Will you get vaccinated?

[QUOTE=LWW;1638787153]Kinda like discussing with you about putting a mask on an exerted runner might not be good........[/QUOTE]

We did not have a discussion. I only posted a video from years ago showing many runners without masks collapsing at the finish. Something that I as a track and cross-country fan have seen many times.

I find you completely incoherent. I have no idea how others engage with you, much less why. I guess they find it amusing to watch the jester dance.

In my only exchange with you, you claimed that the world's most prestigious academic journal was no good because they use a .com rather than a .edu domain. That was enough for me to move on.

[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1638789403]It seems like you don't actually read what you link to, or maybe you just don't understand it. I'm not trying to be mean, but you need to read that again. It's the unvaccinated birds that died, not the vaccinated ones. The issue is that the virus doesn't burn itself out in the chicken population because the vaccinated birds survive. Because of that, there's a concern that the virus could mutate into something equally deadly to the birds, and not covered by the vaccines. For your link to be relevant, SARS cov-2 would have to kill everyone who got the virus but wasn't vaccinated, and the sourse of mutations would only be replication in vaccinated people. [b] But SARS cov-2 is more likely to mutate in unvaccinated subjects because it doesn't kill them, it just replicates far more than it does in vaccinated subjects and the mutated strains can spread from them more easily. So the risk of more virulent strains developing is actually increased by the people refusing the vaccine, and decreased by those who are vaccinated.[/b]

As far as the normal timeline, the follow up on the vaccines is the same for full approval of the SARS cov-2 vaccines as any other vaccine. 6 months. The difference in these vaccine trials was that we could enroll 40,000 subjects in 2 months, rather than 2,000 subjects over 3 to 5 years.[/QUOTE]

You a reaching a bit in the bolded text. Transcription errors in replication are what drive mutations. There is just as likely of a chance of this to happen in an infectious vaccinated person as an unvaccinated person, and it has been happening since the beginning. What if the unvaccinated person has post infection immunity vs a vaccinated person who had not been infected? Vaccinated vs unvaccinated has zero effect on virulence of viral progeny or whether transcription errors / mutations will occur. Viruses typically become less virulent over time, since natural selection favors the virus that doesn’t kill the host, at least to some extent (probably not much difference considering the CFR of Covid.).

[QUOTE=Paul Kreul;1638780153]Normal approval process is 3-5 years of animal trials, followed by 3-5 years of human trials. Every previous mRNa "vaccine" candidate was withdrawn before or during animal trials due to lack of efficacy combined with serious safety concerns. Commercial use of a mRNA "vaccine" in chickens resulted in almost 100% mortality within a few months due to antibody depebdent enhancement.

[url]https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/tthis-chicken-vaccine-makes-virus-dangerous[/url][/QUOTE]

You’ve got to stop quoting things you don’t understand. A friend of mine is an author on that paper, and I’m incredibly familiar with it because I’ve cited it numerous times in my own work.

The oncogenic herpes virus Andrew Read works with is incredibly virulent already, and it evolved to more virulent because vaccination lifted the cost of aggressive viral replication by reducing and prolonging host mortality while simultaneously permitting onward transmission. In other words, it was a leaky (anti disease) vaccine. The unvaccinated birds died at the highest rates.

[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1638795343]You a reaching a bit in the bolded text. Transcription errors in replication is what drives mutations. There is just as likely of a chance of this to happen in an infectious vaccinated person as an unvaccinated person, and it has been happening since the beginning. Vaccinated vs unvaccinated has zero effect on virulence of viral progeny or even whether a transcription error / mutation will occur. Viruses typically become less virulent over time, since natural selection favors the virus that doesn’t kill the host, at least to some extent (probably not much difference considering the CFR of Covid.).[/QUOTE]

Not true. Mutations are random but subsequent evolution is not. The power of natural selection to change gene frequencies is a direct function of population size. Other than the very few exceptions (ex: anti toxin vaccines) pathogens will have considerably less reproductive success in a vaccinated host. That’s the entire point of the protective effects of vaccines — to minimize pathogen density, tissue tropism and exploitation of host tissues.

To the point about virulence, yes most novel pathogens evolve to be more benign because they refine exploitation of the host. Few pathogens are regularly transmitted after death, so host mortality is costly to pathogen fitness. But there are benefits to virulence as well, and whether a given pathogen will evolve to be more or less virulent depends on many factors (host density, transmission mode, etc).

[QUOTE=Reliance012;1638795923]Not true. Mutations are random but subsequent evolution is not. The power of natural selection to change gene frequencies is a direct function of population size. Other than the very few exceptions (ex: anti toxin vaccines) pathogens will have considerably less reproductive success in a vaccinated host. That’s the entire point of the protective effects of vaccines — to minimize pathogen density, tissue tropism and exploitation of host tissues.

