Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So cringeworthy. Imagine the uproar if people were being given vouchers to not take it " 
I wonder if women will take up the offer of a free shag. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So cringeworthy. Imagine the uproar if people were being given vouchers to not take it "That would be like giving people vouchers for not wearing a seatbelt.... counter productive. Even though these incentives are not something I believe is really useful, encouraging people to do something which benefits the wider community is a sensible option. Cal | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So cringeworthy. Imagine the uproar if people were being given vouchers to not take it
That would be like giving people vouchers for not wearing a seatbelt.... counter productive.
Even though these incentives are not something I believe is really useful, encouraging people to do something which benefits the wider community is a sensible option.
Cal"You're not risking death, myocarditis or a range of other awful side effects when you put on a seatbelt so no it wouldn't be like that. It staggers me that people keep repeating that stupid analogy without thinking it through. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So cringeworthy. Imagine the uproar if people were being given vouchers to not take it
That would be like giving people vouchers for not wearing a seatbelt.... counter productive.
Even though these incentives are not something I believe is really useful, encouraging people to do something which benefits the wider community is a sensible option.
Cal
You're not risking death, myocarditis or a range of other awful side effects when you put on a seatbelt so no it wouldn't be like that. It staggers me that people keep repeating that stupid analogy without thinking it through. "The seatbelt analogy has been done to death hasn’t it. You’re right, it’s like comparing oranges to hippos. It’s repeated constantly zzzz | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Aren't the majority of sex workers at risk, trafficked, abused, gang owned? " Don’t worry about them, just get the jab. Have the sex workers had the jab? Will they be sacked if they refuse (the jab, not the fucking strangers against their will)? Make sure you wear your seatbelt on the journey to the brothel too! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Aren't the majority of sex workers at risk, trafficked, abused, gang owned? Don’t worry about them, just get the jab. Have the sex workers had the jab? Will they be sacked if they refuse (the jab, not the fucking strangers against their will)? Make sure you wear your seatbelt on the journey to the brothel too! " I'll have a jab while I keep my foot on your throat? ... I know this is a glib headline grabber and it's terribly hilariously funny and all that, but isn't there a serious side to the story? How can it be right to encourage a trade that relies so heavily on abusing those sex workers in the most horrific ways? Next will be get a jab and have a free wrap of crack... You couldn't make some of this up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So cringeworthy. Imagine the uproar if people were being given vouchers to not take it
That would be like giving people vouchers for not wearing a seatbelt.... counter productive.
Even though these incentives are not something I believe is really useful, encouraging people to do something which benefits the wider community is a sensible option.
Cal
You're not risking death, myocarditis or a range of other awful side effects when you put on a seatbelt so no it wouldn't be like that. It staggers me that people keep repeating that stupid analogy without thinking it through.
The seatbelt analogy has been done to death hasn’t it. You’re right, it’s like comparing oranges to hippos. It’s repeated constantly zzzz"They never want to talk about natural immunity. So using their stupid apology, I'm already wearing the best seatbelt but they need me to wear two seatbelts otherwise their shitty seatbelt won't work. WTF. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So cringeworthy. Imagine the uproar if people were being given vouchers to not take it
I wonder if women will take up the offer of a free shag."dammit thats my business start up idea shot down!!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Aren't the majority of sex workers at risk, trafficked, abused, gang owned? Don’t worry about them, just get the jab. Have the sex workers had the jab? Will they be sacked if they refuse (the jab, not the fucking strangers against their will)? Make sure you wear your seatbelt on the journey to the brothel too! " Or something about Orange & Monkeys?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Aren't the majority of sex workers at risk, trafficked, abused, gang owned? " "30 minutes with the lady of their choice". So she can't say no because he got the jab in return for a free fuck. Presumably only men will take up this offer. The sex workers don't matter. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Aren't the majority of sex workers at risk, trafficked, abused, gang owned? Don’t worry about them, just get the jab. Have the sex workers had the jab? Will they be sacked if they refuse (the jab, not the fucking strangers against their will)? Make sure you wear your seatbelt on the journey to the brothel too! Or something about Orange & Monkeys? "hippos - orange hippos!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So cringeworthy. Imagine the uproar if people were being given vouchers to not take it
That would be like giving people vouchers for not wearing a seatbelt.... counter productive.
Even though these incentives are not something I believe is really useful, encouraging people to do something which benefits the wider community is a sensible option.
Cal
You're not risking death, myocarditis or a range of other awful side effects when you put on a seatbelt so no it wouldn't be like that. It staggers me that people keep repeating that stupid analogy without thinking it through.
