Vaccine thread

[JIAHN]

7 hours ago, Xanlet said:

A fundamental human right is the right to refuse any medical procedure. The government should be in the business of safeguarding fundamental human rights, not violating them.

 

There are certain core tenets of medical ethics that exist for a reason. You cannot impose a risk or danger on one person and justify it by a benefit to a third party.

 

Take the classic thought experiment of a hospital with ten dying patients who all require a different organ transplant. Now imagine a healthy person is in the waiting room for a checkup who just so happens to carry compatible organs for all ten people who need them. On basic arithmetic, you can say that killing the healthy person, harvesting their organs, and saving ten people is a categorical good, since leaving him alone dooms ten people to death, while harvesting his organs kills one and saves ten.

 

If you have a normal moral compass or think about the ramifications of such a policy, you should see why this would be a horrendously bad policy to implement, and that, even though on raw numbers the ten people are doomed to die in the service of the right of the one healthy person, it is a right that must be upheld.

 

Obviously, this is an extreme example, but it illustrates that even if you could hypothetically demonstrate that infringing on one person's bodily integrity could save numerous other lives, it still does not give you the right to do so. I hope I have at least conveyed why I feel strongly on this topic by this example.

 

The right to bodily integrity is of vital importance. We have much historical evidence to show that allowing the state to impose medical procedures is a terrible precedent to set. Remember, the current government may use this power in a way you approve of, but will the next government? What if the conservatives get in and decide that some kind of invasive therapy against certain other populations benefits society as a whole? If you open the door to this kind of government force, you may find it difficult to change course once Pandora's box has been opened.

 

In terms of what the government can mandate, there is a long history of legal precedents going all the way back to English Common Law about how much the government can interfere with one person's liberty in respect to another's. Notice in your example, each act was a direct behavior that cause a negative outcome. In fact, each and every one of your examples has a whole history of law behind it (gun ownership rights, public road way regulations, noise bylaws, etc.). I find these things fascinating and would be happy to litigate each and every one (but perhaps that would stray too far from the scope of this thread)

 

As pertains to the vaccine, surely the primary benefit is simply to the person who has chosen to take the vaccine themselves, which means you are pushing for a marginal, second or third order benefit by forcing other people to take it. In my view, this is such a tenuous stretch that it can be dismissed instantly, as I have already outlined why, in my view, a much stronger benefit would still be unjustified.

 

If you've read this far, thanks, I know I rambled a bit, but I am both very interested in this topic and believe it to be a very important conversation to have.

 

OK...

#1...............The was not a forced mandate.........no one came to our doors and forced us to take it at gun point. People had the choice! Personally, I would not have gave you the choice.

#2...............The government then said "no", if you do not want to take it, you may not do these things. This was to protect those that wanted protection from those that refused. ( This was to enforce protection, from again those that choose not to take the vaccine. I expect my government to protect me....this is "MY" right!)

#3...............Some thing that most anti vaxer's say at large, is that the vaccine was not studied enough. But let me ask you this................

 

If the mortality rate was at 60% of all that were infected, and the government said that early data of the vaccine, would save your life, would you take the vaccine?

 

I find anti-vaxer's very hypo-critical, in they wan to choose what laws to follow, that society has put in place, they do not want to wear masks, nor self distance. They are in fact thinking about but themselves. They scream that their rights are more important than mine. 

 

So, when you start protecting my rights and ensuring my safety to the best of your ability, then we will talk about, protecting yours...........

 

 

Just as a foot note...........Your rights are protected under the Canadian Rights and Freedoms, which should have never been call that. It gave a false sense of your rights and freedoms. It should have been called Canadian Privileges, because privileges can be taken away under some circumstances, namely when your rights, threaten the rights of others. In case the majority of Canadians..........

 

 

 

 

[UncleBen]

1 hour ago, JIAHN said:

 

OK...

#1...............The was not a forced mandate.........no one came to our doors and forced us to take it at gun point. People had the choice! Personally, I would not have gave you the choice.