To the point about virulence, yes most novel pathogens evolve to be more benign because they refine exploitation of the host. Few pathogens are regularly transmitted after death, so host mortality is costly to pathogen fitness. But there are benefits to virulence as well, and whether a given pathogen will evolve to be more or less virulent depends on many factors (host density, transmission mode, etc).[/QUOTE]

A lot of it is nothing more than a matter of chance. Just like when a mutated strain of a virus makes the jump to a new species that was previously not a suitable host. The progeny of that virus are likely to express the same trait as the initial mutated strain and poof we have a “novel” virus (in humans)

If someone can test positive, after having been vaccinated, replication is going on in that person. To suggest vaccination is superior to post infection immunity for covid is absurd. There have been so few cases of confirmed re-infection that those cases are likely false positive tests for one of the confirmed cases. Vaccination is going to provide better chances for a successful outcome vs an unvaccinated person who was not previously infected. It pretty much ends there.

[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1638796333]A lot of it is nothing more than a matter of chance. Just like when a mutated strain of a virus makes the jump to a new species that was previously not a suitable host. The progeny of that virus are likely to express the same trait as the initial mutated strain and poof we have a “novel” virus (in humans)

If someone can test positive, after having been vaccinated, replication is going on in that person. To suggest suggest vaccination is superior to post infection immunity for covid is absurd.[/QUOTE]

The number of mutations in a population is a function of population size. The total population of SARSCOV2 in a vaccinated host will be less than a vaccinated host. That is unequivocally true. So no, the odds are not the same. Unvaccinated hosts contribute disproportionately more to the genetic variation and evolution of SARSCOV2.

It’s not about if an individual can test positive. It’s about averages. And on average, vaccinated hosts are significantly less likely to be infected and test positive. Also, testing positive doesn’t tell you about viral density. Two positive hosts can have substantially different densities of the virus.

[QUOTE=x-trainer ben;1638783263]It is the only song that i know with the lyrics "guess who is back, back again"

If you can offer me some safe cdc approved alternatives, that are not experimental and are safe, i will gladly post them.
We wouldn't want a bad reaction to them.[/QUOTE]

Sure. A safer alternative to Eminem would be found here

[url]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PobrSpMwKk4[/url]

A safer alternative to the vaccine would be found here

[url]https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/infdis/jiab255/6274562[/url]

And here

[url]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/health/coronavirus-immunity.amp.html[/url]

What’s your next question?

[QUOTE=Reliance012;1638795443]You’ve got to stop quoting things you don’t understand. A friend of mine is an author on that paper, and I’m incredibly familiar with it because I’ve cited it numerous times in my own work.

The oncogenic herpes virus Andrew Read works with is incredibly virulent already, and it evolved to more virulent because vaccination lifted the cost of aggressive viral replication by reducing and prolonging host mortality while simultaneously permitting onward transmission. In other words, it was a leaky (anti disease) vaccine. The unvaccinated birds died at the highest rates.[/QUOTE]

Actually this is precisely why vaccines have little to no chance of effectiveness for Corona type viruses. History has proven this true over and over. Corna vaccines are notoriously problematic ( mostly due to rapid weakening) and have never been successful.

“The BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 reprograms both adaptive and innate immune responses”

[url]https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.03.21256520v1[/url]

They showed that after administration of the vaccine, the innate immune response to other immune system triggers like other viruses, bacteria and fungi was changed in complex ways. Evidence also showed that once the adaptive immune response to COVID “wears off” basically, it could make people more susceptible to more serious illness from COVID infection (not to mention other things) due to these innate immune system changes.

This “vaccine” is not safe, not in the slightest way, gettin real tired of you trying to push every single agenda there is. You’ve been in complete compliance since the beginning of this...it is absurd. Unlike yourself I learned from history that if the govt REALLY REALLY wants you to do something, it most likely not in your best interest. The vast majority of mouth breathers don't know jack **** about world history and honestly don't give a ****, it's tiktok time! How many generations before have sworn, "never to forget," from ****ed up situations in the past? 1 or 2 generations down the line, they don't even know what freedom is and are begging for governments to make their decisions for them.

[QUOTE=Reliance012;1638797903]The number of mutations in a population is a function of population size. The total population of SARSCOV2 in a vaccinated host will be less than a vaccinated host. That is unequivocally true. So no, the odds are not the same. Unvaccinated hosts contribute disproportionately more to the genetic variation and evolution of SARSCOV2.

It’s not about if an individual can test positive. It’s about averages. And on average, vaccinated hosts are significantly less likely to be infected and test positive. Also, testing positive doesn’t tell you about viral density. Two positive hosts can have substantially different densities of the virus.[/QUOTE]

Sure less vaccinated people infected, lower replication in infectious vaccinated people. There will still be transcription errors, it is a matter of chance if that mutation has any effect on the virus, or if it will make it better or worse for humans going forward. Looks like you quoted my post before I made an edit. Curious on your opinion of vaccination for people who had covid lol. I can kind of guess what it will be though...cause science.

