• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

No more babies being delivered at NY hospital

F1fan

Veteran Member
I don't see that being overnight. One morning I'm fine and the next a ticking time bomb. I see risk of spread more associated to having close people contact, not washing hands, etc. But we can't control getting covid. Vaccinated people can spread the virus too. The severity depends on the other person's overall health not vaccination status.
When you get Covid and still not vaccinated, it was good knowing you.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Seriously?? All I said was check with your doctor if you're concerned about the vaccine.
I was responding to this thing you said:

"Tracking devices?

What do you mean by that?"


Yes, my friend is very serious about his beliefs about Bill Gates trying to track and kill us.

Weird. My coworker believes in the 3G theory and my mother new world order. I don't think it's completely online since they would have to really search cause if censorship. My coworker also has a biblical perspective. She said it's the start of the tribulation where the bible foretold numerous world wide events before judgement day.

My friend keeps sending me "information" about people claiming they are getting sick from 5G towers or something. I don't know, I don't really pay that close attention to the stuff he sends me anymore. He calls me a sheep a lot and he's pretty insulting. I guess when you have such secret information like he's got, it gets pretty frustrating trying to disseminate it to the sheeples. ;)
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I don't see that being overnight. One morning I'm fine and the next a ticking time bomb. I see risk of spread more associated to having close people contact, not washing hands, etc. But we can't control getting covid. Vaccinated people can spread the virus too. The severity depends on the other person's overall health not vaccination status.
I don't understand your point.

I said that the thing about COVID is that your choice can affect other peoples' bodies as well. Because it's a highly contagious virus.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I was responding to this thing you said:

"Tracking devices?

What do you mean by that?"


Yes, my friend is very serious about his beliefs about Bill Gates trying to track and kill us.



My friend keeps sending me "information" about people claiming they are getting sick from 5G towers or something. I don't know, I don't really pay that close attention to the stuff he sends me anymore. He calls me a sheep a lot and he's pretty insulting. I guess when you have such secret information like he's got, it gets pretty frustrating trying to disseminate it to the sheeples. ;)

Goodness. I don't know if that's worse than my coworker saying yesterday the vaccine is chips in our arms and they are keeping track with us.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I'm better with lists

I don't understand your point.

I said that the thing about COVID is that your choice can affect other peoples' bodies as well. Because it's a highly contagious virus.

1. I see risk of spreading the virus associated with not social distancing and lack of sanitation not vax status. Vac lessens the severity of COVID not prevents one from it. Spread is still possible.

2. So protecting others depends on how much people contact you have not taking a vac to lessen the symptoms.

3. If I had a choice I'd rather be around an unvaccinated person who SD and doesn't spread germs than let a vax and unvax be close to me knowing they did no other precaution to spread the disease not prevent it's severity.

4. Biden mentioned that we get the vaccine to protect other vaccinated people (say it this morning) yet he says it's very very very rare for others to get the virus and get sick.

Multiple messages involved. But I get what you said.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
My friend keeps sending me "information" about people claiming they are getting sick from 5G towers or something. I don't know, I don't really pay that close attention to the stuff he sends me anymore. He calls me a sheep a lot and he's pretty insulting. I guess when you have such secret information like he's got, it gets pretty frustrating trying to disseminate it to the sheeples. ;)
I have a friend like this and she would often send me stuff. We would have discussions and she would hit me with a series of outlandish claims, and as I showed skepticism she said I need to do research. Eventually she just got furious at me, and I think she was just seeking my agreement and validation, which i did not give. Not heard from her since.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I don't understand your point.

I said that the thing about COVID is that your choice can affect other peoples' bodies as well. Because it's a highly contagious virus.


Another question. From what I know, the vaccine doesn't lessen probability of spread just the severity of the virus. Since vax people can spread the virus too, wouldn't it be an incorrect statement to say "only" unvax is putting people at risk?

Lessening the effect doesn't prevent asymptomatic transmission.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
I'm better with lists



1. I see risk of spreading the virus associated with not social distancing and lack of sanitation not vax status. Vac lessens the severity of COVID not prevents one from it. Spread is still possible.

2. So protecting others depends on how much people contact you have not taking a vac to lessen the symptoms.

3. If I had a choice I'd rather be around an unvaccinated person who SD and doesn't spread germs than let a vax and unvax be close to me knowing they did no other precaution to spread the disease not prevent it's severity.

