SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Seriously,, A question
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1640626234

Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 12/27/21 at 09:30:34

Title: Seriously,, A question
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/27/21 at 09:30:34

What course of action would YOU recommend to deal with the Omicron variant?

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Serowbot on 12/27/21 at 09:49:09

That would be a great question for someone that is anti-vax, anti-mask, anti-lockdown, and anti-distancing...
...don't you think?

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by WebsterMark on 12/27/21 at 10:59:40

Restrict entry into nursing and senior citizens homes, basic temp check and require mask for approved visitors.
If outpatient healthcare facility treats immune compromised patients, do the same.
Continue to make vaccines available for free to anyone who wants.
Stop reporting total number of positive cases, especially after all these new test are available. Instead, publish demographic data on those hospitalized and deaths so rest of population can make risk assessment.
Do what’s been done for AIDS and pivot research to developing treatment.
That’s it.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Serowbot on 12/27/21 at 11:39:50

Those are all good ideas...

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/27/21 at 12:36:56

I'm gonna wait a while, then I will say what I think.
I'm sure it will be entertaining for the masses.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by WebsterMark on 12/27/21 at 14:15:35

2234233E26333E25510 wrote:

Those are all good ideas...

Yes they are but they go against CDC, WHO, that fxxk Fauci and of course Grandpa Puddinhead and our POCVP.

No lockdowns, no vaccine mandates, no masks for school children.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/27/21 at 14:42:59

Actually, Row, it's a question for everyone. The lockdown ,mask up types and the Page yer money and takes yer chances crowd.

The question is

HOW would YOU recommend America deal with THIS varjay?
What do we know about it?
How Should it be coped with?

Lockdown ? Double masks? More boosters? Screwitt, go live your life?

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by WebsterMark on 12/28/21 at 06:22:23

There’s a lot of truth to the observation that masks, vaccination passports and lockdowns are the left’s version of MAGA hats.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by MnSpring on 12/28/21 at 07:23:54

So why,
A ad on TV for a 'Shingles' vaccine,
says 90%
And a significant part of the ad is warning on Side Affects,
and who should not take.

And the vaccines for c-19, are FORCED ?
With not a word from the companies about any side affects.

Is their different rules/requirements by the FDA,
that if a drug is given a, fast track/temporary authorization,
it is not required to list side affects ?

Like a vaccine that took several years to develop ?

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Serowbot on 12/28/21 at 07:47:33

There are different rules for ads...

Have you seen any ads for the Covid vaccine?

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by MnSpring on 12/28/21 at 07:54:55

697F68756D78756E1A0 wrote:

" ... Have you seen any ads for the Covid vaccine?

Multiple times a day.
On TV, Radio, Web sites.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/28/21 at 09:22:51

Nothing, do absolutely nothing. It's not a big deal. Stop with the panic porn.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Serowbot on 12/28/21 at 09:39:51

You need to watch "Don't Look Up"

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by WebsterMark on 12/28/21 at 10:30:33

Or you could watch Harry Potter. Both are equally possible.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Serowbot on 12/28/21 at 11:14:10

Harry Potter is child fantasy,..
Don't Look Up is socio/political allegory.

Not comparable.

Have you seen it?

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by WebsterMark on 12/28/21 at 13:48:59

I’ve lost count how many times I’ve seen it. Every warm day in winter, it’s on the news. Shows up over and over on TV shows and it’s practically a mandatory subplot for every Disney movie.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by MnSpring on 12/28/21 at 14:08:48

3224332E36232E35410 wrote:

You need to watch "Don't Look Up"

Isn’t that the one where,
bunch of people ,
do NOT believe,
that banning a model of gun,
will stop mass shootings ?

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Eegore on 12/28/21 at 19:33:19

And the vaccines for c-19, are FORCED ?
With not a word from the companies about any side affects.

Companies aren't paying for Covid ads, they are under the "PSA" category and do not require the same disclaimers.

They absolutely should have the same disclaimer everyone gets when they choose to get the vaccine. People have not been restrained against their will and FORCED to get a vaccine so if they choose to get it, they get the paperwork.

Yes there is coercion, but not FORCE by definition. If they choose to get a vaccine to keep their job, it's a choice.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Eegore on 12/28/21 at 19:35:13

As for Omicron variant response I am waiting for 4 clinical assessments to be reviewed to double-check my math and some Iranian medical records to come in before I create an assessment.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by MnSpring on 12/29/21 at 07:28:35

19393B332E395C0 wrote:

Companies aren't paying for Covid ads,

No, they are FREE !