#2...............The government then said "no", if you do not want to take it, you may not do these things. This was to protect those that wanted protection from those that refused. ( This was to enforce protection, from again those that choose not to take the vaccine. I expect my government to protect me....this is "MY" right!)

#3...............Some thing that most anti vaxer's say at large, is that the vaccine was not studied enough. But let me ask you this................

 

If the mortality rate was at 60% of all that were infected, and the government said that early data of the vaccine, would save your life, would you take the vaccine?

 

I find anti-vaxer's very hypo-critical, in they wan to choose what laws to follow, that society has put in place, they do not want to wear masks, nor self distance. They are in fact thinking about but themselves. They scream that their rights are more important than mine. 

 

So, when you start protecting my rights and ensuring my safety to the best of your ability, then we will talk about, protecting yours...........

 

 

Just as a foot note...........Your rights are protected under the Canadian Rights and Freedoms, which should have never been call that. It gave a false sense of your rights and freedoms. It should have been called Canadian Privileges, because privileges can be taken away under some circumstances, namely when your rights, threaten the rights of others. In case the majority of Canadians..........

 

 

 

 

"So, when you start protecting my rights and ensuring my safety to the best of your ability, then we will talk about, protecting yours......."

 

Yes your umbrella won't work unless I put mine up..lol.If you were so confident that the " vaccine " was so safe and effective  ( 100% claimed by health officials and pharma ) then why are you worried about people who chose to wait to get more info before taking an " experimental " vaccine especially if they told you you wouldn't get covid after taking it.I know more people who have covid multiple times since their jabs than people like myself who didn't partake and took care of themselves physically during " covid ". Tell me exactly where the flu went during covid ? And if this jab is do great why they still can't cure rhe common cold or the flu.If you haven't even watched Faucis testimony then your post is completely out to lunch as he is caught on tape discussing how to coerce people.Being cautious about any new drug or vaccine is not " anti drug or antivax".History is littered with big pharma lawsuits from products that have killed or maimed.

[Bob Long]

2 minutes ago, UncleBen said:

"So, when you start protecting my rights and ensuring my safety to the best of your ability, then we will talk about, protecting yours......."

 

Yes your umbrella won't work unless I put mine up..lol.If you were so confident that the " vaccine " was so safe and effective  ( 100% claimed by health officials and pharma ) then why are you worried about people who chose to wait to get more info before taking an " experimental " vaccine especially if they told you you wouldn't get covid after taking it.I know more people who have covid multiple times since their jabs than people like myself who didn't partake and took care of themselves physically during " covid ". Tell me exactly where the flu went during covid ? And if this jab is do great why they still can't cure rhe common cold or the flu.If you haven't even watched Faucis testimony then your post is completely out to lunch as he is caught on tape discussing how to coerce people.Being cautious about any new drug or vaccine is not " anti drug or antivax".History is littered with big pharma lawsuits from products that have killed or maimed.

 

then don't take it, pretty simple. 

[UncleBen]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

then don't take it, pretty simple. 

Yes it was easy for me except for the part where people wanted me dead , fired from work, imprisoned ,denied medical services etc etc for making my own health choices.

[the destroyer of worlds]

6 minutes ago, UncleBen said:

"So, when you start protecting my rights and ensuring my safety to the best of your ability, then we will talk about, protecting yours......."

 

Yes your umbrella won't work unless I put mine up..lol.If you were so confident that the " vaccine " was so safe and effective (1) ( 100% claimed by health officials and pharma ) then why are you worried about people who chose to wait to get more info before taking an (2) " experimental " vaccine especially if they told you you wouldn't get covid after taking it.I know more people who have covid multiple times since their jabs than people like myself who didn't partake and took care of themselves physically during " covid ". (3) Tell me exactly where the flu went during covid ?  (4) And if this jab is do great why they still can't cure rhe common cold or the flu.If you haven't even watched Faucis testimony then your post is completely out to lunch as he is caught on tape discussing how to coerce people.Being cautious about any new drug or vaccine is not " anti drug or antivax".  (5) History is littered with big pharma lawsuits from products that have killed or maimed.

