Not only that. First "vaccine " ever to blame its ineffectiveness on those who haven't taken it.First disease ever to impart no natural immunity?
Not only that. First "vaccine " ever to blame its ineffectiveness on those who haven't taken it.First disease ever to impart no natural immunity?
Exactly! Take that jab and shove it!Not only that. First "vaccine " ever to blame its ineffectiveness on those who haven't taken it.
Unfortunately, employers (and I was a employer) can do pretty much as they choose when making rules in the workplace. Up to a point. They can’t, for example, make rules which violate constitutionally protected rights or violate state/federal laws. Claiming religious exemption seems the best course.Isn't there something ya'll can use in your defense, due-to-the-fact that having the vaccine wasn't a requirement for you getting the job to begin with? I realize that they can make it mandatory for 'new hires'.... but changing the rules mid-game????
Especially when you consider that for every dollar “created” the banks turn it into several. Loans, on demand withdrawal/deposits limits they have just multiples the amounts. With inflation and the economy as it is this is all a fallacy. Finger in the dyke…while the damn breaks up around us. Government in action. Make the problem worse.Everyone is worried about their jobs and paying their Bill's and their way of life...
Honestly, the amount of money this cou try has printed in just the past 2 years and the inflation we have seen in the past 6 months, what makes you think there is going to be anything left in a year......
Doc
Unfortunately, employers (and I was a employer) can do pretty much as they choose when making rules in the workplace. Up to a point. They can’t, for example, make rules which violate constitutionally protected rights or violate state/federal laws. Claiming religious exemption seems the best course.
Facts don't matter to sheep.What about natural immunity?
First disease ever to impart no natural immunity?
Yet big pharma can be God and the only source of immunity?
What about Portugal at 90% plus vaccinated? Israel?
Herd immunity is now only achievable at 100%?
Sorry for engaging.....I love when fools open their mouths and remove doubt.
Nothing to see here.......Not only that. First "vaccine " ever to blame its ineffectiveness on those who haven't taken it.
That was what he said in 2020, what he says now is just the opposite. It's all just political games. This isn't about your health.Are
You
Fucking
Kidding
Me ?
New York Governor Cuomo goes ‘full anti-vaxxer’ on Covid-19 vaccine, says people should be ‘very skeptical’
Gov. Andrew Cuomo is the latest Democrat to cast doubt on a potential Covid-19 vaccine, saying he is “not that confidant” in the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).www.rt.com
Vaccines give individual protection? Vaccines stop the pandemic?Herd immunity…. vaccines give individual protection. vaccinating almost everyone grant herd immunity and stops the pandemic. Unvaccinated retards are in the way of beating this pandemic. Even Trump admits vaccines are «good», not «bad»…
Keep in mind many experts believe because of the difficulty of using the system and time it takes to report that there is at minimum 5X fold of these numbers. Nearly one million reported injuries, twenty thousand deaths, and 34k permanent disabilities. All doctor reported.Herd immunity…. vaccines give individual protection. vaccinating almost everyone grant herd immunity and stops the pandemic. Unvaccinated retards are in the way of beating this pandemic. Even Trump admits vaccines are «good», not «bad»…
Oh, and did I happen to mention you are a Moron ?
You really need to write down the italicized text from directly above and re-read it until you recognize the stupidity of such a statement.
If "responsible vaccinated employees" (or anyone, for that matter) are at "needless risk", just why in the hell did you or anyone else get the vaccine in the first place ? What is the first job of the vaccine ? (one that works as intended anyway).
The vaccine protects both people who get it and those who come into contact with them by making it drastically less likely they will be infected. Nobody except you is saying it "removes the risk." Literally nobody said that.Wait...
The vaccine protects the ppl who got it, right ????? So they aren't at needless risk... they are protected..
I mean, .gov said it, that's the line, the jab is good, and protects ppl, removes the risk...