“…they are under the "PSA" category and do not require the same disclaimers…”

What is PSA in regard to vaccine’s ?
PSA to me is Prostate-Specific Antigen.
And why, because they are PSA, are they Not Required to disclose all information ?

“… They absolutely should have the same disclaimer everyone gets when they choose to get the vaccine…”
“…if they choose to get it, they get the paperwork….”

People getting the c-19 vaccine, do not, get info BEFORE, only, ‘sometimes’,
AFTER they get the shot,
then, they get the paperwork/notification’s of side affects, etc !
I can see it now, ‘Oh BTY,
if you get a third ear growing out of your forehead,
never mind’

“…People have not been restrained against their will and FORCED to get a vaccine…”

Nope, they have not been tied down, and injected.
YET

“…If they choose to get a vaccine to keep their job, it's a choice…”
“… coercion, but not FORCE…”

Glad you believe, that telling someone,
they can, NOT HAVE, a certain job,
(or enter a certain building, or be in a certain place)
unless they get a shot, is not, ‘force’.

You must also be in favor of someone saying,
‘you can not have this job, go in this building, be in this place,
if your skin color/heritage/religion is …’

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Eegore on 12/29/21 at 07:41:41

What is PSA in regard to vaccine’s ?
PSA to me is Prostate-Specific Antigen.
And why, because they are PSA, are they Not Required to disclose all information ?

Public Service Announcement. There are a number of reasons that I am not going to go into as to why PSA is not equal to paying for advertising on a Network. Given our last discussion regarding Networks or Broadcast Channels it would be futile to even try.

"People getting the c-19 vaccine, do not, get info BEFORE, only, ‘sometimes’,
AFTER they get the shot,
then, they get the paperwork/notification’s of side affects, etc !
I can see it now, ‘Oh BTY,
if you get a third ear growing out of your forehead,
never mind"

I have seen no evidence that anywhere is violating the informed consent laws, but if they are they should be held accountable. It would be very easy to do, just record it happening. Every location I have seen administers paperwork prior to any medical procedure of any kind.

I notice claiming things without proof only works one way. It's bad if gun-control does it, but its fine if anti-vaccine does it. So where are people being vaccinated and not receiving the required consent paperwork BEFORE they receive the shot?

"Glad you believe, that telling someone,
they can, NOT HAVE, a certain job,
(or enter a certain building, or be in a certain place)
unless they get a shot, is not, ‘force’."

It's not "force", it is coercion. If an employer ties you down, sedated you, gives you a vaccine, then says you can work there - it is forced.

You must also be in favor of someone saying,
‘you can not have this job, go in this building, be in this place,
if your skin color/heritage/religion is …’

When their color/heritage/religion in exclusivity can infect me with a potentially deadly disease I would be in favor of limiting access based on those parameters.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by MnSpring on 12/29/21 at 08:03:19

5D7D7F776A7D180 wrote:

"... When their color/heritage/religion in exclusivity can infect me with a potentially deadly disease I would be in favor of limiting access based on those parameters...."

Rather sure that, 'color/heritage/religion in exclusivity can infect me with a potentially deadly disease ' was, and perhaps still is, a reason.

Kinna like some people believing the vaccine will harm them ?

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Eegore on 12/29/21 at 08:31:42

Rather sure that, 'color/heritage/religion in exclusivity can infect me with a potentially deadly disease ' was, and perhaps still is, a reason.

Kinna like some people believing the vaccine will harm them ?

No that's not the same. A "reason" is not universal or equal. You stated I "must" be in favor of restricting access to a location based off of "color/heritage/religion" not any other "reason".

I state that contagion is the "reason" and if "color/heritage/religion" become a method for spreading disease, in exclusivity, then I would be ok with restricting access.

So "reason" Number 1 = Yours: color/heritage/religion

Reason 2 = Mine is: Contagion.

Those are not the same. They are "reasons" but not the same or even "Kinna like" each other.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by MnSpring on 12/29/21 at 10:58:44

7555575F4255300 wrote:

" ... I state that contagion is the "reason"
and if "color/heritage/religion" become a method for spreading disease,
in exclusivity, then I would be ok with restricting access.

