The time has come...

marke

Well-known member
Unlike some others here, I am confident that even though your posting is solely focused on belittling and demeaning other, you know full well that this question you posed is misleading.

If you are going to say that you have been hiding out for the last 20 months then, obviously, you have not been a hazard.

But most of the unvaccinated are not hiding out.

You know this.

But you don't care because you are a troll whose only purpose here is to get under other people's skin.

And, I concede, you are quite skilled in this respect.
Some qualified health experts are now claiming that it is vaccinated people who are spreading the dangerous covid variants, not unvaccinated individuals.

Scientific evidence the politicians are promoting covid lies
 

expos4ever

Well-known member
Leftist fascists: 'We are not forcing you to take the dangerous covid shot but if you don't you will be punished severely and it will be your own fault.'
Liar.

By no reasonable standard is the shot dangerous.

You, sir, are an unrepentant serial liar.

And, of course, your other point is entirely without merit - employers have the right to fire people who choose to threaten other employees by needlessly not taking the vaccine.

If I came to your office and urinated in your coffee should I not be fired?

Do I need to urinate in your coffee? Of course not.

Is requiring me to refrain from urinating in your coffee an unjust infringement on my freedom? Of course not - I am free to urinate in my own coffee.

How is the situation with covid any different?
 

marke

Well-known member
Liar.

By no reasonable standard is the shot dangerous.

You, sir, are an unrepentant serial liar.

And, of course, your other point is entirely without merit - employers have the right to fire people who choose to threaten other employees by needlessly not taking the vaccine.

If I came to your office and urinated in your coffee should I not be fired?

Do I need to urinate in your coffee? Of course not.

Is requiring me to refrain from urinating in your coffee an unjust infringement on my freedom? Of course not - I am free to urinate in my own coffee.

How is the situation with covid any different?
You dismiss the evidence I post and then call me a liar for posting something you do not like but cannot refute. Shame on you.

The covid shot is like urine. If you come into my office and tell me the government and all its sponsored scientists have declared that I must accept the shot of government urine in my coffee or I will die or cause others to die, I will tell them to grow up and stop being led around by the nose like a bunch of blind baboons.
 

expos4ever

Well-known member
You just keep doubling-down on your evil ideas.
Not taking this risky vaccine is NOT equivalent to "intentionally putting the health and lives of others at risk", no matter how venomously you push that claim.
How? How is it not equivalent? Please address this question head-on.

It certainly seems equivalent to me. Please to try to find a flaw in the following reasoning:

The Pathogen:
- covid is highly contagious
- covid can harm the vaccinated

The Vaccine:
- the vaccine is free
- the vaccine is readily available
- the vaccine is safe by any reasonable standard.

The Employer:
- has the responsibility to provide a safe workplace
- therefore is not obligated to retain employees with contagious illnesses.
- has the right to expect employees to take reasonable measures to ensure they are not a threat to others.

The Unvaccinated:
- has no fundamental "right" to a job
- willingly foregoes a vaccine that will reduce his degree of threat to fellow employees

CONCLUSION: Employees who refuse vaccination should be fired (with the exception, of course, that they have a known serious allergy to vaccines).

Now then: where, precisely, is the error in this argument?
 

Right Divider

Body part
How? How is it not equivalent? Please address this question head-on.

It certainly seems equivalent to me.
To you ... sure.
Please to try to find a flaw in the following reasoning:

The Pathogen:
- covid is highly contagious
- Highly contagious, yes,
- indiscriminate killer of everyone, no
- covid can harm the vaccinated
So the vaccinated get no protection from this vaccine?
The Vaccine:
- the vaccine is free
- the vaccine is readily available
- the vaccine is safe by any reasonable standard.
I don't think that it's "safe by any reasonable standard."
The Employer:
- has the responsibility to provide a safe workplace
- therefore is not obligated to retain employees with contagious illnesses.
You talk as if once someone gets this "contagious illness", they are a treat forever.
- has the right to expect employees to take reasonable measures to ensure they are not a threat to others.
There are many ways to do that without terminating everyone that does not want to take this experimental drug.
The Unvaccinated:
- has no fundamental "right" to a job
- willingly foregoes a vaccine that will reduce his degree of threat to fellow employees
You sound so scared. Are you really that scared?
CONCLUSION: Employees who refuse vaccination should be fired (with the exception, of course, that they have a known serious allergy to vaccines).