Blah Blah Blah, Waaaaaaa!How are those things logically connected? Can you even explain how you think they are logically connected? No one has ever said that the vaccine was perfect. If it was perfectly effective at blocking infection, vaccinated people would not be worried and would not have anything to worry about. It was not, it isn't, and no vaccine is. Vaccination is not just about preventing individual infections--it's about crippling the spread of infection by denying it hosts. This was true before any of us ever heard of COVID-19.
Policing is about public service. A police officer who doesn't wish to be vaccinated should find other work.
The vaccine protects both people who get it and those who come into contact with them by making it drastically less likely they will be infected. Nobody except you is saying it "removes the risk." Literally nobody said that.
It isn't just the government or even our government who have studied these questions, either. I don't know where that idea got started. This is literally the most studied question on earth right now.
It seems to me that much of the problem surrounding the vaccines is just people not understanding formal logic. In other words, if you look above, both of you obviously believed that the claims of vaccine proponents proved more than they are actually claiming. Threadcutter is calling someone a moron because he was under the apparent belief that vaccine proponents believe the vaccines to be perfect and provide 100% protection. j-huskey apparently thinks that the vaccines either reduce risk to zero or don't work at all, again, a false dichotomy along with allowing the claims of vaccine proponents to prove too much.
18 months ago when there was no vaccine nor publicly-known hope of getting one, experts would have been thrilled with even a 70% effective vaccine because even though people would still die, it'd be easier to have a normal life despite COVID-19 if we had something besides pandemic-101 level social distancing to prevent the spread of infections. If you go back to that time and read what people were actually saying, nobody thought as you two apparently did, that vaccines were an all-or-nothing proposition.
If you're going to call someone a moron, at least argue with them and not a straw man. Because both of you have inferred beyond what anyone was claiming and are arguing with that straw man.
How are those things logically connected? Can you even explain how you think they are logically connected? No one has ever said that the vaccine was perfect. If it was perfectly effective at blocking infection, vaccinated people would not be worried and would not have anything to worry about. It was not, it isn't, and no vaccine is. Vaccination is not just about preventing individual infections--it's about crippling the spread of infection by denying it hosts. This was true before any of us ever heard of COVID-19.
Policing is about public service. A police officer who doesn't wish to be vaccinated should find other work.
The vaccine protects both people who get it and those who come into contact with them by making it drastically less likely they will be infected. Nobody except you is saying it "removes the risk." Literally nobody said that.
It isn't just the government or even our government who have studied these questions, either. I don't know where that idea got started. This is literally the most studied question on earth right now.
It seems to me that much of the problem surrounding the vaccines is just people not understanding formal logic. In other words, if you look above, both of you obviously believed that the claims of vaccine proponents proved more than they are actually claiming. Threadcutter is calling someone a moron because he was under the apparent belief that vaccine proponents believe the vaccines to be perfect and provide 100% protection. j-huskey apparently thinks that the vaccines either reduce risk to zero or don't work at all, again, a false dichotomy along with allowing the claims of vaccine proponents to prove too much.
18 months ago when there was no vaccine nor publicly-known hope of getting one, experts would have been thrilled with even a 70% effective vaccine because even though people would still die, it'd be easier to have a normal life despite COVID-19 if we had something besides pandemic-101 level social distancing to prevent the spread of infections. If you go back to that time and read what people were actually saying, nobody thought as you two apparently did, that vaccines were an all-or-nothing proposition.
If you're going to call someone a moron, at least argue with them and not a straw man. Because both of you have inferred beyond what anyone was claiming and are arguing with that straw man.
the CEO of Pfizer claimed on 4/1/21 that his company's vaccine was 100% effective against covid infection and transmission.How are those things logically connected? Can you even explain how you think they are logically connected? No one has ever said that the vaccine was perfect.
TL;DR. It's drivel.How are those things logically connected? Can you even explain how you think they are logically connected? No one has ever said that the vaccine was perfect. If it was perfectly effective at blocking infection, vaccinated people would not be worried and would not have anything to worry about. It was not, it isn't, and no vaccine is. Vaccination is not just about preventing individual infections--it's about crippling the spread of infection by denying it hosts. This was true before any of us ever heard of COVID-19.
