If the guy who gave him the finger IS vaccinated why did he put on his mask?
+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Cause he got his 1st and 2nd dose when he was supposed to, but putz-face didn't. So he doesn't want to catch it (getting the sniffles at worst) or give it (killing the aforementioned putz-face at worst), or hey, why not both.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Nakey (Site Administrator)
We're about to go through that here when they let us out of our cages.
If you're unvaccinated you can still do basic stuff like go to the store for groceries, go to the park but you'll only be able to attend certain venues and can't have dinner with friends at home.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
bradlox (Long Spike)
It’s only “ temporary “
+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
The guy is religiously exempt from braincells to, it seems.
People still don't realise that we are living through exceptional times atm. Idiots like him don't help but just add to the "divide" as the social and uniting thing to do is to try to protect each other.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
You don't believe that people have the right to choose whatever their reason migh be?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
I do, but so does the restaurant owner. Also as you can see from the video the idiot's rant wasn't very welcome at all.
I personally would prefer a "vaccinated or recently tested rule" for people to gain access to certain venues.
If someone's religion doesn't permit them to get neither then they should go and hve dinner in their houses of worship.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Sure they have that right, but it's kind of a slippery slope if this becomes the norm. Abit different than demanding to wear a mask.
Vaccinated people can still transmit the virus and can do it asymptomatically, so they are less likely to go for a test.
The question really, is who are they trying to protect? Vaccinated people should be relatively safe, while the unvaxxed are more at risk but thats their choice.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Unvaccinated can still clog up the emergency rooms (90+% of covid patients here are unvaccinated), new variants are suspected to be more dangerous to kids, new variants may be incompatible with current vaccines. The most reliable (probably only) way to eradicate this virus is to vaccinate people so the spread is limited.
I really don't get why sensible people decline from being vaccinated, the risk couldn't be more minimal (especially compared to contracting the disease) and everyone wants to get back to normal.
+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
norcimo5 (Short Spike)
Pretty simple really. People don't like to be told what to do.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Well then these people will have to live with being told where to go (or better not to)........
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Pretty much. Pushing hard for the vaccine might have the opposite effect.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
As far as I know the numbers aren't out on that yet.
The vaccine is leaky. If it leaks enough it wont stop the spread.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"The vaccine is leaky"
All vaccines are, hence it is even more important to find out which leaks more and what can get done about that and to vaccinate as many as possible in the first place!
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Again, I'm no expert on this and I doubt nobody is on this site.
You can go listen to the mRNA vaccine guy in the other thread why vaccinating everyone might not be a good idea. I did post a paper how leaky vaccines can create a fertile breeding ground for more dangerous variants.
If that's the case with covid is yet to be seen. Time will tell. Makes sense in evolutionary terms though. You create a hard time for the virus but don't kill it, it will evolve.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
It is evolving even withoutgiving it a "hard time" right now......
Everything skeptoid posts about covid "rumours" (or global warming for that matter) should be taken with a lorryload of salt. His sources are either political and distort the reports to please their audience or by "scientists" that removed themselves from scrutiny and blabber in blogs (again to a certain audience) rather than publishing research.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Your letting your biases get the best of you. You have this on going battle with him so of course anything he posts must be wrong. I don't care who posts it or what platform it is on (within reason). Sure these YT politics channels all have agendas but you have to try and filter that out.
If the guy has been in the field since the 80's there might be some weight to what he is saying.
Now, I'm sure you can dig up all kinds of shit on the guy, the media has done that job already. He's labeled an antivaxxer vaccine inventor for saying something about how the vaccines should be used.
And the fact that regulation differ from country to country even though the science is the same should give some food for thought. How much is it science and how much is it some politician making up rules. Also when theres billion of dollars up for grabs you can't be so gullible and think greed couldn't come into play in this shit show.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
It may look like this to you but we have to take a step back and look what is posted, and not by whom. I only mentioned the poster because I saw what you are referring to.
