I'm asking for more details, I've heard the gambit of peoples thoughts on it, from fairly tame to bat**** crazy. So I was just wondering. Not entirely sure why you'd think asking what someone thinks is dumb.
Last edited:
Rivian R1S vs LC thoughts?
- Thread starter Reckless
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
So do you think its better to get sick, or get the vaccine?
It's funny how you can't see the very bubble you live in. You mention that you could post literally anything and someone can find a counter source albeit disengenuous. That's exactly what you could be doing. What makes you automatically right?
Looking around you does not fall into any scientific method whatsoever.
Sorry. The way the question was phrased was inquisitive in a tiring way to me. Perhaps you have genuine interest? I would be surprised at this point.
Im just really not going to talk about covid. No offense to you though. It is hard to tell what people mean online.
That wasn't the point I was making...who is being disingenuous? And it also was proven that the vaccine didn't prevent you from getting it either. So there's that.
I deleted a lot because its an effort in futility man and I realized that after I responded.
I dont really think my question hinges on your point. I wanted to know if you think its better to get the vaccine or get sick.
*Deleted to get back on topic:*
How about those Rivians?
How about those Rivians?
Shoot I don't have instagram, must be why I'm so gaslit. So you think its better to get sick with Covid then get the vaccine?
That's what's disingenuous. The vaccine doesn't prevent you from catching it.
I mean I agree, in fact no vaccine is actually what immunologists would call "sterilizing", meaning, you have to be infected (or what we think of as exposed) for your body to respond to it. Are you in the "the vaccine minimizes symptoms but you still are as infectious to others" camp or the "it doesnt work at all" camp?
Last edited:
No dude. In this case, it is proven that this vaccine did really nothing to prevent contraction. Now it might have helped people with symptoms...especially the elderly and ones with comorbidities. For most everyone else, it was the flu or less.
So why make the vaccine mandatory when it does nothing for the spread? Makes zero logical sense...except when you bring money into it.
Why make young healthy people and kids who have almost a non existent risk to COVID take a vaccine that is not really tested long term for health concerns? Again, zero logic...except when money is brought into it. They can't even be sued for it.
We shut down a whole nation for nothing and did uncalculated harm not only to the economy but to the population in general as a whole.
I hope John Hopkins is scientific enough for you.
So why make the vaccine mandatory when it does nothing for the spread? Makes zero logical sense...except when you bring money into it.
Why make young healthy people and kids who have almost a non existent risk to COVID take a vaccine that is not really tested long term for health concerns? Again, zero logic...except when money is brought into it. They can't even be sued for it.
We shut down a whole nation for nothing and did uncalculated harm not only to the economy but to the population in general as a whole.
A Johns Hopkins study says 'ill-founded' COVID lockdowns did more harm than good
The researchers say lockdowns had no noticeable effect on reducing COVID-related deaths and a "devastating effect" on economies and social ills.
health.wusf.usf.edu
I hope John Hopkins is scientific enough for you.
This article is fine it also doesnt mention the vaccine at all, but I'm not really talking about lockdowns. I was never in any lockdown so I don't really know what that must have been like basically being in jail I'd guess, can't even leave your house. Education arguably suffered but based on opinions in this thread it was already in the crapper.No dude. In this case, it is proven that this vaccine did really nothing to prevent contraction. Now it might have helped people with symptoms...especially the elderly and ones with comorbidities. For most everyone else, it was the flu or less.
So why make the vaccine mandatory when it does nothing for the spread? Makes zero logical sense...except when you bring money into it.
Why make young healthy people and kids who have almost a non existent risk to COVID take a vaccine that is not really tested long term for health concerns? Again, zero logic...except when money is brought into it. They can't even be sued for it.
We shut down a whole nation for nothing and did uncalculated harm not only to the economy but to the population in general as a whole.
A Johns Hopkins study says 'ill-founded' COVID lockdowns did more harm than good
The researchers say lockdowns had no noticeable effect on reducing COVID-related deaths and a "devastating effect" on economies and social ills.health.wusf.usf.edu
I hope John Hopkins is scientific enough for you.
Also not really talking about mandates. I think its weird the army made me get 100 vaccines, but ya'll can't even stomach this one while Im searching for my small pox scab because you can get small pox from it, but that's besides the point.
So, like you said vaccine lessens peoples symptoms right? Some times to the point people don't know they are sick.
No dude. In this case, it is proven that this vaccine did really nothing to prevent contraction. Now it might have helped people with symptoms...especially the elderly and ones with comorbidities. For most everyone else, it was the flu or less.
So why make the vaccine mandatory when it does nothing for the spread? Makes zero logical sense...except when you bring money into it.
Why make young healthy people and kids who have almost a non existent risk to COVID take a vaccine that is not really tested long term for health concerns? Again, zero logic...except when money is brought into it. They can't even be sued for it.
We shut down a whole nation for nothing and did uncalculated harm not only to the economy but to the population in general as a whole.
A Johns Hopkins study says 'ill-founded' COVID lockdowns did more harm than good
The researchers say lockdowns had no noticeable effect on reducing COVID-related deaths and a "devastating effect" on economies and social ills.health.wusf.usf.edu
I hope John Hopkins is scientific enough for you.
It won't make a bit of difference, because this arguing with the internet.
Buddy, your premises are wrong. This is not a black and white case. So many of these complex discussions are not black and white which is why there's always good reasons on either side - it's a degree of.
The goal for covid vaccines was never to prevent spread or contraction. That's a simplification for the layman for comprehension. It's to minimize impact - slow down spread, minimize death. Allow resources to keep up and not inundate society and hospitals where death becomes more likely. Same with masks.
Sure, you'll tell me of people that died with the vaccine anyways, or maybe some causal issues related with the vacinne. None of that is wrong, but this is a game of percentages and numbers, and not absolutes. That requires more comprehension than the average layman can digest.
It's a sad time when comprehension is based on heaadlines.
You do you.
That is not what was said. You seem to pick and choose a lot here and like to play on words when you know damn well what is being said OR are just too stupid to comprehend it. I am going with the first because I don't think you are stupid.
You joined the army, you know what it entails...that also is a choice. So yes, that is beside the point so why make it?
Your last point is ignoring mine, so lets put a simulated situation on it. If you were told you were most likely to get sick, but if you took this pill, it might make your symptoms less, but have no real data on what it's going to do to you later on in life. If you didn't take it, you more than likely will just get flu symptoms or less. Would you take it? I wouldn't. What's the plus side here for young healthy people?
Old or comorbid people, the risks are different. So then would the choice be different.
Emphasis on CHOICE.
It has been mentioned multiple times that it had zero impact on spread. John Hopkins study estimates a 0.2% impact on deaths. Sweden didn't do much of anything. They are fine.
Dudeee that .2 percent is about the lockdowns still man, I am not talking about thaaaaat. Surely you know damn well that is what its about OR are just too stupid to comprehend it. I am going with the first because I'm trying to be nice (just borrowing a line from you). talk about picking and choosing and pots calling kettles black...
I literally have only been asking if you think its better to get covid or the vaccine, which I think you finally did answer. The answer makes me think we are operating on two different sets of (I'll call them this generously in your favor) facts, because your best evidence of it not working is literally a video of a guy just saying it doesn't work. That's not how evidence works man, its just an instagram video.
Since our threshold for what is considered evidence is so vastly different, I think we can't really talk about this with the goal of making any headway, because you will always shoot down my sources, and yours will always be bad (mostly a joke, calm down).
Last edited:
