What is?

[Jimi77 5,000+ posts]

You’re missing my point. I will give you a real world example why it’s not virtuous. My cousin, who steals money from his parents and hides it in his girlfriends name to avoid child support, is a real piece of work. He took the vaccine. His brother, who served in the Navy, coaches little league t-ball for free and mows his elderly neighbors lawn every Sunday isn’t vaccinated. The useless cousin gets online constantly and uses his fake vaccine virtue to put down his brother for not being vaccinated. One of these men has real virtues, and the other doesn’t. The vaccination has nothing to do with virtue.

That's a very confusing analogy. It seems that your saying doing things for others is indeed virtuous. I was in the Marines, this week I tore out and replaced the edging in my parents front yard. I chiseled out all the old cement sealant in my parents driveway, front entry and the back patio and resealed everything. Even got sun stroked doing it. When a storm blows in the little old lady across the cul-de-sac from me gets her driveway snow blown and I snowblow the neighbor's sidewalks all the time. I've been a volunteer soccer coach and adaptive ski/snowboard instructor. As an adaptive ski/snowboard instructor, I was often coming out of pocket a few hundred bucks a season to help keep the organization afloat. Even helping people out with their audio problems on this forum is virtuous. And all that stuff makes me a virtuous person, but for some reason there is a line at the vax where doing something for others or the greater good ceases to be virtuous. Why is that singular act not considered virtuous but all the others are? Seems rather arbitrary. Is it just because you're not a fan of the vax and don't want to give anybody who got it any sort of credit?

Ironically, the anti-vaxxers view the covid vaccine as more dangerous and risky than the vaccinated crowd. So it seems that the anti-vaxxers should view getting the vax as more "virtuous" given the perception of higher risk.

 

[Jimi77 5,000+ posts]

You’re SAYING the vax doesn’t do this, but the evidence and the medical community says otherwise.
Whose word are we supposed to take: Your’s? Joe Rogan’s? Alex Jones’s? The myriad conspiracy theorists that Buck follows and quotes endlessly?
Or the thousands of medical professionals in the medical industry that have gone to school, been trained, worked in the field, done the experiments, gathered the statistics, etc?

Viral load and shedding are two different animals. If I’m mildly sick but never cough or sneeze, I’m shedding less than the person who is hacking and schnorting all over the place. Common sense.

So, if getting a vaccine is “just for ourselves”, why is it required that people immigrating to the US be vaccinated? Just so they won’t get sick? Who GAF is they do?
No, it’s for this reason:

• The vaccine must protect against a disease that has the potential to cause an outbreak.

Who is being protected from an outbreak? The person getting vaccinated? No. That would not be an outbreak.
I guess it must be protecting OTHERS.

Alex Jones. When in doubt always trust Alex Jones.

 

[SlugButter]

That's a very confusing analogy. It seems that your saying doing things for others is indeed virtuous. I was in the Marines, this week I tore out and replaced the edging in my parents front yard. I chiseled out all the old cement sealant in my parents driveway, front entry and the back patio and resealed everything. Even got sun stroked doing it. When a storm blows in the little old lady across the cul-de-sac from me gets her driveway snow blown and I snowblow the neighbor's sidewalks all the time. I've been a volunteer soccer coach and adaptive ski/snowboard instructor. As an adaptive ski/snowboard instructor, I was often coming out of pocket a few hundred bucks a season to help keep the organization afloat. Even helping people out with their audio problems on this forum is virtuous. And all that stuff makes me a virtuous person, but for some reason there is a line at the vax where doing something for others or the greater good ceases to be virtuous. Why is that singular act not considered virtuous but all the others are? Seems rather arbitrary. Is it just because you're not a fan of the vax and don't want to give anybody who got it any sort of credit?

Ironically, the anti-vaxxers view the covid vaccine as more dangerous and risky than the vaccinated crowd. So it seems that the anti-vaxxers should view getting the vax as more "virtuous" given the perception of higher risk.

Yeah. You don’t get what I’m saying. Oh well.

 

[Jimi77 5,000+ posts]

Yeah. You don’t get what I’m saying. Oh well.

