|
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. |
Oh I think I may've figured out how BJ is misconstruing these words.
The sentence goes like this: " The benefits of these vaccines greatly outweigh the risk of myocarditis"
He thinks that "the benefits" and "the risk" BOTH pertain to "vaccines". But that's not the case. The risk specifically pertains to "myocarditis" and doesn't say anything about there being any risks from the vaccines. It says that there's a risk of myocarditis, however it does not link that risk in any way to the vaccines.
In fact quite the opposite, it is specifically mentioned prior that:
"There have been reports of very rare cases of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the membrane surrounding the heart) following the second dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Myocarditis and pericarditis can be caused by many factors, including infections, viruses, medicines and environmental factors. The currently available data suggests that there is also a potential relationship between these symptoms and mRNA vaccines. Research is underway to understand more."
So it's explained clearly that myocarditis is not linked to the vaccines as of yet, but instead to a variety of other factors (as has been known).
|
On November 07 2022 17:37 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2022 17:23 BlackJack wrote:
Is it because every single reputable source says the same thing I do regarding vaccines: They are safe, effective, the risks are very small and the benefits outweigh the risks. Citation needed. PS: yes, citation of "every single reputable source", or - because I feel like being nice - only a significantly large sample of them. I'll ask for five reputable sources, which seems reasonable since there are at least a few dozen.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/safety-of-vaccines.html
COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.
Serious side effects that could cause a long-term health problem are extremely rare following any vaccination, including COVID-19 vaccination. The benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the known and potential risks.
WHO
https://www.who.int/news/item/09-07-2021-gacvs-guidance-myocarditis-pericarditis-covid-19-mrna-vaccines
Clinicians should be aware of the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis with mRNA vaccines and those most likely to be affected
The benefits of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines outweigh the risks in reducing hospitalizations and deaths due to COVID-19 infections.
FDA
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine-shows-907-efficacy-trial-children-2021-10-22/
Scientists at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said on Friday that the likely benefits of giving the Pfizer (PFE.N)/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to 5 to 11 year olds clearly outweigh the risks of rare cases of heart inflammation.
Johns Hopkins
Yes, we recommend that everyone who is eligible get vaccinated with one of the currently authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines: Pfizer or Moderna. We view both as highly effective in preventing serious disease, hospitalization and death from COVID-19 (including disease caused by the very contagious delta and omicron variants of the coronavirus), and we believe that their benefits outweigh their risks.
American Heart Association
https://newsroom.heart.org/news/study-finds-benefits-of-covid-19-vaccination-outweigh-risks-of-rare-cases-of-myocarditis?preview=5cf3
The benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine outweigh the low risk of developing myocarditis after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, according to research published today in Circulation, the flagship journal of the American Heart Association
|
Yeah you're a bit late, I've already figured out why you misunderstand what they say. You're not correct on this.
|
Great now I'll wait for your 5 sources saying that the COVID vaccines are "without risk" or "risk free."
I'm guessing I'm going to be waiting a really really long time.
But as is typical, I have to provide a slue of sources for anything I say but you get to pull stuff out of your ass. Fantastic.
But there is some good news: Nobody else in this thread is going to challenge you on it. DPB and WombaT will come and say something like "I dont think Magic Powers is saying that the COVID vaccines have literally zero risks, just that the benefits it provides negates the very small risks of the vaccines themselves."
|
Your sources do not confirm your position that they're equating "safe" with "risk-free". They specifically call it "the risk of myocarditis" without even once referring to the vaccines as it being the true cause in any of the known cases.
I don't have to provide any sources until you've provided one that clearly confirms that the vaccines themselves pose a risk of myocarditis.
|
On November 07 2022 18:13 BlackJack wrote:
Great now I'll wait for your 5 sources saying that the COVID vaccines are "without risk" or "risk free."
I'm guessing I'm going to be waiting a really really long time.
But as is typical, I have to provide a slue of sources for anything I say but you get to pull stuff out of your ass. Fantastic.
But there is some good news: Nobody else in this thread is going to challenge you on it. DPB and WombaT will come and say something like "I dont think Magic Powers is saying that the COVID vaccines have literally zero risks, just that the benefits it provides negates the very small risks of the vaccines themselves."
No one needs to defend me on this, I'm my own person. I myself am stating very clearly, and again for the twentieth time, that there are no known and proven risks posed by the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. There are only potential risks, which means they're not confirmed and can therefore not be considered true risks.
