that get dismissed by everyone. You constantly lie and bring up things you show you know is a lie. You keep spreading anti vax misinformation and except people to never question or respond to you. When confronted you ignore what people are saying and insist that you're somehow being attacked because you're somehow the only one that knows the truth. You keep refusing to answer even the most basic questions that people ask you with the blind resistance of someone who is afraid to question anything that they're saying. So I will constantly ask you the same basic question you keep refusing to answer. Why do you think people shouldn't be mandated to get the vaccine, when we have a list of other mandates about basic operations in the country that are no different from it. hes already answered that question. other posters have even pointed out what his position is in relation to your question. you can disagree with him but to suggest that he hasnt responded at all to your points just shows youre not reading. He hasn't though people keep trying to posit what he's trying to say and he simply agrees without elaborating on any points of confusion people have. He states that he's against vaccine mandates on seemingly two major vectors. That it has cons to it and that it doesn't stop transmission. His only offered explanation on the first is about how you get a heart condition sometimes if you get it. However he is then shown studies that say that it is at such a low rate that even compared to getting covid normally that it isn't a real con. He doesn't respond to this information and insists that people are attacking him for contradicting this information. The second has some truth to it that the protection against infection fades after some time without boosters. However when he is confronted with the fact that it was never the point to stop transmission completely and that it still shows clear improvements on not going to the hospital with it or dying. He doesn't respond to this information and then says that him getting the vaccine should tell us that he understands what the vaccine is doing. After ignoring his basic points being refuted he turns into the common anti-vaxer argument of "if its so good then why should people have to get it to work with people who don't get it." this of course ignoring the swaths of other safety mandates in jobs that are for peoples protections that he is informed of and never responds about. then he repeats yet another antivax argument about it actually being about bodily autonomy, just like abortion, before being informed that it is a decision that effects other people but hey again he doesn't respond to this point. But its the fact that he can't answer a basic question that keeps getting to why I think he's an anti vaxer. He understands that if he answers that basic question about why he doesn't think people should get the vaccine then it would be impossible to deny that he's an antivaxer despite his claim about being vaccinated himself. He said he would request a ban if I showed him information of him being anti vax and when I did he welched on this he went on like nothing happened and never responded to the quotes of him. If we can't have a simple discussion of asking people questions and answering them then we're not having a discussion. And its an extremely simple question that I keep asking in so many different ways that he just somehow can't answer. Don't you find it odd that people have to say that he answered the question without being able to say even vaugly what that answer is? I’ve answered that question many times. Vaccine mandates should be judged on a case by case basis. That’s not my opinion that’s just how it works. Why do you suppose schools mandate MMR vaccines and not flu vaccines? Do you just think that the people making these decisions are just flu anti-vaxxers? Since you think the only thing that matters is if vaccines do more good than harm and otherwise there is no moral argument against vaccine mandates does that mean you also support vaccine mandates for flu as well? Or do you just not give a shit about the people that die of the flu? Or maybe your answer is something like “personally I draw the line just before thinking we need to mandate the flu vaccine for everyone” and if that’s your answer you should read it over and over and over until you realize that that’s an acceptable answer Edit: also in before the people that are incapable of understanding nuanced perspectives come in to post “OMG BJ is comparing COVID to the flu! What a typical anti-vaxxer!!” Yes I am for a flu vaccine in workplaces and where it is judged to provide a cost-effective solution to flu outbreaks. There are flu vaccine mandates in such workplaces already where it is not already strongly recommended by experts. But again you dodge the question by trying to posit a different question without giving any sort of argument or point about what you think about the vaccine mandates. You don't even say if you are against flu vaccine mandates but somehow think that fighting on the front of it being the flu is an argument that you would win. You feel the need to pre emt this criticism because you know how much anti-vax propaganda is saying that covid is just the flu. So again why do you think people shouldn't be mandated to get the vaccine that makes the covid vaccine different than other vacines? You couldn't infer from my post that I would also be against flu vaccine mandates? I'm not sure how else I can explain my position if you're not satisfied with my answer that vaccine mandates should be judged on a case by case basis. Are you trying to argue that if I'm in favor of some vaccine mandates then I have to be in favor of all vaccine mandates? I repeat a simple question. A simple question you refuse to answer in anything but misdirecting questions in response. I am hopeful now that we are reaching near where you will answer such a simple question. Simply stating that you look at things on a case-by-case basis isn't an answer to any question about the vaccine or anything that people were asking you. Now that we've gotten to the point where you agree that it is a case-by-case basis about vaccines. My question remains about why you have a problem with the covid vaccine to where you don't think it shouldn't be mandated like any number of the other mandates that we have and accept. People in elementary and middle schools should be getting a flu vaccine every year. They work in an environment that contains a massive amount of vectors for outbreaks in the kids that go to these schools. I don't really understand why people won't listen to the science on that front but society has at least come to accept the level of death that comes with flu season every year. Covid however is not the flu, covid is much worse by any metric measurable. It is the modern plague with the capability of breaking down society if it wasn't handled with the levels of modern care that our hospitals employ. Even with the lockdowns that forced so much suffering it still caused the system to almost buckle while cranking up the deaths from a thousand other things that normally go on at hospitals. If you want the question framed yet another way now what about the case of the covid vaccine that you believe that it shouldn't be mandated? that is literally his answer. for him covid is at a level now where the risk is acceptable for society without having to take away the freedom of choice for individuals. your idea that all decisions are black and white and the freedom to make choices, even bad choices, does not stack up in value compared to the objective benefit claimed by science is your own opinion. i most certainly do not think flu vaccines should be mandatory, even in schools.
