Anti Vaxxer Honor Roll

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 339]

9 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Bulls**t. Your exact, original post was:

"What about the news story that came out a while back that pointed out vaccinated people walk around with huge viral loads that they don't know about (due to the vaccine)?

Seems like it's those of us who are vaccinated who endanger others, more so than those who aren't."

No qualifiers. Nothing about it being a "theory", until you said it in a later post that was agreeing with even more incorrect information. You didn't even post the story. You just threw it out there with nothing behind it, and then made a statement of opinion that vaccinated people are actually more dangerous, helping to perpetuate disinformation, which is in fact irresponsible. If you want to double-down on that irresponsibility, I guess I overestimated you.

 

I stand corrected on the original post—you are correct about what I posted.  And apparently, upon investigation, the story as well.  It appears to be mostly made up.

I don't know why someone can't simply point that out, post a link or something instead of being combative and evoking defensiveness.  I guess I'm as likely to become defensive as the next guy/gal; sorry about that.  Sorry also for not having checked on the story before posting about it.  I will attempt to retract the post.

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 339]

8 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

I think your analysis of the situation is flawed.  An unvaxxed person will more likely have significant symptoms and will proceed to get tested.  Then they will attempt to acquire monoclonal antibodies or other treatment options to lessen their symptoms. They would not ignore symptoms or have less symptoms due to being unvaxxed due to a political stance they have taken.

A vaxxed person is not any more familiar with symptoms than unvaxxed.  But in my opinion they may ignore light symptoms because they know they are protected or have been told they are protected. They will carry around viral loads because their exposure is not attenuated by the vaccine. Only the progression thru the body systems are attenuated.  It seems to me that your analysis of who is carrying viral loads and who is seeking treatment and isolating themselves is 180 degrees out.

Upon investigation it appears that the problem with the theory is that the CDC never said that vaccinated people have been found to have higher viral loads.  That part was simply a lie.  The logic makes sense but the major premise is false, so it's false.

It made sense to me as well, which is why I repeated it.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

47 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Upon investigation it appears that the problem with the theory is that the CDC never said that vaccinated people have been found to have higher viral loads.  That part was simply a lie.  The logic makes sense but the major premise is false, so it's false.

It made sense to me as well, which is why I repeated it.

It still was worth posting to get others thoughts on it. It was pretty clear you were just presenting the idea and not blindly agreeing with it and trying to not trying to spread misinformation. 
 

I am not surprised that you were attacked in a hateful way though. Par for the course. 

[SaltyTiger 7,814]

19 hours ago, AUBURNJAC said:

Who the phuck do you think you are posting some insane, insensitive bull$hit like this? Someone should literally beat the ever living $hit out of you and every other pompous A-hole that thinks stuff like this if funny..  Liberal p.o.s.

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 339]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

It still was worth posting to get others thoughts on it. It was pretty clear you were just presenting the idea and not blindly agreeing with it and trying to not trying to spread misinformation. 
 

I am not surprised that you were attacked in a hateful way though. Par for the course. 

I also thought it was clear, but ultimately he was right.  What I meant was not what I actually posted.  Thanks for the confirmation that at least some people read it the way I intended it, though.

[Leftfield 2,604]

2 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I stand corrected on the original post—you are correct about what I posted.  And apparently, upon investigation, the story as well.  It appears to be mostly made up.

I don't know why someone can't simply point that out, post a link or something instead of being combative and evoking defensiveness.  I guess I'm as likely to become defensive as the next guy/gal; sorry about that.  Sorry also for not having checked on the story before posting about it.  I will attempt to retract the post.

 

Thank you. The snide second sentence in my first post set the tone for the rest of it and for that I apologize.

I admire that you posted this. Please call me out if you see that I'm not debating in the same good faith.

 

[Leftfield 2,604]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

It still was worth posting to get others thoughts on it. It was pretty clear you were just presenting the idea and not blindly agreeing with it and trying to not trying to spread misinformation. 
 

I am not surprised that you were attacked in a hateful way though. Par for the course. 

Hateful? That's your honest assessment of my post? 

Please point out where I said they were deliberately trying to spread misinformation.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Hateful? That's your honest assessment of my post? 

Please point out where I said they were deliberately trying to spread misinformation.

Spiteful maybe? Hell you even admit to made snide comments that set the tone for the rest of the post. Pretty combative and unwarranted when his tone was cordial throughout the entire exchange. 