I can't say for sure about other vaccines.
|
On November 07 2022 18:19 Magic Powers wrote:
Your sources do not confirm your position that they're equating "safe" with "risk-free". They specifically call it "the risk of myocarditis" without even once referring to the vaccines as it being the true cause in any of the known cases.
I don't have to provide any sources until you've provided one that clearly confirms that the vaccines themselves pose a risk of myocarditis.
Hey guy, we get it. You don't believe COVID vaccines carry a risk of myocarditis. Great. I'm not going to get into that debate with you. The fact that you think myocarditis is the only issue at hand just shows how narrow-minded you are being on this topic.
You just have to answer the question: "Why the fuck would all these organizations say "the benefits outweigh the risks" if they believed there are no risks?"
Or the question of why you can't find a single source saying that the vaccines have no risks when I can find a dozen saying they have risks but the benefits outweigh them.
|
On November 07 2022 18:27 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2022 18:19 Magic Powers wrote:
Your sources do not confirm your position that they're equating "safe" with "risk-free". They specifically call it "the risk of myocarditis" without even once referring to the vaccines as it being the true cause in any of the known cases.
I don't have to provide any sources until you've provided one that clearly confirms that the vaccines themselves pose a risk of myocarditis. Hey guy, we get it. You don't believe COVID vaccines carry a risk of myocarditis. Great. I'm not going to get into that debate with you. The fact that you think myocarditis is the only issue at hand just shows how narrow-minded you are being on this topic. You just have to answer the question: "Why the fuck would all these organizations say "the benefits outweigh the risks" if they believed there are no risks?" Or the question of why you can't find a single source saying that the vaccines have no risks when I can find a dozen saying they have risks but the benefits outweigh them.
No, the issue isn't myocarditis. The issue is that you're inventing horribly misguided reasons to question the vaccines' efficacy and safety, as you have done with them carrying a "risk of myocarditis" (which is false), as you have done with them "not reducing transmissions" (which is false). The one who's narrow-minded is you, believing that your grasp on the English language must be the only correct one, while conveniently ignoring every bit of information that refutes your belief, like the fact that reputable sources state clearly that the cases of myocarditis are not provably linked to the vaccines and that transmission rates are reduced after vaccination (for which it took weeks and lots of pages to get you to finally admit it).
The sources do not say the vaccines have risks. They say there's a risk of myocarditis, but they do not say where that risk comes from. And that's a deliberate choice of words on their part. They're a lot better at this kind of stuff than you or I, and they almost certainly planned their statements to act against the kind of misconstruction of words that you're doing.
|
Literally every pharmaceutical has risks and side effects. All the way from tylenol (paracetamol) to chemotherapy drugs. The fact that you want to insist that we invented the very first pharmaceutical with no known risks just displays some kind of cult-like irrational devotion to the COVID vaccines. I'm not sure why this is such a sticking point for you. Safe and effective and life-saving and miraculous are not adequate for you? What are we doing here
|
We were talking about myocarditis, not risks in general. You're now shifting the goalpost towards a philosophical discussion about everything having a risk (as you've already done before).
|
On November 07 2022 18:37 Magic Powers wrote:
We were talking about myocarditis, not risks in general. You're now shifting the goalpost towards a philosophical discussion about everything having a risk (as you've already done before).
No, I was talking about risks in general this entire time. Because you quite clearly state "no risks" and "risk-free" when you introduced the topic.
But I'm coming to learn that everyone gets to have their own definitions to words so that's fine if you wanted to say you were talking specifically about myocarditis. As I said, I have no interest in debating that with you again.
Go debate it with the World Health Organization who quite unequivocally states
Clinicians should be aware of the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis with mRNA vaccines and those most likely to be affected.
|
If you think that everything contains a risk, why are you not questioning the claim of vaccines being safe?
|
If you want to have a discussion in PMs that's fine. You seemed to ignore my efforts to do that multiple times.
But I'm absolutely not going to get roped into a discussion on myocarditis. This forum is absolutely incapable of nuanced discussion. The only result is a bunch of chuckleheads saying "Hey guys this antivaxxer keeps talking about vaccines causing myocarditis even though it's incredibly rare and he's not saying anything about vaccines saving lives!!" How does the expression go? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me for the 521st time, shame on me? Yeah I'm slow at learning lessons.
|
No, we're having this discussion here or we don't. I want people to see what both of us are saying, otherwise I'm not interested.