Policing is about public service. A police officer who doesn't wish to be vaccinated should find other work.
The vaccine protects both people who get it and those who come into contact with them by making it drastically less likely they will be infected. Nobody except you is saying it "removes the risk." Literally nobody said that.
It isn't just the government or even our government who have studied these questions, either. I don't know where that idea got started. This is literally the most studied question on earth right now.
It seems to me that much of the problem surrounding the vaccines is just people not understanding formal logic. In other words, if you look above, both of you obviously believed that the claims of vaccine proponents proved more than they are actually claiming. Threadcutter is calling someone a moron because he was under the apparent belief that vaccine proponents believe the vaccines to be perfect and provide 100% protection. j-huskey apparently thinks that the vaccines either reduce risk to zero or don't work at all, again, a false dichotomy along with allowing the claims of vaccine proponents to prove too much.
18 months ago when there was no vaccine nor publicly-known hope of getting one, experts would have been thrilled with even a 70% effective vaccine because even though people would still die, it'd be easier to have a normal life despite COVID-19 if we had something besides pandemic-101 level social distancing to prevent the spread of infections. If you go back to that time and read what people were actually saying, nobody thought as you two apparently did, that vaccines were an all-or-nothing proposition.
If you're going to call someone a moron, at least argue with them and not a straw man. Because both of you have inferred beyond what anyone was claiming and are arguing with that straw man.
How are those things logically connected? Can you even explain how you think they are logically connected? No one has ever said that the vaccine was perfect.
Fuck. Someone finally did it. They cured the common cold (Omicron).
after careful consideration of your comments, i have to agree with @Threadcutter308 on the moron part.If you're going to call someone a moron, at least argue with them and not a straw man. Because both of you have inferred beyond what anyone was claiming and are arguing with that straw man.
So effective, that the day AFTER South Africa banned the import of the vaccines, the W.H.O. "found" the new variant and it came from...wait for it...South Africa. The scamdemic is real, and it's primary objective is making vax manufacturers rich, so they can give the politicians kickbacks in return. Prove me wrong.
lol, no worries.So effective, that the day AFTER South Africa banned the import of the vaccines, the W.H.O. "found" the new variant and it came from...wait for it...South Africa. The scamdemic is real, and it's primary objective is making vax manufacturers rich, so they can give the politicians kickbacks in return. Prove me wrong.
@theLBC, the above isn't aimed at you.
remember all these lies? i do.
Seems like you are very mistake about the claims. So watch the video and hear it from the horse's mouth. Cuz you are looking like the horse's ass.How are those things logically connected? Can you even explain how you think they are logically connected? No one has ever said that the vaccine was perfect. If it was perfectly effective at blocking infection, vaccinated people would not be worried and would not have anything to worry about. It was not, it isn't, and no vaccine is. Vaccination is not just about preventing individual infections--it's about crippling the spread of infection by denying it hosts. This was true before any of us ever heard of COVID-19.
Policing is about public service. A police officer who doesn't wish to be vaccinated should find other work.
The vaccine protects both people who get it and those who come into contact with them by making it drastically less likely they will be infected. Nobody except you is saying it "removes the risk." Literally nobody said that.
It isn't just the government or even our government who have studied these questions, either. I don't know where that idea got started. This is literally the most studied question on earth right now.
It seems to me that much of the problem surrounding the vaccines is just people not understanding formal logic. In other words, if you look above, both of you obviously believed that the claims of vaccine proponents proved more than they are actually claiming. Threadcutter is calling someone a moron because he was under the apparent belief that vaccine proponents believe the vaccines to be perfect and provide 100% protection. j-huskey apparently thinks that the vaccines either reduce risk to zero or don't work at all, again, a false dichotomy along with allowing the claims of vaccine proponents to prove too much.
