Jump to content

Canada at the start of Delta dominated fourth Covid wave, so get vaccinated to save lives.


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Cannucklehead said:

What good is a tool if you just leave it in the tool box?  I can't fix my car without them( or anyone else's for that matter)

 

I get what your saying though, and yes it's true that this doesn't make one "bulletproof" or not capable of spreading the virus, but it has been proven to help fight the real infection when used properly.

 

Again, wearing a seat belt doesn't mean you won't die in a car wreck, but it can save your life in many cases.

Driving isn’t a right.  But by all means, wear a seat belt when you drive.  And get vaccinated, that way you won’t have to worry about whether somebody else is or not.  You’ll have a greater chance of dying in a car accident, with or without a seat belt than dying of covid once you’ve been vaccinated.  Do any of you Branch Covidians ever look at the data?  Or is getting vaccinated your sacrament of baptism and not up for discussion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Shady said:

Driving isn’t a right.  But by all means, wear a seat belt when you drive.  And get vaccinated, that way you won’t have to worry about whether somebody else is or not.  You’ll have a greater chance of dying in a car accident, with or without a seat belt than dying of covid once you’ve been vaccinated.  Do any of you Branch Covidians ever look at the data?  Or is getting vaccinated your sacrament of baptism and not up for discussion?

The problem that the compliant majority are discovering is that masking isn’t going away, our identities and movements are being tracked, and we have to worry about showing our papers to enjoy basic freedoms.  The PCR test requirement for fully vaccinated travellers tells you that restrictions aren’t going away and governments are experimenting with arbitrary laws and draconian “public safety” measures, all as the cost of living has a meteoric rise. That tells you that government spending and carbon tax policy has been highly inflationary, but the government can dial back business activity and buying through tightening restrictions on freedom and taxation.  Orwellian for sure.

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, cougar said:

Your analogy is totally flawed.

You my friend are a member of the public outside the rink.

How much chance do you have against the heavyweight contender if the other guy gets training or not? 

Your chance is bloody the same! It is not your fight.

What kind of training the other guy wants to take is up to him, not you.

So your suggestion is to simply roll over and die or not get into the ring at all?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Shady said:

Driving isn’t a right.  But by all means, wear a seat belt when you drive.  And get vaccinated, that way you won’t have to worry about whether somebody else is or not.  You’ll have a greater chance of dying in a car accident, with or without a seat belt than dying of covid once you’ve been vaccinated.  Do any of you Branch Covidians ever look at the data?  Or is getting vaccinated your sacrament of baptism and not up for discussion?

So if you get into a car accident without a seatbelt on and get injured are you going to demand that the insurance company cover all your expenses and not raise your insurance rates?  

 

Anti vaxxers are just completely selfish and ignorant.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Cannucklehead said:

What good is a tool if you just leave it in the tool box?  I can't fix my car without them( or anyone else's for that matter)

Again, wearing a seat belt doesn't mean you won't die in a car wreck, but it can save your life in many cases.

If all tools are the same, would you be fixing your car with a sledgehammer? If after a short, in the context, period vaccines do not prevent transmission, how can blanket restrictions be justified?

Certainly, there are specific situations where any positive effect justifies the measure. But these situations have been kept limited and specific and conditional, for example, flu shots for medical personnel. Any other measures, like seat belts have to be proven a) effective and b) reasonable before they are imposed on everybody. How could one jump from these checks and conditions based on what? A conclusion of anonymous bureaucrats in some office somewhere? There isn't a chance that I would inject into my body everything that the folk that consitently produced travel from Wuhan quality of decisions would tell me to. The level of competence and responsibility obviously isn't there, even it was ever a good thing.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, myata said:

If all tools are the same, would you be fixing your car with a sledgehammer? If after a short, in the context, period vaccines do not prevent transmission, how can blanket restrictions be justified?