I bolded and numbered points I'll cover.

 

1)  Never claimed to be 100% effective.  And those initial reports of effectiveness was based on the initial variant of the virus.  By the time most were vaccinated, we were on Delta and Omicron.  

 

2)  You know what an experimental drug/treatment is.  This point has been explained ad nauseum.  Drugs that go through Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials and then gets approval are NOT experimental.  You know what is an experimental treatment.  IVERMECTIN.  Especially when Joe Rogan took it when he threw the kitchen sink at his initial Covid infection.

 

3) The flu didn't disappear.  Limiting public exposures, social distancing, mask wearing, higher uptake of the flu vaccine.  All contribute to infection rates going down.  It's almost like there is a science for that.  Who knew.

 

4)  Covid, influenza, and the common cold all mutate.  I'm sure you know this.

 

5)  Give us the list of VACCINES that appear on said list.  I'll wait.  This point almost makes me thing you want even bigger government with even more regulation.  Hell, while we're at it, lets nationalize the whole thing (can't do that, that's socialism/communism).  Surprise Surprise.  Corporations that participate in a capitalistic economy gonna corporation.

[Bob Long]

12 minutes ago, UncleBen said:

Yes it was easy for me except for the part where people wanted me dead , fired from work, imprisoned ,denied medical services etc etc for making my own health choices.

 

Did you try to insert yourself places that required vaccination for access? 

[UncleBen]

3 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

Did you try to insert yourself places that required vaccination for access? 

Both my parents are in a seniors home so wasn't able to visit them despite the fact I pay for them to stay there.Neither parent got vaccinated 86 and 87 years of age but still couldn't see them.As for " inserting " myself into places that required a passport I didn't bother supporting those businesses.The whole " antivax " propoganda was driven by media , pharma,government and unelected health bodies such as the who.

 

Voice recording from Fauci 

 

"It’s been proven that when you make it difficult for people in their lives, they lose their ideological bulls–t, and they get vaccinated,” Fauci said in an audiobook written by New Yorker journalist Michael Specter."

 

To say there wasn't a psyop is pretty well undeniable.For the record most people  by my age (57) have had a vaccine at some point in their lives so the word " antivax " is pretty off based to describe people who took the cautious approach to  taking an experimental rushed drug.

[Xanlet]

4 hours ago, Bob Long said:

 

No one was forced to take a vaccine. 

 

1 hour ago, JIAHN said:

 

OK...

#1...............The was not a forced mandate.........no one came to our doors and forced us to take it at gun point. People had the choice! Personally, I would not have gave you the choice.

#2...............The government then said "no", if you do not want to take it, you may not do these things. This was to protect those that wanted protection from those that refused. ( This was to enforce protection, from again those that choose not to take the vaccine. I expect my government to protect me....this is "MY" right!)

#3...............Some thing that most anti vaxer's say at large, is that the vaccine was not studied enough. But let me ask you this................

 

If the mortality rate was at 60% of all that were infected, and the government said that early data of the vaccine, would save your life, would you take the vaccine?

 

I find anti-vaxer's very hypo-critical, in they wan to choose what laws to follow, that society has put in place, they do not want to wear masks, nor self distance. They are in fact thinking about but themselves. They scream that their rights are more important than mine. 

 

So, when you start protecting my rights and ensuring my safety to the best of your ability, then we will talk about, protecting yours...........

 

 

Just as a foot note...........Your rights are protected under the Canadian Rights and Freedoms, which should have never been call that. It gave a false sense of your rights and freedoms. It should have been called Canadian Privileges, because privileges can be taken away under some circumstances, namely when your rights, threaten the rights of others. In case the majority of Canadians..........