4. Biden mentioned that we get the vaccine to protect other vaccinated people (say it this morning) yet he says it's very very very rare for others to get the virus and get sick.

Multiple messages involved. But I get what you said.
You have a way of massaging all this in an inaccurate way. My take away is that you are trying to convince yourself your bias is justified.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Another question. From what I know, the vaccine doesn't lessen probability of spread just the severity of the virus. Since vax people can spread the virus too, wouldn't it be an incorrect statement to say "only" unvax is putting people at risk?

Lessening the effect doesn't prevent asymptomatic transmission.
The less virus you spread the less likely it'll be enough to infect others. There has to be a certain concentration of virus to infect another person. If the vaccinated get sick and infects others, it will be fewer virus particles, thus less spread, less likely to infect. And if others are vaccinated and do inhale virus particles, their body already has antibodies and might wipe out all the particles before they can start using the person as a host to replicate, thus they don't get sick.

You still have a severe lack of understanding how any of this works. You certainly are not reading about it and learning. You keep repeating errors that have been corrected.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Because we are more alike than different, especially when it comes to things like deadly contagions. Everyone is susceptible to covid, and by default there are no "no need to worry" or "worry less about it" groups.
And, ultimately, even if it's ultra minimal (such as you live in a cave and very rarey interact with others) we all have contact with other people and that does mean at risk for covid, especially given how contagious it is.
One thing that's been interesting is to see the hypocritical reaction from some anti-vaxxers on the vaccine mandate issue:

"I don't need to be vaccinated because I don't go into settings where I would get exposed for the disease."

"If that's true, cool. We'll only ask that people be vaccinated in settings where they'd be exposed. Even then, we won't require vaccines for stuff that's truly essential."

"What?! You can't do that! These vaccine mandates are going to stop me from doing all sorts of stuff I'm doing now!"


It's been... interesting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
From what I know, the vaccine doesn't lessen probability of spread just the severity of the virus.

Would it matter to you to know if you were incorrect?

I'm pretty sure that your position would be the same even if the vaccine were 100% effective in preventing acquisition of the virus. Pfizer and Moderna both reported about a 95% reduction in cases in vaccinated people, meaning that unvaccinated people were 19 times more likely to acquire the virus. Also, before delta, they were also much less likely to transmit the virus, since they carried a much reduced viral load.

That's changed with delta. Pzifer reported that its vaccine was still 91% effective against that variant, meaning that the unvaccinated were only about ten times likelier to acquire the virus in any given setting. If 1000 vaccinated and 1000 unvaccinated people were exposed to the virus such that 200 of the unvaccinated became seropositive (20%), with 95% protection, only 10 of the 1000 vaccinated would become positive, and with 91% protection, about 20 of the vaccinated would convert.

However, we are told that the vaccinated with delta COVID are now just as likely to infect others as are the unvaccinated with active disease. So although there are fewer infected vaccinated people to spread the disease, those few are no longer also less contagious than the unvaccinated with COVID.

But I don't think that matters to you. I don't think any fact or evidence can make you change your mind, except possibly the horror of watching a COVID death in a loved one, and possibly not even that. That one seems to convert a few of the staunchest holdouts, especially the ones dying, although for them, it is too late. Only the survivors witnessing the suffering and the pleas of the dying to not do what he did have a chance of benefiting from evidence.

There's also a chance that things will become so much more difficult for the unvaccinated that they will relent and get the vaccine just to keep their jobs, or to be able to participate more fully in social life. They may get tired of being unable to fly, to go to all restaurants, to see ballgames and concerts.

But short of those two, I don't see any fact being relevant to people still willfully unvaccinated.

My take away is that you are trying to convince yourself your bias is justified.

Agreed. Herself, others, or both.

I have suggested that what she is trying to do is justify ignoring expert advice that she doesn't like by disqualifying any opinion that recommends vaccination.

She did it in two parts. First, she disqualified everybody recommending a vaccine that hasn't examined her by claiming that only her own doctor has the necessary knowledge about her to decide what's best for her.

