Question for libertarians & conservatives

Every medical expert I have spoke to about Virus tell me the Virus is not living. Bacteria are living organisms.

 

Red states are against allowing the individual to decide what to do with a highly experimental vaccine which still allows for the spread of Covid.

Well, there's also the obvious contradiction that a person has the right to do what they will with their own body (as in abortion) but not to refuse the Covid vaccination.

 

Covid lives for a few days. Why the mandatory quariantine of about 10 days if one is diagnosed with Covid if the virus doesn't live on?

 

"Unless we each conform, unless we obey orders, unless we follow our leaders blindly, there is no possible way we can remain free."

MAJ Frank Burns

 

Vaccine efficacy is always reported in terms of percentages, and percentages are, by default, relative statistics.
In fact, I would prefer absolute stats over relative stats.

Looks like you are a candidate for the booster.

We've been hearing that the vaccine is less effective against Delta for a number of weeks now, by the reportage on it, don't need any stats to come to that conclusion. Thing is, it is, what around 75%? That is still a very good stat, compared to a number of vaccines for other diseases. The mRNA vaxxes are still considered to be 'very effective' and particularly effective in reducing severity

 

All of that avoids my point. The statistic you quoted for May 2021 is useless.

 

And you're being loose with the numbers.

And that wasn't the point you were trying to make by claiming that 99.5% of people that are hospitalized are unvaccinated. Your point in the OP was all about lifestyle and choices vs priority care.

And I've had my shot. Both of them.

 

Except for the fact that the experts disagree.

 

Viruses are not living things. Viruses are complicated assemblies of molecules, including proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and carbohydrates, but on their own they can do nothing until they enter a living cell. Without cells, viruses would not be able to multiply. Therefore, viruses are not living things.Jun 9, 2004

Are Viruses Living? - virology blog
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+...l2j0i390l3.12668j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

This one loose?
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-...ccinated-11-times-more-likely-to-die-of-covid

 

Fine, but it's still pretty bad.

 

Same reply I gave to a doubter.

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+...l2j0i390l3.12668j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Replication is a quality of living things.

 

You did not say vaccines are effective in the post to which I responded, you wrote:

CDC talks out two sides of it's face. First it claims vaccines are very effective. Then it talks of breakthrough infections. Why didn't that come up for Trump?

When you say, 'first, it claims vaccines are very effective', you are not actually saying it's effective. I drew the inference that you were saying they weren't effective because of the sentence that followed it.. If that is an incorrect inference, fine, although it's a reasonable mistake.

I did not say vaccine effectiveness is specious, I wrote that your logic was specious.

To answer your question, however, breakthrough infections were much more of a problem with delta, which wasn't first discovered until the very end of Trump's term, that's why.

You know very well that vaccine statistics are done using relative stats. If 10 out of 100 die, then next year it's 20 out of 100, they are going to call that 2x or a hundred percent increase. You gotta problem with that, write to the CDC.

Are you kidding? At the incipient stages, they are critical. Not so much way later in the game. Here's why.

Say a virus is taking hold in a small area, if they test everyone in that area, quickly and they are all quarantined, then everyone who has the virus has put everyone else in that area out of range to get infected, thus the virus doesn't spread.

It was precisely at the early stages that Trump put the breaks on testing, and by so doing, the radically hastened the upward trajection, which, in later months, resulted in many more thousands dying that would have otherwise.

The man has blood on his hands.

Cloth masks are not as helpful, only some 20% effective, but, still, better than nothing. That extra virus getting out there might have been someone you live who might have died.

Surely you are joking. If some 60 million or so Trump fans believe the Big Lie, than that's not 'factually very view listen to Trump'.

Trump built his campaign on the mega lie that Obama was not a US Citizen, that he was born in Kenya.

No president in history would have stooped to such a low thing to do. He also questioned Obama's academic achievement, as if a black man has to have inside connections or cheat in order to get into Harvard, all the while vehemently refused to release his own college transcripts, and fought to keep them out of the public's hands.