Certainly, there are specific situations where any positive effect justifies the measure. But these situations have been kept limited and specific and conditional, for example, flu shots for medical personnel. Any other measures, like seat belts have to be proven a) effective and b) reasonable before they are imposed on everybody. How could one jump from these checks and conditions based on what? A conclusion of anonymous bureaucrats in some office somewhere? There isn't a chance that I would inject into my body everything that the folk that produced travel from Wuhan quality of decision would tell me to. The level of competence and responsibility obviously isn't there even it was ever a good thing.

That's why they had clinical trials before they rolled out the vaccine to the public.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

That's why they had clinical trials before they rolled out the vaccine to the public.  

These are two unrelated issues. Clinical trials demonstrate to some extent (as there were well known incidents) that a treatment is reasonably safe. But it's in no way a justification to trump the right of a patient to agree to using it. A doctor can tell you, you can use this and in most cases it should be safe. But no doctor could tell you have to use it and no choice. Till now.

Who has decided it? How it was decided? Shouldn't, in a democracy at least, people have some say in deciding such matters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, myata said:

These are two unrelated issues. Clinical trials demonstrate to some extent (as there were well known incidents) that a treatment is reasonably safe. But it's in no way a justification to trump the right of a patient to agree to using it. A doctor can tell you, you can use this and in most cases it should be safe. But no doctor could tell you have to use it and no choice. Till now.

Who has decided it? How it was decided? Shouldn't, in a democracy at least, people have some say in deciding such matters?

No but a doctor will tell you that if you don't use it something may happen as a result.  For example they might say these pills will help you, but if you don't take them your condition will most likely get worse.   They might say something like if you don't let me put you in a cast your broken bone may not heal correctly.  

 

An anti vaxxer says I don't need pills, my body heals itself all the time.  I don't need a cast, my body knows how my bone should heal since its been around for x years.  

 

And since you mentioned it, an anti vaxxer prolongs the virus and can spread it.  Do I have no say either as to whether or not they can hang around me?  

 

Not getting vaxxed is a choice.  Any choice has consequences and repercussions, but some people just don't want to deal with that.  They just want what they want and have no negative drawbacks.  

 

That would be nice but we live in the real world.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

No but a doctor will tell you ...

That was way more information than asked for but unfortunately, not really related to the question. Regardless of one's attitude to an individual for any reason, do they have the choice, and the final decision on what goes into their bodies, or not? And if they do, what reasons, limits, checks and conditions, should be met to impose broad policies restricting rights of individuals, in public and private environments? Should there be such conditions, checks and limits on the governments imposing restrictions on individual freedoms, or it can be done arbitrarily without any accountability or recourse and indefinitely too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2021 at 10:26 PM, Aristides said:

Look, if someone decides to die just because they won't get vaccinated, that's all on them. It's their choice, no one elses. What unnecessary horses ass principle were you prepared to die for in Afghanistan? These people aren't hero's, they are just stupid.

They didn't "decide to die".  They placed themselves on the list for an organ donation so they could live.

Anyways, I'm sure you'll be happy to note that you will not be exposed to many "unvaccinated" organs.

There is a huge amount of unvaxxed people who have removed their organ donation status from their driver's licences, due to this mandate.  I'm one of them.

If we're not good enough to get an organ, then we're not good enough to donate one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Goddess said:

They didn't "decide to die".  They placed themselves on the list for an organ donation so they could live.

Anyways, I'm sure you'll be happy to note that you will not be exposed to many "unvaccinated" organs.

There is a huge amount of unvaxxed people who have removed their organ donation status from their driver's licences, due to this mandate.  I'm one of them.

If we're not good enough to get an organ, then we're not good enough to donate one.

They were told they would need to be vaccinated to get a transplant because it is in their own interest to do so. If they contract Covid after the transplant they will be so immunocompromised they will not survive without having been vaccinated. The living donor would also be at greater risk until they have recovered.

What does unvaccinated organs have to do with being a donor? Only living donors are required to be vaccinated for their own safety. You have every right to remove yourself from the list but understand, your decision may cost someone else their life through lack of an organ. Donating an organ isn’t about you. If you would deny someone an organ after you are already dead, you are just being petty and selfish and should be reviewing your own values.