[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1638789403]It seems like you don't actually read what you link to, or maybe you just don't understand it. I'm not trying to be mean, but you need to read that again. It's the unvaccinated birds that died, not the vaccinated ones. The issue is that the virus doesn't burn itself out in the chicken population because the vaccinated birds survive. Because of that, there's a concern that the virus could mutate into something equally deadly to the birds, and not covered by the vaccines. For your link to be relevant, SARS cov-2 would have to kill everyone who got the virus but wasn't vaccinated, and the sourse of mutations would only be replication in vaccinated people. But SARS cov-2 is more likely to mutate in unvaccinated subjects because it doesn't kill them, it just replicates far more than it does in vaccinated subjects and the mutated strains can spread from them more easily. So the risk of more virulent strains developing is actually increased by the people refusing the vaccine, and decreased by those who are vaccinated.

As far as the normal timeline, the follow up on the vaccines is the same for full approval of the SARS cov-2 vaccines as any other vaccine. 6 months. The difference in these vaccine trials was that we could enroll 40,000 subjects in 2 months, rather than 2,000 subjects over 3 to 5 years.[/QUOTE]

Um.. the paper is about viral shedding..you do understand that..right?

“But the vaccinated chickens were transmitting the virus, shedding 10,000 times more virus than an unvaccinated bird.”

“Previously, a hot strain was so nasty, it wiped itself out. Now, you keep its host alive with a vaccine, then it can transmit and spread in the world,” Read said. “So it’s got an evolutionary future, which it didn’t have before.”

But does this evolutionary future breed more dangerous viruses?“

This is EXACTLY what is happening now. This is why we see the most vaccinated areas with the highest amount of new mutations.

[QUOTE=Reliance012;1638797903]The number of mutations in a population is a function of population size. The total population of SARSCOV2 in a vaccinated host will be less than a vaccinated host. That is unequivocally true. So no, the odds are not the same. Unvaccinated hosts contribute disproportionately more to the genetic variation and evolution of SARSCOV2.

It’s not about if an individual can test positive. It’s about averages. And on average, vaccinated hosts are significantly less likely to be infected and test positive. Also, testing positive doesn’t tell you about viral density. Two positive hosts can have substantially different densities of the virus.[/QUOTE]

No, exactly the opposite. SARS-COV-2 will not/cannot be contained or eradicated. What is going on right now, is known in epidemiology as the pathogen endemic equilibrium phase, (viral stasis) and is perfectly normal. Virulence weakening and dilution is what always happens when mutations and naturally acquired herd immunity is occurring throughout the populations. Invariably mutation causes infection rate increase ( seasonality still being the biggest factor) and lethality rate decrease, henceforth it becomes ubiquitous and permanent. Vaccination at this stage is essentially pointless.

[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1638795343] Vaccinated vs unvaccinated has zero effect on virulence of viral progeny or whether transcription errors / mutations will occur.[/QUOTE]

Good thoughts, but you have to take viral load into account and we're talking about virus naive patients. Asymptomatic individuals have much higher viral loads. That means more chances of a dangerous mutation and greater ability to transmit their mutated strains.

Post infection people already made their contributions to mutations with their hi viral load infection and fantastic ability to spread the virus. B.1.1.7, B.1.351

Also, you and I both know viruses aren't consciously becoming less virulent just because the majority of mutations are deleterious, and those less virulent strains aren't the ones that concern us the most.

Edit
Should have read to the bottom before answering. Hard to do on a phone. Reliance012 clearly understand the issues and gave good answers.
Paul, you're either making thing up now or you really don't read well. I'm not sure which it is, but I'm not going to be responding further. Your mistakes and false claims aren't going to any harm when you post them here, so I don't think it's worth anyone's time to correct or refute them unless another member asks about them. I'm sorry.

[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1638802603]Good thoughts, but you have to take viral load into account and we're talking about virus naive patients. Asymptomatic individuals have much higher viral loads. That means more chances of a dangerous mutation and greater ability to transmit their mutated strains.

Post infection people already made their contributions to mutations with their hi viral load infection and fantastic ability to spread the virus. B.1.1.7, B.1.351

Also, you and I both know viruses aren't consciously becoming less virulent just because the majority of mutations are deleterious, and those less virulent strains aren't the ones that concern us the most.[/QUOTE]

I would find it hard to believe that asymptomatic patients have higher viral loads (haven’t looked into but that’s abnormal), unless you are referring to pre-symptomatic. The thing that most people don’t understand when discussing these things are the quantity of viable virus particles, no matter what, is going to be enormously large numbers. Further, your argument could also suggest that because unvaccinated people have a higher potential for generating and spreading mutations, that they also have a higher probability of being patient zero for a new dominant strain that manifests with symptoms no more than a minor cold...That could mean huge cost savings for interventions, and save more lives, right? It would be a complete matter of chance though.

[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1638803803]I would find it hard to believe that asymptomatic patients have higher viral loads (haven’t looked into but that’s abnormal), unless you are referring to pre-symptomatic. The thing that most people don’t understand when discussing these things are the quantity of viable virus particles, no matter what, is going to be enormously large numbers. Further, your argument could also suggest that because unvaccinated people have a higher potential for generating and spreading mutations, that they also have a higher probability of being patient zero for a new dominant strain that manifests with symptoms no more than a minor cold...That could mean huge cost savings for interventions, and save more lives, right? It would be a complete matter of chance though.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry. Meant much higher viral loads than breakthrough cases in vaccinated people. Can't see my entire post on this screen.

