• 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!

Protests Stopping People From Getting Vaccinated

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yesterday's guru Whitmar could be today's pro-death with 38/100000 covid positive results.
It's already quite cold here, and people have gone back more indoors, so ... :shrug:

Yesterday's pro-death DeSantis is today's guru.
That's funny. Got any more? :p

I never thought of her as being a saint, but at least she hasn't supported a man and group that has tried to end our democracy and who acts with such utter depravity.

Should we be even discussing politics? :)
Probably not, but you're the one who brought up politics, my friend.;)
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Florida, under Republican Governor DeSantis has underreported statistics since the beginning of the pandemic.

https://www.news4jax.com/news/local...o-create-artificial-decline-in-recent-deaths/
Published: September 1, 2021 3:31 pm
Did Florida change COVID-19 reporting to create ‘artificial decline’ in recent deaths?
“If you chart deaths by Florida’s new method, based on date of death, it will generally appear — even during a spike like the present — that deaths are on a recent downslope. That’s because it takes time for deaths to be evaluated and death certificates processed,” according to The Herald. “When those deaths finally are tallied, they are assigned to the actual date of death — creating a spike where there once existed a downslope and moving the downslope forward in time.”

Shivani Patel, a social epidemiologist and assistant professor at Emory University, told the South Florida newspaper the move by the state was “extremely problematic.”



Did you miss this part in the article you linked...
What you can do


Get a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as it's available to you.​
It wasn't the Governor reporting... it was the Mayo clinic, impartial and unbiased.

This isn't about vaccination...
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
True.
The Covid vaccines are much safer than the original
polio vaccines. And mRNA technology has been
around for a couple decades. Nothing new there.

Do you think all these anti-vaxers are knowledgeable
about the dangers of vaccines & SARS-CoV-2?
When I discuss the issues with them, I've found them
highly misinformed & uninformed. Criminy...a lowly
ambulance driver or cop thinks they know more about
epidemiology than epidemiologists. Go figure.
Are you an epidemiologist?
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Your lame response shows that you cannot substantiate your comments about mandates being illegal. Actually, none of your responses have done that.
Your lame response shows that you cannot substantiate your comments about mandates being illegal. Actually, none of your responses have done that.
If 24 attorney generals think so, I think they might know more about it than you do. Unless they think they have a pretty good chance of winning, they wouldn't bring it up.

"Moreover, the president acted unilaterally: Congress has not expressly authorized this sweeping expansion of federal power. Rather, to justify his edict, Biden reached back to a Nixon-era workplace safety law. I am skeptical that this half-century-old law can support Biden's novel mandate."
Biden's vaccine mandate is counterproductive and likely illegal | Opinion
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Are you an epidemiologist?
No.
But I read of their work.
I notice that anti-vaxers don't.
Their arguments typically use other info, eg, talk radio hosts
& guests, doctors who aren't immunologists or virologists,
OAN, fringe websites hawking Ivermectin.
And their reasoning isn't quantitative, eg, all risks are treated
as equal, conspiracy theories.

I'm a lowly engineer & landlord.
How about you?
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
No.
But I read of their work.
I notice that anti-vaxers don't.
Their arguments typically use other info, eg, talk radio hosts
& guests, doctors who aren't immunologists or virologists,
OAN, fringe websites hawking Ivermectin.
And their reasoning isn't quantitative, eg, all risks are treated
as equal, conspiracy theories.

I'm a lowly engineer & landlord.
How about you?
I work with my hands.
But it's pretty easy to spot power hungry people using this thing. I find that common people have the most common sense.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I work with my hands.
But it's pretty easy to spot power hungry people using this thing. I find that common people have the most common sense.
Alas, common sense is quite uncommon.
The problem is that without information & understanding,
it's merely intuition...a notoriously unreliable tool. It pays
to discern reliable sources of info, & rely upon those as
a basis for reasoning.

BTW, there are power hungry people pushing anti-vaxing,
eg, OAN, which is still claiming that Ivermectin is a safe,
effective, & FDA approved drug for Covid 19. Why do this
when Merck (its maker) says it's for parasites, not the
SARS CoV-2 virus? Power. It keeps their echo chamber strong.
Why are unions fighting vaccination requirements? Power.
 
Last edited:

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Exactly.
It's about power....not safety of members
or the public they interact with.
That's just common sense. Why would you want to lose members? It seems to be a case of unions actually doing what unions were supposed to do, protecting the rights of individual members whether they agree with them or not.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
That's just common sense. Why would you want to lose members? It seems to be a case of unions actually doing what unions were supposed to do, protecting the rights of individual members whether they agree with them or not.
Protecting what right....the right to not be vaccinated against
a virulent pandemic....& the right to infect others?
Nah. They're protecting the power of their union leadership.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Protecting what right....the right to not be vaccinated against
a virulent pandemic....& the right to infect others?
Nah. They're protecting the power of their union leadership.
Anyone can infect anyone...so that argument doesn't wash.
Yes the right to not put something in their bodies they don't agree with.
The same people that are against that right are ok with killing unborn infants in many cases. Something doesn't add up.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Infection risk isn't the same for everyone.
There's also a common misconception that because
vaccines have risks, & Covid 19 has risks, that this
makes the risks equal. It doesn't work that way.
We don't even know what the risks of the vaccines are because they are pretending they don't exist.
 
Top