This is not about myocarditis, this is about you using definitions whichever way is temporarily convenient for you, and switching the definition when that becomes more convenient.
Why are you not questioning the claim of vaccine safety? Should they, according to your definition, not instead say "vaccines are almost safe"? And just to get ahead of potential goalpost moving: I'm obviously still talking about covid vaccines, more specifically Pfizer and Moderna.
|
On November 07 2022 16:55 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2022 16:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 07 2022 13:48 Sermokala wrote:On November 07 2022 12:00 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 11:30 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 10:34 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 07:40 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 06:48 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 04:21 BlackJack wrote:On November 06 2022 19:40 Artisreal wrote:
[quote]
Damn so many strawmen... Missing the field for the scarecrows. Strawmen? People are literally talking about eradicating COVID or getting to the point of virtually eliminating it. They are constantly talking about measles and smallpox and other diseases to imply that we can do the same with COVID that we did with them. Nobody is strawmanning this. As I said, I don’t think Sermakola actually said that, if he wishes to correct me and says actually, that’s what he meant then I will appreciate the clarification and go to disagree with him. If I am wrong, I am happy to stand corrected. My understanding is the thrust of the argument is ‘hey it’s still better than not vaccinating people and yeah, it won’t be as effective but there is a precedent of mandatory vaccination anyway, so why not’ BJ: Do you still believe we can achieve herd immunity against COVID and virtually eliminate it from our schools the way we have chicken pox and measles, or...? What?" Sermokala: Yes. Thats what people were saying back in 2020 and what they're saying now. BJ: Well you're wrong and you're using faulty logic to believe that Sermokala: "The logic I'm using is the same logic that has been used successfully in other examples." WombaT: I don't think he's arguing we could eliminate COVID from schools. The thrust of the argument is "hey it's still better than not vaccinating people and yeah it won't be as effective but there is a precedent of mandatory vaccination anyway so why not." Sorry but it's ridiculous. I'm not the one constantly talking about measles and polio and whatever else. It's Sermokala that's constantly referencing these other diseases and constantly referencing herd immunity and very clearly and plainly stating that we can virtually eliminate COVID from schools the way we have these other diseases. But you don't think he's arguing that we could eliminate COVID from schools. As I’ve said, that’s my read. If Sermakola wishes to correct the record and say ‘actually no WombaT, you’re wrong and I actually do think we can essentially eradicate COVID via this course of action’ then, he can make that correction. And I can disagree with that position when such a clarification is forthcoming. Or indeed, pre-emptively disagree with it right now. No skin off my back I don’t know what else you want here. I’ve said in two separate posts that my interpretation of his position is ‘I think vaccination is a good idea, we already mandate all sorts of vaccinations for school kids so why not this one?’ And, I believe his threshold for ‘is a good idea’ is set far below de facto eradication. We can argue thresholds of suitability, because I think that is the disagreement here. Not Sermakola thinking mandatory vaccination in schools will ultimately leave COVID as a non-factor. As I said in previous posts, and have stressed again, I’m not sure how much more clear I can be. That’s my interpretation of his position here, and thus I am not arguing against the idea that ‘if we do this, covid can be de facto eradicated’. If he wants to correct me and I’m misreading, I’m happy to be corrected. Both of you guys seem to have serious issues in communicating with one another, and in misunderstanding one another, in interpreting one another’s posts in the least charitable way possible. I’m adding this to a rather long list, least how I see it as a third party Sure, you can interpret it however you want. But we are also supposed to have some collective understanding of what words mean. If everyone in this thread thinks they are entitled to their own interpretation of "Herd Immunity" and their own interpretation of "eradicate COVID" and their own interpretation of "virtually eliminate COVID in schools the way we have measles and chicken pox" then this whole thread becomes an even bigger waste of time than it already is. Everyone gets to be right, because everyone gets to have their own definitions. Hurray. Maybe Symplectos is right after all and language is the problem. Specificity is important, amongst other things in communication. At no point have I given any inkling that the kind of phrasings that you’ve quoted are things I see as ambiguous and open to much interpretation. ‘Eradicate COVID’ and ‘virtually eliminate’ are not identical, but functionally pretty close. Either COVID is wiped off the earth entirely, as per the former, or it’s so close to being so that functionally it’s basically the same thing, in the latter. I haven’t watered down those definitions and what they mean. I have merely asked Sermakola to clarify if he believes mandatory COVID vaccination in schools is a desirable policy because it will lead in part to that end goal, which is what you believe he claimed, or not. I don’t think that is actually his position and there’s been crossed wires here, but it may well be. Hence my multiple posts seeking clarity on that specific point. I am awaiting confirmation, nothing more, nothing less. Yeah no he got stunlocked when I asked him to compare the covid vaccine mandates with the vaccine mandates you are required to get to go to school. I never made any sort of claim that we would eradicate covid, that was him trying to squirrel out of answering another simple question. I made the argument that if we were really about eradicating diseases or virtually eliminating them that why he thought we still required them. He doesn't really understand how vaccines work so he is just unable to really process that line of questioning and has to cling to what he can process, vague fear-mongering and bad-faith representations of what other people say that he thinks makes a good argument. BJ: Do you still believe we can achieve herd immunity against COVID and virtually eliminate it from our schools the way we have chicken pox and measles, or...? What?"
