Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - edgmatt

Pages: [1] 2 3
Just note the difference between: not letting someone who is actively supporting Putin/Russia on the plane/in the private building vs. one having to show proof of support of Ukraine to access the same plane/private business.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: February 24, 2022, 11:10:09 AM »
Assuming we accept this, how do we get proof? People who want to skate by on this are going to howl about HIPAA if you ask for their medical record. And claim to be violated by an antibody test. We have already seen those folks are willing to lie about anything related to claim their FREEDOMMMMM!

This whole paragraph is so loaded.  "skate"  "howl"  "claim to be violated".

I have no interest in stepping into a conversation like this one.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: February 24, 2022, 10:58:09 AM »
Nah, terrible  mis characterization of my position. 

I can't remember if you are one of the members who doesn't want the vaccine because you've already recovered from a COVID infection, in that case, shrug, you have some immunity anyway. Vaccination or proof of past case is really fine with me.

Yep, that's another factor that seems to be ignored.  That's something else that has to be evaluated by the individual and taken into account.


I found the maps here very illuminating as far as helping me understand what's happening more clearly.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: February 24, 2022, 10:37:17 AM »
ou seem to view any step toward government control over individual freedom to be an existential threat,

Not "any".  But maybe most.

"I'd rather be dead than a slave."
"I'd rather be a slave than dead."

Which one is a Fact?

I'm going to change this to:

"Its better to be dead than a slave."
"It's better be a slave than dead."

Which one is a Fact?

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: February 24, 2022, 10:04:07 AM »
"I'd rather be dead than a slave."
"I'd rather be a slave than dead."

Which one is a Fact?

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: February 24, 2022, 10:00:51 AM »
The risk of hospitalization, death, sickness, long term heart, lung, kidney, cognitive, and blood clotting issues are all vastly higher from getting COVID than from getting the vaccine

The risk of having those things happen is higher, and that's a fact, but you still have NO IDEA what value someone else places on any of those things, or the value they place on a host of other things you may know nothing about.

No, the risks are quantifiable

Yes, the RISKS are, but the VALUES of those risks vary from person to person.  You don't have the data to tell anyone else what their values are.

I get that you and many others disagree with this, but you can't change the definition of words because you disagree with someone else's value system.  Objective is objective and subjective is subjective.

And an opinion is an opinion, even if its massively supported or held by a majority.

You may not agree with this opinion: "I'd rather die from the virus than be afflicted by something from the vaccine that is forced on me".  But that doesn't make it a FACT that dying from the virus is worse.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: February 24, 2022, 09:15:05 AM »
No.  The very use of the words in that sentence make it an opinion by simple definition.

The risks of COVID far outweigh the risks of the vaccine regardless of a person's lack of pre-existing conditions.

"Risk of X outweighs risk of Y" is a subjective phrase.  It "can't" be a fact.

You don't know how much weight anyone else puts on either risk.  It's not objective.

It's an OPINION shared by MANY that the risks of covid far outweigh the risks of the vaccine.  But there are also millions of people for whom that just isn't true.

Like is this some massive, deep plot between Russia and China?  Russia starts a war with Ukraine, gets Europe and US involved, then China and North Korea throw their weight into it, Russia comes out on top, but China betrays them and take over the world.

Doesn't Russia just lose this?  With Nato, Euope, Japan, and the U.S. all on board to "stop" him?

Or is Russia really that strong?  I'm woefully ignorant on this subject.  I can't figure out why Putin would do this, knowing he's not going to win and pay severly for it.

What am I not seeing or not understanding?

General Comments / Re: Cryptocurrencies
« on: February 23, 2022, 11:07:17 PM »
I guess they should have burned and looted the town over the course of a few days instead.  Then the media would have called them heroes instead of terrorists.   ::) ::) ::)

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: February 23, 2022, 10:55:49 PM »
@TheDrake - I can't make sense of your post, and that's partly my fault for setting you up to fail.  I think we have begun talking past each other at this point.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: February 23, 2022, 10:54:29 PM »
The risks of COVID far outweigh the risks of the vaccine regardless of a person's lack of pre-existing conditions.

Let's be absolutely clear that this is your opinion and not a fact.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: February 22, 2022, 10:49:50 PM »
Yes it's serious, and considering all the reasons that have been listed for why I should get the vaccine, namely to prevent someone else from getting sick, it would seem to me some of those same reasons might apply to my question.

1. Those people going out are primarily risking their own lives

Same reason for seat belt law, right?  So if we can mandate a seat belt for someone (they are only risking their own life if they choose not to wear it), let's mandate elderly can't leave their homes.

2. This is why quarantine applies to people who are sick and can hurt others.

No no, quarantine ALL the elderly and ALL the obese people and anyone else who has compromised immunity or is in the age group most susceptible.  We can't know who's actually sick and we can't know who's really in danger.  We're much better off just blanket quarantining.

3. The goal is, or was, to achieve herd immunity where everyone can go out, this solution makes no advance in that direction.

Then why are people who aren't vaccinated not allowed to eat at NYC restaurants, or being fired from their jobs?  It makes no advance towards herd immunity.