 

 

 

 

The application of force was used. I noticed neither of you addressed the fact that these restrictions were placed on people for a marginal secondary benefit which was never the purpose of the vaccine in the first place (the purpose is to reduce the severity of the person taking it, not so that it halts the spread). The mandate barred me from public places and border crossing because I said no to a medical procedure. You do not have the right to demand that I take a pharmaceutical product because there may be a marginal benefit to you. I consider that outrageous.

 

I also noticed no one engaged with my medical ethics point. All of this is a bit moot if we don't agree on principles. If you believe in fascism, I can hardly appeal to the virtue of Democracy since that won't have an impact on you. And If you believe the state has the right to restrict a citizen's movement unless they take a brand new pharmaceutical product, we have to drill down to basic principles to actually have a fruitful conversation.

 

As for your hypothetical, it's interesting that you say if "the government said that early data of the vaccine, would save your life". The answer is no. I do not make my medical decisions on the fiat of authority. The evidence would need to support that a procedure would save my life. If the vaccine had better evidence, it would be a different conversation.

 

Again, many people have seemed to labeled me "anti-vax" despite the fact that I personally had high hopes for it before it came out and I have repeatedly stated that the vaccine is probably good for elderly people. I shall reiterate my position once again, in my view, it is totally unjustified to have a one-size-fits-all policy for a vaccine which provides very little upside for younger people and has a particular risk profile, and which has very marginal third party benefit. These are the aspects of the vaccine, and basic medical ethics should not allow the use of any force, coercion, or manipulation of the general public to take it.

Edited June 8 by Xanlet

[JIAHN]

25 minutes ago, UncleBen said:

"So, when you start protecting my rights and ensuring my safety to the best of your ability, then we will talk about, protecting yours......."

 

Yes your umbrella won't work unless I put mine up..lol.If you were so confident that the " vaccine " was so safe and effective  ( 100% claimed by health officials and pharma ) then why are you worried about people who chose to wait to get more info before taking an " experimental " vaccine especially if they told you you wouldn't get covid after taking it.I know more people who have covid multiple times since their jabs than people like myself who didn't partake and took care of themselves physically during " covid ". Tell me exactly where the flu went during covid ? And if this jab is do great why they still can't cure rhe common cold or the flu.If you haven't even watched Faucis testimony then your post is completely out to lunch as he is caught on tape discussing how to coerce people.Being cautious about any new drug or vaccine is not " anti drug or antivax".History is littered with big pharma lawsuits from products that have killed or maimed.

 

Anti Vaxer's tend to think the vaccine is suppose to be 100% efficient...none are! The fact that RNA vaccine had been around for some time, told the medical organizations that in part it was safe. Then after they started shaping it, to the Covid virus, they did tests....they just did not role it out unproven. It seems that most Anti-vaxers see them self smarter than the experts........I gotta laugh at that one!

 

For me, I am not against anti-vaxer's per sa, "IF they honor my rights too!" Today, I think we are past my arguments, because I have partial immunity, but at the beginning, I was outraged by the arrogance of "Some". Let me tell you why..........I experience some who did not social distance, did not wear a mask, and entered stores in family groups.........to me, this was a statement of indifference to my fears and safety......I honestly had trouble not interacting, and punching a few in the nose! The arrogance upset me a great deal.

 

Yet, I had friends who were anti-vaxers who took every precaution, to respect everyone else, which game me the choice of when to interact.....I respected them for that, and still do!

 

So, the biggest question of all, after getting pass most of this is.............what happens next time? IMO, the anti-vaxers are entrenched, and will not move off of their stance. So I often wonder, what will happen if the virus is more aggressive and kills many, if not large parts of the population...........I personally know of 2 people who died of Covid, and who were anti-vaxers, their who family was, and 1 family is extremely angry of not taking it, the other family, has spoken they wish they had also. This saddens me. As one was my uncle. (72 years old)

 

Again, the vaccine is like a army, which is going to war, there will be casualties, but doing nothing, or waiting too long, could be alot worse! If the government had done nothing, and stood by a similar stance as a anti-vaxer, then the mortality rate could have been far worse. 