Sermokala: Yes. Thats what people were saying back in 2020 and what they're saying now.
BJ: Well you're wrong and you're using faulty logic to believe that
Sermokala: "The logic I'm using is the same logic that has been used successfully in other examples." See he doesn't ever state what the faulty logic is or why I'm wrong. He just declares that he's right and trys to grandstand to the crowd about his latest gotcha that no one falls for. When someone presents an argument to him that he doesn't understand he gets frustrated and desperately tries to avoid answering the question so he doesn't get exposed to his inability to grasp basic concepts. He needed a citation for the claim "people get sick when near sick people" then dismissed it out of hand when someone presented it to him. He keeps trying to sneak in doubts about the efficacy of the vaccine when no one has taken that seriously for years now. He keeps sneaking it in because he doesn't understand how a vaccine works or why its good in any way at all. He doesn't understand the concept of adults being in schools or children leaving schools to be with other adults He could ask me basic questions that he's confused about. But he's incapable of processing them like a normal person and just tries to search for a gotcha that isn't there. He makes up these run on stories of arguments no one makes and acts like that has to be what other people think. So after all of BJ's insistence that his interpretation of your statements is the only accurate one possible, and that the rest of us are crazy or insincere... His interpretation was wrong? lmfao, "I'm going to walk back the dumbass shit I was saying earlier since people are doing the mental gymnastics to give me an out." And the clown show continues.
Okay then. The hostility isn't helping.
|
On November 07 2022 19:03 Magic Powers wrote:
No, we're having this discussion here or we don't. I want people to see what both of us are saying, otherwise I'm not interested.
This is not about myocarditis, this is about you using definitions whichever way is temporarily convenient for you, and switching the definition when that becomes more convenient.
Why are you not questioning the claim of vaccine safety? Should they, according to your definition, not instead say "vaccines are almost safe"? And just to get ahead of potential goalpost moving: I'm obviously still talking about covid vaccines, more specifically Pfizer and Moderna.
Then yeah we're not having the discussion. You think I want to have to discussion while simultaneously putting up with that dimwit saying
HeY GuyS BJ OnLY wants TO talk abOUT MyoCarditis!!!! He DoESn'T evEN KnoW VaCCines SavE LivEs!!
Yeah sounds like a lot of fun but I politely decline.
and we can say vaccines are safe because billions have been given out now the the risks are very very small. Which is different than saying there are no risks. Again this is generally collectively understood language. A routine medical procedure like a colonoscopy can be called generally safe, nobody would call it risk-free.