The seatbelt analogy has been done to death hasn’t it. You’re right, it’s like comparing oranges to hippos. It’s repeated constantly zzzz
They never want to talk about natural immunity. So using their stupid apology, I'm already wearing the best seatbelt but they need me to wear two seatbelts otherwise their shitty seatbelt won't work. WTF. "I can feel a new philosophical "saying" coming on. . In the same way as we have occams razor, and pavlovs dogs, schrodingers cat and humes razor, we will have covids seatbelt. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So cringeworthy. Imagine the uproar if people were being given vouchers to not take it
That would be like giving people vouchers for not wearing a seatbelt.... counter productive.
Even though these incentives are not something I believe is really useful, encouraging people to do something which benefits the wider community is a sensible option.
Cal
You're not risking death, myocarditis or a range of other awful side effects when you put on a seatbelt so no it wouldn't be like that. It staggers me that people keep repeating that stupid analogy without thinking it through.
The seatbelt analogy has been done to death hasn’t it. You’re right, it’s like comparing oranges to hippos. It’s repeated constantly zzzz
They never want to talk about natural immunity. So using their stupid apology, I'm already wearing the best seatbelt but they need me to wear two seatbelts otherwise their shitty seatbelt won't work. WTF.
I can feel a new philosophical "saying" coming on.
. In the same way as we have occams razor, and pavlovs dogs, schrodingers cat and humes razor, we will have covids seatbelt." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So cringeworthy. Imagine the uproar if people were being given vouchers to not take it
That would be like giving people vouchers for not wearing a seatbelt.... counter productive.
Even though these incentives are not something I believe is really useful, encouraging people to do something which benefits the wider community is a sensible option.
Cal
You're not risking death, myocarditis or a range of other awful side effects when you put on a seatbelt so no it wouldn't be like that. It staggers me that people keep repeating that stupid analogy without thinking it through.
The seatbelt analogy has been done to death hasn’t it. You’re right, it’s like comparing oranges to hippos. It’s repeated constantly zzzz
They never want to talk about natural immunity. So using their stupid apology, I'm already wearing the best seatbelt but they need me to wear two seatbelts otherwise their shitty seatbelt won't work. WTF. "To be factual. The evidence has demonstrated that there is still a huge benefit from being vaccinated even when you've had the virus. A "natural" immunity is not in any way "better" than a vaccine acquired one, as in both cases the immune response is generated by you body rather than the pathogen. However, additional exposure to the pathogen (or Pseudo pathogen in the case of vaccines) helps to refine and strengthen the immune response. The same effects can be achieved be becoming infected multiple times, ideally with different variants. Also, the seat-belt analogy works well here because both vaccines and seat-belts are devices designed to reduce the impact of an adverse event, and offering an incentive to "not mitigate" that risk would be foolhardy. I seem to remember when the government were trying to make seat-belts mandatory, there were several groups making claims about "dangers they posed"... but they literally save thousands of lives every year. Cal | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What I'm reading in this article is a brothel is reopening after a long lockdown and is offering vaccinated customers 30 euros off their first visit. Spin doctors and what you want to see right here " The unvaccinated will be locked down anyway... So won't be able to avail of the promotion... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59245018 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What I'm reading in this article is a brothel is reopening after a long lockdown and is offering vaccinated customers 30 euros off their first visit. Spin doctors and what you want to see right here The unvaccinated will be locked down anyway... So won't be able to avail of the promotion... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59245018 " I will watch this with interest, I'm curious to know how they will identify unvaccinated people in the Provence | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So cringeworthy. Imagine the uproar if people were being given vouchers to not take it
That would be like giving people vouchers for not wearing a seatbelt.... counter productive.
Even though these incentives are not something I believe is really useful, encouraging people to do something which benefits the wider community is a sensible option.
Cal
You're not risking death, myocarditis or a range of other awful side effects when you put on a seatbelt so no it wouldn't be like that. It staggers me that people keep repeating that stupid analogy without thinking it through.
The seatbelt analogy has been done to death hasn’t it. You’re right, it’s like comparing oranges to hippos. It’s repeated constantly zzzz
They never want to talk about natural immunity. So using their stupid apology, I'm already wearing the best seatbelt but they need me to wear two seatbelts otherwise their shitty seatbelt won't work. WTF.
To be factual. The evidence has demonstrated that there is still a huge benefit from being vaccinated even when you've had the virus. A "natural" immunity is not in any way "better" than a vaccine acquired one, as in both cases the immune response is generated by you body rather than the pathogen. However, additional exposure to the pathogen (or Pseudo pathogen in the case of vaccines) helps to refine and strengthen the immune response. The same effects can be achieved be becoming infected multiple times, ideally with different variants.