So if you believe, or fear that someone, is, or could spread a disease,
(that someone, certainly has, a color of skin,
a heritage, and most likely a religion)
it is perfectly OK to, '... restrict their access...', to something.

Depending on, Color of Skin, Heritage, Religion,
their probably would be people,
that would have a name for that,
exemption/exclusion.

The whole point is,
People are being, 'Forced' to take the vaccine.
Not by being tied down,
but by many, Many, MANY, other ways.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Eegore on 12/29/21 at 12:12:22

"So if you believe, or fear that someone, is, or could spread a disease,
(that someone, certainly has, a color of skin,
a heritage, and most likely a religion)
it is perfectly OK to, '... restrict their access...', to something."

No. If evidence exists that fits within the parameters of US law regarding the mitigation of infection or disease due to transmission from human to human. The "fear" and "believe" are things You stated.

"The whole point is,
People are being, 'Forced' to take the vaccine.
Not by being tied down,
but by many, Many, MANY, other ways."

I guess the difference is physical force specifically.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Serowbot on 12/29/21 at 13:44:28

If we were going to restrict based on anything,.. it should be fat old white guys in MAGA hats,
They're the ones resisting all safety measures, and the most vulnerable.

Trump is losing voters by the day.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/29/21 at 14:17:55

If the option is
Losing your ability to pay your bills
Or
Get the jab
Mmm,that is FORCING someone.

But, if someone feels the need to pretend that anything less than tackling someone and jamming the needle in them ISN'T forcing them, then parse those words and pretend that coercion is not force.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Eegore on 12/29/21 at 14:47:57

I guess the difference is physical force specifically.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/29/21 at 14:59:36

The difference is being honest. Force has more than one aspect. Putting someone in an untenable position in order to get them to do something is FORCING them. Pretending that Force is only physically attacking someone is dishonest.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Eegore on 12/29/21 at 19:08:04

I see it as an exaggeration in most, not all but most cases. Most of the people I know that were "forced" to get vaccinated refused to fill out exemption paperwork because that paperwork is wrong too. They chose to not use the "out" they were given.

Like saying if I can't carry a gun I have my right to defend myself taken away. If I can't have my gun I have to let someone assault me, I can't run, punch, kick, anything. Without my gun I can no longer defend myself.

You know, instead of saying it's wrong to limit my ability to carry a gun. So instead I exaggerate and say I no longer can defend myself. A lot of "forced" to get the vaccine is people just refusing, and also refusing to take the exemption measures.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Billynoneck on 12/29/21 at 19:48:35

Just because you don't like either option in a choice, that doesn't change the fact it's a choice.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/30/21 at 00:11:39

Yeah,, you prefer hanging or shot?
Your choice.
You can lose your house because you're fired, and. Nobody is going to hire you until you get the jab,or keep your job, and get the jab.

If anyone fails to grasp that is being forced, well,,they are dishonest little tyrants.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Billynoneck on 12/30/21 at 01:01:11

If you feel that's the choice your having to make (between being hung or shot) and disagree with it that much then just move to a country that doesn't "force" you to get the "jab"

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/30/21 at 06:49:46

Well,well,, Lookie here.. A new troll. Or,maybe not New,, maybe just rebranded.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by WebsterMark on 12/30/21 at 07:28:36

We need new blood. If he’s a resurrected soul, it will become clear.
Until then, our fair and balanced moderator needs a wing man.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by WebsterMark on 12/30/21 at 07:31:48

Back to the original question, the ridiculous thing is the backtracking going on as far as reducing the quarantine days and some of the other ridiculousness. We knew all of that two years ago two years ago but we didn’t have to get rid of Trump back then. Now all we need to do is save the midterms for grandpa Pudd’nhead. I read Fauci‘s quote that basically said we can’t sacrifice the economy for infection spreading which is why they cut the quarantine. Geewhiz, everyone who said that it 18 months ago was labeled Satan, her a horrible awful person and basically should be crucified.

The funniest thing has been the admission that cloth mask are obviously far less effective than advertised. Duh. Literally everybody knew that. Everyone.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Serowbot on 12/30/21 at 08:49:16

132126373021360925362F440 wrote:

We need new blood. If he’s a resurrected soul, it will become clear.
Until then, our fair and balanced moderator needs a wing man.