you both are going around in circles basically because you refuse to read between the lines and keep assuming hes dodging your questions. hes already answered it and most people have recognised it. his answer has been smacking your face for a while so much that you even wrote it down for him.
drones summary below is good and accurate about what ive interpreted to be bj's stance
On August 25 2022 04:49 Liquid`Drone wrote: .... the value of what I like to describe as perceived autonomy. Myself, I think this, that people should be allowed to themselves steer the direction of their life even if it entails them making stupid decisions, is a significant independent value. Even acknowledging that experts or whatnot can make better decisions for people than what they can themselves make, the consequences of people making bad choices must be very dire before I want to strip people of the power to make bad choices.
|
On August 25 2022 06:19 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2022 21:01 NewSunshine wrote:On August 24 2022 17:27 BlackJack wrote:On August 24 2022 15:26 Mikau313 wrote:On August 24 2022 05:17 BlackJack wrote:On August 23 2022 16:51 Mikau313 wrote:On August 23 2022 06:55 BlackJack wrote:On August 23 2022 06:34 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2022 05:09 BlackJack wrote:On August 22 2022 22:00 Magic Powers wrote: [quote]
No they should not be banned. My point of view is that radical points of view need to get out of the debate. That is yours and JimmiC's. Well then you’re just completely ignoring the rights of the vaccinated to be able to not have to work around the unvaccinated. I think there’s no room in the debate for antivaxxers like you I don't care about covid policy since I have no impact on it, as long as I can live a normal life. Here in this thread I'm trying to mitigate the damage you're doing by spreading misinformation like the one about myocarditis and the one about protection against infection. My goal is to let people know that they benefit from more frequent boosters, and you've been deliberately spreading information that leads them away from that conclusion. You really want to talk about myocarditis again? Are you referencing the time you claimed that "nobody" had been admitted to the hospital for myocarditis after vaccination and I had to correct you by stating that according to the CDC 96% of people diagnosed with vaccine induced myocarditis were admitted to the hospital? On September 19 2021 21:22 Magic Powers wrote:On September 19 2021 20:57 BlackJack wrote:On September 19 2021 06:23 Magic Powers wrote: [quote]
Myocarditis is a plausible but unproven side effect of the Pfizer vaccine, and it can be easily and safely treated. No one has died from it and no one has been hospitalized.
I'm gonna say this very openly right now that it's become obvious to me that you're approaching this situation personally, not fact oriented. You're putting words into my mouth and interpreting the things I actually say in the worst light possible. You're not interested in what's true and what's false. This whole thing is therefore clearly about you and nothing else. I'll say it one last time, if you try to engage with me again in this manner I will write a complaint to the moderators, because you've been causing significant disruptions in this thread with your very personal cruisade. Magic Powers: Vaccination (especially Pfizer) contains no risk other than a sore arm for a few days and in few cases maybe a day of (harmless) side effects.WHO: Clinicians should be aware of the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis with mRNA vaccinesNow I don't know who to believe + Show Spoiler + People are fallible, objective reality is not. You should never trust any source, you should always check multiple independent sources.
From the CDC:
Cases of myocarditis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)external icon have occurred: After (not because of) mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna), especially in male adolescents and young adults, More often after the second dose Usually within several days after vaccination Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis who received care responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly. Patients can usually return to their normal daily activities after their symptoms improve. Those who have been diagnosed with myocarditis should consult with their cardiologist (heart doctor) about return to exercise or sports. More information will be shared as it becomes available.
Furthermore, no hospitalizations or deaths have occured as a result of myocarditis after vaccination. No chronic cases either. + Show Spoiler + Sorry if it's considered misinformation to correct your untruths. If something is common in unvaxxed people when they contract Covid, and getting the vaccine makes that thing go from 'common' to 'almost doesn't happen' the conclusion isn't "vaccines cause myocarditis", it's "vaccines prevent myocarditis". We wouldn’t say either of those things because we have an entire language at our disposal to be precise. We actually don’t have to say things that are factually incorrect. The problem arises when you selectively apply that precise language. When you say: * People have been hospitalised with myocarditis after taking the vaccine But then neglect to say * The amount of people who were hospitalised with myocarditis was almost statistically insignificant; * The vast majority of people who got myocarditis after the vaccine were fine; * Chances of somebody getting myocarditis are astronomically higher from contracting Covid than they are from taking the vaccine even if a causal link between the vaccine and myocarditis were to be established; * Taking the vaccine reduces your chance of contracting myocarditis as a result of Covid to almost 0. * If your goal is to minimize your chance of getting myocarditis taking the vaccine is the objectively correct choice. You are still (intentionally) spreading misinformation, even when you make a precise and true statement initially. Ok so if someone says something that’s untrue I’m not allowed to just say “that’s not true according to this” without saying all that other stuff as well? Well it’s a lot to write but okay. Maybe I can make it my signature so it’s in every post. I mean, you could try just giving people good faith and taking them for what they mean to say, instead of leaping on every factual inaccuracy you find. That would be a start. Folks are human. We slip up, even when we know what we're doing or talking about. Anyone who wants to find something "wrong" will find it. Nobody likes the guy who has to point out every little thing that isn't technically correct. And it's not because of some "inconvenient truth" dynamic. It's because you could just take people for what they obviously mean to say, and just be cool about shit. If these were just "slip ups" it would not be very difficult to just correct the slip ups on the next post and not have to go back and forth over and over by suggesting the slip ups were true because you can get 5 other guys in the thread to go along with it
Gets called out for taking things out of context while ignoring the obvious meaning behind the post.
-Responds by taking things out of context while ignoring the obvious meaning behind the post
|
|
|
|