4. It is completely impractical. Just start with long term nursing care. Are you suggesting we'd also seal caregivers in the tomb with the sick and elderly

It cant be more complicated than keeping track of the unvaxxed.  Just have them show ID or a paper saying they are a certain age and have been checked out by a doctor to be level X healthy.

5. Are we saying that your right to reject a vaccine is greater than your right to freedom of movement?

I'm saying MY right to freedom of movement is precisely the same as everyone else's, vaxxed or not.  If you can cancel out my freedom of movement because Im not vaxxed and that could potentially harm someone else, then I can cancel out someone's freedom of movement because they could potentially harm themselves.

6. There's probably a calculus here. We don't take extreme measures to prevent the spread of common illness that might kill the very frail.

I'm not sure what your saying here.  This seems to be tounge in cheek or sarcasm.  What measures have we taken with Covid that you consider NOT extreme?

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: February 22, 2022, 08:54:09 PM »
"I place no value on your life" is completely malicious - maybe as malicious as anything can ever get

Whoah, I never said anything like that.  Me placing my life as a higher priority than everyone else (with the exception of a few people in my life) doesn't mean I don't value other lives.  Let's make sure we're all on the same page as far as that is concerned.

I disagree with that statement also.  "I place no value on your life" is neutral, indifferent.  To get to malice it has to be actively out to get them.  "I place no value on your life and we're better off with you dead" for example, would be malicious.

The drunk driver analogy was a bad one, I think we should just drop it and stay on a better talking point.

I don't know about the cigg companies continuing to make things that cause cancer is malicious either.  They'd have to actually want people to die, making the ciggs so THAT people die and I just think they don't care at all.  Like I don't think they care if the people get cancer, or die, or live, or anything.  That's not malicious.  It's still bad and evil, but not malicious.

Attempting to get someone hooked on a cigg/drug/other bad thing....for any reason...yea that part is malicious, in my opinion.  "Out to get them" is a good phrase that isn't quite sadistic.  I think they are closely related words anyway.


Why don't we just ban the people who are the most susceptible to Corona from being in public.  The elderly and the ones who have certain health issues.  They can't go out.  They have to have food delivered, they can't drive anywhere, they can't walk out of their house.  Quarantine them.  Fine and jail them if they break quarantine.  Preventing someone from taking an action that would harm them, is less tyrannical than forcing someone else to take an action for someone else's good.  That'd be a much closer thing to the seat belt rule. 

So what is the reason we don't do that or something like that?  Answer that, and you'll have many of my reasons for being against a vaccine mandate.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: February 22, 2022, 02:13:21 PM »
Just a nit pick:

It is malicious when you refuse to take safety precautions

I don't agree that that makes something malicious.  I don't think a drunk driver is maliciously driving drunk (generally speaking).  He's not out there looking to cause an accident or kill someone.  Incredibly irresponsible, reckless, stupid...ok.  Not malicious.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: February 22, 2022, 01:56:18 PM »
It is malicious when you refuse to take safety precautions. Drunk drivers rarely intend to kill people but we charge them with a crime anyway.

There's a difference between telling someone they cannot do X in order to do Y, and telling someone they MUST do X in order to do Y.

We tell drivers, you CANNOT drink in order to drive.  That's the main difference between that and telling Susan she MUST get this vaccine in order to keep a job she already has (for example).  Another difference is that NOT drinking isn't potentially physically dangerous, and getting the vaccine potentially is.

Right, so it comes down to what is "reasonable" safety precautions?  How much danger do I put myself in to prevent injury to you?  Because I don't see the vaccine helping ME at all.  It only seems like a risk for me.  How can you morally justify forcing ME to take on a risk with no benefit, to potentially prevent injury to someone else, without ever really knowing if I have, in fact, prevented that injury?

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: February 22, 2022, 01:49:29 PM »
Rodgers didn't have to get vaccinated to play football, he just would have had to follow distancing and other guidelines for the unvaccinated.

Don't know if you have ever seen a football game so I'll advise:  This sentence makes no sense.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: February 22, 2022, 01:48:08 PM »
Haven't read the rest of your post yet, still going.  But:

but I am also not terrified that it [seat belt law] is the beginning of the slide into tyranny.

It shouldn't be, but you yourself invoked that very thing to dismiss concerns about mandating a vaccine.  So yea, the seat belt law ITSELF shouldn't allow people to slide into tyranny, but the evidence is that people will use that very thing to gain incremental tyrannical control.  "That ship sailed".  Right?

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: February 22, 2022, 01:05:37 PM »
gets complicated. Should the unvaccinated be liable for the medical bills of those they infect? Because not getting vaccinated makes you much more likely to spread diseases. So the reason people are asking for proof of vaccination isn't to protect you, its to protect themselves and others from you.

And I'm not totally against individual people/places making that decision themselves.  It's when the government mandates it, or creates pressure for these individual places to "make their own decision" that is just the decision that the government wants them to make, that I and millions of others have a problem with.