Thanks for recognizing that, Web.
Welcome, Billy... don't be intimidated, they're all a bunch of softies at heart.
Down deep,.. way way deep. ;D

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Billynoneck on 12/30/21 at 09:19:12

I'm not a troll and I'm not saying this with any disrespect intended.
I'm not to sure why you would get so offended by my comments as it seems like the logical choice to move if you're so against the other choices. also please remember you put in the title (Seriously,, A question ) that to me implies you wanted to hear different points of view.
And again I intend no disrespect I just see things differently than you do

And no I'm not rebranded I am new to the site

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by MnSpring on 12/30/21 at 10:10:37

3E35303025323332393F375C0 wrote:

" ... it seems like the logical choice to move if you're so against the other choices. ..."

So all the people that were so vocal about moving,
if Trump was elected.
And did not move.
Should have moved ?

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/30/21 at 10:41:43

Barring the realities of life,like old,crippled up, don't want to leave family, friends..
The MONEY I don't have for a vacation trip, so, moving costs more
And, where Is Not crazy?
So, the
Just MOVE
answer?
It's not a reasonable suggestion imo. Sure as Hell isn't possible,

How about a different solution?
How about the government stop doing stupid nuts that makes America no longer the country it was designed to be?
That sounds a lot more like America.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Serowbot on 12/30/21 at 10:50:25

Keep America Closed Minded!

Someone should make a hat for that.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Eegore on 12/30/21 at 13:24:36

"I'm not a troll and I'm not saying this with any disrespect intended."

I offended people on here by cutting an old belt from my 95 Savage. Literally said they were "offended" by my cutting off an old belt from a bike I owned because they didn't think I should do that. My bike, my belt, my cutting tool, my shop. What jerk I must be.

So get used to this if your opinion is different.

Also the "rebranded" thing is ridiculous as the person they are referring to has zero reason to pretend he is someone different. He was never banned, disciplined or felt his viewpoints were something he should conceal.

I can literally agree with people on here and still get complains about it because the words I use aren't the words they would use.

Just speak your opinions and let the reactions be their responsibility.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Eegore on 12/30/21 at 13:32:30

"Back to the original question, the ridiculous thing is the backtracking going on as far as reducing the quarantine days and some of the other ridiculousness."

Is it backtracking?

I know by JoG standards it is lying if you say one thing, learn something new and adjust your opinion based off the new evidence. You lied.

But in this case isn't adjustment of quarantine standards because the term-evidence shows it makes more sense exactly what we want? I know when I went in China and this was all taking off we had no idea what the contagion level was for surface contact so the most cautious methods were utilized. I even recommended on here people be careful using the gas-pumps and sanitize.

But given today's knowledge, I would say that is unnecessary to sanitize a gas pump handle. So am I "backtracking" or am I "adjusting" my opinion based off of almost 2 years of additional evidence? Of course if I worked for the CDC I "lied" when I made a recommendation then changed it based off of verifiable evidence.

But as a normal guy, am I "backtracking" if I say today we don't need to sanitize every surface we touch?

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Billynoneck on 12/30/21 at 14:14:12

736C6A6D70774676467E6C602B190 wrote:

If they felt that passionately about it then yes, but that's not what I was saying, my point was just because you don't like the choices doesn't mean there isn't a choice.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Billynoneck on 12/30/21 at 14:17:38

332C2A2D30370636063E2C206B590 wrote:

How about a different solution?
How about the government stop doing stupid nuts that makes America no longer the country it was designed to be?
That sounds a lot more like America.

I would hazard a guess that we would both agree that the government (anywhere) will never stop doing whatever is in its own best interests first and formost

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Serowbot on 12/30/21 at 14:26:48

Hey,...way to go Texas!... 8-)

Texas Scientists Are Sharing the Design for Their New, Cheap Covid-19 Vaccine
https://gizmodo.com/texas-scientists-are-sharing-the-design-for-their-new-1848288206
"Clinical trials have shown that Corbevax is safe and estimates indicate that it’s more than 90% effective against the original form of the coronavirus, as well as more than 80% effective against the Delta variant.

Importantly, it can be stored using standard refrigeration, which would allow for more widespread transportation and use than the mRNA vaccines that require special refrigeration.