No I don't. Seems like a lot of mental gymnastics to disqualify one singular act as "not virtuous." If every single person that got the vax was otherwise a scumbag, I guess you'd have a point. I hope you're not suggesting everybody who got the vax is a scumbag. Or is it some sort of circular logic where mentioning that part of your motivation was to benefit others is scumbaggery and therefore immediately makes an otherwise virtuous without virtue?

 

[RobGMN 5,000+ posts]

Yeah. You don’t get what I’m saying. Oh well.

He obviously did, but gave a deep explanation of why your examples mean nothing in the context of whether getting a vax helps others.

In both situations you described, the actors do something virtuous, but not EVERYTHING they do is virtuous. So, that must make BOTH of them non-virtuous people.
Or BOTH of them virtuous people.

In the meantime, have you reported this relative for committing fraud? That would be a virtuous thing to do.

 

[djdilliodon!]

Recent proof?
Are you expecting them to test the vaccines all over again to see if they still work or if human bodies have suddenly changed in some way?
Why would they do it all over again, when they’ve already got data on efficacy from literally billions of administered vaxes?

As for immigration: it makes sense because with 81% of the US population having had at least one shot, an outbreak is unlikely. The vaxes required by immigration are done so in order to prevent the immigrant causing an outbreak (i.e. - making others sick).

I’m still waiting for proof that unlike others, this particular vaccine has no blue sky effect. That would suggest that COVID is on some way not a communicable illness.
Did that aspect of it get changed?

The more time that goes on doesn’t mean tests stop. It was an emergency use authorization, they are still gathering data and doing testing. Remember, efficacy of the covid vax is how well it triggers an antibody response, NOT how well it prevents someone from getting the virus or passing it on. The other part is to help prevent hospitalization and death (it’s not 100% either) I’m offended that you think I’m dumb enough not to know this . I’m starting to think I’m dumb enough though to keep responding to you when you don’t even show me what I ask and I keep replying . Heck at this point I’ll even take any reputable agency (CDC for example) that says if you get the jab and what now 4 boosters it will prevent you from getting the virus and prevent you if you do get it (which you shouldn’t but what do you think a breakthrough infection is ) you don’t give it to others. I have no idea how this part is even debatable lol. It’s why you don’t ever see it marketed that way, it’s why the cdc doesn’t list it as a benefit! Even left wing news knows this and I’m too lazy to go on YouTube to search for the clips but you can yourself cause I’ve already seen it. I think if my memory is right they even admitted it on the view .

They stopped the requirement for travelers cause the emergency authorization expired. They have no grounds to do it anymore. Some other countries like Colombia which I visit often only kept requiring negative test results to visit and not vaccine proof cause the US government gave them millions (I believe in the 100’s of millions) to do it and respond to covid. It’s over now, the covid thing is done and no one cares anymore.

Right from the cdc and I’ve searched it all, notice how there is no efficacy figures on how well it does at preventing you getting the virus or spreading it? It’s cause that is not what it’s for .
“

• The overall vaccine effectiveness of 3 doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine against COVID-19–associated hospitalization was 69% during the BA.1/BA.2 period; it was 31% during the BA.4/BA.5 period.
• Additionally, protection against hospitalization in the first 4 months after the third dose of vaccine during the BA.4/BA.5 period was 60% and decreased to 29% after 4 months.

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

 

[Jimi77 5,000+ posts]

He obviously did, but gave a deep explanation of why your examples mean nothing in the context of whether getting a vax helps others.

In both situations you described, the actors do something virtuous, but not EVERYTHING they do is virtuous. So, that must make BOTH of them non-virtuous people.
Or BOTH of them virtuous people.

In the meantime, have you reported this relative for committing fraud? That would be a virtuous thing to do.

Actually turning in his cousin wouldn't be "virtuous." Virtue is defined as something that demonstrates high moral standards. I wouldn't call ratting out your cousin a demonstration high moral standards. Since vaxxers saw very little risk in taking the vaccine, the vax was free and readily available, I don't see how taking an hour out of your day to go get a shot demonstrates high moral standards. Joining a convent, that demonstrates high moral standards. Even if one's sole motivation in getting the shot was for the greater good, at best it's "common decency" - kinda like not coming to work sick or covering your mouth when you cough or sneeze. Getting the jab MIGHT barely count as a moral thing to do, I'd say it's more like an easy thing to do that involved almost no sacrifice.