Asymptomatic spreaders have similar viral titers to symptomatic people, not higher. Even that surprised me though.

Editing to add
Seems like your other issue is along the lines of hoping the virus mutates into the equivalent of a live attenuated vaccine. Could happen. It would require several mutations resulting in massively higher transmission to catch up with SARS cov2, and lower virulence.

Not completely impossible, but neither are super powers due to a spider bite.

[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1638804933]I'm sorry. Meant much higher viral loads than breakthrough cases in vaccinated people. Can't see my entire post on this screen.

Asymptomatic spreaders have similar viral titers to symptomatic people, not higher. Even that surprised me though.

Editing to add
Seems like your other issue is along the lines of hoping the virus mutates into the equivalent of a live attenuated vaccine. Could happen. It would require several mutations resulting in massively higher transmission to catch up with SARS cov2, and lower virulence.

Not completely impossible, but neither are super powers due to a spider bite.[/QUOTE]

I don’t have any issue. I’m just pointing out the flawed logic in your earlier post that unvaccinated people have a higher probability of passing a new more deadly strain. They would also have a better chance of passing a new less deadly strain. I agree that large populations of people, without immunity increase the risk of variants, but factually those variants are historically less virulent.

I’m happy for the vaccine, and believe the risks of vaccination are much lower than the risks of a bad outcome from covid. That said the “science” coming from from the public health sector has been pretty erratic, at best. People who had a covid infection appear to have as good and likely better immunity protection from future infection, and therefore lower replication and creating new strains than vaccinated people. In that same fact pattern, people who had not had confirmed infections should have been prioritized over people who did for vaccination. Further, for myself, having had covid, I feel no need to take an additional risk with vaccination since it appears to be an unnecessary risk, albeit a very low risk.

Masks don’t protect the wearer like a PPE item, but that is where the public health sector is now going with them. It is insanity and doesn’t instill a lot of faith in the public health sector. Unless NIOSH got it all wrong when generating and publishing data on respiratory protection classifications & capabilities and we will soon see boots on the ground CDC/WHO people wearing cloth face coverings over their faces when they are investigating communicable disease outbreaks. We could change the entire bio-containment zone protocols, all you need is a slobbery rag over your face, no supplied air level A suit stuff, it is very cumbersome. ;)

[QUOTE=Paul Kreul;1638798453]... that if the govt REALLY REALLY wants you to do something, it most likely not in your best interest.....[/QUOTE] Just for sh!ts and giggles because this is an unfair comparison as yes... SARS-CoV-2 and Poliovirus aren't the same family of viruses (virii?) but wind back to 1956 or therabouts and let's assume (again for sh!ts and giggles) that we didn't yet know the effects of vaccination or whether it would naturally die down anyway... No hindsight as we have now, on that huge set of "Let's suppose" would you oppose or seek to delay your own/personal polio vaccination? Personally I'd have taken it, but not everyone did or would now

[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1638823163]...Masks don’t protect the wearer like a PPE item, but that is where the public health sector is now going with them. ...[/QUOTE] as mentioned before face coverings/masks can be OPPE (Other People Protective Equipment) and I also gave an example of seeing someone pre-covid on a hospital ward having a paper mask put on them and quickly wheeled off into a side room when a doc suspected they had active pulmonary TB. Masks worn as "OPPE" (I'll let you take that and copywrite for your work) have a value in *some select use cases*. Which use case we're talking here is going to encourage debate, I'll suggest crowded mass transport where people are squashed in nose to armpit, in contrast I will not suggest gym in ordinary conditions

[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1638823163]I don’t have any issue. I’m just pointing out the flawed logic in your earlier post that unvaccinated people have a higher probability of passing a new more deadly strain. They would also have a better chance of passing a new less deadly strain. I agree that large populations of people, without immunity increase the risk of variants, but factually those variants are historically less virulent. [/QUOTE]

My logic wasn't flawed and I don't think I said more deadly when discussing mutations. Did I? Either way, you're point that a less virulent strain could develop isn't relevant. The fact that they develop doesn't help us or decrease the risk that unvaccinated individuals present. Those individuals hinder our ability to end this pandemic not due to less virulent strains developing, they hinder it due to resistant strains developing. Viruses don't "historically" become less virulent. You can say they evolve, and in many cases there is an evolutionary pressure that favors a less virulent strains, but what you are ignoring and what Paul doesn't seem to understand is that there isn't a lot of pressure for this virus to become less virulent. It's pretty efficient already and has an R (naught) of over 5.

Measles was essentially at 100% exposure in the US before a vaccine was developed. The fact that less virulent strains developed didn't help us shut down the historic epidemics was because there wasn't an evolutionary pressure that favored those strains. Sure we could have waited it out and after 20 or 30 or 60 years, it's possible the predominance of a the dangerous strains of measles would have decreased, but it's unlikely. Measles was around in the 12th century and still causing epidemics in the 20th century. Polio was around in the 15th century and continued increasing in prevalence in the 20th century because our societies changed and our ability to travel long distances quickly improved.