Moreover, the vaccine technology was developed without patents, and the researchers plan to widely share their blueprints and/or co-develop the vaccine with any willing manufacturers and countries for no added financial gain. As a result, a mass-produced single dose is estimated to run about $1.50. In comparison, Pfizer and Moderna recently inked deals reportedly charging around $25 per dose in Europe. "

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by MnSpring on 12/31/21 at 13:05:31

392F38253D28253E4A0 wrote:

" ...Pfizer and Moderna recently inked deals reportedly charging around $25 per dose in Europe. "

Any 'news/information', on what was charged,
to the US Government/local hospitals/clinics/chain drug stores?

It was NOT, 'free', like the texts I got, (and still getting some), to get a shot.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Eegore on 12/31/21 at 13:26:20

It is free to the consumer.

No item is strictly free, somewhere cost was involved that somebody paid for. So no, nothing is free universally to all beings on the planet, but some things are free to the end-user at the time of service.

Hopefully these not free ones won't violate the process of law and vaccinate prior to providing information like those other places where there is zero evidence of any kind that it happened. Too bad with all these blatant and easy to prove violations nobody ever thought to get proof.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by MnSpring on 12/31/21 at 13:38:23

5C7C7E766B7C190 wrote:

It is free to the consumer. ..."

Again, that is a Yes and No.

If you live under a bridge,
or get 'help' (Welfare),
then yes, it is 'free' for those people.

The rest of the people that pay taxes,
and have their FORCED saving account drained.
ARE PAYING !!!!!!!

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Eegore on 12/31/21 at 13:56:05

If you live under a bridge,
or get 'help' (Welfare),
then yes, it is 'free' for those people.

The rest of the people that pay taxes,
and have their FORCED saving account drained.
ARE PAYING !!!!!!!

Yeah, I already said no item is universally free. But the end-user, at the time of service, does not pay anything.

Do you pay to use this forum? Is it Free?

Of course not. But is it Free for You to use? Do you personally have to, not voluntarily, but are you required to pay?

The forum is free to use. It is not zero cost to run. So telling people the forum is not free is misleading. Some portion of our Federal tax dollars went to maintaining the infrastructure that allows this forum to exist, outside of the personal income used to pay it's direct fees. So if a person asks if this forum and website are Free to use, and I say "No", and explain the tax percentage breakdowns showing how the site itself has associated costs is what they would expect to hear?

This forum is not free just like vaccines are not free.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by MnSpring on 01/01/22 at 08:26:00

6444464E5344210 wrote:

It is free to the consumer. ..."

Again,
only if that end user, consumer,
gets EVERYTHING 'free'.

Because Taxes, (income/gains/sales/vat/etc)
Because forced Saving,(social security)
PAY.

You say you agreed with that.
So why say:
" ... But the end-user, at the time of service, does not pay anything..."

Why not agree that , only someone living under a bridge in a cardboard box living on only donations. Or someone who has their housing, food, healthcare, paid for.
are the only ones that, "...does not pay anything..."

Why spin saying, "...The forum is free to use. It is not zero cost to run. ...",
This is about a FREE shot.
Not about, viewing a forum which will cost electricity/internet connection/etc. so it is not, 'free'.
Wait, one could go to a public Library !
Wait, that would cost Gas in a car, or bicycle tries, or the soles of your shoes.
Wait, if you lived in a cardboard box, under a bridge, and everything you used was given to you, then using the library would be truly free.
Oh wait, no address, so no library card.
Wait, some places a person can use library computers, without a card.

And again, the point is.
'Free' is added to, 'Forced'.

Wait, no one is, 'Forced',
because they do NOT HAVE TO HAVE that job.
So they cannot get, food/healthcare/housing.
Wait, somewhere their is a bridge, and a cardboard box.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Eegore on 01/01/22 at 12:11:25

Why spin saying, "...The forum is free to use. It is not zero cost to run. ...",
This is about a FREE shot.
Not about, viewing a forum which will cost electricity/internet connection/etc. so it is not, 'free'.

Coming from someone that continually tries to compare any topic to gun control it is interesting you want to keep this one focused.

Your example is referring to taxes paid into a system and therefore when a Human that pays TAXES goes and then gets a vaccine they did not get a FREE vaccine because they PAID TAXES.

They paid nothing for the shot at the time of service. They PAID TAXES and that means the procurement and distribution of a vaccine was not FREE specifically to a tax-paying Human.

This forum is the same thing. It's not something we pay to use, but for any Human that pays taxes this forum is not FREE.

So if a Human asks if this forum is FREE, do we say "No the forum is not free"?