The correct procedure is and must be that anyone COMPETENT to make claims against current state of research must do so in the appropriate forum, i.e. publish their findings as a paper for peer review. If they don't I we have to ask ourselves "why not?" and don't take them seriously until they do, it is really simple as that. We are not "peers" so our opinion doesn't count unfortunately.
Political blogs may sometimes be useful but ingeneral they are not when it comes to science.
The usual suspects on here like to jump the gun, either to get their shit forced through without proper scrutiny (as it happened on hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin etc.) or find ridiculous arguments against tested and approved medication. All via political blogs, not down to peer reviewed research and then they wonder why I (and others with at least half a brain) laugh about them.
Just watch the seatbelt video from 1984, absolutely the same mechanism behind it........
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"The correct procedure is and must be that anyone COMPETENT to make claims against current state of research must do so in the appropriate forum, i.e. publish their findings as a paper for peer review. If they don't I we have to ask ourselves "why not?""
There are precedents of such cases. We know it can happen. I think anyone invovled in the vaccines should be interested if theres a potential for that. Whether or not it can be verified and replicated easily in the lab in the case of covid is another thing. Theres plenty of news articles, but haven't come across any research papers.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
This may or may not be the case (I presented an article stating the opposite recently and was told to fuck off) and it is not the issue.
If competent people have to say something they have to say it to their peers, not to followers of blogs who don't even have a remote understanding of -but very strong opinions on- the topic.
If they use the "blog approach" then they most likely don't have anything of substance but only want to create fear and confusion AND first and foremost views, just look at the antivaxxers on here, all scared shitless of tried and tested medication but happy to take untested (for the application) medicines their "gurus" recommend.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"This may or may not be the case"
Lets wait a year and see. The world is the petri dish now.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
'the social and uniting thing to do is to try to protect each other.'
Comments
(sounds retarded)
If the guy who gave him the finger IS vaccinated why did he put on his mask?
(Site Administrator)
Cause he got his 1st and 2nd dose when he was supposed to, but putz-face didn't. So he doesn't want to catch it (getting the sniffles at worst) or give it (killing the aforementioned putz-face at worst), or hey, why not both.
(Site Administrator)
We're about to go through that here when they let us out of our cages.
If you're unvaccinated you can still do basic stuff like go to the store for groceries, go to the park but you'll only be able to attend certain venues and can't have dinner with friends at home.
(Long Spike)
It’s only “ temporary “
(Old Spike)
The guy is religiously exempt from braincells to, it seems.
People still don't realise that we are living through exceptional times atm. Idiots like him don't help but just add to the "divide" as the social and uniting thing to do is to try to protect each other.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
You don't believe that people have the right to choose whatever their reason migh be?
(Old Spike)
I do, but so does the restaurant owner. Also as you can see from the video the idiot's rant wasn't very welcome at all.
I personally would prefer a "vaccinated or recently tested rule" for people to gain access to certain venues.
If someone's religion doesn't permit them to get neither then they should go and hve dinner in their houses of worship.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Sure they have that right, but it's kind of a slippery slope if this becomes the norm. Abit different than demanding to wear a mask.
Vaccinated people can still transmit the virus and can do it asymptomatically, so they are less likely to go for a test.
The question really, is who are they trying to protect? Vaccinated people should be relatively safe, while the unvaxxed are more at risk but thats their choice.
(Old Spike)
Unvaccinated can still clog up the emergency rooms (90+% of covid patients here are unvaccinated), new variants are suspected to be more dangerous to kids, new variants may be incompatible with current vaccines. The most reliable (probably only) way to eradicate this virus is to vaccinate people so the spread is limited.
I really don't get why sensible people decline from being vaccinated, the risk couldn't be more minimal (especially compared to contracting the disease) and everyone wants to get back to normal.
(Short Spike)
Pretty simple really. People don't like to be told what to do.