IMHO, what's happening here is people have hijacked the word virtue and greatly expanded it to be some sort of catch all for any and every social/political action that "the bad guys" take. Then of course then they can attack you for claiming your actions are virtuous when you never made such a claim to begin with. Got the shot - virtue signaling. Put a LGBTQ bumper sticker on your car - virtue signaling. How is showing support for the LGBTQxyz community have anything to with high moral standards? Basically somebody just invented a phrase to use as a catch all insult for any display of your social or political beliefs that they take exception to.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

The WEF wants to make your nation run like the open air, digital prison of China:

Klaus Schwab Praises CCP for Adopting 'COVID Control Measures' at WEF 'Summer Davos' in China

World Economic Forum (WEF) founder Klaus Schwab praises China for adopting "new COVID control measures" while boosting "social dynamism" at the WEF's Annual Meeting of the New Champions.

sociable.co

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

It makes no sense why people can’t sue vaccine manufacturers for a product harming someone. Idk if any other medical thing that works like this, seems like a complete scam not to able to sue someone who hurts you, especially when many were forced to take this and many very high ranking “experts” said the vaccines were and are safe:

‘With her medical bills mounting and her condition not improving, Fox sought compensation for her damaged health. Federal liability protections prevent the vaccine-injured from directly suing vaccine manufacturers like Johnson & Johnson. Instead, claimants have to go to the federal government for compensation.’

‘Before the pandemic, this program received a little over 500 claims and had paid out compensation to only 30 people – mostly for H1N1 (swine flu) vaccine injuries. In just the past two years, it has been asked to make decisions on over 10,000 injury claims related to COVID countermeasures.’

‘“It’s a very pro-vaccine community,” says Christopher Dreisbach, the group’s legal affairs director. “You say anything about vaccine injuries, you’re branded as anti-vaxxers. We are pro-science, we are not political. We’re just dealing with a very politicized issue.”

Laid Low by the COVID Vaccine, Now They've Got a Bad Case of Federal Unresponsiveness

By Christian Britschgi, RealClearInvestigationsJune 28, 2023 In April 2021, Adele Fox received a single shot of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine. Within a few hours, the 60-year-old resident of

realclearwire.com

 

[Jimi77 5,000+ posts]

It makes no sense why people can’t sue vaccine manufacturers for a product harming someone. Idk if any other medical thing that works like this, seems like a complete scam not to able to sue someone who hurts you, especially when many were forced to take this and many very high ranking “experts” said the vaccines were and are safe:

‘With her medical bills mounting and her condition not improving, Fox sought compensation for her damaged health. Federal liability protections prevent the vaccine-injured from directly suing vaccine manufacturers like Johnson & Johnson. Instead, claimants have to go to the federal government for compensation.’

‘Before the pandemic, this program received a little over 500 claims and had paid out compensation to only 30 people – mostly for H1N1 (swine flu) vaccine injuries. In just the past two years, it has been asked to make decisions on over 10,000 injury claims related to COVID countermeasures.’

‘“It’s a very pro-vaccine community,” says Christopher Dreisbach, the group’s legal affairs director. “You say anything about vaccine injuries, you’re branded as anti-vaxxers. We are pro-science, we are not political. We’re just dealing with a very politicized issue.”

Laid Low by the COVID Vaccine, Now They've Got a Bad Case of Federal Unresponsiveness

By Christian Britschgi, RealClearInvestigationsJune 28, 2023 In April 2021, Adele Fox received a single shot of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine. Within a few hours, the 60-year-old resident of

realclearwire.com

Good luck getting your money from the Fed. Actually they'll get it, but it's not going to quick or easy. Funny how they doled out billions to big businesses with no oversight but these relatively small cases are regulated tighter than we guard our nation's secrets. We have the best gov't money can buy. Ironically it's being bought by either taxes being funneled to the rich and powerful or it's being with money that should have been collected in the form of taxes from the rich and powerful. It's good to be the king(s)!

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

We knew the short term safety risk of COVID: millions dead.