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Serowbot on 01/01/22 at 12:44:20

$25.00 for a shot, or $25,000.00 for a 3 week stay in a Covid ward.
Which would you rather pay for?
You will pay for those either with higher taxes or higher rates on your health insurance.
Nothing is free,... right?

Get vaxxed...
Unless you have $25k cash hanging around, your not being vaxxed is a potential financial burden to society.
Medical freeloading.
Irresponsible political grandstanding.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/01/22 at 14:20:59

7365726F77626F74000 wrote:

You say that as if the vacc,,err,jabbed, aren't being hospitalized and DYING..

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Eegore on 01/01/22 at 14:28:08

"You say that as if the vacc,,err,jabbed, aren't being hospitalized and DYING.."

You say that as if over a Billion humans have not taken the vaccine with zero side effects.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/01/22 at 14:42:54

So you Say.

One of us will be proven correct in time.
Having seen the things I have
My money is on me.
Sadly, my daughter took it.
I'd rather be wrong.
But my eyes tell me I'm not.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Eegore on 01/01/22 at 16:26:43

Where are all the dead people?

If 1 in 10 are effected from heart issues alone we should have millions dead or hospitalized. Where are they?

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/01/22 at 16:39:08

I'm not gonna go down your rabbit hole.

The heart attacks in the young, healthy athletes speak for themselves.

You CAN'T divert me.
I've been dealing with you for a long time. I know what you are about.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by MnSpring on 01/01/22 at 17:19:36

Really ?????
A number of years ago, I cut my hand.
Badly

I drove to the ER,
and I had to wait for 2 HOURS, before I got, 4 internal stitches, 5 outside stitches.

NO, Car accidents, NO, Heart Attacks, NO, Catastrophic injuries,
JUST, people complaining about, and wanting a ‘shot’,
to immediately fix them because they had the Flu.
And (Guessing, because of experience) every one was on WELFARE.

And you got the Balls to say :

4751465B43565B40340 wrote:

“ …Medical freeloading…”

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Eegore on 01/01/22 at 19:38:02

"The heart attacks in the young, healthy athletes speak for themselves."

180,958 US Marines.

Average age of a US marine is 21.

Marines undergo and maintain rigorous physical training.

94.6% of US Marines are vaccinated.

10% of 180,000 is 18,000.

Where are the 18 Thousand dead or hospitalized US Marines?

Iraq and Afghanistan combined since 2001 didn't even kill half that amount.

You reference a very very small percentage of overall athletes that have been vaccinated, yet you claim 1 in 10 die or are hospitalized from heart issues alone, present material the does Not say that, then claim I am going down a rabbit hole.

What about actual athletes? Why doesn't the NFL have 10% of it's vaccinated players in hospitals or morgues?

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Eegore on 01/02/22 at 03:49:12

Based off the NCAA running stats, the US Department of Education funding, and the National Federation of State High School Sports the average number of high school students that play football is approximately 1,049,079.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/pro_beyond/2020RES_ProbabilityBeyondHSFiguresMethod.pdf

https://www.statista.com/statistics/267955/participation-in-us-high-school-football/

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2019/1/30/18202661/recruiting-stars-rankings-high-school-football

https://leagueside.com/chances-of-going-pro/

Taking this average it would be safe to say 104 Thousand high school students were killed or hospitalized by the vaccine in 2021 for cardiac issues if 1 in 10 had dangerous or deadly side-effects. If each kid was vaccinated.

If even half those got vaccinated, where are all these dead and hospitalized kids? Where are their families and schools? Why aren't they saying anything?

This is only football by the way. If we take on all high school athletics we are looking at just about 8 Million.

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/probability-competing-beyond-high-school

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/statistics-on-school-sports-how-many-students-play-sports-which-sports-do-they-play/2021/07

https://yrbs-explorer.services.cdc.gov/#/graphs?questionCode=H82&topicCode=C06&location=XX&year=2019

So out of 8 Million young athletes we should expect to see 8 Hundred thousand high school kids dead or hospitalized by the vaccine in 2021 from heart issues if the math claimed by the creator of mRNA is correct.

Where are even a fraction of these 800,000 young athletes with heart problems? Around Nov 4, 2021 kids 12-17 reached a 50% vaccination rate.

That's 2,191 kids per day. Shouldn't we be seeing at least 100 per day if only a small percentage were vaccinated?