Paying medical bills of people we infect:  That's a horrible idea because it would never be malicious, and it would be impossible to prove.

I agree that there's a balance that has to be struck between individual decisions and community welfare.  I also agree that a balance has to be struck with Law and Order which leads to tyranny if left unchecked, and individual freedom which can lead to anarchy if left unchecked.

But I am not of the idea that the individual humans purpose is being a cog in the wheel of humanity.

Right now, in my opinion (and I'm not alone on this) we're crossing over into tyranny and totalitarianism.  And if anything about the 20th century should be reviewed and learned and taught, it's what tyranny and totalitarianism has done to us humans across the globe.  As a famous person said "We've got millions of  body bags to show for it".  This is a bad path, it doesn't lead to salvation and peace and blissful livelihood.  It leads to slavery and suffering and death.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: February 22, 2022, 10:32:17 AM »
"It's already happened" is not a logical, concise counter argument to this.

There are people who didn't want the MMR vaccine to be mandatory before it was made mandatory.  And some of those people weren't against the MMR, they were against it being mandatory because they knew then, as I know now, that that would open the door for precisely the bad argument you are making:  "Well we already do it, so why are you upset?"

I don't really understand the distinction that an injection is somehow different from other interventions, especially since it isn't just affecting the individual.

Then you aren't thinking enough about it.  I've already posted, months ago, about this.

I can't really accept your firearm example considering that accidental and suicidal deaths are way higher than stand your ground saves.

I used that hypothetical to try and get your mind wrapped around the idea of being forced to do something you don't agree with, even if the data shows that its a net win for the population if everyone complies.  Assume, in this case, that the suicides and accidental deaths AREN'T way higher than everything else.  Assume it's a net gain of life.  Are you for the mandate of owning a gun?

That's why I'll 100% back mandates for self driving cars and fining or taxing people who insist on driving themselves around once they are orders of magnitude safer.

You and I have very different ideas of what a life of freedom looks like.  But answer the question about backing a mandate that you don't agree with, if the population benefits as a whole.  Or would you back "any" mandate in that case?

Btw, your assumptions about seatbelt laws are dead wrong in the majority of states.

But not dead wrong since it's true for NH.  And irrelevant.  Do I have to show some proof at the door that I wore my seat belt on the way to Shoprite in order to shop there?  Name something else that's mandated where I have to show proof of it before I can eat at a restaurant in NYC.  Is anyone talking about not providing medical attention to someone in a car accident if it's obvious they weren't wearing a seat belt?  Is that a question on a job application?  Are you at risk of getting fired from your job if you choose not to wear one?

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: February 21, 2022, 09:08:05 PM »
First off, mandating having something injected into your body, which it makes it un-removable, is vastly different than an airbag, or a helmet....or anything else like that that you pick off the list of things the government has mandated.  Vastly.  As in incomparable.

Second, the enforcement of this mandate is way, and I mean way, past any other mandated thing in the history of this country.  NO ONE is being stopped and having to show proof their airbags are functioning.  NO ONE is being kicked out of grocery stores because they aren't wearing a helmet.  A police officer can't even pull you over if he thinks your not wearing a seat belt. (it has to be something else like your tail light is out, or you were speeding...and the "not wearing a seatbelt" fine gets tacked on.)

It was decided, by the left, just a few years ago that a person getting stopped anywhere in public and being asked for their legal status papers was immoral, racist, and unconstitutional.


Let's try a different tact.  Let's say there was data that showed that there were less violent crimes, less drug crimes and less homicides in areas where a higher percentage of the population owned firearms.

And the Republicans pushed through a law that mandated that everyone 18 and older had to register and own a gun.  They would provide it and one box of ammo free.  Under 18 would get air guns.  Anyone here in for that?  ( I wouldn't be, for the record.)

And every day there were commercials by someone from the NRA telling you how safe the gun is, how its been shown to reduce crimes and deaths.

And the NRA made billions of dollars from this mandate.  And many Republicans and a few Democrats owned stock in certain gun manufacturers and ammo makers.

And then you had to show your firearm permit card at grocery stores, or just your gun if you had it with you.

And some business's started firing people who refused to own one.

And when people protested they were labeled racists (cause only racists wants the poor, who are mostly black, to not own a gun, and this mandate provides it) or labeled crazy people who "have chosen death" because the numbers clearly show how more guns = more saved lives.

And when people started getting shot, and you posted these stories, another poster would dismiss it as "really small compared to the number of lives saved" and mock you and belittle you.  "I mean we're just dong the math here, right?"

Etc etc etc.

Do you want to live in a country where the government can mandate things like this?  Things YOU disagree with on a deep level?  Do you want the government to be able to mandate you take an action that you deem dangerous and life threatening?

Or, do you want the choice?

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: February 19, 2022, 05:57:26 PM »
Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot is associated with a 133-times greater risk of heart inflammation for teenage boy according to a new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

The study, published last month by researchers with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), found that myocarditis skyrocketed in men between 12 to 24 years old after both Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA COVID jabs, Israel National News reported.