How many millions over how many years should the vax have been tested on, while millions were dying of COVID?

Seems to me like a clown would choose death over a vaccine.
Go honk your nose, clown.

So if you didn't get the vax and got COVID, you die? How am I still alive then?

I think they should have studied the bodies natural immunity to COVID before rushing into a vaccine. At that point they could see how the body fought it naturally and replicated that. Like I said, the second time I got COVID I didn't know I even had it.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Good luck getting your money from the Fed. Actually they'll get it, but it's not going to quick or easy. Funny how they doled out billions to big businesses with no oversight but these relatively small cases are regulated tighter than we guard our nation's secrets. We have the best gov't money can buy. Ironically it's being bought by either taxes being funneled to the rich and powerful or it's being with money that should have been collected in the form of taxes from the rich and powerful. It's good to be the king(s)!

They rolled out the EUA COVID vaccines with hardly any oversight, either. Seems like the studies that were done to prove early safety were completely done by the vaccine manufacturer…just saying…it’s not like Pfizer holds the record for the biggest healthcare fraud settlement ever from lying about its products, like they’ve done several times, which lead to the deaths of adults and children from their lies…I’m sure you can trust their study on their own vaccines…

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

‘In a peer-reviewed letter published June 16 in the journal Vaccine, a team of experts revealed “major shortcomings” with the FDA’s near real-time surveillance study assessing outcomes in U.S. COVID-19 vaccine recipients.’

Experts Reveal 'Major Shortcomings' With FDA Analysis Of Safety Outcomes In COVID-19 Vaccinated Recipients | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[RobGMN 5,000+ posts]

The more time that goes on doesn’t mean tests stop. It was an emergency use authorization, they are still gathering data and doing testing. Remember, efficacy of the covid vax is how well it triggers an antibody response, NOT how well it prevents someone from getting the virus or passing it on. The other part is to help prevent hospitalization and death (it’s not 100% either) I’m offended that you think I’m dumb enough not to know this . I’m starting to think I’m dumb enough though to keep responding to you when you don’t even show me what I ask and I keep replying .

If they tested and proved widespread efficacy, they don't have to do the tests all over again unless they are changing the vax or there is a significant change in the subjects the vax is administered to.
What other vaccine that is in current use do they do complete efficacy studies on when the vaccine hasn't changed?
I'm not sure what you are asking for that I haven't shown you. Most of the things you have asked for are under the presumption that vaccines do not work, which is obviously a non-starter.
Reiterate a valid question i missed and I will gladly answer.

Heck at this point I’ll even take any reputable agency (CDC for example) that says if you get the jab and what now 4 boosters it will prevent you from getting the virus and prevent you if you do get it (which you shouldn’t but what do you think a breakthrough infection is ) you don’t give it to others. I have no idea how this part is even debatable lol. It’s why you don’t ever see it marketed that way, it’s why the cdc doesn’t list it as a benefit! Even left wing news knows this and I’m too lazy to go on YouTube to search for the clips but you can yourself cause I’ve already seen it. I think if my memory is right they even admitted it on the view .

Blue sky benefits are something that can be seen in statistical data. Using seatbelts as an analogy: The dramatic reduction in deaths from car accidents after seatbelts were made mandatory to wear. Anti-seatbelt people will point out the one or two people that still die while wearing a seatbelt, or claim that other advances in car safety are the reason, but it's a fool's folly to say seatbelts are not effective in preventing deaths.
I don;t understand how you think it's debatable that a vaccine affects more than just the person who gets it, and will again point to immigrnats being required to get vaccines to prevent an outbreak. An outbreak is more than one person.
If a sick person can casue an an outbreak, don't you see the logic that reducing or preventing sickness can reduce the odds of outbreak?
Do you think it we all just stopped getting vaxed for polio, that we'd all be safe because it is "gone"? What happens then when one of us picks it up elsewhere and brings it home? Their lack of vax has no effect on anyone else. Right?

They stopped the requirement for travelers cause the emergency authorization expired. They have no grounds to do it anymore. Some other countries like Colombia which I visit often only kept requiring negative test results to visit and not vaccine proof cause the US government gave them millions (I believe in the 100’s of millions) to do it and respond to covid. It’s over now, the covid thing is done and no one cares anymore.