I was not saying that you were spreading misinformation. I was saying that his referring to whatever article he read was not him deliberately trying to spread bad information. Reading his posts he clearly recognized it as a theory (even if flawed) and was presenting it for discussion. Not trying to come on here and push it like a fact.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 339]

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Thank you. The snide second sentence in my first post set the tone for the rest of it and for that I apologize.

I admire that you posted this. Please call me out if you see that I'm not debating in the same good faith.

 

Likewise, thanks for this post.

[AUBURNJAC 53]

On 9/30/2021 at 11:31 PM, Mims44 said:

Is that your stance for everyone Homer?

Cool, if every distracted driver dies, cause they were checking their phone instead of watching the road?

Cool if every drunk driver dies cause it's one more bed space in ICU?

Cool if every addict dies since they could have at any time chosen to get clean?

Cool for every diabetic that dies cause if only they would have paid better attention to their bodies and sugar levels they'd be good?

 

 

 

Basically you 'couldn't care one iota' for anyone who dies if they could have made a better personal choice in their life/lifestyle?

He's made it clear that he could care one crap about anything but his liberal agenda..... My guess is there is only one circumstance that would cause him to "care"  when someone dies because of a poor personal choice. When the dead person is a non white criminal who got shot by the police while in the act of doing something illegal, and likely violent.  Then, I'm sure there is a TREMENDOUS amount of caring going on in his tiny shriveled heart.   

[Leftfield 2,604]

5 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Spiteful maybe? Hell you even admit to made snide comments that set the tone for the rest of the post. Pretty combative and unwarranted when his tone was cordial throughout the entire exchange. 

Hateful ----> Spiteful ----> Combative 

Next stop on the Back Track is......

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

14 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Hateful ----> Spiteful ----> Combative 

Next stop on the Back Track is......

 

Call it whatever you want, makes no difference to me, but at least you apologized to him after you realized you were an @$$. 

Edited October 5, 2021 by wdefromtx

[Leftfield 2,604]

3 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Call it whatever you want, makes no difference to me, but at least you apologized to him after you realized you were an @$$. 

The fact you're calling me out for a fairly benign remark is hysterical considering what's thrown about elsewhere on the board. But you do you.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

9 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

The fact you're calling me out for a fairly benign remark is hysterical considering what's thrown about elsewhere on the board. But you do you.

Hence the reason I said "par for the course." 

Hell you even realized you were being an a** with your "benign" response to him and apologized. 

 

Edited October 5, 2021 by wdefromtx

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 339]

Listen, I accept Leftfield's posts both before and after standing corrected.  I don't think they were perfect, but neither were mine and I am simply grateful that we resolved the issue rather than allowing it to fester.

I harbor no ill will towards anyone and would feel better if no one did regarding the exchange.

[Leftfield 2,604]

8 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Hence the reason I said "par for the course." 

Hell you even realized you were being an a** with your "benign" response to him and apologized. 

 

You do realize that calling me an ass is worse than what I said to them, right? If you care to look, I actually started the post with a compliment. Literally all I said was that their post was not making a good point, as opposed to what their usual posts were. I admitted that the way it was pointed out set a bad tone, and that was it. Not like I was expecting to be excoriated for it.

As you're clearly realizing now, people sometimes make comments while emotions get the better of them. My comment was born out of frustration, which is why I apologized.

Edited October 5, 2021 by Leftfield

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 339]

22 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

You do realize that calling me an ass is worse than what I said to them, right? If you care to look, I actually started the post with a compliment. Literally all I said was that their post was not making a good point, as opposed to what their usual posts were. I admitted that the way it was pointed out set a bad tone, and that was it. Not like I was expecting to be excoriated for it.

As you're clearly realizing now, people sometimes make comments while emotions get the better of them. My comment was born out of frustration, which is why I apologized.

And the thing is, you were right.  I was posting misinformation.  Not intentionally, but I should have checked it out first and I didn't, so I was guilty of exactly what you said I was guilty of.  Not being responsible.

[Leftfield 2,604]

22 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

And the thing is, you were right.  I was posting misinformation.  Not intentionally, but I should have checked it out first and I didn't, so I was guilty of exactly what you said I was guilty of.  Not being responsible.

And in my frustration, I was projecting experiences with others onto you, which was my failure. 

Even more frustrating....I'm certain I'll fail many times in the future. Sucks being human sometimes.

[homersapien 11,382]

In case anyone has lingering doubts about this being totally politicized by "Republicans".