There's a Link to the Isreal Report and from that report: "The study, conducted by researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) as well as from several U.S. universities and hospitals, examined the effects of vaccination with products manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna. The study’s authors used data obtained from the CDC’s VAERS reporting system which were cross-checked to ensure they complied with CDC’s definition of myocarditis; they also noted that given the passive nature of the VAERS system, the number of reported incidents is likely to be an underestimate of the extent of the phenomenon."

Back to the original article:

The study analyzed data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a vaccine injury tracking system managed by the CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), from December 2020 to August 2021. Out of 1,991 VAERS reports of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination, 1,626 met the CDC’s case definition, according to the researchers.

The myocarditis cases are most likely underestimated, the CDC study emphasized. VAERS is a passive surveillance system, and research shows that it significantly undercounts vaccine injuries.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: February 15, 2022, 12:39:01 PM »

The CEO of Moderna has deleted his Twitter account and is selling off millions of dollars in stock amid accusations of fraud in Moderna’s Covid vaccine trials, reports say.

In an interview with Steve Bannon’s War Room last month, Dowd said:

“I also have a thesis as to what is going on at Pfizer and Moderna, and how those companies are probably fraudulent. These vaccines were pushed through and I think the clinical trial data is fraud. I believe that due to the institutional imperative that was in place at the time, and the speed with which they tried to approve these products with this unproven technology, fraud did occur.”

The Covid World noted that, if Dowd’s accusations were proven true, “it would mean that both Pfizer and Moderna become liable for all injuries and deaths caused by their vaccines.”

Big Pharma is supposed to be one of the most regulated industries in the country, especially with the FDA. However, the blanket declaration that Covid jabs are ‘safe and effective’ combined with the full immunity that was granted to drug companies involved in the pandemic suggests that this ‘gold standard’ is no longer trustworthy,”” The Covid World’s Ethan Huff noted earlier this month.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: February 04, 2022, 02:16:16 PM »
Probably because that is the only data base they have complete access too, because it's theirs.  I don't think it's cherry picked.

How do we know the increasein these things is from covid (and not the vaccine)?  Was there a test done on these things among vaxxed and unvaxxed?  I'm asking in sincerity.  I don't think "most likely" is going to cut it.

Part of my "research" is to post on this discussion site and talk about the sort of information I post and is out there.  Usually I get  pretty intelligent responses, but, as with any discussion, there are people who are more interested in proving the other guy wrong than actually finding the truth.  Still, it's helpful.

I haven't heard of Covid causing cancer that's in remission to suddenly flare up again.  Is that a new phenomenon?

Again - either they appear to be incompetent or appear to be deliberately deceiving you.

There's probably at least one more option there.

Who are these doctors? What is their background?

If you watch the video, the first guy announces who they are (military medical personal of various ranks, background all in the medical field) or the person who is talking is stopped and asked who she is and what her credentials are.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: February 04, 2022, 09:30:40 AM »

I don't have a transcript so it's hard to quote, but he says:

"Substantial data showing:
- Miscarriages increased by 300% over the 5 year avg.
- Almost 300% increase in cancer over the 5 year avg.
- Neurological, over 1,000% increase. 82,000/year to 860,000 in one year.

- 9/28/2021....In Project Salis (no clue if i spelled that right), DoD Document, 71% of new cases are in the fully vaxed, and 60% of hospitalizations are from the fully vaxed."

That's just at the first few minutes, the doctors go on to discuss their observations.  The first doctor talks about cancer increases, and cancers that are in remissions suddenly blossom and take off again right after the vaccine is administered.

They talk about P53 gene and go into detail about stuff that's way too detailed for me to quote here.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: January 31, 2022, 03:38:47 PM »
I mean exactly what I say.

This is what I said:  "As far as credibility; this guy and LetterRip are just two guys on the internet, from where I sit. I don't dismiss anything they say outright, nor do I grab on to it for dear life.  I take what they say into account.

That doesn't mean I take them as absolutely credible right away, but it also doesn't mean that I dismiss what they say right away.  This isn't hard.

I also said it's a good READ.  That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with it.  I post some stuff that LetterRip or other people here write in posts to my friends sometimes, and I don't usually agree with what he says or what most people say here, but when I post it to my freind, I say "what do you think of this?".

I found the information worth reading.  As it's been pointed out NUMEROUS times here, I don't have a clue on this sort of stuff.  When I read that thing I posted, some of it was like reading a different language.  When I read some of LetterRip's post, it was the same.

You're the one jumping to conclusions about my posts, sure as could be that you know exactly what i mean, exactly what my stance is, and that's all you need to know.  Sit back and read it completely and think about it just a little bit, then give me a little bit of charitable thought before you post.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: January 31, 2022, 02:42:44 PM »
What's my position?  All I did was post a thing I read and asked for opinions.  Stop projecting stuff onto me.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: January 31, 2022, 02:41:32 PM »
All people on the internet are credible by definiton?

Did I say that?  Go back and read what I wrote.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: January 31, 2022, 01:53:29 PM »
Good to know. 

@TheDrake - classifying this guy a "loon" because he's big on herbology is poor.  Just give the link, no need for name calling.

