The vaccine is rolling out

[Mr Positive]

Down with @bartosimpsonio for promoting the vaccine, and proving he’s yet working with google as all will google how safe is the vaccine, no wonder his sites didn’t get effected Finally he’s slipped and exposed and that’s why he’staking this vaccine

 

[statsers]

 

[Deleted member 1333509]

What you seem to be saying is that people should be allowed to convince others of beliefs that are laughable and harmful completely unchallenged.

See:

Believing in the freedom of expression, of course, doesn't mean that you can't challenge factually incorrect opinions. I believe in your freedom of choice and I'm attempting to challenge some things that you've said. In fact the freedom of expression is precisely the same thing as the ability to challenge opinions that you think are factually incorrect, no?

That no belief is more true than another because science facts are rare, and we only have science theories?

"Science facts" aren't rare at all, even though rare itself is a relative term so you can't really measure the rarity of them without another reference point.

No belief is truer than others, yes, that's right. I believe in God, you believe God doesn't exist. Neither is more true or more false. But because I'm making the affirmative (I'm positing there is a God), it's my burden of proof that they exist.

Likewise, a better way for you to address claims that you think are full of shit is instead of acting like you know they're not true, expect people to support their claims (ie. show me some proof of microchipped vaccines), and if they can't provide that then both opinions are equally true/untrue, but the affirmative opinion is unsupported so becomes irrelevant.

The second you start saying "there are no microchipped vaccines", the burden of proof falls on you, which you obviously can't prove either.

That because shitty things have been done by companies or governments in the past that no faith should be placed in authorities ever?

This form of argument formation is disingenuous because you're going to the extreme instead of addressing the initial point.

aka authorities do bad things = don't trust any authorities vs. specific companies/industries do bad things = factor in a good dose of skepticism with regards to them.

It seems to be quite a nihilistic approach to life.

You think what I've said about people having the freedom of expression and choice equates to thinking that life is meaningless? Surely you can see that the polar opposite of nihilism is better aligned with the idea that the way people conduct themselves and are allowed to conduct themselves is important understand and discuss?

A nihilist would say that it doesn't matter if people can or can't express themselves freely and whether or not they're forced to take a covid vaccine is ultimately not important either.

So, what's the point you're trying to make?

I made about half a dozen important ones in the last post.

 

[Preon]

See:




"Science facts" aren't rare at all, even though rare itself is a relative term so you can't really measure the rarity of them without another reference point.

No belief is truer than others, yes, that's right. I believe in God, you believe God doesn't exist. Neither is more true or more false. But because I'm making the affirmative (I'm positing there is a God), it's my burden of proof that they exist.

Likewise, a better way for you to address claims that you think are full of shit is instead of acting like you know they're not true, expect people to support their claims (ie. show me some proof of microchipped vaccines), and if they can't provide that then both opinions are equally true/untrue, but the affirmative opinion is unsupported so becomes irrelevant.

The second you start saying "there are no microchipped vaccines", the burden of proof falls on you, which you obviously can't prove either.


This form of argument formation is disingenuous because you're going to the extreme instead of addressing the initial point.

aka authorities do bad things = don't trust any authorities vs. specific companies/industries do bad things = factor in a good dose of skepticism with regards to them.


You think what I've said about people having the freedom of expression and choice equates to thinking that life is meaningless? You can see that the polar opposite of nihilism is better aligned with the idea that the way people conduct themselves and are allowed to conduct themselves is important understand and discuss.

A nihilist would say that it doesn't matter if people can or can't express themselves freely and whether or not they're forced to take a covid vaccine is ultimately not important either.


I made about half a dozen important ones in the last post.

So you have a problem with how I express an argument rather than the argument itself.

 

[t2van]

So, what's the point you're trying to make?

I haven't stopped anyone from saying dumb things. I've gone out of my way to say several times to say that people should not base their informed decisions on anything I've said and they should read valid information themselves.

We both know in practice and the real world that spreading false information can lead to bad things happening. While it might seem cliche, just look at the rise of Naziism or even the rise in measles.

In a perfect world, opinions can be spread freely and everyone has the mental capacity and knowledge to process and categorize that information effectively without additional prompting. But as we both know, people are manipulated every day.

What you seem to be saying is that people should be allowed to convince others of beliefs that are laughable and harmful completely unchallenged. That no belief is more true than another because science facts are rare, and we only have science theories? That because shitty things have been done by companies or governments in the past that no faith should be placed in authorities ever?

It seems to be quite a nihilistic approach to life.

People don't want to read anything - no one wants to find "valid" information all they want to do is surround them selfs with like minded people and anyone with a different opinion is privileged, racist, thick, right or left winged or this or that..