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In 1922, the constitutionality of childhood vaccination was examined in the Supreme Court case Zucht v. King.  The court ruled that a school could deny admission to children who failed to provide a certification of vaccination for the protection of the public health.  In 1987, a measles epidemic occurred in Maricopa County, Arizona and another court case, Maricopa County Health Department vs. Harmon, examined the arguments of an individual's right to education over the states need to protect against the spread of disease. The court found it prudent to take action to combat the spread of disease by denying un-vaccinated children a place in school until the risk for the spread of measles had passed.

 

thats-a-shame.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Aristides said:

your decision may cost someone else their life through lack of an organ.

Nope.  It's their choice to die.

They didn't want unvaxxed to have organs.  So why would they want unvaxxed organs?

Vaxxed are making up the rules as they go along. You want your cake and eat it too?  Nope.

You support unvaxxed getting zero healthcare, then the consequence is there are no organs when you or a loved one needs it.  You choose to die instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Nope.  It's their choice to die.

They didn't want unvaxxed to have organs.  So why would they want unvaxxed organs?

Vaxxed are making up the rules as they go along. You want your cake and eat it too?  Nope.

You support unvaxxed getting zero healthcare, then the consequence is there are no organs when you or a loved one needs it.  You choose to die instead.

You sound like the little kid who says they won’t play anymore if they can’t make the rules. You would carry your bitterness over your live vaccination status to the grave and let it prevent you from doing one of the best things a human can do, save another human’s life. That’s very sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Aristides said:

You sound like the little kid who says they won’t play anymore if they can’t make the rules. You would carry your bitterness over your live vaccination status to the grave and let it prevent you from doing one of the best things a human can do, save another human’s life. That’s very sad.

You could save another human's life by letting them have the healthcare that their own taxes pay for, but you are advocating for unvaxxed people to be denied it.

Why would you even want an organ from an unvaxxed person?  You are here every day saying how unvaxxed do not deserve to be part of society - dirty, filthy, disease-riddled subhumans who you don't want around you.  Why would you even want an organ from someone like that?

You remind me of the slave/plantation owners who viewed black women as subhuman, not human enough to deserve to be part of regular society, but "human" enough to rape every night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

You could save another human's life by letting them have the healthcare that their own taxes pay for, but you are advocating for unvaxxed people to be denied it.

Why would you even want an organ from an unvaxxed person?  You are here every day saying how unvaxxed do not deserve to be part of society - dirty, filthy, disease-riddled subhumans who you don't want around you.  Why would you even want an organ from someone like that?

You remind me of the slave/plantation owners who viewed black women as subhuman, not human enough to deserve to be part of regular society, but "human" enough to rape every night.

Don't be so god damn melodramatic, you are neither a victim or a hero, you are just acting like a spoiled brat that can't get their own way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Don't be so god damn melodramatic, you are neither a victim or a hero, you are just acting like a spoiled brat that can't get their own way.

You and your group who are so terrified of even sitting in a restaurant near unvaxxed people or standing in a store - AREN'T being melodramatic?  Over 95% of covid deaths are elderly people with average of 3 comorbidities.  

You want unvaxxed people to lose all their human rights, their jobs and their healthcare because they are filthy diseased subhumans, BUT you also want their organs when they die.

How dare you call anyone else spoiled or selfish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Goddess said:

You and your group who are so terrified of even sitting in a restaurant near unvaxxed people or standing in a store - AREN'T being melodramatic?  Over 95% of covid deaths are elderly people with average of 3 comorbidities.  

You want unvaxxed people to lose all their human rights, their jobs and their healthcare because they are filthy diseased subhumans, BUT you also want their organs when they die.

How dare you call anyone else spoiled or selfish.

Stop blaming others for the consequences of your choices. You do not get to decide what is in the best interests of those who might receive one of your organs should you decide to be a posthumous donor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Stop blaming others for the consequences of your choices. You do not get to decide what is in the best interests of those who might receive one of your organs should you decide to be a posthumous donor.