Now then: where, precisely, is the error in this argument?
Just about everywhere.

The "unvaccinated" are not the imminent treat that you make them out to be.
 

marke

Well-known member
How? How is it not equivalent? Please address this question head-on.

It certainly seems equivalent to me. Please to try to find a flaw in the following reasoning:

The Pathogen:
- covid is highly contagious
- covid can harm the vaccinated

The Vaccine:
- the vaccine is free
- the vaccine is readily available
- the vaccine is safe by any reasonable standard.

The Employer:
- has the responsibility to provide a safe workplace
- therefore is not obligated to retain employees with contagious illnesses.
- has the right to expect employees to take reasonable measures to ensure they are not a threat to others.

The Unvaccinated:
- has no fundamental "right" to a job
- willingly foregoes a vaccine that will reduce his degree of threat to fellow employees

CONCLUSION: Employees who refuse vaccination should be fired (with the exception, of course, that they have a known serious allergy to vaccines).

Now then: where, precisely, is the error in this argument?

How? How is it not equivalent? Please address this question head-on.

It certainly seems equivalent to me. Please to try to find a flaw in the following reasoning:

The Pathogen:
- covid is highly contagious
- covid can harm the vaccinated

The Vaccine:
- the vaccine is free
- the vaccine is readily available
- the vaccine is safe by any reasonable standard.

The Employer:
- has the responsibility to provide a safe workplace
- therefore is not obligated to retain employees with contagious illnesses.
- has the right to expect employees to take reasonable measures to ensure they are not a threat to others.

The Unvaccinated:
- has no fundamental "right" to a job
- willingly foregoes a vaccine that will reduce his degree of threat to fellow employees

CONCLUSION: Employees who refuse vaccination should be fired (with the exception, of course, that they have a known serious allergy to vaccines).

Now then: where, precisely, is the error in this argument?
The US government has a resource available to help pay damages to Americans and their family members damaged by vaccines. It is not clear if the US government will pay for damages caused by the government-mandated covid-19 vaccine.

(Reuters) - Altom Maglio says his law firm in recent years has litigated more vaccine-related injury claims than any other in the United States.
But 22-lawyer Maglio Christopher & Toale on its website has a discouraging message for would-be clients who believe they’ve suffered a serious injury from the COVID-19 vaccine.
“Our law firm has concluded that there is nothing our attorneys can do to significantly assist you,” the firm states.
Maglio told me his Sarasota, Florida-based firm has been “contacted by at least a couple hundred people” about suspected COVID vaccine-related injuries, including blood clots and cardiac inflammation.
It’s not that his firm doesn’t want to help. Representing people who’ve had (rare) major adverse reactions to vaccines for tetanus, measles, hepatitis, influenza and a dozen other shots is its bread and butter.
But the current system for handling COVID-related claims is different – and not in a good way. Because if you’ve suffered an injury related to the Pfizer, Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines, you’re basically out of luck.
As Renée Gentry, director of the Vaccine Injury Litigation Clinic at the George Washington University Law School put it, COVID vaccine claimants have two rights: “You have the right to file,” she said. “And you have the right to lose.”
 

marke

Well-known member
How? How is it not equivalent? Please address this question head-on.

It certainly seems equivalent to me. Please to try to find a flaw in the following reasoning:

The Pathogen:
- covid is highly contagious
- covid can harm the vaccinated

The Vaccine:
- the vaccine is free
- the vaccine is readily available
- the vaccine is safe by any reasonable standard.

The Employer:
- has the responsibility to provide a safe workplace
- therefore is not obligated to retain employees with contagious illnesses.
- has the right to expect employees to take reasonable measures to ensure they are not a threat to others.