The only way to end this pandemic in months or a couple of years, rather than letting the virus work its way through the entire world population is through using the vaccines. Whether or not a strain which circumvents antibodies to the current spike proteins develops and prolongs this pandemic will depend to a large degree on how quickly we can end the pandemic. The faster we end it, the more we can limit the opportunities current strains have to circumvent our vaccines. A large population of unvaccinated people who are getting infected and culturing high viral loads favors the development of resistant strains.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/H9KPw1R.jpg?1[/img]

California won’t lift mask requirement until June 15 to give the public and businesses time to prepare and ensure coronavirus cases stay low, state health director says.

It has been a few weeks and this spiked protein isn't as good as my fav regular protein, shrimp and scallops with bacon.
I think I will stick with seafood.

Ohio may have hit the jackpot with its $5 million "Vax-a-Million" lottery as the state reports a surge in COVID-19 vaccinations since the incentive was announced.

Gov. Mike DeWine announced the lottery on May 12 that will see five vaccinated adults win a $1 million prize. Starting May 26 for five weeks, a winner will be announced each Wednesday.

So far in Ohio, money apparently talks. Friday marked the highest vaccination day in three weeks, just two days after the lottery was announced, with 25,414 shots in arms, DeWine said in a press conference Monday.





[img]https://i.imgur.com/WuqhdpU.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1638837823]My logic wasn't flawed and I don't think I said more deadly when discussing mutations. Did I? Either way, you're point that a less virulent strain could develop isn't relevant. The fact that they develop doesn't help us or decrease the risk that unvaccinated individuals present. Those individuals hinder our ability to end this pandemic not due to less virulent strains developing, they hinder it due to resistant strains developing. Viruses don't "historically" become less virulent. You can say they evolve, and in many cases there is an evolutionary pressure that favors a less virulent strains, but what you are ignoring and what Paul doesn't seem to understand is that there isn't a lot of pressure for this virus to become less virulent. It's pretty efficient already and has an R (naught) of over 5.

Measles was essentially at 100% exposure in the US before a vaccine was developed. The fact that less virulent strains developed didn't help us shut down the historic epidemics was because there wasn't an evolutionary pressure that favored those strains. Sure we could have waited it out and after 20 or 30 or 60 years, it's possible the predominance of a the dangerous strains of measles would have decreased, but it's unlikely. Measles was around in the 12th century and still causing epidemics in the 20th century. Polio was around in the 15th century and continued increasing in prevalence in the 20th century because our societies changed and our ability to travel long distances quickly improved.

The only way to end this pandemic in months or a couple of years, rather than letting the virus work its way through the entire world population is through using the vaccines. Whether or not a strain which circumvents antibodies to the current spike proteins develops and prolongs this pandemic will depend to a large degree on how quickly we can end the pandemic. The faster we end it, the more we can limit the opportunities current strains have to circumvent our vaccines. A large population of [b]unvaccinated people who are getting infected and culturing high viral loads favors the development of resistant strains.[/b][/QUOTE]

More dangerous / more deadly same difference. I agree vaccines are a very important method of reducing casualties, I am not suggesting they are not. Vaccinated people are still contracting and replicating virus, and therefore able to create variants. This virus is unlikely to ever be eradicated.

You ignored everything regarding post infection immunity, which isn’t surprising considering your work in the vaccine industry. Again they are important, but they are a personal decision, and that is the way it’s going to be. I recommend people get vaccinated, even go so far as setting up on-site vaccination clinics, but I don’t do the silly guilt trip thing, because again, it is a personal health decision that people can make for themselves. Unless of course we are going to start rounding up all the people with medical conditions or religious beliefs that preclude this vaccine and put them in a mass grave for the “greater good”.

What would these strains be resistant to in unvaccinated people? Resistance to the vaccine induced immunity that they don’t have, or resistance to the natural immunity that they don’t have? It would seem logical that vaccine resistant strains would be more likely to develop in vaccinated people since that random mutation would favor its survival in the host (exploiting a niche).

[QUOTE=mtpockets;1638850253]Ohio may have hit the jackpot with its $5 million "Vax-a-Million" lottery as the state reports a surge in COVID-19 vaccinations since the incentive was announced.

Gov. Mike DeWine announced the lottery on May 12 that will see five vaccinated adults win a $1 million prize. Starting May 26 for five weeks, a winner will be announced each Wednesday.

So far in Ohio, money apparently talks. Friday marked the highest vaccination day in three weeks, just two days after the lottery was announced, with 25,414 shots in arms, DeWine said in a press conference Monday.





[img]https://i.imgur.com/WuqhdpU.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]



Is this tax payer money? If so this is taxation is thieft!!

[QUOTE=LWW;1638873013]Is this tax payer money? If so this is taxation is thieft!![/QUOTE]

Who gives a sh!t if it's taxpayers money, at least they are doing something good with it. Wanna carpool to Ohio or are you taking the short bus?

The lotto one is interesting, seems like a decent investment in public health. This one one has great marketing:

[url]https://news.wbfo.org/post/shot-and-chaser-brews-more-vaccinations-clinics[/url]

[QUOTE=mtpockets;1638850253]Ohio may have hit the jackpot with its $5 million "Vax-a-Million" lottery as the state reports a surge in COVID-19 vaccinations since the incentive was announced.