 

IMO, as much as I do not like Tradeau, our government did an incredible job, especially compared to places like Peru, or even Italy. IMO, our chief medical offers did an incredible job, having never dealt with a real time epidemic like this.

 

As a footnote to this...........those anti-vaxers that harassed nurses and doctors, deserved an ass kicking and jail time! We as a society, should have acted on this with full force!

 

Again, if you respect me, I will respect you! Simple as that! .......no more debate, no more argument......just show respect........I personally am tired of it!

[Satchmo]

44 minutes ago, UncleBen said:

Yes it was easy for me except for the part where people wanted me dead , fired from work, imprisoned ,denied medical services etc etc for making my own health choices.

Exaggerations do not help you to prove your point though they might cause people to suspect a tinge of paranoia.

[JIAHN]

8 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

 

The application of force was used. I noticed neither of you addressed the fact that these restrictions were placed on people for a marginal secondary benefit which was never the purpose of the vaccine in the first place (the purpose is to reduce the severity of the person taking it, not so that it halts the spread). The mandate barred me from public places and border crossing because I said no to a medical procedure. You do not have the right to demand that I take a pharmaceutical product because there may be a marginal benefit to you. I consider that outrageous.

 

 

 

You are right, I personally do not have the right to demand it, but the government does.....this is where you and I differ......But I will tell you this. I have a boiling point, and I was close to it a few times, by arrogant anti-vaxxer who would not put a mask on. Too the point of almost going up to the guy and kicking the shit out of him. (As the old ladies in the grocery store were running away from where he walked.

 

I can not stand and I will not stand for people, that want to enforce their rights over my own, and certainly over people that can not protect themselves............

 

You seem like an intelligent person who can articulate your points, but if you had walked into a store without a mask on, and without trying to social distance, I would have punched you in the mouth and dragged you outside....................that where I got to in this whole mess. 

 

My friend Brent actually did that as an anti-vaxer tried to come into a restaurant, and was harassing a young front desk person, who said that they were  not allowed into a private business. Again, for those anti-vaxers that actually respected others rights..........I have no quarrel with them. I actually respect them!

[JIAHN]

@Xanlet @UncleBen

 

So, fathom this...........If you are stand 100 ft away from someone, who has covid, the chances of catching it are slim to none, that  is because the virial load is minute.

 

The same thing can be said if at 50 feet, and most likely 25 feet, but as you near that person, the virial load becomes more concentrated, and the chance of your infection become greater.........

 

The vaccine reduced the virus load in the infected, therefore reducing the chance of the spread of infection to the other person. This slowed down the spread of Covid, greatly, and gave science and natural mutation to do its work......

 

Read this to better understand..........

 

 

1. www.sciencedaily.com › releases › 2022COVID-19: Vaccination greatly reduces infectious viral load ...

    

    

   Apr 14, 2022 · For Delta and Omicron breakthrough infections, vaccination drastically reduces the viral load. In the case of Omicron, however, the decrease was only observed after three doses of...

    

    

   This is just one of many arguments, but this is a factor! It applies to work, school, business, hospitals, etc...................

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, UncleBen said:

"So, when you start protecting my rights and ensuring my safety to the best of your ability, then we will talk about, protecting yours......."

 

Yes your umbrella won't work unless I put mine up..lol.If you were so confident that the " vaccine " was so safe and effective  ( 100% claimed by health officials and pharma ) then why are you worried about people who chose to wait to get more info before taking an " experimental " vaccine especially if they told you you wouldn't get covid after taking it.I know more people who have covid multiple times since their jabs than people like myself who didn't partake and took care of themselves physically during " covid ". Tell me exactly where the flu went during covid ? And if this jab is do great why they still can't cure rhe common cold or the flu.If you haven't even watched Faucis testimony then your post is completely out to lunch as he is caught on tape discussing how to coerce people.Being cautious about any new drug or vaccine is not " anti drug or antivax".History is littered with big pharma lawsuits from products that have killed or maimed.

