• 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!

Doctor Admits That Deaths From COVID-19 Overcounted

Status
Not open for further replies.

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
See, I disagree with that. It's not about "my rights", it's about me not doing something I don't want to do because I have that freedom of choice, and/or doing it because you want me to do it. But of course if that's what defines "my rights" so be it. Then it is my right.

If you're vaccinated, and mask-up, and the vaccine and masks are so effective as is hyped, what's the problem? No, the "but it's doubly effective" is a bogus response. I'll be blunt (again, as I have been in the past on this issue) ... you are not my responsibility any more than I am yours. It's not selfish, So then maybe it is my right to do and be what I want. There's no indication or proof I'm a threat to someone else. It's funny how "my body my choice" applies in some cases and not others.

I remember a totally inane and asinine conversation on these forums about not letting my child bring a peanut butter sandwich to school because some child may be allergic to peanuts. I would offer that the person not buy any deli salads from the bowls in the cases, when tuna salad and seafood salad are in the same case as pasta salad or potato salad. After all, someone may have an allergy to fish, and a deli worker could splatter a little tuna into your potato salad without realizing it. Conversely, someone may be allergic to eggs, and the egg salad or potato salad may "taint" the sesame noodles salad. I mean, for God's sake, c'mon already.

It's long past time people took responsibility for themselves and not require others to do it for them.
I think you've just perfectly illustrated that Poster's point.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
I think you've just perfectly illustrated that Poster's point.

Care to expand on that? Not that I’ll put much stock into it anyway because I know your position: you’re the one who put forth the inane and asinine peanut butter in school example. In the same way I was badgered by several people, including you last year to back up my comments (oh yes, I remember just who and why), turnabout is fair play.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Care to expand on that? Not that I’ll put much stock into it anyway
I think you've already expanded on that for us.
because I know your position: you’re the one who put forth the inane and asinine peanut butter in school example. In the same way I was badgered by several people last year to back up my comments (oh yes, I remember just who and why), turnabout is fair play.
I didn't actually bring it up, but I did defend it and I did say that insisting that your kid absolutely needs to have peanut butter at school in spite of the fact that it can cause a direct risk to other children is a selfish position to hold.

I once worked in a school where a child went into anaphylactic shock from peanut exposure. It's no joke. There are other people we have to share the world with besides just ourselves.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
I

I once worked in a school where a child went into anaphylactic shock from peanut exposure. It's no joke. There are other people we have to share the world with besides just ourselves.

How many other dangers to you are people supposed to be aware of and accommodate? No, YOU take responsibility for YOU. Advise the school, get an Epipen, homeschool. YOU do something to take yourself out of harms way. Your example was asinine and inane then, and it’s asinine and inane now. If you’re not part of the solution you’re part of the problem.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Bad and disgusting analogy. Drunk driving is illegal, it is a crime, A connection can be made between a drunk driver and hi/her victim. Not being vaccinated is not a crime. And there better be some damn good evidence before accusing someone of infecting another person.
If there was a caretaker of a person who has no other contact with other people, and the caretaker was a vaccine denier and deliberately ignored safety guidelines from public health experts, and caught Covid due to their attitudes and carelessness, and then infected the person they cared for, and that person died, should they NOT feel any responsibility?

Sure, it's not a crime to reject vaccinations and safety guiddelines, but would you feel any responsibility if your actions resulted in the death by Covid of a person you infected?

If you say no, what if the person you were caring for wanted care from someone who DID get vaccinated and used safety protocols, and you refused?
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
If you were a caretaker of a person who has no other contact with other people, and was a vaccine denier and deliberately ignored safety guidelines from public health experts, and caught Covid due to your carelessness, and then infected the person you cared for, and that person died, would you feel any responsibility?

Sure, it's not a crime to reject vaccinations and safety guiddelines, but would you feel any responsibility if your actions resulted in the death by Covid of a person you infected?

If you say no, what if the person you were caring for wanted care from someone who DID get vaccinated and used safety protocols, and you refused?
You can catch it and spread it just as easily if you are vaccinated.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
If there was a caretaker of a person who has no other contact with other people, and the caretaker was a vaccine denier and deliberately ignored safety guidelines from public health experts, and caught Covid due to their attitudes and carelessness, and then infected the person they cared for, and that person died, should they NOT feel any responsibility?

Sure, it's not a crime to reject vaccinations and safety guiddelines, but would you feel any responsibility if your actions resulted in the death by Covid of a person you infected?

If you say no, what if the person you were caring for wanted care from someone who DID get vaccinated and used safety protocols, and you refused?

I’ve been talking about strangers, coworkers, casual acquaintances, not those under my care like my children or elderly or sick relatives. I’m not responsible for strangers. “Come along Samwise, keep up”.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
You can catch it and spread it just as easily if you are vaccinated.
False.

Being vaccinated means the body has an ability to kill off low levels of exposure. Being vaccinated won't prevent high levels of expossure. Being vaccinated means even IF you are exposed at a high level your body will be able to fight the virus being replicated so if you expose others it will be at a lower level.

You probably don't realize that the AMOUNT of virus we are exposed to has a relation to how sick we get. High levels of virus means our bodies will start replicating the virus faster and in higher levels UNLESS we already have the antibodies, which is what vaccines do. Vaccines force our bodies to create antibodies without getting sick from exposure so if we DO get exposed our body can fight it immediately.