Gov. Mike DeWine announced the lottery on May 12 that will see five vaccinated adults win a $1 million prize. Starting May 26 for five weeks, a winner will be announced each Wednesday.

So far in Ohio, money apparently talks. Friday marked the highest vaccination day in three weeks, just two days after the lottery was announced, with 25,414 shots in arms, DeWine said in a press conference Monday.
[/QUOTE]

This is brilliant. Especially since lottery winnings are taxed at 50% lol.

Today is the last day of my State's mask mandate.

[QUOTE=Bando;1638876723]This is brilliant. Especially since lottery winnings are taxed at 50% lol.

Today is the last day of my State's mask mandate.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely brilliant.
odds of winning... tiny. Odds of motivating people to vaccinate: very high.

[QUOTE=Bando;1638876723]This is brilliant. e.[/QUOTE]

I thought so

[QUOTE=PhDPepper1111;1638877983]Absolutely brilliant.
odds of winning... tiny. Odds of motivating people to vaccinate: very high.[/QUOTE]

They are paying people directly here. Many places now offering gift cards. Great opportunity for safety of the vaccine to get a new type of test as people line up for multiple vaccines per day to get that free money. There is no instant verification here if someone has or hasn’t been vaccinated. Pfizer comes concentrated and needs to be diluted for use (in case anyone was unaware) which is how a nurse accidentally injected 8X the dose or something crazy into someone. Pretty sure they were okay, they should get a waiver for the boosters for a few years though...

[QUOTE=PhDPepper1111;1638877983]Absolutely brilliant.
odds of winning... tiny. Odds of motivating people to vaccinate: very high.[/QUOTE]

By my calculation it's about a 1 in 175,000 chance of winning a million. The regular lottery is 1 in 302 million according to google.

[QUOTE=mtpockets;1638878103]I thought so[/QUOTE]

I'll be the one to say it, the people who are the least likely to willingly get vaccinated are probably most likely to be the people you're waiting in line behind in the gas station as they buy their scratch off tickets.

[QUOTE=Bando;1638882013]

I'll be the one to say it, the people who are the least likely to willingly get vaccinated are probably most likely to be the people you're waiting in line behind in the gas station as they buy their scratch off tickets.[/QUOTE]


Well, I guess you are WRONG, because I had no intention of getting the vaccine and I've NEVER played the fuking scratch offs, so there!!!

[QUOTE=OldFartTom;1638825643]Just for sh!ts and giggles because this is an unfair comparison as yes... SARS-CoV-2 and Poliovirus aren't the same family of viruses (virii?) but wind back to 1956 or therabouts and let's assume (again for sh!ts and giggles) that we didn't yet know the effects of vaccination or whether it would naturally die down anyway... No hindsight as we have now, on that huge set of "Let's suppose" would you oppose or seek to delay your own/personal polio vaccination? Personally I'd have taken it, but not everyone did or would now

as mentioned before face coverings/masks can be OPPE (Other People Protective Equipment) and I also gave an example of seeing someone pre-covid on a hospital ward having a paper mask put on them and quickly wheeled off into a side room when a doc suspected they had active pulmonary TB. Masks worn as "OPPE" (I'll let you take that and copywrite for your work) have a value in *some select use cases*. Which use case we're talking here is going to encourage debate, I'll suggest crowded mass transport where people are squashed in nose to armpit, in contrast I will not suggest gym in ordinary conditions[/QUOTE]

We don’t have to hypothetically suppose anything..if you had Covid..you don’t need the vaccine..

“Persistence of Antibody and Cellular Immune Responses in COVID-19 patients over Nine Months after Infection”

[url]https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/infdis/jiab255/6274562[/url]

“Immunity to the Coronavirus May Last Years, New Data Hint
Blood samples from recovered patients suggest a powerful, long-lasting immune response, researchers reported.”


[url]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/health/coronavirus-immunity.amp.html[/url]

Clown World.

They are all in it.

This part of an email I received today from my employer .. How is this even legal?


"The current CDC guidance is that in order to have an environment with no social distancing and no mask wearing, all individuals must be vaccinated. New York State, Illinois, Nevada and California have or will be adapting CDC guidance at various times throughout the summer. Additionally, New York State requires vaccination to have a fully open venue. For our companies to thrive, we need our venues booked as many nights as possible and sold out as much as possible. As you know, we are in the business of live entertainment and we want all of our fans, guests and employees to feel as safe as possible.



Therefore, we will be requiring all employees to be vaccinated. If you do not have at least one dose of your vaccine by July 12, you will be choosing not to meet this employment requirement and will not be able to continue your employment. If you believe you have a medical condition or a sincerely held religious belief to not be vaccinated, please contact your People Practices representative as soon as practical".

[QUOTE=MinisterOfLust;1638899693]Clown World.

They are all in it.

This part of an email I received today from my employer .. How is this even legal?