I had a chance to speak to someone online during my office Christmas party and the first thing the person told me is he was "gender fluid" when I asked him to explain his stance or tell me more about it I was shut down and told I was close minded - all I wanted to do was ask to how he got to that opinion. I wasn't rude I simply asked a question. But because I didn't form part of his club I was of another nature!

Someone told me he was fed up of talking about it - but then why introduce your self as such if you didn't expect it to be a talking point?

It's because his circle is all accepting (I care neither way) but because I dared to question it - I was immediately narrow and closed minded!

The problem is the EXACT same thing is happening now. The difference between the rise of either of those movements and now is there has never been a time in life (ever) where you can surround your self with so many like minded people and that's where the issue is.

There are rises in movement that are going on today from all walks of life and none of it being kept in check in fact you could argue that there is more benefit for these groups to be funded and to keep on chanting and shouting because that's exactly what people are looking for.

 

[Deleted member 1333509]

So you have a problem with how I express an argument rather than the argument itself.

Both in some cases, but really I don't have a "problem" with it. It just doesn't allow for the unearthing of interesting new points of view, that's why. It's a wasted opportunity to have an interesting discussion, instead of dealing with strawmen and similar attempted word-twisting in every single comment.

Ironically, your saying here I should care about the argument itself, while ignoring 95% of my last post (ie. the argument(s)) and focusing on this one faux-victim point instead.

You could have read through the last points and put forward some interesting and insightful counterpoints I would have enjoyed considering, and maybe everyone learnt something new from.

But this reply is empty tbh. A quick little question that doesn't even discuss what we've been talking about this whole time, and is another attempted diversion from the meat of the whole thing.

We can leave it here mate, but for what it's worth it was a nice chat and as I've mentioned 3 times already, I don't think we're that far off on a lot of points. Cheers.

 

[kvvni]

They did it the same that Australia and New Zealand did it, by locking down hard and carrying out effective contact tracing. But who really knows with China, it's a bit of information black hole.

China is able to shut down an entire city if just one person tests positive for coronavirus.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-12-china-coronavirus-cases-russia-border.html

"In mid-July, officials declared a "wartime mode" for the region. Community officials continue to go door to door, sealing doors with paper strips, tape and in some cases metal bars, to prevent residents from leaving their homes."

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsa...ovid-19-lockdown-and-residents-are-protesting

LOL
so now, China is opened for a lot of INFECTED countries. They are not closed. ARE THEY SUPERHUMANS? How They didn’t got covid again?

It could make sense if Every Country would made The same decision in same time. Virus is not killed and can’t be killed. It will be still here. And when they had lockdown, we had something more lighter and infections were still counting. And still it is. So don’t talk about this shitty theories that ‚full lockdown helped them with virus forever’ because it just CAN’T.
it’s a thread about vaccine but it’s not a surprise that this kind of mainstream TV theories is still there.

 

[Preon]

Both in some cases, but really I don't have a "problem" with it. It just doesn't allow for the unearthing of interesting new points of view, that's why. It's a wasted opportunity to have an interesting discussion, instead of dealing with strawmen and similar attempted word-twisting in every single comment.

Ironically, your saying here I should care about the argument itself, while ignoring 95% of my last post (ie. the argument(s)) and focusing on this one faux-victim point instead.

You could have read through the last points and put forward some interesting and insightful counterpoints I would have enjoyed considering, and maybe everyone learnt something new from.

But this reply is empty tbh. A quick little question that doesn't even discuss what we've been talking about this whole time, and is another attempted diversion from the meat of the whole thing.

We can leave it here mate, but for what it's worth it was a nice chat and as I've mentioned 3 times already, I don't think we're that far off on a lot of points. Cheers.

It wasn't a diversion attempt.
I wanted to get to the root of your disagreement.
Tbh, its exhausting arguing.

 

[bartosimpsonio]

1. If you're happy to take the vaccine, and do, then you will be protected. In that case, why do you care if other people do or don't take it?

I've been asked that before. There is one issue, only.

Because the vaccine doesn't stop contagion. It only protects you from getting sick. You still get the virus and you still pass it on after vaccinated.

If you don't vaccinate everyone, the virus stays out there forever.

Herd immunity.

If enough people are vaccinated a disease no longer has a way of being transmitted.

It's unknown if someone that has been vaccinated can still pass on Covid.

Never worked in the history of mankind.

Not a single disease was eradicated using herd immunity. Only vaccines worked to stop most known contagious diseases.

Repeat one more time: not ever, in the history of mankind, was ANY disease defeated by herd immunity.

You're welcome.

I already stated that. Herd immunity is the ONLY way. So vax ONLY helps you as of current.

Not fair: I added herd immunity in an edit. <-

Who told you about herd immunity? Go back and punch them.

Repeat after me: herd immunity does not work. It is not an option.

I heard that 6 people died after they got vaccinated in the UK.

Source please?