Moreover, even Bill Buckley remarked that Trump, before he was elected, was a demagogue. No liberal press is ever going to be friendly with a demagogue.

What, you want everyone to be warm and fuzzy to well-established prevaricating demagogue? Get real.

Any president, when confronted with a pandemic, especially in the age of the last 10 years with the advent of mRNA vaccines, would have fast tracked a vaccine. Really? Does it require evidence? This idea that only Trump would have fast tracked the vaccine is preposterous.
How many pandemics of history of the magnitude of Covid are there? In my life time and my mother's life time, NONE. None of a comparable magnitude.

Trump only got 13.5% of the nation vaccinated. Biden got 55.4% And don't argue 'Biden had more time" Biden's first year is not up yet. So cut the crap.

Your anecdotal evidence is not evidence countering the claim. This from Forbes, which is no liberal enclave.

Here is your 'so-called' news agency, FORBES

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...-covid-19-vaccine-poll-finds/?sh=1a267d18735f
Nearly 40% of Republicans are still hesitant about getting the Covid-19 vaccine or refuse to get it, a new Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI)/Interfaith Youth Core (IFYC) poll finds, though certain subsets of the GOP appear notably more likely to accept or refuse the shot based on their religion, media consumption and whether or not they believe in the QAnon conspiracy theory.

And this:


and this:




End of argument.

 

RNA vaxxes have been studied for some 10 years or so. FDA has approved of the three vaccines, so they are no longer 'experimental'.

Yes, those who are for R v W cannot be for making refusing a vaccine being illegal because the same principle of body autonomy applies.

Currently, refusing vaccination is not illegal. They are being bullied somewhat, but hey, unlike abortion, the health of the nation is at stake, but they still have a choice, and as long as they do, there is no inconsistency.

 

When someone mean's live' with respect to virus, or a 'live virus' they mean an active virus, as opposed to a dead, or inactive virus.

to say a live virus doesn't imply the virus is a living organism, necessarily.

It's semantics.

 

There is nothing wrong with sticking to science which includes correct terms.
https://www.virology.ws/2004/06/09/...t living things,viruses are not living things.

 

Again, I am vaccinated and have taken 3 surveys. One several days ago. They do not ask if you are a voter in a party.
They ask a lot of questions but the issue of party never comes up.
You should take a survey.

 

The host is living. The Virus as science teaches is not living.

 

Now we're getting somewhere. However there appears to be conflicting data.

The underlined parts appear to contradict the bold part. Of course I'm assuming that the word "protection" in the red part means vaccinated. What else could it mean? Surely they wouldn't claim the unvaccinated as being "protected"....right? Still, setting the second underlined aside...the first underlined still contradicts the bold part. Kind of hard to get "well over 90%" if there's 14% that are vaccinated. Unless my math is wrong? .... Anyways, if we do account for the second underlined part then there is definitely far less "unvaccinated hospitalizations" than what Walensky is trying to claim.

 

Apples and butterfly's comparison. Abortion involves two bodies combined.

 

It involves one body inhabiting another, the body that's being inhabited has the right to decide if it wants that condition to continue.

 

And at a certain point others may, on behalf of that other body, argue on behalf of that other body's Right to Life. Just as a parent may go to court to defend their babies Rights.

There are two sets of Rights involved. Whether you want to acknowledge that or not is irrelevant.

Personally I think RvW hit the best balance that we can get in regards to the set of Rights involved. Once the ZEF is viable to live outside the mother then the mother should not be allowed to have an abortion. Have a C-Section if she wants to get rid of it. The hospital can then have her sign a waiver of all Rights to the child and then put it up for adoption or let the father keep it if they wish.

 

The only other person who would have standing is a relative.

 

Actually the State does have standing in regards to preservation of life. Don't believe me? Go talk to a cop.