 

Aren't you supposed to be dead?   

[Elias Pettersson]

28 minutes ago, JIAHN said:

@Xanlet @UncleBen

 

So, fathom this...........If you are stand 100 ft away from someone, who has covid, the chances of catching it are slim to none, that  is because the virial load is minute.

 

The same thing can be said if at 50 feet, and most likely 25 feet, but as you near that person, the virial load becomes more concentrated, and the chance of your infection become greater.........

 

The vaccine reduced the virus load in the infected, therefore reducing the chance of the spread of infection to the other person. This slowed down the spread of Covid, greatly, and gave science and natural mutation to do its work......

 

Read this to better understand..........

 

 

1. www.sciencedaily.com › releases › 2022COVID-19: Vaccination greatly reduces infectious viral load ...

    

    

   Apr 14, 2022 · For Delta and Omicron breakthrough infections, vaccination drastically reduces the viral load. In the case of Omicron, however, the decrease was only observed after three doses of...

    

    

   This is just one of many arguments, but this is a factor! It applies to work, school, business, hospitals, etc...................

 

That's not true.  COVID is an airborne virus, and as such can linger in the air even if you leave the room.  This was proven after the fact.  The 6 foot rule was literally made up.  You can catch COVID from someone who isn't even in the same room as you.  That's why the virus spread so quickly...

 

An airborne disease might be more transmissible overall. For example, aerosols produced by infectious person A could build up in a small, poorly ventilated room over time. Person A might depart the room but leave their aerosols behind. If person B were then to arrive in the room and spend time there, they could potentially become infected through breathing in the contaminated air.

 

Covid-19: What do we know about airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2? | The BMJ

[Satchmo]

20 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

That's not true.  COVID is an airborne virus, and as such can linger in the air even if you leave the room.  This was proven after the fact.  The 6 foot rule was literally made up.  You can catch COVID from someone who isn't even in the same room as you.  That's why the virus spread so quickly...

 

An airborne disease might be more transmissible overall. For example, aerosols produced by infectious person A could build up in a small, poorly ventilated room over time. Person A might depart the room but leave their aerosols behind. If person B were then to arrive in the room and spend time there, they could potentially become infected through breathing in the contaminated air.

 

Covid-19: What do we know about airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2? | The BMJ

If what you say is true, and I believe it to be, it does not in any way negate what JIHN said (which I also believe to be true).

[Bob Long]

1 hour ago, Xanlet said:

 

The application of force was used. I noticed neither of you addressed the fact that these restrictions were placed on people for a marginal secondary benefit which was never the purpose of the vaccine in the first place (the purpose is to reduce the severity of the person taking it, not so that it halts the spread). The mandate barred me from public places and border crossing because I said no to a medical procedure. You do not have the right to demand that I take a pharmaceutical product because there may be a marginal benefit to you. I consider that outrageous.

 

I also noticed no one engaged with my medical ethics point. All of this is a bit moot if we don't agree on principles. If you believe in fascism, I can hardly appeal to the virtue of Democracy since that won't have an impact on you. And If you believe the state has the right to restrict a citizen's movement unless they take a brand new pharmaceutical product, we have to drill down to basic principles to actually have a fruitful conversation.

 

As for your hypothetical, it's interesting that you say if "the government said that early data of the vaccine, would save your life". The answer is no. I do not make my medical decisions on the fiat of authority. The evidence would need to support that a procedure would save my life. If the vaccine had better evidence, it would be a different conversation.

 

Again, many people have seemed to labeled me "anti-vax" despite the fact that I personally had high hopes for it before it came out and I have repeatedly stated that the vaccine is probably good for elderly people. I shall reiterate my position once again, in my view, it is totally unjustified to have a one-size-fits-all policy for a vaccine which provides very little upside for younger people and has a particular risk profile, and which has very marginal third party benefit. These are the aspects of the vaccine, and basic medical ethics should not allow the use of any force, coercion, or manipulation of the general public to take it.