Let's say it takes 100,000 viruse to get sick. That means being exposed to 80.000 is not enough to get sick because our natural immune system will wipe them out. If we get exposed to 120.000 our body can wipe out 100,000 but 20,000 survive to use our body as a host to replicate. Only 20,000 is a small number so we only get sick at a low level, and as our body creates special antibodies it will wipe out the remaining 20,000 and the whetever were replicated.

But if we are vaccinated we can get exposed to 200,000 and our natural immune system and antibodies due to the vaccine can wipe them out. But let's say we are highgly exposed, like 600,000, well even the vaccine antibodies would combat that. Our stategy is to keep exposure low, and that is getting vaccinated so when we all expose each other the amount of virus is LOWER in number. When we are exposed to virus and we can't wipe them out we become factories for virus. We are hosts of virus,a nd the more that survive the more our bodies create, and then spread to others. If we spread lewer virus to others then they are less likely to get sick.

Obviously for those who have immune deficiencies the amount of virus is more critical, and our civic duty to others is to minimize the number of viruses in our own bodies.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
I’ve been talking about strangers, coworkers, casual acquaintances, not those under my care like my children or elderly or sick relatives. I’m not responsible for strangers. “Come along Samwise, keep up”.
The same repsponsibility applies. If we are around other people are we not responsible TO them if we choose to be around them? Being vaccinated and wearing a mask means to lower the chance you will infect others.

Would Sam want to keep up with you if he knew you had Covid? No a WISE Samwise. He would wear a mask and keep a safe distance.

And if you got badly sick with Covid, you would likley be curled up on the trail unable to go forward. That makes Sam the truly wise.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
The same repsponsibility applies. If we are around other people are we not responsible TO them if we choose to be around them? Being vaccinated and wearing a mask means to lower the chance you will infect others.

Would Sam want to keep up with you if he knew you had Covid? No a WISE Samwise. He would wear a mask and keep a safe distance.

And if you got badly sick with Covid, you would likley be curled up on the trail unable to go forward. That makes Sam the truly wise.

upload_2023-1-19_11-56-9.jpeg
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
How many other dangers to you are people supposed to be aware of and accommodate? No, YOU take responsibility for YOU. Advise the school, get an Epipen, homeschool. YOU do something to take yourself out of harms way. Your example was asinine and inane then, and it’s asinine and inane now. If you’re not part of the solution you’re part of the problem.
Further illustration of the Poster's point. :thumbsup:

Again, it wasn't my example. It was someone else's example that I chimed in on. As you did yourself. You can think it's asinine all day long, but it's actually a great example of the reality we live in and helps demonstrate the Poster's point. You want a child to take him/herself out of harm's way, and say that we have no responsibility towards the child (or others around us), while others want to contribute to that child's well- being as best they can, as they would any other human that could be harmed by certain actions.

But please do go on about how you're not looking at this from a self-centered point of view as you say me, me, me over and over again.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
But please do go on about how you're not looking at this from a self-centered point of view as you say me, me, me over and over again.

There’s nothing wrong with that. From my pov your pov is self-centered because you fear something and want me to do something I’m not obligated to do. You don’t have a right to dictate to me. Without realizing it your pov is self-centered. Now it’s all about your rights. You don’t see the irony in this? Again, you’re not my responsibility and I’m not yours. So, y’know … :shrug:
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Being vaccinated means the body has an ability to kill off low levels of exposure. Being vaccinated won't prevent high levels of expossure. Being vaccinated means even IF you are exposed at a high level your body will be able to fight the virus being replicated so if you expose others it will be at a lower level.
Experience has proven that it spreads just fine among the vaccinated. Why is anyone still promoting the fallacy that vaccination will stop you from spreading it?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
There’s nothing wrong with that. From my pov your pov is self-centered because you fear something and want me to do something I’m not obligated to do. You don’t have a right to dictate to me. Without realizing it your pov is self-centered. Now it’s all about your rights. You don’t see the irony in this? Again, you’re not my responsibility and I’m not yours. So, y’know … :shrug:
My pov on this subject takes into consideration how my actions affect other people. That's the opposite of selfish. But do keep projecting, saying, "me, me, me" and making the Poster's point. It really is a sight to see.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
My pov on this subject takes into consideration how my actions affect other people.

That's very noble of you. However...
  • You don't have a right to tell anyone else that their actions are wrong according to your worldview.
  • You don't have a right to expect them to believe and do as you do.
  • You don't have a right to tell me I can't bring a peanut butter or fish or egg salad sandwich to work on the outside chance someone may have an allergy to them. Do I go around taking a poll of who has what allergies? Do you have any idea how inane that is?
  • You don't have a right to tell them they're selfish for exercising their right to do or not do something that is not illegal.
  • You don't have a right to tell anyone to get vaccinated for any reason or judge them as selfish.
  • You ... don't ... have... that ... right.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
For what? Fixing a problem that never existed in the first place?
If it wasn't a problem, then there wouldn't have been a need for a special monitored category that requires approval for posting.

But granted, it's not my forum, I don't own it, and it's just water over the bridge now imv.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
If it wasn't a problem, then there wouldn't have been a need for a special monitored category that requires approval for posting.

I think we're talking about two different "its".

You were claiming that material posted in the covid-19 forum is more subject to moderation than the same posts would be in the open forums.

That's not true and never has been. It doesn't really even make any sense: I mean, why would it be? The rules are the rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top