As far as credibility; this guy and LetterRip are just two guys on the internet, from where I sit.  I don't dismiss anything they say outright, nor do I grab on to it for dear life.  I take what they say into account.

Anyway, thanks for the input, fellas.  It's appreciated.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: January 31, 2022, 10:37:56 AM »
We should certainly judge people who originate and spread vaccine disinformation harshly - I think yanking medical licenses for such blatant disinformation would be warranted when using ones medical license to give naive individuals the false belief that the individual is spreading scientifically or medically supported information.

The author has as much credibility as you do, LetterRip.  He's providing his opinion based on his education and using his own intelligence...just like you are.  Just because he's coming to different conclusions doesn't make it misinformation, or him a moron.  Tossing out insults like that doesn't make me believe you more. 

Have you ever considered there's a chance there is something about the subject you don't know?  Or are wrong about?  Have you just considered it?

No.  "This guy doesn't know what he's talking about, yank his medical license".  What an ego you have.

These likely have nothing to do with the vaccine.  There is a 2 week reporting window after a vaccine.  At 2 doses in one year.  That means a 1 in 13 chance that if they have an illness of any sort during that year - it will overlap with the reporting window.  At 211 million people fully vaccinated in the US that means of 16.2 million - if they had an illness during the year it would correspond by chance with their vaccination period.

Some of them will get it properly diagnosed as whatever illness it is, but the quacks will claim it is due to the vaccine.

Once again your whole argument is: - The vaccine is safe.  Any evidence to the contrary *must* be misinformation from morons or quacks, because it's safe.  You don't see the circular logic here?   You are making yourself less and less credible about this, despite lengthy and long worded posts.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: January 30, 2022, 09:40:44 PM »
Good read.

Spike proteins could attach themselves to different cells and tissues, for instance muscle tissue, joints, heart, lungs, nerves, kidneys, intestines, brain, etc. Spike proteins by themselves can cause damage, and the outcome could be even worse if and when inflammatory substances recognize those cells as foreign and attack. This leads to muscle pain, joint pain, changes in heart rate, shortness of breath, ringing in the ears, dizziness or strange nerve sensations, and a host of symptoms that I discuss in detail -- along with my thoughts on spike protein shedding or transmission -- at Covid Vaccine Side Effects.

There are cases of delayed, or ongoing, immune responses such as skin rashes, hives, joint pains, cardiac and blood pressure problems, fatigue, and a variety of neurological issues that start a week or two later. I am now reading case reports of people having persistent health issues several months post vaccine (I recently met someone who is having heart rhythm disturbances 10 months after). Adverse reactions are often more intense after the second dose and having had a recent Covid-19 infection

This article is a work in progress and I frequently update it as I learn more. Trying to make sense of this complicated process is humbling. I am not sure if anyone on the planet completely understands in molecular detail what exactly is going on with these new shots; and furthermore has connected the dots to the clinical signs and symptoms that certain vaccinated people are experiencing. I have a strong urge to solve at least part of the puzzle.

The public who follows mainstream news has been sold a fairy tale. In order for a vaccine to have a chance at helping achieve herd immunity it should be very safe, prevent the vaccinated from transmitting the virus to others, and be at least 80% effective for a period lasting several years or a lifetime. The current ones fall dismally short of these standards.

The CDC announced in August that the vaccinated transmit the virus just as easily as the unvaxed. Therefore it is unfair, intellectually dishonest, and frankly not supported by scientific evidence to bully and blame the unvaccinated for failure to achieve herd immunity. Viruses will mutate in the unvaccinated, they will mutate in those who are immune compromised, they will mutate in the vaccinated, and they will continue to mutate unless we eradicate them completely which is not achievable anytime soon through the currently-implemented strategies. Tens of thousands of people in the United States die from the flu virus each year, yet the seasonal mutations are not blamed on those who forgo the annual flu shot. People who truly believe these current vaccines provide excellent protection should, by their logic, not be overly concerned being around others who choose to decline the needle. If the vaccines are effective as claimed, why are the CDC and the WHO recommending masks to be worn indoors -- and third or fourth booster shots? Some of the highest vaccinated countries in the world -- for instance the United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, Seychelles, Chile, Israel, Malta, and others -- have not been able to suppress the rate of new infections.

We all have different reasons for getting these shots, or deciding not to (at least for the time being). We should hold no judgment against anyone who has been vaccinated or who wants to wait for additional safety and efficacy studies. Or, perhaps, wait for an improved second generation vaccine that protects against the new variants and is safer.

I wish you all stay safe. In these challenging times let us all empathically support each other to make the best of our situation no matter what our opinions.

There's a lot more in the link if these quotes seem out of context.  I recommend the read to everyone, particularly anyone with the sort of background that can verify his thoughts or perhaps find fault in them.

General Comments / Re: New trans laws
« on: January 30, 2022, 09:00:17 PM »
You care enough to post some insults, so, I'd say you care at least a little.   :P

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: January 27, 2022, 08:46:08 AM »
They're not political punditry

That was the word I was looking for, thank you.  That was the difference that I couldn't articulate.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: January 26, 2022, 08:47:10 PM »
A lot of music IS political speech, you know. Do you mean except in their lyrics?