 

but no one forced you to take a vaccine, thats just a fact. As facty as facts get. 

 

You just didn't like the consequences of your choice. Men live with their choices, children try to find excuses. 

 

[Bob Long]

35 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Aren't you supposed to be dead?   

 

tell us how you never lost anyone to covid with a snide comment. 

[Bob Long]

1 hour ago, UncleBen said:

Both my parents are in a seniors home so wasn't able to visit them despite the fact I pay for them to stay there.Neither parent got vaccinated 86 and 87 years of age but still couldn't see them.As for " inserting " myself into places that required a passport I didn't bother supporting those businesses.The whole " antivax " propoganda was driven by media , pharma,government and unelected health bodies such as the who.

 

Voice recording from Fauci 

 

"It’s been proven that when you make it difficult for people in their lives, they lose their ideological bulls–t, and they get vaccinated,” Fauci said in an audiobook written by New Yorker journalist Michael Specter."

 

To say there wasn't a psyop is pretty well undeniable.For the record most people  by my age (57) have had a vaccine at some point in their lives so the word " antivax " is pretty off based to describe people who took the cautious approach to  taking an experimental rushed drug.

 

well, thank god you didn't lie and visit the care home anyway, so thats something. 

[Bob Long]

1 hour ago, JIAHN said:

 

 

My friend Brent actually did that as an anti-vaxer tried to come into a restaurant, and was harassing a young front desk person, who said that they were  not allowed into a private business. Again, for those anti-vaxers that actually respected others rights..........I have no quarrel with them. I actually respect them!

 

tell me someone kicked Brents ass. 

[Xanlet]

2 hours ago, JIAHN said:

@Xanlet @UncleBen

 

So, fathom this...........If you are stand 100 ft away from someone, who has covid, the chances of catching it are slim to none, that  is because the virial load is minute.

 

The same thing can be said if at 50 feet, and most likely 25 feet, but as you near that person, the virial load becomes more concentrated, and the chance of your infection become greater.........

 

The vaccine reduced the virus load in the infected, therefore reducing the chance of the spread of infection to the other person. This slowed down the spread of Covid, greatly, and gave science and natural mutation to do its work......

 

Read this to better understand..........

 

 

1. www.sciencedaily.com › releases › 2022COVID-19: Vaccination greatly reduces infectious viral load ...

    

    

   Apr 14, 2022 · For Delta and Omicron breakthrough infections, vaccination drastically reduces the viral load. In the case of Omicron, however, the decrease was only observed after three doses of...

    

    

   This is just one of many arguments, but this is a factor! It applies to work, school, business, hospitals, etc...................

"The vaccine reduced the virus load in the infected"

 

This is far from established, and there is significant evidence that the viral load in the noses of vaccinated and unvaccinated people are the same. In fact, as this paper indicates, there appears to be much more asymptomatic people who carry viral load in their noses among the vaccinated populations, suggesting that the vaccine can reduce a person's symptoms to nothing, while they still become infected and carry the virus in the same capacity as an unvaccinated person.: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8992250/

 

(1."Vaccines reduce infection, severe disease, and death from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) [1]. Yet breakthrough cases occur, and this risk increases over time [2]. Reports predominantly from non-US settings suggest that viral loads from nasal swabs are similar among unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals; other reports suggest that virus levels are lower in unvaccinated persons "

 

"There were no statistically significant differences in mean Ct values of vaccinated vs unvaccinated samples in either HYT (vaccinated 25.5 vs unvaccinated 25.4; P = .80) (Figure 1A) or UeS (vaccinated 23.1, unvaccinated 23.4; P = .54)" (Ct values refer to viral load)

 

"In our study, mean viral loads as measured by Ct value were similar for large numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the Delta variant surge, regardless of symptom status, at two distinct California testing sites."