18 months ago when there was no vaccine nor publicly-known hope of getting one, experts would have been thrilled with even a 70% effective vaccine because even though people would still die, it'd be easier to have a normal life despite COVID-19 if we had something besides pandemic-101 level social distancing to prevent the spread of infections. If you go back to that time and read what people were actually saying, nobody thought as you two apparently did, that vaccines were an all-or-nothing proposition.
If you're going to call someone a moron, at least argue with them and not a straw man. Because both of you have inferred beyond what anyone was claiming and are arguing with that straw man.
lol, no worries.
i don't pretend to know what the fuck is going on, but offer observations, and what i have seen is they went from...
vaccines are 100% effective
to
vaccines are 90% effective, with some rare "breakthrough" infections
to
vaccines are 70% effective, with some breakthrough infections
to
vaccines don't prevent infection, but rather they reduce the severity of your infection
to
you need another fucking booster.
Literally...
"The vaccine protects both people who get it and those who come into contact with them by making it drastically less likely they will be infected."
Literally...
"The vaccine protects both people who get it and those who come into contact with them by making it drastically less likely they will be infected."
Hey instead of slinging insults lets get down to the facts, let's do a little reading here, let's follow that "science" shall we?I know, I know. Sticking your fingers in your ears makes the bad logic man go away!
You know they changed the definition of the word vaccine this year so that they could even continue to call this that, right?How are those things logically connected? Can you even explain how you think they are logically connected? No one has ever said that the vaccine was perfect. If it was perfectly effective at blocking infection, vaccinated people would not be worried and would not have anything to worry about. It was not, it isn't, and no vaccine is. Vaccination is not just about preventing individual infections--it's about crippling the spread of infection by denying it hosts. This was true before any of us ever heard of COVID-19.
Policing is about public service. A police officer who doesn't wish to be vaccinated should find other work.
The vaccine protects both people who get it and those who come into contact with them by making it drastically less likely they will be infected. Nobody except you is saying it "removes the risk." Literally nobody said that.
It isn't just the government or even our government who have studied these questions, either. I don't know where that idea got started. This is literally the most studied question on earth right now.
It seems to me that much of the problem surrounding the vaccines is just people not understanding formal logic. In other words, if you look above, both of you obviously believed that the claims of vaccine proponents proved more than they are actually claiming. Threadcutter is calling someone a moron because he was under the apparent belief that vaccine proponents believe the vaccines to be perfect and provide 100% protection. j-huskey apparently thinks that the vaccines either reduce risk to zero or don't work at all, again, a false dichotomy along with allowing the claims of vaccine proponents to prove too much.
18 months ago when there was no vaccine nor publicly-known hope of getting one, experts would have been thrilled with even a 70% effective vaccine because even though people would still die, it'd be easier to have a normal life despite COVID-19 if we had something besides pandemic-101 level social distancing to prevent the spread of infections. If you go back to that time and read what people were actually saying, nobody thought as you two apparently did, that vaccines were an all-or-nothing proposition.
If you're going to call someone a moron, at least argue with them and not a straw man. Because both of you have inferred beyond what anyone was claiming and are arguing with that straw man.
YepFor this magical <1% fatal disease they are denying all exemptions, religious and health, or if agreeing to them granting no accommodations.
I'd say it's a predetermined violation of First and Fourth Amendents.....problem is proving it and having our retard courts see it this way.
None of that fits the narrative..........It's funny how the "vaccinated" are fearful of the "unvaccinated" citizens but not afraid of the "unvaccinated" illegal border jumpers.
Maybe it's because the domestic uncleanness is worse than the foreign uncleanness.
If the "vaccinated" elites were so worried about "unvaccinated" individuals causing them harm they'd have their MRNA assess down at the southern border putting up concertina wire, minefields and designating free-fire zones on any target of opportunity crossing the Rio Grande.
It's funny how the "vaccinated" are fearful of the "unvaccinated" citizens but not afraid of the "unvaccinated" illegal border jumpers.