"The current CDC guidance is that in order to have an environment with no social distancing and no mask wearing, all individuals must be vaccinated. New York State, Illinois, Nevada and California have or will be adapting CDC guidance at various times throughout the summer. Additionally, New York State requires vaccination to have a fully open venue. For our companies to thrive, we need our venues booked as many nights as possible and sold out as much as possible. As you know, we are in the business of live entertainment and we want all of our fans, guests and employees to feel as safe as possible.



Therefore, we will be requiring all employees to be vaccinated. If you do not have at least one dose of your vaccine by July 12, you will be choosing not to meet this employment requirement and will not be able to continue your employment. If you believe you have a medical condition or a sincerely held religious belief to not be vaccinated, please contact your People Practices representative as soon as practical".[/QUOTE]

You can fight that. I don’t believe they are legally allowed to do this.

[url]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4PwN0laPI7g[/url]

Here is the letter submission to send to employer

[url]https://libertyfirst.legal/vaccination/[/url]

[QUOTE=Paul Kreul;1638900143]You can fight that. I don’t believe they are legally allowed to do this.

[url]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4PwN0laPI7g[/url]

Here is the letter submission to send to employer

[url]https://libertyfirst.legal/vaccination/[/url][/QUOTE]
I need a job but at the same time I don't want to take that stupid vaccine. I need to speak with someone from HR face to face.

And thanks for the link

[QUOTE=MinisterOfLust;1638900273]I need a job but at the same time I don't want to take that stupid vaccine. I need to speak with someone from HR face to face.[/QUOTE]

I hear ya, I’ll be in the same boat soon, but I saw this coming last year, have been able to set myself up.

Not telling you what to do, but I would avoid that vaccine at all costs, this is getting pretty scary. Watch that vid, & if you’re inclined, request that letter. I first heard about Krissannehall on a podcast I listen to, you’d like him..kinda lol


[url]https://www.pscp.tv/w/1jMKgpvDXMMGL[/url]

About 30 min in

I'm pro Vax... but I'm also pro liberty.

I hope you find some kind of way forwards there Minister, legal or not legal, that doesn't sound fair to me

[QUOTE=MinisterOfLust;1638899693]Clown World.

They are all in it.

This part of an email I received today from my employer .. How is this even legal?


"The current CDC guidance is that in order to have an environment with no social distancing and no mask wearing, all individuals must be vaccinated. New York State, Illinois, Nevada and California have or will be adapting CDC guidance at various times throughout the summer. Additionally, New York State requires vaccination to have a fully open venue. For our companies to thrive, we need our venues booked as many nights as possible and sold out as much as possible. As you know, we are in the business of live entertainment and we want all of our fans, guests and employees to feel as safe as possible.



Therefore, we will be requiring all employees to be vaccinated. If you do not have at least one dose of your vaccine by July 12, you will be choosing not to meet this employment requirement and will not be able to continue your employment. If you believe you have a medical condition or a sincerely held religious belief to not be vaccinated, please contact your People Practices representative as soon as practical".[/QUOTE]

It's terms of employment. I have had to get flue shots for two decades, dress a certain way, not have tattoos on my face, etc. Not sure why getting a Covid vaccine as terms of employment is anymore offensive than needing to wear a blue polo shirt and a name tag or anything else. Don't like it, you choose to work elsewhere, that simple. Everyone leaves jobs and finds "better" employment for different reasons.

July 12th is nearly two months away, I'd say that's incredibly reasonable. Not like they are mandating vaccination tomorrow. That I could see getting upset about.

[QUOTE=LWW;1638890643]Well, I guess you are WRONG, because I had no intention of getting the vaccine and I've NEVER played the fuking scratch offs, so there!!![/QUOTE]



[img]https://i.imgur.com/CcvJyUK.gif[/img]

[QUOTE=MinisterOfLust;1638899693]Clown World.

They are all in it.

This part of an email I received today from my employer .. How is this even legal?


"The current CDC guidance is that in order to have an environment with no social distancing and no mask wearing, all individuals must be vaccinated. New York State, Illinois, Nevada and California have or will be adapting CDC guidance at various times throughout the summer. Additionally, New York State requires vaccination to have a fully open venue. For our companies to thrive, we need our venues booked as many nights as possible and sold out as much as possible. As you know, we are in the business of live entertainment and we want all of our fans, guests and employees to feel as safe as possible.



Therefore, we will be requiring all employees to be vaccinated. If you do not have at least one dose of your vaccine by July 12, you will be choosing not to meet this employment requirement and will not be able to continue your employment. If you believe you have a medical condition or a sincerely held religious belief to not be vaccinated, please contact your People Practices representative as soon as practical".[/QUOTE]



Damn Brother, that is harsh .. I hope you get that sorted.. Good luck!

[QUOTE=MinisterOfLust;1638900273]I need a job but at the same time I don't want to take that stupid vaccine. I need to speak with someone from HR face to face.

And thanks for the link[/QUOTE]

Life is full of choices. Your business made a choice to have it's employees fully vaccinated in order to survive. I'm sure this can be and will be challenged in the courts but in the meantime there isn't an discrimination here and YOU get to choose to work there or not.

Freedom rocks!

[QUOTE=Paul Kreul;1638900603]I hear ya, I’ll be in the same boat soon, but I saw this coming last year, have been able to set myself up.