 

There is another report that was referenced in National Geographic's article which concluded:

 

(2."Vaccination status had negligible effects on Ct values (d<0.2) for all age groups considered except those aged 0-11 years (Supplemental Table 2). In this group, there were very few vaccinated individuals (N=7), as would be expected because vaccines had not been approved for those 11 and under for most of our study period. Therefore, despite the significant effect size (d=0.79, p=0.0466), we do not believe our data strongly support the notion that vaccination status has a strong effect on Ct value in children under 12. When comparing Ct values between unvaccinated and vaccinated within males and females, negligible differences were observed (female: d=0.14, male: d=0.15; Supplemental Table 3)."

(https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v7.full-text)

 

Also, an analysis done between 68 countries and also between 2947 counties in the USA found no correlation between vaccination levels and reduction in Covid 19 cases:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/

(3."Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States"

 

So this all begs the question: if the vaccine definitively lowers viral loads and helps to prevent infection, why is there no clear signal of this in the data? Why does it appear viral loads are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated people? Why didn't highly vaccinated countries or counties have fewer cases than low vaccinated countries or counties? This would all seem to suggest that these vaccines do not lower viral loads or prevent infection.

 

Again, if the government is to mandate something, there should NOT be this amount of conflicting data. It should be clear and unequivocal. If anything, I would say the preponderance of evidence is against any significant effect of the vaccine against viral load or transmission.

Edited June 8 by Xanlet

[Xanlet]

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

 

but no one forced you to take a vaccine, thats just a fact. As facty as facts get. 

 

You just didn't like the consequences of your choice. Men live with their choices, children try to find excuses. 

 

The government used force to bar people from doing certain things that they had a right to do. People's rights were infringed unless they took this pharmaceutical product, which the data shows probably doesn't provide much third party benefit at all. "Men" should have principles that they can support and defend calmly while avoiding becoming emotional, which is what children do when they are challenged on a viewpoint they hold. I hope I can rest assured that everyone in this thread can remain calm and reasonable while supporting their own particular viewpoint, right?

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Xanlet said:

The government used force to bar people from doing certain things that they had a right to do. People's rights were infringed unless they took this pharmaceutical product, which the data shows probably doesn't provide much third party benefit at all. "Men" should have principles that they can support and defend calmly while avoiding becoming emotional, which is what children do when they are challenged on a viewpoint they hold. I hope I can rest assured that everyone in this thread can remain calm and reasonable while supporting their own particular viewpoint, right?

What exactly did the antivaxxers have the right to do that was barred? 

[Xanlet]

Just now, Alflives said:

What exactly did the antivaxxers have the right to do that was barred? 

The right to go to public places without discrimination, the right to travel and cross borders, and the right not to be fired over a private medical decision (nurses).

 

Again, as my previous post shows, the third party benefit is tenuous to non-existent. People were prevented from going into public places, restaurants, sporting events, barred from crossing borders, barred from their job in some cases, all on a basis of protecting other people, a basis which is literally unfounded when we examine the data. I affirm my previous statement, this is outrageous.

[Bob Long]

17 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

The government used force to bar people from doing certain things that they had a right to do. People's rights were infringed unless they took this pharmaceutical product, which the data shows probably doesn't provide much third party benefit at all. "Men" should have principles that they can support and defend calmly while avoiding becoming emotional, which is what children do when they are challenged on a viewpoint they hold. I hope I can rest assured that everyone in this thread can remain calm and reasonable while supporting their own particular viewpoint, right?

 

No men live with their choices, and don't expect others to make it all better for them.

 

No one forced a vaccine on you. You were free to choose.

[Bob Long]

14 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

The right to go to public places without discrimination, the right to travel and cross borders, and the right not to be fired over a private medical decision (nurses).

 

Again, as my previous post shows, the third party benefit is tenuous to non-existent. People were prevented from going into public places, restaurants, sporting events, barred from crossing borders, barred from their job in some cases, all on a basis of protecting other people, a basis which is literally unfounded when we examine the data. I affirm my previous statement, this is outrageous.

 

That's called consequences. Men live with the consequences of their choice, children whine and try to find excuses.