Lindsey Graham told Republicans they ‘ought to think about’ getting a coronavirus vaccine. They booed him.

By

Gina Harkins

Today at 6:07 a.m. EDT

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey O. Graham was only midway through his sentence when the crowd began shouting over him.

“If you haven’t had the vaccine, you ought to think about getting it because if you’re my age — ”

“No!” attendees at a Republican event held Saturday responded as others booed. Graham was speaking at a country club in Summerville, S.C., about 25 miles outside Charleston.

Bowing his head and holding up a hand, the 66-year-old — who got his coronavirus vaccine in December — responded to the crowd, telling them: “I didn’t tell you to get it. You ought to think about it.”

“No!” they yelled again, prompting Graham to defend his choice to get immunized. After experiencing a breakthrough coronavirus infection this summer, he credited the vaccine with keeping his symptoms at bay.

“I’m glad I got it,” Graham said at the event on Saturday, adding that a high percentage of the people hospitalized with covid in South Carolina are unvaccinated.

The crowd again responded quickly, yelling: “False!” and “Not true!” Video of the event was posted by the Daily Beast.

Graham is the latest Republican to face backlash from his own party’s supporters when promoting coronavirus vaccines or talking about their safety and efficacy. Former president Donald Trump was booed in August when he told supporters in Alabama he recommends taking the vaccines. About three weeks earlier, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson faced pushback from a crowd when he said coronavirus vaccines do not cause infertility — a claim health officials have also debunked.

As the highly contagious delta variant started to spread over the summer, officials in South Carolina said most of the new covid-19 cases and deaths were among unvaccinated patients. In June, people who were not fully vaccinated accounted for 86 percent of covid-related hospitalizations. In August, state health officials referred to the spiking coronavirus cases as a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

Graham is among the roughly 2.4 million people in South Carolina who are fully vaccinated, according to The Washington Post’s vaccine tracker. That accounts for nearly 48 percent of the population there — a rate that falls below the national average. About 56 percent of people across the country are fully vaccinated.

Mistrust about the vaccines is especially high among some Republicans. The partisan gap in coronavirus vaccination rates has grown over time, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.

As of Sept. 13, the foundation found that more than 52 percent of people in counties that favored Joe Biden in the 2020 election are fully vaccinated, compared with less than 40 percent in counties that favored Trump.

While vaccination rates are slowing in both groups, the organization noted that “the gap has widened over time.”

Graham told his supporters on Saturday that he was standing by what he believed about the vaccines being effective in fighting covid. His office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

When Graham asked event attendees on Saturday to raise their hands if they had taken a vaccine for the measles, several responded “it’s not the same,” with one calling coronavirus vaccines “experimental,” which is untrue.

The available coronavirus vaccines have completed clinical trials. The Pfizer vaccine has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The Moderna and Johnson & Johnson shots have been authorized for emergency use.

Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine gets full FDA approval, potentially persuading the hesitant to get a shot

Graham told the Republican supporters that while he views the vaccines as safe and effective, he shares their concerns about vaccine mandates, calling into question their constitutionality. A lawsuit has already been filed to stop vaccination mandates for the federal workforce, including the military, which announced in August upcoming immunization requirements for all active-duty and reserve personnel.

A man at Saturday’s event at the South Carolina country club told Graham he was 60 days away from losing his job as a Navy civilian because of the vaccine mandate.

“You have got to stop it now,” the man said to the senator. Graham told him doing so will require the Republicans taking back control of Congress during the 2022 midterms.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/10/05/lindsey-graham-booed-coronavirus-vaccine/

 

And our local talk radio station (Charlie James show on WORD) was just flat out saying the vaccine doesn't work and "they" aren't admitting it. 

He quoted some bogus statistics claiming the hospitalization rate in one of the northern states (Connecticut?), where supposedly 79% of hospitalizations consisted of vaccinated people.  (I'd love to quote it, but talk radio doesn't do transcripts).  He was clearly implying the vaccine is nothing more than a liberal hoax and his audience was undoubtedly lapping it up.

Bottom line, there are a hell of a lot of MAGAs out there who see the world solely through a political lens.

[jj3jordan 2,053]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

In case anyone has lingering doubts about this being totally politicized by "Republicans".

Lindsey Graham told Republicans they ‘ought to think about’ getting a coronavirus vaccine. They booed him.

By

Gina Harkins

Today at 6:07 a.m. EDT

 

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey O. Graham was only midway through his sentence when the crowd began shouting over him.