Then, she doesn't ask her doctor, the one who she says would just "look at [her] funny anyway," which suggests that she already knows what his recommendation would be, and isn't interested in hearing that, either.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I have a friend like this and she would often send me stuff. We would have discussions and she would hit me with a series of outlandish claims, and as I showed skepticism she said I need to do research. Eventually she just got furious at me, and I think she was just seeking my agreement and validation, which i did not give. Not heard from her since.
Oh my friend would get like foaming-at-the-mouth angry with me for pointing out the flaws in his views. He has since unfriended me.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
You have a way of massaging all this in an inaccurate way. My take away is that you are trying to convince yourself your bias is justified.

You would have to add more to that.

It's the same facts even if a vaccinated person said it.

Don't determine the validity of a message based on who said it. Let the info stand on its own merit. Same with what you see on t.v and read.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
The less virus you spread the less likely it'll be enough to infect others. There has to be a certain concentration of virus to infect another person. If the vaccinated get sick and infects others, it will be fewer virus particles, thus less spread, less likely to infect. And if others are vaccinated and do inhale virus particles, their body already has antibodies and might wipe out all the particles before they can start using the person as a host to replicate, thus they don't get sick.

You still have a severe lack of understanding how any of this works. You certainly are not reading about it and learning. You keep repeating errors that have been corrected.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

1. Vaccinated can spread the virus too.

2. Vaccines lessen the severity of the virus

3. Asymptomatic transmission is possible.

"Second, new data began to emerge that the Delta variant was more infectious and was leading to increased transmissibility when compared with other variants, even in some vaccinated individuals."

Unless CDC is wrong, vaccines don't prevent the virus 100%. Even CDC says there are breakthroughs.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Would it matter to you to know if you were incorrect?

I'm pretty sure that your position would be the same even if the vaccine were 100% effective in preventing acquisition of the virus. Pfizer and Moderna both reported about a 95% reduction in cases in vaccinated people, meaning that unvaccinated people were 19 times more likely to acquire the virus. Also, before delta, they were also much less likely to transmit the virus, since they carried a much reduced viral load.

That's changed with delta. Pzifer reported that its vaccine was still 91% effective against that variant, meaning that the unvaccinated were only about ten times likelier to acquire the virus in any given setting. If 1000 vaccinated and 1000 unvaccinated people were exposed to the virus such that 200 of the unvaccinated became seropositive (20%), with 95% protection, only 10 of the 1000 vaccinated would become positive, and with 91% protection, about 20 of the vaccinated would convert.

However, we are told that the vaccinated with delta COVID are now just as likely to infect others as are the unvaccinated with active disease. So although there are fewer infected vaccinated people to spread the disease, those few are no longer also less contagious than the unvaccinated with COVID.

But I don't think that matters to you. I don't think any fact or evidence can make you change your mind, except possibly the horror of watching a COVID death in a loved one, and possibly not even that. That one seems to convert a few of the staunchest holdouts, especially the ones dying, although for them, it is too late. Only the survivors witnessing the suffering and the pleas of the dying to not do what he did have a chance of benefiting from evidence.

There's also a chance that things will become so much more difficult for the unvaccinated that they will relent and get the vaccine just to keep their jobs, or to be able to participate more fully in social life. They may get tired of being unable to fly, to go to all restaurants, to see ballgames and concerts.

But short of those two, I don't see any fact being relevant to people still willfully unvaccinated.



Agreed. Herself, others, or both.

I have suggested that what she is trying to do is justify ignoring expert advice that she doesn't like by disqualifying any opinion that recommends vaccination.

She did it in two parts. First, she disqualified everybody recommending a vaccine that hasn't examined her by claiming that only her own doctor has the necessary knowledge about her to decide what's best for her.

Then, she doesn't ask her doctor, the one who she says would just "look at [her] funny anyway," which suggests that she already knows what his recommendation would be, and isn't interested in hearing that, either.

Effectiveness was never my argument. All vaccines, meds, etc aren't perfect. It's weighing risk and benefit. Putting antivax issues in my "mouth" and arguing against it doesn't make it true.

I'd have to read the rest later. I said the vaccine lessens the impact of the virus. Vax people can spread the virus. I asked wouldn't vax be putting people in danger to given the Delta varient.

Where am I wrong in this?

Address the information not me. The info is the same since it's from CDC not my opinion.
 
Top