|
On November 07 2022 19:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2022 16:55 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 16:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 07 2022 13:48 Sermokala wrote:On November 07 2022 12:00 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 11:30 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 10:34 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 07:40 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 06:48 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 04:21 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Strawmen? People are literally talking about eradicating COVID or getting to the point of virtually eliminating it. They are constantly talking about measles and smallpox and other diseases to imply that we can do the same with COVID that we did with them. Nobody is strawmanning this. As I said, I don’t think Sermakola actually said that, if he wishes to correct me and says actually, that’s what he meant then I will appreciate the clarification and go to disagree with him. If I am wrong, I am happy to stand corrected. My understanding is the thrust of the argument is ‘hey it’s still better than not vaccinating people and yeah, it won’t be as effective but there is a precedent of mandatory vaccination anyway, so why not’ BJ: Do you still believe we can achieve herd immunity against COVID and virtually eliminate it from our schools the way we have chicken pox and measles, or...? What?" Sermokala: Yes. Thats what people were saying back in 2020 and what they're saying now. BJ: Well you're wrong and you're using faulty logic to believe that Sermokala: "The logic I'm using is the same logic that has been used successfully in other examples." WombaT: I don't think he's arguing we could eliminate COVID from schools. The thrust of the argument is "hey it's still better than not vaccinating people and yeah it won't be as effective but there is a precedent of mandatory vaccination anyway so why not." Sorry but it's ridiculous. I'm not the one constantly talking about measles and polio and whatever else. It's Sermokala that's constantly referencing these other diseases and constantly referencing herd immunity and very clearly and plainly stating that we can virtually eliminate COVID from schools the way we have these other diseases. But you don't think he's arguing that we could eliminate COVID from schools. As I’ve said, that’s my read. If Sermakola wishes to correct the record and say ‘actually no WombaT, you’re wrong and I actually do think we can essentially eradicate COVID via this course of action’ then, he can make that correction. And I can disagree with that position when such a clarification is forthcoming. Or indeed, pre-emptively disagree with it right now. No skin off my back I don’t know what else you want here. I’ve said in two separate posts that my interpretation of his position is ‘I think vaccination is a good idea, we already mandate all sorts of vaccinations for school kids so why not this one?’ And, I believe his threshold for ‘is a good idea’ is set far below de facto eradication. We can argue thresholds of suitability, because I think that is the disagreement here. Not Sermakola thinking mandatory vaccination in schools will ultimately leave COVID as a non-factor. As I said in previous posts, and have stressed again, I’m not sure how much more clear I can be. That’s my interpretation of his position here, and thus I am not arguing against the idea that ‘if we do this, covid can be de facto eradicated’. If he wants to correct me and I’m misreading, I’m happy to be corrected. Both of you guys seem to have serious issues in communicating with one another, and in misunderstanding one another, in interpreting one another’s posts in the least charitable way possible. I’m adding this to a rather long list, least how I see it as a third party Sure, you can interpret it however you want. But we are also supposed to have some collective understanding of what words mean. If everyone in this thread thinks they are entitled to their own interpretation of "Herd Immunity" and their own interpretation of "eradicate COVID" and their own interpretation of "virtually eliminate COVID in schools the way we have measles and chicken pox" then this whole thread becomes an even bigger waste of time than it already is. Everyone gets to be right, because everyone gets to have their own definitions. Hurray. Maybe Symplectos is right after all and language is the problem. Specificity is important, amongst other things in communication. At no point have I given any inkling that the kind of phrasings that you’ve quoted are things I see as ambiguous and open to much interpretation. ‘Eradicate COVID’ and ‘virtually eliminate’ are not identical, but functionally pretty close. Either COVID is wiped off the earth entirely, as per the former, or it’s so close to being so that functionally it’s basically the same thing, in the latter. I haven’t watered down those definitions and what they mean. I have merely asked Sermakola to clarify if he believes mandatory COVID vaccination in schools is a desirable policy because it will lead in part to that end goal, which is what you believe he claimed, or not. I don’t think that is actually his position and there’s been crossed wires here, but it may well be. Hence my multiple posts seeking clarity on that specific point. I am awaiting confirmation, nothing more, nothing less. Yeah no he got stunlocked when I asked him to compare the covid vaccine mandates with the vaccine mandates you are required to get to go to school. I never made any sort of claim that we would eradicate covid, that was him trying to squirrel out of answering another simple question. I made the argument that if we were really about eradicating diseases or virtually eliminating them that why he thought we still required them. He doesn't really understand how vaccines work so he is just unable to really process that line of questioning and has to cling to what he can process, vague fear-mongering and bad-faith representations of what other people say that he thinks makes a good argument. BJ: Do you still believe we can achieve herd immunity against COVID and virtually eliminate it from our schools the way we have chicken pox and measles, or...? What?"
Sermokala: Yes. Thats what people were saying back in 2020 and what they're saying now.