“If you haven’t had the vaccine, you ought to think about getting it because if you’re my age — ”

“No!” attendees at a Republican event held Saturday responded as others booed. Graham was speaking at a country club in Summerville, S.C., about 25 miles outside Charleston.

Bowing his head and holding up a hand, the 66-year-old — who got his coronavirus vaccine in December — responded to the crowd, telling them: “I didn’t tell you to get it. You ought to think about it.”

“No!” they yelled again, prompting Graham to defend his choice to get immunized. After experiencing a breakthrough coronavirus infection this summer, he credited the vaccine with keeping his symptoms at bay.

“I’m glad I got it,” Graham said at the event on Saturday, adding that a high percentage of the people hospitalized with covid in South Carolina are unvaccinated.

The crowd again responded quickly, yelling: “False!” and “Not true!” Video of the event was posted by the Daily Beast.

Graham is the latest Republican to face backlash from his own party’s supporters when promoting coronavirus vaccines or talking about their safety and efficacy. Former president Donald Trump was booed in August when he told supporters in Alabama he recommends taking the vaccines. About three weeks earlier, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson faced pushback from a crowd when he said coronavirus vaccines do not cause infertility — a claim health officials have also debunked.

As the highly contagious delta variant started to spread over the summer, officials in South Carolina said most of the new covid-19 cases and deaths were among unvaccinated patients. In June, people who were not fully vaccinated accounted for 86 percent of covid-related hospitalizations. In August, state health officials referred to the spiking coronavirus cases as a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

Graham is among the roughly 2.4 million people in South Carolina who are fully vaccinated, according to The Washington Post’s vaccine tracker. That accounts for nearly 48 percent of the population there — a rate that falls below the national average. About 56 percent of people across the country are fully vaccinated.

Mistrust about the vaccines is especially high among some Republicans. The partisan gap in coronavirus vaccination rates has grown over time, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.

As of Sept. 13, the foundation found that more than 52 percent of people in counties that favored Joe Biden in the 2020 election are fully vaccinated, compared with less than 40 percent in counties that favored Trump.

While vaccination rates are slowing in both groups, the organization noted that “the gap has widened over time.”

Graham told his supporters on Saturday that he was standing by what he believed about the vaccines being effective in fighting covid. His office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

When Graham asked event attendees on Saturday to raise their hands if they had taken a vaccine for the measles, several responded “it’s not the same,” with one calling coronavirus vaccines “experimental,” which is untrue.

The available coronavirus vaccines have completed clinical trials. The Pfizer vaccine has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The Moderna and Johnson & Johnson shots have been authorized for emergency use.

Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine gets full FDA approval, potentially persuading the hesitant to get a shot

Graham told the Republican supporters that while he views the vaccines as safe and effective, he shares their concerns about vaccine mandates, calling into question their constitutionality. A lawsuit has already been filed to stop vaccination mandates for the federal workforce, including the military, which announced in August upcoming immunization requirements for all active-duty and reserve personnel.

A man at Saturday’s event at the South Carolina country club told Graham he was 60 days away from losing his job as a Navy civilian because of the vaccine mandate.

“You have got to stop it now,” the man said to the senator. Graham told him doing so will require the Republicans taking back control of Congress during the 2022 midterms.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/10/05/lindsey-graham-booed-coronavirus-vaccine/

 

And our local talk radio station (Charlie James show on WORD) was just flat out saying the vaccine doesn't work and "they" aren't admitting it. 

He quoted some bogus statistics claiming the hospitalization rate in one of the northern states (Connecticut?), where supposedly 79% of hospitalizations consisted of vaccinated people.  (I'd love to quote it, but talk radio doesn't do transcripts).  He was clearly implying the vaccine is nothing more than a liberal hoax and his audience was undoubtedly lapping it up.

Bottom line, there are a hell of a lot of MAGAs out there who see the world solely through a political lens.

In all fairness we boo Grahamnesty on a regular basis for pretty much anything he says.  As far a viewing subjects thru a political lens, kettle meet pot.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 339]

8 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

In all fairness we boo Grahamnesty on a regular basis for pretty much anything he says.  As far a viewing subjects thru a political lens, kettle meet pot.

It is puzzling, at least to me.

I have two employees who have not gotten vaccinated and have instead chosen to forfeit their jobs to avoid getting it.  I've talked to them about it.  Both of them vaccinated all of their children with every one of the 30+ vaccines that are recommended without a moment's hesitation, despite the fact that pretty much all vaccines cause injuries in rare cases.