A lot?  I can only think of Greenday songs that are political, and I still like em because the music is good.  Oh, i guess Rage against the Machine is on that list too.

Unless you're talking about songs that are very intentionally patriotic like Lee Greendwoods proud to be an American?  I mean I like the song, but I'm not playing those sorts of things in my car on the way to work.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: January 26, 2022, 12:46:04 PM »
It's always stupid, the "just shut up" crowd. Be quiet you're just an athlete/entertainer! Until one of them says something they agree with and then they turn into a conservative meme. The "just shut up" crowd apparently thinks that their job somehow qualifies them to speak long and hard. I'm not really sure why an athlete or entertainer has a less valid political voice than truck drivers

And the "listen to what THIS guy has to say about it" crowd disappears real fast when that guy says something they don't like.  Hypocrisy is on both sides and there is no lack of it.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: January 26, 2022, 12:37:38 PM »
I think that they are portrayed as having a "more important" voice than the typical person, which isn't true, but they do have a much louder voice and they *are* influencers.  People idolize idols.  It's how Michael Jordan sneakers sell, and it's why I have a signed helmet from Pat Mahomes four feet away from where I'm typing this.

And there is something to that argument: That for the very reason that they have such a big soap box to stand on, they ought to use it for what they believe is a noble cause.  And that's part of why Kapernick did the things he did.  And I have a hard time arguing with that.  It's noble, and it can do some good in the world.

The counter argument, and I tend to lean this way, is keep the thing, whatever it is....a football game, a baseball game, a concert, an award show.....keep it in the context of what it is.  I don't give a damn at all what any musician has to say about politics, or about football, or baseball, or China.  If Taylor Swift stopped her concert to talk about the overtime coin flip rule in football, it'd be considered ridiculous.  If Ben Afleck started talking about the music industries practices, I'd change channels, and when athletes start talkin to me about politics, it's a turn off.

There's a lot to be said for "stay in your lane" too.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: January 26, 2022, 09:20:38 AM »
I'm one.  I'd rather he just play (or retire in his case) instead of commenting on anything outside of football (though this is arguably something any football player could legitimately comment on, particularly if they are asked since it *is* about them.)  Especially if he starts interrupting pieces of the games.

But you make a good point about being consistent and having actual integrity.  Most people are far too willing to throw everything they SAY they stand for out the window when the shoe is on the other foot.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: January 25, 2022, 09:50:41 PM »
If I read that right, you're saying because I'm human, a medical doctor can tell me what my reaction to the vaccine will be, because human biology is similar enough that we can predict it accurately despite not knowing the intricate details of any one person?

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: January 25, 2022, 08:31:56 PM »
Authority, sure; knowledge, frankly no.

Show me the people/person who know/s more about my body, about my reaction to medicine, how I handle being sick in general, how I handle being sick from the flu, how I handled being sick from covid (twice), my health, my age, my family genes, my daily life, my nightly life.

You can't.  I'm the only person on the planet who has that information.  I'm the only person on the planet who can weigh all of that, and more, against what we all know, or at least have been told, about the covid and about the vaccines.

And you're the only person who can do that for you.  And the same goes for everyone else.  That's why the decision to get the vaccine rests, and ought to rest, solely with the individual person.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: January 25, 2022, 01:55:33 PM »
This isn't a vaccine in the way other vacicnes are.  It's different.  I've tried to argue that it isn't actually a vaccine, but was shouted down with a terrible jet fuel analogy.  Regardless, comparing this vaccine to other vaccines isn't really smart.  I hope to God there are no long term effects.  But I think it's a possibility.

As an aside, how can you say "You would be wrong" (with such surety) and then a sentence later say "I could be convinced"?

There is one case where vaccines can create a critical situation that doesn't happen catching the virus, and that's allergic reaction. You know that's happening within fifteen minutes, and while potentially life threatening is treatable.

Well that's a short term side effect.  I didn't mention those, but those *are* a factor too.

I saw Horka's articles.

I don't know what that is.  Link?

I'm not really sure what kind of calculus you'd have to do in order to conclude that actually getting covid deliberately is safer than being vaccinated

Well I've never said getting it deliberately was a good idea.  I wouldn't do that, and I wouldn't ever recommend anyone doing that.  But I've had it twice now.  Once in July of 2020 and then again just now through the holidays.  It's not calculus, but I'm a relatively smart person, and I know my body and all the other factors about me that allow me to make a intelligent decision.  And that's the point.  "I" get to make "my" choice on this, cause it's about "me".  No one else in the world is in a better position of knowledge or authority to do it.  We've had decades of protests against this very thing (government controlling people's bodies) that has all seemed to just evaporate in the past 2 years because people are (unreasonably, imo) scared.

edgmatt, I appreciate your retraction. It is refreshing honesty.

 :)  Thanks.  Can't find the truth if everyone is being dishonest for posturing purposes.