BJ: Well you're wrong and you're using faulty logic to believe that
Sermokala: "The logic I'm using is the same logic that has been used successfully in other examples." See he doesn't ever state what the faulty logic is or why I'm wrong. He just declares that he's right and trys to grandstand to the crowd about his latest gotcha that no one falls for. When someone presents an argument to him that he doesn't understand he gets frustrated and desperately tries to avoid answering the question so he doesn't get exposed to his inability to grasp basic concepts. He needed a citation for the claim "people get sick when near sick people" then dismissed it out of hand when someone presented it to him. He keeps trying to sneak in doubts about the efficacy of the vaccine when no one has taken that seriously for years now. He keeps sneaking it in because he doesn't understand how a vaccine works or why its good in any way at all. He doesn't understand the concept of adults being in schools or children leaving schools to be with other adults He could ask me basic questions that he's confused about. But he's incapable of processing them like a normal person and just tries to search for a gotcha that isn't there. He makes up these run on stories of arguments no one makes and acts like that has to be what other people think. So after all of BJ's insistence that his interpretation of your statements is the only accurate one possible, and that the rest of us are crazy or insincere... His interpretation was wrong? lmfao, "I'm going to walk back the dumbass shit I was saying earlier since people are doing the mental gymnastics to give me an out." And the clown show continues. And yet I managed to not call you crazy, insincere, or full of "dumbass shit"; it's almost like one of us can engage without being incredibly hostile.
To be clear, Serm was the one saying the dumbass shit. You're the one doing the mental gymnastics to give him the rope to walk it back. The fact that he took the opportunity to walk it back after you offered it to him doesn't prove that "BJ was wrong all along"
|
On November 07 2022 19:12 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2022 19:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 07 2022 16:55 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 16:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 07 2022 13:48 Sermokala wrote:On November 07 2022 12:00 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 11:30 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 10:34 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 07:40 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 06:48 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
As I said, I don’t think Sermakola actually said that, if he wishes to correct me and says actually, that’s what he meant then I will appreciate the clarification and go to disagree with him.
If I am wrong, I am happy to stand corrected. My understanding is the thrust of the argument is ‘hey it’s still better than not vaccinating people and yeah, it won’t be as effective but there is a precedent of mandatory vaccination anyway, so why not’
BJ: Do you still believe we can achieve herd immunity against COVID and virtually eliminate it from our schools the way we have chicken pox and measles, or...? What?" Sermokala: Yes. Thats what people were saying back in 2020 and what they're saying now. BJ: Well you're wrong and you're using faulty logic to believe that Sermokala: "The logic I'm using is the same logic that has been used successfully in other examples." WombaT: I don't think he's arguing we could eliminate COVID from schools. The thrust of the argument is "hey it's still better than not vaccinating people and yeah it won't be as effective but there is a precedent of mandatory vaccination anyway so why not." Sorry but it's ridiculous. I'm not the one constantly talking about measles and polio and whatever else. It's Sermokala that's constantly referencing these other diseases and constantly referencing herd immunity and very clearly and plainly stating that we can virtually eliminate COVID from schools the way we have these other diseases. But you don't think he's arguing that we could eliminate COVID from schools. As I’ve said, that’s my read. If Sermakola wishes to correct the record and say ‘actually no WombaT, you’re wrong and I actually do think we can essentially eradicate COVID via this course of action’ then, he can make that correction. And I can disagree with that position when such a clarification is forthcoming. Or indeed, pre-emptively disagree with it right now. No skin off my back I don’t know what else you want here. I’ve said in two separate posts that my interpretation of his position is ‘I think vaccination is a good idea, we already mandate all sorts of vaccinations for school kids so why not this one?’ And, I believe his threshold for ‘is a good idea’ is set far below de facto eradication. We can argue thresholds of suitability, because I think that is the disagreement here. Not Sermakola thinking mandatory vaccination in schools will ultimately leave COVID as a non-factor. As I said in previous posts, and have stressed again, I’m not sure how much more clear I can be. That’s my interpretation of his position here, and thus I am not arguing against the idea that ‘if we do this, covid can be de facto eradicated’. If he wants to correct me and I’m misreading, I’m happy to be corrected. Both of you guys seem to have serious issues in communicating with one another, and in misunderstanding one another, in interpreting one another’s posts in the least charitable way possible. I’m adding this to a rather long list, least how I see it as a third party Sure, you can interpret it however you want. But we are also supposed to have some collective understanding of what words mean. If everyone in this thread thinks they are entitled to their own interpretation of "Herd Immunity" and their