(BTW, as an aside, there seems to be at least one person on the board who disputes this, although I don't know why b/c it's common knowledge.  Here's an article about a woman who became a vaccine-injury lawyer after having her own vaccine injury:  https://www.science.org/content/article/vaccines-trial-us-court-separates-fact-fiction, and here's a table of vaccine injuries:  https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vaccine-compensation/vaccine-injury-table.pdf)

Anyway, not only do all vaccines have the potential to cause injury and (some) even death, but what do you think the chances are that you or anyone you know's kids are going to come in contact with the polio virus, for example, in the United States? 

Yet they had no problem vaccinating their kids against polio (you may notice on that vaccine injury table that anaphylaxis is the main injury listed for non-live polio vaccines, which can cause death if severe enough.). Didn't hesitate, didn't blink, didn't pump the brakes.

I asked them why they were fine vaccinating their children with all of these vaccines, but refuse to get the COVID vaccine.  One told me, "I just thought we had no choice but to get all the childhood vaccines."  

Minutes later, the same employee told me that her husband (he's the problem in her case) constantly badgers her about being a "sheep" and just going along with doing whatever she's told.  Clearly, the entire reason for the resistance is simply that they are being told they need to.

Yet they had no problem being told that they needed to vaccinate their children with over 30 doses of other vaccines, all of which can cause injuries and most of which the chances of encountering the disease they protect against are slim to none, while refusing to get a vaccine for a disease for which the probability that they will encounter it is virtually 100%.

It's like agreeing to a polio vaccine now, in 2021, when there's no chance of contracting it, but being back in 1955 and refusing to take it back then.  It makes no sense.

Now, as I have said before, my comments are not designed to communicate that people should not get vaccinated.  For COVID or anything else.  We're better off with the vaccines than not.  Even the attorney in the article I posted above who became a vaccine injury lawyer says the same.

But the reasons people who will not get vaccinated against COVID give for not doing it are just as applicable to all the other vaccines they've had and signed off on for their kids to have, and they don't seem to understand that.

The difference has got to be political.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

2 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

The difference has got to be political.

So you say the parents had their children vaccinated with 30+ approved vaccines and you are questioning their vaccine hesitancy?  Those 30+ Vaccines have been around for 50 years or so and very few have to have *boosters*.  The Covid vaccination is good for the Alpha variant, but also helps (does not prevent) with the Delta variant and we see that people in the age group of 65+ May need a booster only 6 months in to original inoculation.

I was alive during the outbreak of polio in 1950 (I was born that year) and with all the press, you bet my parents had me vaccinated (the oral dose back then).  Interestingly enough, by the time I took the cube of sugar there had been enough research to make the vaccine *safe*.  In 1955 the Cutter Laboratories sent out 200,000 doses and had caused 40 000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10.

I still remember seeing PSAs back in the day with kids in Iron Lungs encouraging parents to get their kids vaccinated.  The internet was not around so there we no vaccine hesitancy as it was administered at school.

These 30+ vaccines are aimed at preventing diseases in children which most parents would welcome.  I believe these vaccines, until recently, were required to enter school.  Again because they were deemed safe at preventing childhood diseases.

This is much different than a person deciding what is good for their own bodies with an (at the point of the initial vaccine) experimental vaccine.  It’s different now and how you describe the reluctance, it appears it is political.  It doesn’t mean every person the is hesitant is doing so because of politics.

I, too, am a proponent of the vaccine, but I am also a proponent of personal choice.  That choice does not affect me and to say the unvaccinated are a danger to the vaccinated is definitely political.

 

[Leftfield 2,604]

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

So you say the parents had their children vaccinated with 30+ approved vaccines and you are questioning their vaccine hesitancy?  Those 30+ Vaccines have been around for 50 years or so and very few have to have *boosters*.  The Covid vaccination is good for the Alpha variant, but also helps (does not prevent) with the Delta variant and we see that people in the age group of 65+ May need a booster only 6 months in to original inoculation.

I was alive during the outbreak of polio in 1950 (I was born that year) and with all the press, you bet my parents had me vaccinated (the oral dose back then).  Interestingly enough, by the time I took the cube of sugar there had been enough research to make the vaccine *safe*.  In 1955 the Cutter Laboratories sent out 200,000 doses and had caused 40 000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10.

I still remember seeing PSAs back in the day with kids in Iron Lungs encouraging parents to get their kids vaccinated.  The internet was not around so there we no vaccine hesitancy as it was administered at school.