(Old Spike)
Well then these people will have to live with being told where to go (or better not to)........
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Pretty much. Pushing hard for the vaccine might have the opposite effect.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
As far as I know the numbers aren't out on that yet.
The vaccine is leaky. If it leaks enough it wont stop the spread.
(Old Spike)
"The vaccine is leaky"
All vaccines are, hence it is even more important to find out which leaks more and what can get done about that and to vaccinate as many as possible in the first place!
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Again, I'm no expert on this and I doubt nobody is on this site.
You can go listen to the mRNA vaccine guy in the other thread why vaccinating everyone might not be a good idea. I did post a paper how leaky vaccines can create a fertile breeding ground for more dangerous variants.
If that's the case with covid is yet to be seen. Time will tell. Makes sense in evolutionary terms though. You create a hard time for the virus but don't kill it, it will evolve.
(Old Spike)
It is evolving even withoutgiving it a "hard time" right now......
Everything skeptoid posts about covid "rumours" (or global warming for that matter) should be taken with a lorryload of salt. His sources are either political and distort the reports to please their audience or by "scientists" that removed themselves from scrutiny and blabber in blogs (again to a certain audience) rather than publishing research.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Your letting your biases get the best of you. You have this on going battle with him so of course anything he posts must be wrong. I don't care who posts it or what platform it is on (within reason). Sure these YT politics channels all have agendas but you have to try and filter that out.
If the guy has been in the field since the 80's there might be some weight to what he is saying.
Now, I'm sure you can dig up all kinds of shit on the guy, the media has done that job already. He's labeled an antivaxxer vaccine inventor for saying something about how the vaccines should be used.
And the fact that regulation differ from country to country even though the science is the same should give some food for thought. How much is it science and how much is it some politician making up rules. Also when theres billion of dollars up for grabs you can't be so gullible and think greed couldn't come into play in this shit show.
(Old Spike)
It may look like this to you but we have to take a step back and look what is posted, and not by whom. I only mentioned the poster because I saw what you are referring to.
The correct procedure is and must be that anyone COMPETENT to make claims against current state of research must do so in the appropriate forum, i.e. publish their findings as a paper for peer review. If they don't I we have to ask ourselves "why not?" and don't take them seriously until they do, it is really simple as that. We are not "peers" so our opinion doesn't count unfortunately.
Political blogs may sometimes be useful but ingeneral they are not when it comes to science.
The usual suspects on here like to jump the gun, either to get their shit forced through without proper scrutiny (as it happened on hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin etc.) or find ridiculous arguments against tested and approved medication. All via political blogs, not down to peer reviewed research and then they wonder why I (and others with at least half a brain) laugh about them.
Just watch the seatbelt video from 1984, absolutely the same mechanism behind it........
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"The correct procedure is and must be that anyone COMPETENT to make claims against current state of research must do so in the appropriate forum, i.e. publish their findings as a paper for peer review. If they don't I we have to ask ourselves "why not?""
There are precedents of such cases. We know it can happen. I think anyone invovled in the vaccines should be interested if theres a potential for that. Whether or not it can be verified and replicated easily in the lab in the case of covid is another thing. Theres plenty of news articles, but haven't come across any research papers.
(Old Spike)
This may or may not be the case (I presented an article stating the opposite recently and was told to fuck off) and it is not the issue.
If competent people have to say something they have to say it to their peers, not to followers of blogs who don't even have a remote understanding of -but very strong opinions on- the topic.
If they use the "blog approach" then they most likely don't have anything of substance but only want to create fear and confusion AND first and foremost views, just look at the antivaxxers on here, all scared shitless of tried and tested medication but happy to take untested (for the application) medicines their "gurus" recommend.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"This may or may not be the case"
Lets wait a year and see. The world is the petri dish now.
(Site Administrator)
'the social and uniting thing to do is to try to protect each other.'
..by getting vaccinated, yes.
(Old Spike)
Couldn't be more simple now, could it.