The Unvaccinated:
- has no fundamental "right" to a job
- willingly foregoes a vaccine that will reduce his degree of threat to fellow employees

CONCLUSION: Employees who refuse vaccination should be fired (with the exception, of course, that they have a known serious allergy to vaccines).

Now then: where, precisely, is the error in this argument?
Bad news for the deluded mob who think the covid vaccine is without flaw and possibly eternal in effectiveness. It turns out that now government spokespeople are admitting the vaccine is neither universally effective nor eternal. Back to square one. Next time we trot out a virus and make it mandatory for all Americans we should wait a little longer for the trials to run their course so we do not get serious eggs on our faces.

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said that data sourced from Israel on COVID-19 vaccines show that the efficacy of the shots has dropped among individuals who received their vaccines early on.
Citing three studies that were released by the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Walensky said on Aug. 18 that the vaccines’ efficacy decreases over time in preventing infection. Although protection against death and hospitalization is “holding up well,” the COVID-19 vaccines’ effectiveness is “waning” in even preventing severe illness or death, she said.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Claims that vaccines lower the risk of getting covid are not based on irrefutable scientific research. Covid infections were on the decline before vaccines came out. Now covid is on the rise again, particularly in areas with high vaccination rates. Go figure.
Yeah go figure!

The word "figure" there means "think"! Do you ever actually think through a word of what you say?

It isn't the vaccinated people who are driving this latest rise in cases, it's the unvaccinated. GO FIGURE!


VaccineEfficacy at preventing disease:
ancestral & Alpha
Efficacy at preventing infection:
ancestral & Alpha
Efficacy at preventing disease:
Beta, Gamma, Delta
Efficacy at preventing infection:
Beta, Gamma, Delta
Pfizer/BioNTech92%86%90%78%
Moderna94%89%93%80%
AstraZeneca85%52%83%51%
Johnson & Johnson (Janssen)86%72%85%56%

1629375636047.png

1629375653464.png
 

marke

Well-known member
Yeah go figure!

The word "figure" there means "think"! Do you ever actually think through a word of what you say?

It isn't the vaccinated people who are driving this latest rise in cases, it's the unvaccinated. GO FIGURE!


VaccineEfficacy at preventing disease:
ancestral & Alpha
Efficacy at preventing infection:
ancestral & Alpha
Efficacy at preventing disease:
Beta, Gamma, Delta
Efficacy at preventing infection:
Beta, Gamma, Delta
Pfizer/BioNTech92%86%90%78%
Moderna94%89%93%80%
AstraZeneca85%52%83%51%
Johnson & Johnson (Janssen)86%72%85%56%

View attachment 1564

View attachment 1565
It seems the efficiency estimates of 6 months into the vaccine are falling short of expectations just months later. There is a lot of hope and hype associated with vaccines that are now losing scientific support for over-enthusiastic but erroneous expectations.

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said that data sourced from Israel on COVID-19 vaccines show that the efficacy of the shots has dropped among individuals who received their vaccines early on.
Citing three studies that were released by the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Walensky said on Aug. 18 that the vaccines’ efficacy decreases over time in preventing infection. Although protection against death and hospitalization is “holding up well,” the COVID-19 vaccines’ effectiveness is “waning” in even preventing severe illness or death, she said.
 

marke

Well-known member
It seems the efficiency estimates of 6 months into the vaccine are falling short of expectations just months later. There is a lot of hope and hype associated with vaccines that are now losing scientific support for over-enthusiastic but erroneous expectations.

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said that data sourced from Israel on COVID-19 vaccines show that the efficacy of the shots has dropped among individuals who received their vaccines early on.
Citing three studies that were released by the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Walensky said on Aug. 18 that the vaccines’ efficacy decreases over time in preventing infection. Although protection against death and hospitalization is “holding up well,” the COVID-19 vaccines’ effectiveness is “waning” in even preventing severe illness or death, she said.
New revelations about the covid shot reveal that it is not long-lasting. Its waning effectiveness is like a slow leak in an automobile tire that will need added air periodically to keep it operable.