These 30+ vaccines are aimed at preventing diseases in children which most parents would welcome.  I believe these vaccines, until recently, were required to enter school.  Again because they were deemed safe at preventing childhood diseases.

This is much different than a person deciding what is good for their own bodies with an (at the point of the initial vaccine) experimental vaccine.  It’s different now and how you describe the reluctance, it appears it is political.  It doesn’t mean every person the is hesitant is doing so because of politics.

I, too, am a proponent of the vaccine, but I am also a proponent of personal choice.  That choice does not affect me and to say the unvaccinated are a danger to the vaccinated is definitely political.

 

This is why I get frustrated. In the bolded sentences above, you completely contradict yourself - the Covid vaccine does not always prevent the Delta variant, yet the unvaccinated are no danger to the vaccinated? And you still maintain that the people saying the unvaccinated are the largest threat are the ones being political? Are you claiming that vaccinated people who die from Covid could have only been infected by other vaccinated people? 

And for the nth time, you are still ignoring the danger posed to those who are vaccinated but have compromised immune systems or are otherwise at high risk, not to mention those who can't get the vaccine.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 339]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

 It doesn’t mean every person the is hesitant is doing so because of politics.

I, too, am a proponent of the vaccine, but I am also a proponent of personal choice.  That choice does not affect me and to say the unvaccinated are a danger to the vaccinated is definitely political.

 

I have a longer post in the works at the office but I am currently at home for lunch and I will just say this for now: The conversation I was having was specifically about people who booed Lindsey Graham for being very clear and saying, "I'm not saying you have to get the vaccine, but you might want to think about it," not everyone who chooses to not get it.

In other words, he made it very clear that he was not advocating against personal choice, he was just recommending that they consider getting the vaccine.

If you are in that crowd booing that statement, I think it's pretty safe to say it's political.  More to come...

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 339]

37 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

So you say the parents had their children vaccinated with 30+ approved vaccines and you are questioning their vaccine hesitancy?  Those 30+ Vaccines have been around for 50 years or so and very few have to have *boosters*.  The Covid vaccination is good for the Alpha variant, but also helps (does not prevent) with the Delta variant and we see that people in the age group of 65+ May need a booster only 6 months in to original inoculation.

I was alive during the outbreak of polio in 1950 (I was born that year) and with all the press, you bet my parents had me vaccinated (the oral dose back then).  Interestingly enough, by the time I took the cube of sugar there had been enough research to make the vaccine *safe*.  In 1955 the Cutter Laboratories sent out 200,000 doses and had caused 40 000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10.

I still remember seeing PSAs back in the day with kids in Iron Lungs encouraging parents to get their kids vaccinated.  The internet was not around so there we no vaccine hesitancy as it was administered at school.

These 30+ vaccines are aimed at preventing diseases in children which most parents would welcome.  I believe these vaccines, until recently, were required to enter school.  Again because they were deemed safe at preventing childhood diseases.

This is much different than a person deciding what is good for their own bodies with an (at the point of the initial vaccine) experimental vaccine.  It’s different now and how you describe the reluctance, it appears it is political.  It doesn’t mean every person the is hesitant is doing so because of politics.

I, too, am a proponent of the vaccine, but I am also a proponent of personal choice.  That choice does not affect me and to say the unvaccinated are a danger to the vaccinated is definitely political.

 

1.  Those 30+ recommendations include boosters

2.  I am well aware of the Cutter situation, but if you understand how these vaccines work you know that there is no chance of that happening with the COVID vaccine.  Honestly I'm not even sure that they are properly classified as vaccines.

And the other thing is that I totally understand not being one of the first people in line for the vaccine.  But given the data we have at this point it seems like a very farfetched fear that an injury would be likely at all.  At this point we've fully vaccinated 186 million people in America.  That's more than the entire population of the country in 1956 when the Cutter vaccinations went out.

3.  There are very few states that do not have some sort of vaccination exemptions for entering public school.  Almost everywhere you can get out of them if you really want to.

4.  Like I already posted, I understand giving it a while to see some data.  But the data is in for half the country at this point.  Even if you assume that vaccine injuries are under-reported (they probably are, they are for every other vaccine) and that COVID hospitalizations and deaths are over-reported (we know that they have been, as there have been verified cases of this happening), even if you assume those things you still have to conclude that the vaccine is a very low risk and COVID itself (while still a low risk) is a significantly higher risk.