I was never in favor of the OSHA angle, but I'm all for private employers saying vax up or vax out.

Smallpox vaccine was WAY riskier, and Washington made it mandatory for the Continental Army. -1 for people invoking the founding fathers and freedom. That inoculation killed 1 in 40. Compared to 1 in 7 if contracted naturally. It was still a really good idea to get inoculated, just like Jefferson and Franklin did.

Maybe.  I'm not 100% against an employer telling it's employees they have to get the shot, or the government telling the military they have to get the shot.  I AM against the government telling the whole state, or the whole country they have to.  Or creating enough pressure to get it, (like arresting people at restaurants because they don't have the shot, or preventing people from going shopping cause they don't have papers) or disincentives NOT to get it. (Like I linked above to NJ governor Murphy did.)   That's tyranny.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: January 24, 2022, 10:53:09 PM »
Nope, I'm wrong about the soccer player deaths spiking.  Ignore that.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: January 24, 2022, 10:47:37 PM »
The only long term effects of the vaccine are going to be the same ones that you get from having covid.

That's 100% speculation.  You don't know, just like nobody else knows, what the long term effects (if any) will look like.

The only way not taking the vaccine makes sense is if you presume that you will never get covid

Another way is if I examine the risks of contracting covid and weigh what I know about that against what I know about the risks of getting the vaccine plus the unknown future about side effects, take into account my own health and age, and whether or not I've already contracted Covid and information about natrual immunity and then make my own decision to not get the vaccine.

That's even accepting the footballer nonsense which is disinformation.

It's not disinformation.  Soccer players are dropping dead from heart attacks.  And they weren't before.  And they are now.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: January 24, 2022, 09:45:50 PM »
Those are the ones -- among others -- that're reduced by getting vaccinated, vs getting the disease.

There are costs (risks) of having covid that get reduced by getting the vaccine. And there are other risks that are increased by getting the vaccine.  Some of them are the same risk.  Yes, death is one of them.  Getting the shot reduces the chances of dying from covid influence and complications, but increases the chances of dying from influence and complications from the vaccineLinnkee.

If the vaccine reduces the chances of dying from covid by X%, but now there is Y% chance of dying from the vaccine, Y still happens even if X > Y.  Yes, net gain and that's good, but the net gain doesn't eliminate the risks from the vaccine.

Or more likely, there isn't.  I might as well say that we don't know the long-term effects of prior infection.  In thirty years' time you might turn purple and explode!  Implausible, I hear you say?  Indeed.  But more plausible than speculating endlessly about "unknown long-term effects" that ignore how vaccines actually work.

Why throw out a ridiculous thing like turning purple?  What kind of argument is that?   I'm not speculating endlessly, but "long term effects" are a real thing, particularly in the medicine field.  Right, we don't know what the long term effects, if any, exist.   Compare that to: I think we CAN say, with a very strong footing in being sure, that there are NO long term side effects of wearing a hard hat, temporarily, on a job.

Imagine not being able to reverse gaining a degree of immunity to a disease.  How terrible!

Again with the childishness.  Obviously I'm talking about the risks to one's health and well-being that can no longer be removed once you take the vaccine.  Try to remember we're comparing taking the vaccine (permanent) with wearing a hard hat (temporary).  And try to argue with some actual reasoning instead of childish fob-offs.

(No, not risky.  Keep saying it all you like.)  And not required, if alternatives exist -- like wearing a mask and getting tested

Yes, risky.  Keep denying it all you like.  I've already provided one link.  Here's another.  From this link;

"Premier League players are reportedly concerned that recent on-field heart problems are a possible consequence of taking the Covid-19 vaccine.
There have been a number of recent high-profile incidents involving players enduring heart problems on the field - including Christian Eriksen who collapsed due to a cardiac arrest at the European Championships and Sergio Aguero who was forced into retirement after he was diagnosed with heart arrhythmia.
The worrying spate of heart-related episodes in football has raised concerns over links with Covid and the vaccination programme to prevent it."

If you investigate this a little, you'll find that athletes dying from heart attacks on the field is (was) an incredibly rare occurrence.  Now there's this spike of it, and only with vaccinated athletes.

And not required, if alternatives exist -- like wearing a mask and getting tested

Except those alternatives are disappearing quickly: Yet another link.  From this link:

"But Murphy's mandate goes further than Biden's. It requires booster shots, expands the number of covered facilities and eliminates the test-out option for all unvaccinated employees, allowing employers to fire workers for not getting their shots."

Like any sort of medical exam whatsoever.

A medical exam is not a medical procedure.  You were just skeptical of my definition of medical procedure just one post ago, but now you've suddenly expanded it into an area that is very clearly NOT a medical procedure to.....what?  What's the point?  Can you point to a job that requires an actual medical procedure in order to get the job?  Even if you can, recognize that one has a choice, in that case, to take the medical procedure or not.  In the case of the vaccine, it's being mandated to get a job, or for people who already have the job/career, to eat in a restaurant, and in some cases to even go outside.  Once again, incomparable situations.  We don't "do this all the time".