own interpretation of "eradicate COVID" and their own interpretation of "virtually eliminate COVID in schools the way we have measles and chicken pox" then this whole thread becomes an even bigger waste of time than it already is. Everyone gets to be right, because everyone gets to have their own definitions. Hurray. Maybe Symplectos is right after all and language is the problem. Specificity is important, amongst other things in communication. At no point have I given any inkling that the kind of phrasings that you’ve quoted are things I see as ambiguous and open to much interpretation. ‘Eradicate COVID’ and ‘virtually eliminate’ are not identical, but functionally pretty close. Either COVID is wiped off the earth entirely, as per the former, or it’s so close to being so that functionally it’s basically the same thing, in the latter. I haven’t watered down those definitions and what they mean. I have merely asked Sermakola to clarify if he believes mandatory COVID vaccination in schools is a desirable policy because it will lead in part to that end goal, which is what you believe he claimed, or not. I don’t think that is actually his position and there’s been crossed wires here, but it may well be. Hence my multiple posts seeking clarity on that specific point. I am awaiting confirmation, nothing more, nothing less. Yeah no he got stunlocked when I asked him to compare the covid vaccine mandates with the vaccine mandates you are required to get to go to school. I never made any sort of claim that we would eradicate covid, that was him trying to squirrel out of answering another simple question. I made the argument that if we were really about eradicating diseases or virtually eliminating them that why he thought we still required them. He doesn't really understand how vaccines work so he is just unable to really process that line of questioning and has to cling to what he can process, vague fear-mongering and bad-faith representations of what other people say that he thinks makes a good argument. BJ: Do you still believe we can achieve herd immunity against COVID and virtually eliminate it from our schools the way we have chicken pox and measles, or...? What?"
Sermokala: Yes. Thats what people were saying back in 2020 and what they're saying now.
BJ: Well you're wrong and you're using faulty logic to believe that
Sermokala: "The logic I'm using is the same logic that has been used successfully in other examples." See he doesn't ever state what the faulty logic is or why I'm wrong. He just declares that he's right and trys to grandstand to the crowd about his latest gotcha that no one falls for. When someone presents an argument to him that he doesn't understand he gets frustrated and desperately tries to avoid answering the question so he doesn't get exposed to his inability to grasp basic concepts. He needed a citation for the claim "people get sick when near sick people" then dismissed it out of hand when someone presented it to him. He keeps trying to sneak in doubts about the efficacy of the vaccine when no one has taken that seriously for years now. He keeps sneaking it in because he doesn't understand how a vaccine works or why its good in any way at all. He doesn't understand the concept of adults being in schools or children leaving schools to be with other adults He could ask me basic questions that he's confused about. But he's incapable of processing them like a normal person and just tries to search for a gotcha that isn't there. He makes up these run on stories of arguments no one makes and acts like that has to be what other people think. So after all of BJ's insistence that his interpretation of your statements is the only accurate one possible, and that the rest of us are crazy or insincere... His interpretation was wrong? lmfao, "I'm going to walk back the dumbass shit I was saying earlier since people are doing the mental gymnastics to give me an out." And the clown show continues. And yet I managed to not call you crazy, insincere, or full of "dumbass shit"; it's almost like one of us can engage without being incredibly hostile. To be clear, Serm was the one saying the dumbass shit. You're the one doing the mental gymnastics to give him the rope to walk it back.
Yeah I realized who you were referring to and edited my comment*
|
Noted: when pressed on the matter of definitions of the words BJ is using, he backs out of the discussion.
|
On November 07 2022 19:12 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2022 19:03 Magic Powers wrote:
No, we're having this discussion here or we don't. I want people to see what both of us are saying, otherwise I'm not interested.
This is not about myocarditis, this is about you using definitions whichever way is temporarily convenient for you, and switching the definition when that becomes more convenient.
Why are you not questioning the claim of vaccine safety? Should they, according to your definition, not instead say "vaccines are almost safe"? And just to get ahead of potential goalpost moving: I'm obviously still talking about covid vaccines, more specifically Pfizer and Moderna. Then yeah we're not having the discussion. You think I want to have to discussion while simultaneously putting up with that dimwit saying
HeY GuyS BJ OnLY wants TO talk abOUT MyoCarditis!!!! He DoESn'T evEN KnoW VaCCines SavE LivEs!!Yeah sounds like a lot of fun but I politely decline. and we can say vaccines are safe because billions have been given out now the the risks are very very small. Which is different than saying there are no risks. Again this is generally collectively understood language. A routine medical procedure like a colonoscopy can be called generally safe, nobody would call it risk-free.
Who says that you're unaware that vaccines save lives? Serm? I'd be happy to disagree with whoever says that, as I believe you're quite aware that vaccines save lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