Maybe it's because the domestic uncleanness is worse than the foreign uncleanness.
If the "vaccinated" elites were so worried about "unvaccinated" individuals causing them harm they'd have their MRNA assess down at the southern border putting up concertina wire, minefields and designating free-fire zones on any target of opportunity crossing the Rio Grande.
This ^^^.It's because the racist fucks wearing their masks and priding themselves on the boosters never imagine they would be near enough to "the brown people" that it could ever effect them.
None of that fits the narrative..........
It's because the racist fucks wearing their masks and priding themselves on the boosters never imagine they would be near enough to "the brown people" that it could ever effect them.
How about women riding the cotton pony ? Talk about mood swings! pre menstrual has gotten a lot of dudes killed!And add anyone diagnosed with PTSD and on antidepressants. I feel my workplace should have to disclose that as well. After all someone going off meds could present a danger to me at work.
No, but wait. Just look at how much good the liberals have done for the Black Community, particularly in the Ghettos. LBJ's "Great Society" has worked wondersIt's because the racist fucks wearing their masks and priding themselves on the boosters never imagine they would be near enough to "the brown people" that it could ever effect them.
You know they changed the definition of the word vaccine this year so that they could even continue to call this that, right?
If you think either of those are true, you are innumerate. The risk of a vaccine injury is so remote that if you lived 100 lifetimes, you would never meet anyone who had one.Hey instead of slinging insults lets get down to the facts, let's do a little reading here, let's follow that "science" shall we?
The overall risk reduction of taking the vaccine vs. not standardized and prorated over a one year period is less than 10%. So only a ten percent risk reduction! Which is very close to the risk from vaccine injury. So to maintain some level of immunity and vaccine effectiveness one would need boosters every six months to less than two months, all that vaccine running around in your system causes some rather big problems however.
NOTE: The interesting thing that many studies are showing is that the vaccinated are experiencing re-uptake in COVID, so their bodies are COVID magnets, please read below. This is legit science, and a no bs white paper, takes no side in this argument, just facts.
Antibody dependent enhancement: Unavoidable problems in vaccine development
In some cases, antibodies can enhance virus entry and replication in cells. This phenomenon is called antibody-dependent infection enhancement (ADE). ADE not only promotes the virus to be recognized by the target cell and enters the target cell, but also ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
This sources several studies, not for feint of heart if you have already received the vaccine.
We have a literal catastrophe – Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) DETECTED with Covid-19
We have a literal catastrophe Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) DETECTED with Covid-19 August 18, 2021 Persons who have been VACCINATED against COVID-19 awww.oom2.com
New study shows vaccines must be given monthly to be effective against Omicron
By Steve Kirsch | December 24, 2021 If you are worried about Omicron, guess what? The vaccine they gave you is going to make you MORE likely to get infected, not less. If you stay on the vaccine tr…alethonews.com
It is not difficult. If we told you you would not believe it.Who is "they"? That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.
The CDC.Who is "they"? That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.
I guess that debunks your statement.If you think either of those are true, you are innumerate. The risk of a vaccine injury is so remote that if you lived 100 lifetimes, you would never meet anyone who had one.
The idea that any vaccine has ever caused "big problems" for you or anyone you know is delusional nonsense fed to you by people who have an agenda. It's one thing to say that the vaccine isn't as effective as we hoped, but the suggestion that it is causing widespread side effects or turning people into a "covid magnet" is not supported by any data set from any legitimate source anywhere.
I personally know 14 people who have been injured by this pseudo vaccine, and it’s only going to get worse.If you think either of those are true, you are innumerate. The risk of a vaccine injury is so remote that if you lived 100 lifetimes, you would never meet anyone who had one.
The idea that any vaccine has ever caused "big problems" for you or anyone you know is delusional nonsense fed to you by people who have an agenda. It's one thing to say that the vaccine isn't as effective as we hoped, but the suggestion that it is causing widespread side effects or turning people into a "covid magnet" is not supported by any data set from any legitimate source anywhere.