Also, the seat-belt analogy works well here because both vaccines and seat-belts are devices designed to reduce the impact of an adverse event, and offering an incentive to "not mitigate" that risk would be foolhardy.
I seem to remember when the government were trying to make seat-belts mandatory, there were several groups making claims about "dangers they posed"... but they literally save thousands of lives every year.
Cal"Typical nonsense. For me, the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine is greater than the risk that I would have died from covid, even if I didn't have natural immunity, which I do. The risk of it being worse in a reinfection is absolutely miniscule where as the risk of all sorts of nasty side vaccine side effects is comparably much higher. It's very immoral for people to demand I risk my health, for theirs. As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What I'm reading in this article is a brothel is reopening after a long lockdown and is offering vaccinated customers 30 euros off their first visit. Spin doctors and what you want to see right here The unvaccinated will be locked down anyway... So won't be able to avail of the promotion... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59245018 " Austrians blaming a disease on a minority group and locking them up again, nice to see how much they've learnt from history | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Aren't the majority of sex workers at risk, trafficked, abused, gang owned? Don’t worry about them, just get the jab. Have the sex workers had the jab? Will they be sacked if they refuse (the jab, not the fucking strangers against their will)? Make sure you wear your seatbelt on the journey to the brothel too! I'll have a jab while I keep my foot on your throat? ... I know this is a glib headline grabber and it's terribly hilariously funny and all that, but isn't there a serious side to the story? How can it be right to encourage a trade that relies so heavily on abusing those sex workers in the most horrific ways? Next will be get a jab and have a free wrap of crack... You couldn't make some of this up. " Agreed, absolutely disgraceful. saying that though. they were offering free joints for a jab in the USA so its only a matter of time before : free hit on a meth pipe if you get your jab. Couple lines of nose sugar if you get your jab. health?!?! LOL. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone. " On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone. On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles. " Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone. On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles. Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected. " There is no difference between the immunity from an infection and that from a vaccine, it's your immune system that creates the immunity. The only difference is multiple exposures to the vaccine allows for the immune system to further refine it's response... getting infected more than once will work just as well. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone. On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles. Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected. There is no difference between the immunity from an infection and that from a vaccine, it's your immune system that creates the immunity. The only difference is multiple exposures to the vaccine allows for the immune system to further refine it's response... getting infected more than once will work just as well." No that's just nonsense. Seriously where do you get your fake news from, I'm actually curious? Is it CNN? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone. On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles. Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected. There is no difference between the immunity from an infection and that from a vaccine, it's your immune system that creates the immunity. The only difference is multiple exposures to the vaccine allows for the immune system to further refine it's response... getting infected more than once will work just as well. No that's just nonsense. Seriously where do you get your fake news from, I'm actually curious? Is it CNN?" Living in the UK, CNN is not really on my list of media sources, but then again I've never been one to rely on the news to educate me... and more importantly I don't rely on propaganda from facebook either. Personally, I find that the science journals are the best source of FACTS and information. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone. On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles. Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected. There is no difference between the immunity from an infection and that from a vaccine, it's your immune system that creates the immunity. The only difference is multiple exposures to the vaccine allows for the immune system to further refine it's response... getting infected more than once will work just as well. No that's just nonsense. Seriously where do you get your fake news from, I'm actually curious? Is it CNN?" Have you Googled "vaccine"? Or "immune system"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected. " To arrive at the point of having natural immunity you will first need to have the crash. The crash is being infected with covid, how that crash unfolds is anyones guess, it could be a small bump or you could go straight through the windscreen. You don't want the vaccine, great don't have it, that is your choice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected. To arrive at the point of having natural immunity you will first need to have the crash. The crash is being infected with covid, how that crash unfolds is anyones guess, it could be a small bump or you could go straight through the windscreen. You don't want the vaccine, great don't have it, that is your choice." Not it's not a guess, it's called probability | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone. On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles. Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected. There is no difference between the immunity from an infection and that from a vaccine, it's your immune system that creates the immunity. The only difference is multiple exposures to the vaccine allows for the immune system to further refine it's response... getting infected more than once will work just as well. No that's just nonsense. Seriously where do you get your fake news from, I'm actually curious? Is it CNN? Living in the UK, CNN is not really on my list of media sources, but then again I've never been one to rely on the news to educate me... and more importantly I don't rely on propaganda from facebook either. Personally, I find that the science journals are the best source of FACTS and information." Ah yes, the journal of bad analogies, I must read it sometime | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone. On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles. Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected. There is no difference between the immunity from an infection and that from a vaccine, it's your immune system that creates the immunity. The only difference is multiple exposures to the vaccine allows for the immune system to further refine it's response... getting infected more than once will work just as well. No that's just nonsense. Seriously where do you get your fake news from, I'm actually curious? Is it CNN? Living in the UK, CNN is not really on my list of media sources, but then again I've never been one to rely on the news to educate me... and more importantly I don't rely on propaganda from facebook either. Personally, I find that the science journals are the best source of FACTS and information. Ah yes, the journal of bad analogies, I must read it sometime " Are you saying that you don't believe the actual science, and real evidence that the actual scientists publish so it can be reviewed, verified and queried by other actual real scientists? Because that sounds like a less than logical viewpoint to me. Cal | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So cringeworthy. Imagine the uproar if people were being given vouchers to not take it
That would be like giving people vouchers for not wearing a seatbelt.... counter productive.