Not telling you what to do, [B]but I would avoid that vaccine at all costs, this is getting pretty scary.[/B] Watch that vid, & if you’re inclined, request that letter. I first heard about Krissannehall on a podcast I listen to, you’d like him..kinda lol


[url]conspiracy link and this chick at 30min is nutty[/url]

About 30 min in[/QUOTE]

Nothing really scary here you're just so far down the conspiracy rabbit hole you think the sky is falling.

TLDR; you're a clown.

Pockets I was going to reply to the cold $hit temp. It’s gone, did a mod remove it?

LOL.

[QUOTE=LWW;1638924843]Pockets I was going to reply to the cold $hit temp. It’s gone, did a mod remove it?

LOL.[/QUOTE]

Damn, I did by mistake.. Going back now

[img]https://i.imgur.com/I7ySn5e.png?1[/img]



[spoiler][img]https://i.imgur.com/5Azm7yA.jpg[/img][/spoiler]

[QUOTE=Jtbny;1638913403]Life is full of choices. Your business made a choice to have it's employees fully vaccinated in order to survive. I'm sure this can be and will be challenged in the courts but in the [b] meantime there isn't an discrimination here [/b]and YOU get to choose to work there or not.

Freedom rocks!


Nothing really scary here you're just so far down the conspiracy rabbit hole you think the sky is falling.

TLDR; you're a clown.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. If someone is not medically able to be vaccinated due to allergic reaction etc., or for qualified religious exemption, both of those would fall under protected classes.

Otherwise, yep employers can set the rules, employees can follow or leave. I do not agree with it in this case, but that's the way it is.

ITT people have passed the moron compliance test with flying colors.
Pretty damn sad...you are all reasonably intelligent.

[QUOTE=Paul Kreul;1638933863]ITT people have passed the moron compliance test with flying colors.
Pretty damn sad.[/QUOTE]

Aren;t you the same person who says Covid vaccine trials should include patients with Covid antibodies?

[QUOTE=mgftp;1638908363]It's terms of employment. I have had to get flue shots for two decades, dress a certain way, not have tattoos on my face, etc. Not sure why getting a Covid vaccine as terms of employment is anymore offensive than needing to wear a blue polo shirt and a name tag or anything else. Don't like it, you choose to work elsewhere, that simple. Everyone leaves jobs and finds "better" employment for different reasons.

July 12th is nearly two months away, I'd say that's incredibly reasonable. Not like they are mandating vaccination tomorrow. That I could see getting upset about.[/QUOTE]

What if you got a job that did not require vaccinations and all of the sudden they change their policy? Wouldn't that upset you?

[QUOTE=Paul Kreul;1638933863]ITT people have passed the moron compliance test with flying colors.
Pretty damn sad...you are all reasonably intelligent.[/QUOTE]

If anyone would know about a Moron test, it would be you for sure.

[QUOTE=mgftp;1638934053]Aren;t you the same person who says Covid vaccine trials should include patients with Covid antibodies?[/QUOTE]

Thank you for showing that you clearly did not understand what I posted.

Let’s walk through it step by step..here is what I posted..

Immunity to the Coronavirus May Last Years, New Data Hint
Blood samples from recovered patients suggest a powerful, long-lasting immune response, researchers reported.

[url]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/health/coronavirus-immunity.amp.html[/url]


Persistence of Antibody and Cellular Immune Responses in COVID-19 patients over Nine Months after Infection

[url]https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/infdis/jiab255/6274562[/url]


Now..if the above is true..(here’s the key..so listen up..it IS)

Then why is it that We are told that herd immunity cannot be achieved naturally? according to the CDC & Faucci, natural herd immunity is not enough. And if 90% of the population must be vaccinated (Faucci’s words) then clearly we should be running trials in those that have had CV as well.

I realize that this is all a shame..clearly you do not.

Do you understand now?

[QUOTE=Paul Kreul;1638936693]Thank you for showing that you clearly did not understand what I posted.

Let’s walk through it step by step..here is what I posted..

Immunity to the Coronavirus May Last Years, New Data Hint
Blood samples from recovered patients suggest a powerful, long-lasting immune response, researchers reported.

[url]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/health/coronavirus-immunity.amp.html[/url]


Persistence of Antibody and Cellular Immune Responses in COVID-19 patients over Nine Months after Infection

[url]https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/infdis/jiab255/6274562[/url]


Now..if the above is true..(here’s the key..so listen up..it fuking IS)

Then why is it that We are told that herd immunity cannot be achieved naturally? according to the CDC & Faucci, natural herd immunity is not enough. And if 90% of the population must be vaccinated (Faucci’s words) then clearly we should be running trials in those that have had CV as well.

I realize that this is all a shame..clearly you do not.

Do you understand now?[/QUOTE]

No offense but clearly don't understand the basic concept of a clinical trial. And those basic concepts are why including patients with antibodies to test a vaccine's effectiveness is silly.

The question of natural heard immunity is irrelevant since vaccines get you there quicker with much less death and hospitalizations even if heard immunity is possible.

All a shame?