The United States will begin widely distributing COVID-19 booster shots next month and will recommend them for most Americans who have received one of the vaccines, according to several top federal health officials.
A joint statement from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and Acting Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Janet Woodcock stated that people will need booster shots, starting eight months after they received their second dose of the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine.
Those who received the single-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine will likely need booster shots as well, they said, although more data are needed before making a formal recommendation. The J&J vaccine uses a more traditional adenovirus mechanism, whereas the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use mRNA technology.
 

marke

Well-known member
Yeah go figure!

The word "figure" there means "think"! Do you ever actually think through a word of what you say?

It isn't the vaccinated people who are driving this latest rise in cases, it's the unvaccinated. GO FIGURE!


VaccineEfficacy at preventing disease:
ancestral & Alpha
Efficacy at preventing infection:
ancestral & Alpha
Efficacy at preventing disease:
Beta, Gamma, Delta
Efficacy at preventing infection:
Beta, Gamma, Delta
Pfizer/BioNTech92%86%90%78%
Moderna94%89%93%80%
AstraZeneca85%52%83%51%
Johnson & Johnson (Janssen)86%72%85%56%

View attachment 1564

View attachment 1565
Your chart may have inaccuracies, especially since there are thousands of reports from around the world that show alarming contrary facts not mentioned by your chart.

Only one of 61 Israelis hospitalized with COVID in serious condition is a fully vaccinated individual under the age of 60, Channel 12 news reported Sunday, citing Health Ministry figures.
According to the report, 24 of those in serious condition are unvaccinated, while 37 are fully vaccinated. The lone seriously ill fully vaccinated person under 60 was in the 50-59 age group.
No fully vaccinated individuals under age 50 were in serious condition.


 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
It seems the efficiency estimates of 6 months into the vaccine are falling short of expectations just months later. There is a lot of hope and hype associated with vaccines that are now losing scientific support for over-enthusiastic but erroneous expectations.

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said that data sourced from Israel on COVID-19 vaccines show that the efficacy of the shots has dropped among individuals who received their vaccines early on.
Citing three studies that were released by the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Walensky said on Aug. 18 that the vaccines’ efficacy decreases over time in preventing infection. Although protection against death and hospitalization is “holding up well,” the COVID-19 vaccines’ effectiveness is “waning” in even preventing severe illness or death, she said.
Do you ever actually respond to what people say to you? The length of time that these new vaccines last has NOTHING to do with what I said nor does it have anything to do whether they have been safe and effective.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Your chart may have inaccuracies, especially since there are thousands of reports from around the world that show alarming contrary facts not mentioned by your chart.

Only one of 61 Israelis hospitalized with COVID in serious condition is a fully vaccinated individual under the age of 60, Channel 12 news reported Sunday, citing Health Ministry figures.
According to the report, 24 of those in serious condition are unvaccinated, while 37 are fully vaccinated. The lone seriously ill fully vaccinated person under 60 was in the 50-59 age group.
No fully vaccinated individuals under age 50 were in serious condition.
They aren't "my charts". They are the only charts that can be made using the data that was produced when the studies were performed.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Remember when you castigated me for not recognizing figures of speech? :unsure:
The difference is that I explained the point I was making. That point being that the charts are not a matter of opinion. They simply display the existing data in a visual manner.

You, on the other hand, just ignored the figure of speech as though I somehow actually thought you could force me to put you on ignore or as though your snide remark was somehow a substantive response. As for "castigating you", I simply responded to the stupidity as though it was stupid and the lies as though they were lies. I can't make you feel ashamed of yourself and repent any more than I can force a horse to drink the water I've led it too.

Clete
 

Right Divider

Body part
The difference is that I explained the point I was making. That point being that the charts are not a matter of opinion. They simply display the existing data in a visual manner.

You, on the other hand, just ignored the figure of speech as though I somehow actually thought you could force me to put you on ignore or as though your snide remark was somehow a substantive response. As for "castigating you", I simply responded to the stupidity as though it was stupid and the lies as though they were lies. I can't make you feel ashamed of yourself and repent any more than I can force a horse to drink the water I've led it too.

Clete
He simply called it "your charts" because YOU posted them. Is that really hard to understand?
 
Last edited:
Top