Even though these incentives are not something I believe is really useful, encouraging people to do something which benefits the wider community is a sensible option.
Cal
You're not risking death, myocarditis or a range of other awful side effects when you put on a seatbelt so no it wouldn't be like that. It staggers me that people keep repeating that stupid analogy without thinking it through.
The seatbelt analogy has been done to death hasn’t it. You’re right, it’s like comparing oranges to hippos. It’s repeated constantly zzzz
They never want to talk about natural immunity. So using their stupid apology, I'm already wearing the best seatbelt but they need me to wear two seatbelts otherwise their shitty seatbelt won't work. WTF. "Natural immunity....good one! You have absolutely no idea how that one would plan out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone. On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles. Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected. There is no difference between the immunity from an infection and that from a vaccine, it's your immune system that creates the immunity. The only difference is multiple exposures to the vaccine allows for the immune system to further refine it's response... getting infected more than once will work just as well." Not sure that is quite true. The immune system develops antibodies that are as a result of exposure to the virus. However, if the exposure is to the vaccine, antibodies are made to attack something similar (with the spike protein). Therefore, whilst those antibodies will attack the virus, they may not be as effective. But, that's about as much I can question your argument which means it's pretty much spot on... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone. On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles. Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected. There is no difference between the immunity from an infection and that from a vaccine, it's your immune system that creates the immunity. The only difference is multiple exposures to the vaccine allows for the immune system to further refine it's response... getting infected more than once will work just as well. Not sure that is quite true. The immune system develops antibodies that are as a result of exposure to the virus. However, if the exposure is to the vaccine, antibodies are made to attack something similar (with the spike protein). Therefore, whilst those antibodies will attack the virus, they may not be as effective. But, that's about as much I can question your argument which means it's pretty much spot on... "Whilst not disagreeing with what you say. The bad things about naturally acquired antibodies is it not finite. A person can get ready good long lasting immunity response or virtually none. The main bad thing about naturally acquired antibodies is the much more prevalent side affects such as death long covid, Organ damage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone. On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles. Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected. There is no difference between the immunity from an infection and that from a vaccine, it's your immune system that creates the immunity. The only difference is multiple exposures to the vaccine allows for the immune system to further refine it's response... getting infected more than once will work just as well. No that's just nonsense. Seriously where do you get your fake news from, I'm actually curious? Is it CNN? Living in the UK, CNN is not really on my list of media sources, but then again I've never been one to rely on the news to educate me... and more importantly I don't rely on propaganda from facebook either. Personally, I find that the science journals are the best source of FACTS and information. Ah yes, the journal of bad analogies, I must read it sometime Are you saying that you don't believe the actual science, and real evidence that the actual scientists publish so it can be reviewed, verified and queried by other actual real scientists? Because that sounds like a less than logical viewpoint to me. Cal" I find that most the people here have no idea what science actually is. If you're not making disprovable statements and trying to disprove them, you're not doing science. Putting the opinions of scientists into a journal and having other scientists give their opinion on the opinions isn't science. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone. On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles. Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected. There is no difference between the immunity from an infection and that from a vaccine, it's your immune system that creates the immunity. The only difference is multiple exposures to the vaccine allows for the immune system to further refine it's response... getting infected more than once will work just as well. No that's just nonsense. Seriously where do you get your fake news from, I'm actually curious? Is it CNN? Living in the UK, CNN is not really on my list of media sources, but then again I've never been one to rely on the news to educate me... and more importantly I don't rely on propaganda from facebook either. Personally, I find that the science journals are the best source of FACTS and information. Ah yes, the journal of bad analogies, I must read it sometime Are you saying that you don't believe the actual science, and real evidence that the actual scientists publish so it can be reviewed, verified and queried by other actual real scientists? Because that sounds like a less than logical viewpoint to me. Cal I find that most the people here have no idea what science actually is. If you're not making disprovable statements and trying to disprove them, you're not doing science. Putting the opinions of scientists into a journal and having other scientists give their opinion on the opinions isn't science. " It's called peer review and is the standard way scientific evidence is tested. Has been this way for probably 200 years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone. On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles. Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected. There is no difference between the immunity from an infection and that from a vaccine, it's your immune system that creates the immunity. The only difference is multiple exposures to the vaccine allows for the immune system to further refine it's response... getting infected more than once will work just as well. No that's just nonsense. Seriously where do you get your fake news from, I'm actually curious? Is it CNN? Living in the UK, CNN is not really on my list of media sources, but then again I've never been one to rely on the news to educate me... and more importantly I don't rely on propaganda from facebook either. Personally, I find that the science journals are the best source of FACTS and information. Ah yes, the journal of bad analogies, I must read it sometime Are you saying that you don't believe the actual science, and real evidence that the actual scientists publish so it can be reviewed, verified and queried by other actual real scientists? Because that sounds like a less than logical viewpoint to me. Cal I find that most the people here have no idea what science actually is. If you're not making disprovable statements and trying to disprove them, you're not doing science. Putting the opinions of scientists into a journal and having other scientists give their opinion on the opinions isn't science. It's called peer review and is the standard way scientific evidence is tested. Has been this way for probably 200 years." Thanks for making my point for me. You think science is anything peer reviewed. That's why you post ridiculous statements everyday which such confidence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone. On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles. Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected. There is no difference between the immunity from an infection and that from a vaccine, it's your immune system that creates the immunity. The only difference is multiple exposures to the vaccine allows for the immune system to further refine it's response... getting infected more than once will work just as well. No that's just nonsense. Seriously where do you get your fake news from, I'm actually curious? Is it CNN? Living in the UK, CNN is not really on my list of media sources, but then again I've never been one to rely on the news to educate me... and more importantly I don't rely on propaganda from facebook either. Personally, I find that the science journals are the best source of FACTS and information. Ah yes, the journal of bad analogies, I must read it sometime Are you saying that you don't believe the actual science, and real evidence that the actual scientists publish so it can be reviewed, verified and queried by other actual real scientists? Because that sounds like a less than logical viewpoint to me. Cal I find that most the people here have no idea what science actually is. If you're not making disprovable statements and trying to disprove them, you're not doing science. Putting the opinions of scientists into a journal and having other scientists give their opinion on the opinions isn't science. It's called peer review and is the standard way scientific evidence is tested. Has been this way for probably 200 years. Thanks for making my point for me. You think science is anything peer reviewed. That's why you post ridiculous statements everyday which such confidence. " I suggest that my scientific background is a lot stronger than yours. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Living in the UK, CNN is not really on my list of media sources, but then again I've never been one to rely on the news to educate me... and more importantly I don't rely on propaganda from facebook either. Personally, I find that the science journals are the best source of FACTS and information. Ah yes, the journal of bad analogies, I must read it sometime Are you saying that you don't believe the actual science, and real evidence that the actual scientists publish so it can be reviewed, verified and queried by other actual real scientists? Because that sounds like a less than logical viewpoint to me. Cal I find that most the people here have no idea what science actually is. If you're not making disprovable statements and trying to disprove them, you're not doing science. Putting the opinions of scientists into a journal and having other scientists give their opinion on the opinions isn't science. It's called peer review and is the standard way scientific evidence is tested. Has been this way for probably 200 years. Thanks for making my point for me. You think science is anything peer reviewed. That's why you post ridiculous statements everyday which such confidence. I suggest that my scientific background is a lot stronger than yours." See above | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone. On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles. Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected. There is no difference between the immunity from an infection and that from a vaccine, it's your immune system that creates the immunity. The only difference is multiple exposures to the vaccine allows for the immune system to further refine it's response... getting infected more than once will work just as well. Not sure that is quite true. The immune system develops antibodies that are as a result of exposure to the virus. However, if the exposure is to the vaccine, antibodies are made to attack something similar (with the spike protein). Therefore, whilst those antibodies will attack the virus, they may not be as effective. But, that's about as much I can question your argument which means it's pretty much spot on...
Whilst not disagreeing with what you say. The bad things about naturally acquired antibodies is it not finite. A person can get ready good long lasting immunity response or virtually none. The main bad thing about naturally acquired antibodies is the much more prevalent side affects such as death long covid, Organ damage. "That’s true | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