Comparing wearing a hard hat on a job to getting the vaccine to have a job is ridiculous.  So is "having a hard time seeing the difference between the two".

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: January 24, 2022, 12:44:49 PM »
    -There isn't any "cost" to wearing a hard hat other than maybe sweating a little more, or itchiness, or comfortableness, which goes away when you take off the hard hat.

What's the "cost" of getting vaccinated?  Unfairly reducing your chances of some time off work or to get your value out of your healthcare plan, maybe?


    -Putting a hard hat on isn't a medical procedure.

Vaccination is a "medical procedure" if you construe that term at its very broadest, sure.  "An activity directed at or performed on an individual with the object of improving health, treating disease or injury, or making a diagnosis."  (International Dictionary of Medicine and Biology, via wikipedia, whee.)  As would several other things that are routinely part of conditions of employment.

Some costs risks include risks like death, so there's that. Blood Clots, heart issues....those are the major ones.  Then there's the unknown long term effects which we won't know for decades.

Getting a vaccine is a medial procedure.  No construing necessary.  But whatever.  There's a CLEAR difference between putting on a hard hat, or any article of clothing or protective gear, and taking a vaccine/shot.  The hard had isn't permanent.

There is also a difference between SOME jobs requiring certain equipment, or even certain medical procedures, and ALL jobs requiring the SAME (yes risky) medical procedure.

As would several other things that are routinely part of conditions of employment.

Like what?

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: January 23, 2022, 05:19:24 PM »
I'm having trouble seeing the difference between mandating that everyone in a workplace with overhead hazards must wear a hardhat, and saying that everyone in a workplace with a COVID hazard must be vaccinated.

-You can take the hard hat off when you leave.
-There isn't any "cost" to wearing a hard hat other than maybe sweating a little more, or itchiness, or comfortableness, which goes away when you take off the hard hat.
-Putting a hard hat on isn't a medical procedure.

That's off the top of my head. (no pun)

The more appropriate phrasing would be "Comply with the law, or we'll seize your assets, take away your freedom of movement, and make you live where we want you to for a significant portion of the rest of your life." Where in extreme cases penalties may go as far as taking your life, either accidentally or intentionally.

I think there's a difference between forcing compliance and setting a standard of rules to enact civilized behavior.

I also think a lot of that difference has to do with the level of power the citizens have in making the laws.  If you have a single person creating laws on their own, then yea, your paragraph above fits.  Kings and tyrants.

If you have what the U.S. (in theory) has, with voting, 3 branches of govt, constitution, becomes much more of a contract of civilized behavior.  "We' agree to these laws and agree that they are good and just.

We shouldn't be okay with ending someone's life for non violent crime.

We aren't.

But we also shouldn't be ok with people's livelihoods and property being destroyed with no penalty. And possibly even being encouraged by the people who's very job it is to prevent such destruction.

When people USED to get killed for looting, or for attempting to destroy someone's home or place of business, we decided, as a civilized society, that this wasn't a good way to do things.  Not that it wasn't effective but it was too draconian.  (Please remember that before we even had this level of society, this draconian one, things were even worse.  Tribes fought tribes for land, murder was a part of life...etc etc....)

So, as several posters have already posted, we turned over some of our power to the "authorities" and we had police who handled that sort of thing with arrests and jail time and fines.  And we had civilization.  And we didn't have massive riots, cause the PENALTIES for such were jail time, court time, fines, etc.

But when the people who have our authority, refuse to use it when people are looting and attempting to destroy someone's home or place of business in the name of a protest, then we have every right to defend our selves and our property, and it is not the fault of the defender if one of the looters/rioters is killed.  Particularly if the rioters/looters are armed with lethal force.

It is draconian.  It is a bad trade; a life for items/property  But it's not as bad as having civilization drop all the way back down to anarchy and small tribal warfare.

And if there is no penalty for looting, robbing, burning, destroying, than we aren't living in a "civilized" country/state.  That is anarchy.  That is warfare. 

I say this in response to anyone who makes comments like "can't be killing someone over a bar of soap and cigarettes" and are using such comments to vilify people like Kyle Rittenhouse.  The majority of people want civilization.  They want the authorities to use their authority given to them by the citizens to protect them.  But if the authorities aren't going to do that, the next best thing is for citizens to take matters into their own hands.

General Comments / Re: Debt Ceiling Filibuster
« on: October 16, 2021, 11:57:17 PM »
Why don't they just raise the debt ceiling to infinite?  Or, if that's too abstract, 900 trillion and set to double every 10 years?

If they are going to raise it, then max out spending, then raise it, then max out spending......year after year, no matter what, no matter who's in charge....why have a debt ceiling at all?

It comes off as a dog and pony show every time this happens.  I don't believe they don't see it coming.  I don't believe the Dems when they are all in a panic wringing their hands claiming catastrophe if we don't pay our debts (why did you vote to spend so much to get us in this much debt in the first place? And not just once, but over and over and over and over again?)  And I don't believe the Republicans when they say "vote for us, cause we won't spend as much".

It's all BS, every last drop of it.

Pages: [1] 2 3