And you can stop blaming others for the consequences of your choice.

Do you really think you can treat people as subhumans and then they're going to offer you their heart when they die?  

No.  You bleat on about the consequences for others, but guess what - there's consequences for you too.

The consequences of YOUR CHOICE to be cruel is now there will not be enough organs for you when you or a loved one needs one.

And we have yet to see the true consequences of this vax.  I said before - if the doctors and scientists are correct and we see an explosion of heart attacks, cancers, strokes, neurological disorders (which we are already seeing as adverse reactions to the vax) and now it's the vaxxed plugging up the hospitals - I hope you are met with more kindness than you are extending to others right now.

Good day, sir.

 

Edited by Goddess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talked this morning to the owner of a small bakery shop down the road. For them, nothing has changed since vaccination. Same capacity limits. One customer at a time and no vaccination checks.

Ok, here's the reality. In countries with good public health management e.g. Northern Europe the average daily number of Covid casulties is 1-2, or approximately 10 weekly. This graph (Quebec) shows that less than 10% happen in age groups under 70. The per capita rate is then approximately 1 : 100,000.

This is less than the chance of a fatal traffic accident in Ontario: 1.1 : 100,000.

And it's significantly less than the casualties from flu and pneumonia: 28,000 or 8.6 : 100,000 (USA data, much harder to find analogous for Canada, exzperts being extremely busy)

One can spin, stretch and squeeze data but it cannot change the numbers and the truth behind them: in a) well managed public health systems and b) general population, excluding vulnerable groups and c) as of now, the cost of Covid is below that that of flu or traffic accidents.

And that's why most of developed world, with well managed public health systems is focusing on returning to normal while protecting vulnerable. Except of course, you know who. What would be the next pretext to justify continuation of unnecessary regulations and useless restrictions? Let's guess, there are only two: a) don't blow on the crumbling system (with automatic annual raises and golden parachutes, how else?) and b) just because I said so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/antivaxxers-covid-vaccine-telegram-leaflets-b1917305.html

 

Anti-vaxxers mock up leaflets imitating NHS documents and cartoon posters targeting children

 

Nothing but degenerates who have nothing better to do.  

 

And we should feel sorry for these people...

why?  

Perhaps I was too harsh on the guy driving the "free candy" van around my neighborhood?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Goddess said:

And you can stop blaming others for the consequences of your choice.

Do you really think you can treat people as subhumans and then they're going to offer you their heart when they die?  

No.  You bleat on about the consequences for others, but guess what - there's consequences for you too.

The consequences of YOUR CHOICE to be cruel is now there will not be enough organs for you when you or a loved one needs one.

And we have yet to see the true consequences of this vax.  I said before - if the doctors and scientists are correct and we see an explosion of heart attacks, cancers, strokes, neurological disorders (which we are already seeing as adverse reactions to the vax) and now it's the vaxxed plugging up the hospitals - I hope you are met with more kindness than you are extending to others right now.

Good day, sir.

 

I sure wouldn't want my organs to go to some stupid antivaxxer who croaked a few weeks after their transplant because their unvaccinated Covid infected bodies couldn't cope with the anti rejection drugs they were on. If hospitals were allowing that I would have far more reason to remove my name from the donors list than you and your hissy fit. See how that works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Aristides said:

Yet antivaxxers claim mRNA vaccines damage red cells. 

Never heard that. 

The vaccines definitely cause pericarditis, myocarditis, and blood clotting, especially in healthy people who have nothing to fear from covid. People have died from them. 

The adverse long-term effect of the vaccines are still unknown. 

Edited by WestCanMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Never heard that. 

The vaccines definitely cause pericarditis, myocarditis, and blood clotting, especially in healthy people who have nothing to fear from covid. People have died from them. 

The adverse long-term effect of the vaccines are still unknown. 

It's one of the stories that were circulating. There are so many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...