 

[Preon]

LOL
so now, China is opened for a lot of INFECTED countries. They are not closed. ARE THEY SUPERHUMANS? How They didn’t got covid again?

It could make sense if Every Country would made The same decision in same time. Virus is not killed and can’t be killed. It will be still here. And when they had lockdown, we had something more lighter and infections were still counting. And still it is. So don’t talk about this shitty theories that ‚full lockdown helped them with virus forever’ because it just CAN’T.
it’s a thread about vaccine but it’s not a surprise that this kind of mainstream TV theories is still there.

I can speak for Australia.
Every international travel has to quarantine for 2 weeks in a hotel.
All our cases in WA for the last few months are from international travellers in quarantine.

 

[Preon]

I've been asked that before. There is one issue, only.

Because the vaccine doesn't stop contagion. It only protects you from getting sick. You still get the virus and you still pass it on after vaccinated.

If you don't vaccinate everyone, the virus stays out there forever.



Never worked in the history of mankind.

Not a single disease was eradicated using herd immunity. Only vaccines worked to stop most known contagious diseases.

Repeat one more time: not ever, in the history of mankind, was ANY disease defeated by herd immunity.

You're welcome.



Who told you about herd immunity? Go back and punch them.

Repeat after me: herd immunity does not work. It is not an option.



Source please?

I think in this context, herdy immunity means enough people are vaccinated that the virus can no longer spread and dies out. Not necessarily herd immunity from being infected from the disease.

 

[MissDevil]

I will not take.

 

[RoyalCobra777]

I've been asked that before. There is one issue, only.

Because the vaccine doesn't stop contagion. It only protects you from getting sick. You still get the virus and you still pass it on after vaccinated.

If you don't vaccinate everyone, the virus stays out there forever.



Never worked in the history of mankind.

Not a single disease was eradicated using herd immunity. Only vaccines worked to stop most known contagious diseases.

Repeat one more time: not ever, in the history of mankind, was ANY disease defeated by herd immunity.

You're welcome.



Who told you about herd immunity? Go back and punch them.

Repeat after me: herd immunity does not work. It is not an option.



Source please?

It was a local news site. Not so sure it's legit or not, this is what I read.

 

[bartosimpsonio]

I think in this context, herdy immunity means enough people are vaccinated that the virus can no longer spread and dies out. Not necessarily herd immunity from being infected from the disease.

You'd need 70% infected and it never happens. You never reach 70% and the disease becomes permanent.

If this were an option, Germany and UK wouldn't have stopped pursuing it in March. Both were going for herd immunity at first and then were warned that it had never worked before.

Never has any disease been stopped by herd immunity, not even the flu, not even the most common diseases.

There is no herd immunity. It's theoretical concept only.

 

[bartosimpsonio]

It was a local news site. Not so sure it's legit or not, this is what I read.

Genuinely curious because every other such report has turned out to be completely unrelated, unless the virus causes car crashes too.

 

[Deleted member 1333509]

Because the vaccine doesn't stop contagion. It only protects you from getting sick. You still get the virus and you still pass it on after vaccinated.

https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/herd-immunity-lockdowns-and-covid-19


From the horse's mouth, the opposite is true. Worth considering the implications of this on your perspective mate.

 

[Preon]

Genuinely curious because every other such report has turned out to be completely unrelated, unless the virus causes car crashes too.

I think some of the 40000 died but between the placebo group and the vaccine group, the same number died. It was statistically insignificant.
I.e. you'd expect the same amount of people to die in any group of 40000 people.

You'd need 70% infected and it never happens. You never reach 70% and the disease becomes permanent.

If this were an option, Germany and UK wouldn't have stopped pursuing it in March. Both were going for herd immunity at first and then were warned that it had never worked before.

Never has any disease been stopped by herd immunity, not even the flu, not even the most common diseases.

There is no herd immunity. It's theoretical concept only.

That's why its vaccine herd immunity and not from catching the disease. We're agreeing. Just differing in terminology.

 

[t2van]

That's why its vaccine herd immunity and not from catching the disease. We're agreeing. Just differing in terminology.

See.

THIS. This is exactly how shit spreads. There is no different terminology. You first stated herd immunity.

Vaccine & Herd Immunity are two different things. There is no terminology differences.

At the start of March the UK wanted herd immunity. There was no vaccine then. Just herd immunity or again is that just the wrong terminology..

 

[Preon]

See.

THIS. This is exactly how shit spreads. There is no different terminology. You first stated herd immunity.

Vaccine & Herd Immunity are two different things. There is no terminology differences.

At the start of March the UK wanted herd immunity. There was no vaccine then. Just herd immunity or again is that just the wrong terminology..

No, they aren't. https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-d...#:~:text='Herd immunity',,exposing them to it.

 

[HustleTong]

Another virus is on it's way. So yeah, I'll probably wait till next pandemic.