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by WebsterMark on 01/02/22 at 04:08:36

The same methodology that tells me I’m not at a huge risk from Covid tells me 10% are not experiencing serious and long lasting side affects from the vaccines. If Covid were as serious as they try to make it out for my age group I would know a dozen people who have died but I don’t know any. Not a single one. Likewise I know hundreds of people at work, I correspond with them almost daily, I don’t know a single one who has had a significant side effect where they had to been hospitalized from the vaccine. So while I agree that these vaccines have a higher side effect than say the flu vaccine, I don’t think it’s significant enough assuming you’re relatively healthy person to be concerned with taking the vaccine. Sure, freak things happen. They do. But not 10%.

I remember years and years ago arguing with somebody who was steadfast on the popular claim that 10% of the population is gay. That could not possibly be true I said. And of course it’s not true. It’s about 1 to 2%. At most but the 10% number is still tossed about all the time and accepted by many as truth but it’s not.

Eegore’s example of high school athletes is a good one. There’s no way around that. It’s the same thing with Covid. Very, very few of what I would call normal healthy individuals experience serious Covid symptoms, very few. Fauci and other leaders try to make it out as if 20 or 30% of the population is it serious risk because they are caught up in it; they can’t see the forest for the trees. But the actual Covid numbers have always told otherwise. 10% of those who take the vaccine do not experience serious health effects including death. That’s simply not possible. My own personal observation tells me, without a doubt, that’s not true and the same observations tell me people between 20 and 60 and in normal health have a little to fear from Covid.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Eegore on 01/02/22 at 06:34:00

"Fauci and other leaders try to make it out as if 20 or 30% of the population is it serious risk because they are caught up in it; they can’t see the forest for the trees."

I agree. When I was working at the CO ICC we had to continually push the multiple verification standards. So many people were in there dealing with the logistics of Covid impact that they were just accepting stats without verification. It was easy to do when you are there for the specific reason of providing support.

The most bang for our buck so to speak came from weeding out the garbage from the useable information. Getting a report from a College that they had 50% infection rates is useless. That claim needs to be verified with actual medical records, test outcomes, patient/non-patient outcomes or anyone can just toss any number they want at you and you spend all your time chasing ghosts.

Accuracy gets things done. Everything else just lets you feel good when you go home for the day.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Eegore on 01/04/22 at 14:24:55

Ok so after sitting in stat counts and briefings for the past 14 hours I can say that I think the best course of action for Omicron is similar to what Webstermark presented.

Definitely keep it away from the elderly. Screenings/masks at any location they congregate. Keep it away from people with COPD. Pneumonia and Omicron is shown to be very deadly so that is a major risk factor.

Don't worry about it too much in regards to the healthy. If anything I will go with the predictions made when we brought samples back from China back in 19. Omicron was basically predicted - a subsequent fast spreader that is less lethal by the epidemiologists. There was some debate as to the impact of herd-immunity and if it's even plausible regarding SARS, but the idea of a fast spreading low impact variant was considered a given by the professionals.

It could actually be beneficial considering the SARS-COV-2 antibodies burn off so fast they are practically worthless after a short-time.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Eegore on 01/05/22 at 07:13:29

Also there is this going on all over the place:

https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/daily-hospitalization-summary

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by WebsterMark on 01/05/22 at 09:04:07

This bull$hit is never going away….
Now we have something called flurona.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2022/01/05/flu-and-covid-flurona-real-and-doctors-expect-see-more/9087211002/

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Eegore on 01/05/22 at 09:28:46

Co-infections ae pretty common. We had them last year but nobody tossed the "Flurona" name on it I guess.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by WebsterMark on 01/05/22 at 09:40:54

It’s the blue team trying to advance the ball down the field. The red team on defense is fighting against the blue team plus the refs who are basically blue players in striped shirts with whistles. It looked like the red team was slowing down the blue team’s advance but blue called their new play named flurona and are now picking up yards with it.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/06/22 at 23:48:57

My wife has commented several times about
There was no flu season
Now it's
Confections are common...

Not around here.

Title: Re: Seriously,, A question
Post by Eegore on 01/07/22 at 05:30:15

I've heard there was no flu season a lot as well, but when I check the diagnosis and treatment databases there were tons of flu cases.

Even after factoring in co-infections there were indeed fewer diagnosed flu cases, but the analysis clearly indicates those are most likely flu cases misdiagnosed as C-19.