Can you explain the "no grounds to do it any more"? What grounds do they have to require other vaccinations?
The EUA ended b/c vaxes are FDA approved.,

Right from the cdc and I’ve searched it all, notice how there is no efficacy figures on how well it does at preventing you getting the virus or spreading it? It’s cause that is not what it’s for .
“

• The overall vaccine effectiveness of 3 doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine against COVID-19–associated hospitalization was 69% during the BA.1/BA.2 period; it was 31% during the BA.4/BA.5 period.
• Additionally, protection against hospitalization in the first 4 months after the third dose of vaccine during the BA.4/BA.5 period was 60% and decreased to 29% after 4 months.

The efficacy figures are shown in what happened once the vax administration became widespread.
Maybe I'm misreading it, but you claim "no efficacy figures on how well it does at preventing you getting the virus or spreading it" and then you include a stat like "The overall vaccine effectiveness of 3 doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine against COVID-19–associated hospitalization was 69% during the BA.1/BA.2 period; it was 31% during the BA.4/BA.5 period."
WHich one is it? No efficacy or known efficacy?

And if a vaccine doesn;t exist to prevent infection or to prevent the spread of infection, then what DOES one do?

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

They rolled out the EUA COVID vaccines with hardly any oversight, either. Seems like the studies that were done to prove early safety were completely done by the vaccine manufacturer…just saying…it’s not like Pfizer holds the record for the biggest healthcare fraud settlement ever from lying about its products, like they’ve done several times, which lead to the deaths of adults and children from their lies…I’m sure you can trust their study on their own vaccines…

Supposed to take 5 to 12 years to “safely” develop a vaccine:

‘“I have a friend who’s, believe it or not, he tends to be liberal and he said, ‘Why don’t you ever talk about the fact that you had the vaccines approved in nine months instead of 12 years?’ Five to 12 years they said it was going to take,” Trump claimed.’

‘“These data confirm the favorable efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine,” Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said in response to the release of a company analysis that claimed the Pfizer shot showed “[n]o serious safety concerns.”’ <- he can be sued for lying about that, false claim about a medical product to sell the product

Why Trump Should Acknowledge The Covid Shot's Risks

Trump is declining to acknowledge the documented side effects associated with the Covid jabs, but he shouldn't.

thefederalist.com

 

[RobGMN 5,000+ posts]

Really weird how a generally isolated group of people would have a lower incidence of an illness that seems to have been spread quite readily through social contact.

 

[djdilliodon!]

If they tested and proved widespread efficacy, they don't have to do the tests all over again unless they are changing the vax or there is a significant change in the subjects the vax is administered to.
What other vaccine that is in current use do they do complete efficacy studies on when the vaccine hasn't changed?
I'm not sure what you are asking for that I haven't shown you. Most of the things you have asked for are under the presumption that vaccines do not work, which is obviously a non-starter.
Reiterate a valid question i missed and I will gladly answer.

Blue sky benefits are something that can be seen in statistical data. Using seatbelts as an analogy: The dramatic reduction in deaths from car accidents after seatbelts were made mandatory to wear. Anti-seatbelt people will point out the one or two people that still die while wearing a seatbelt, or claim that other advances in car safety are the reason, but it's a fool's folly to say seatbelts are not effective in preventing deaths.
I don;t understand how you think it's debatable that a vaccine affects more than just the person who gets it, and will again point to immigrnats being required to get vaccines to prevent an outbreak. An outbreak is more than one person.
If a sick person can casue an an outbreak, don't you see the logic that reducing or preventing sickness can reduce the odds of outbreak?
Do you think it we all just stopped getting vaxed for polio, that we'd all be safe because it is "gone"? What happens then when one of us picks it up elsewhere and brings it home? Their lack of vax has no effect on anyone else. Right?


Can you explain the "no grounds to do it any more"? What grounds do they have to require other vaccinations?
The EUA ended b/c vaxes are FDA approved.,

The efficacy figures are shown in what happened once the vax administration became widespread.
Maybe I'm misreading it, but you claim "no efficacy figures on how well it does at preventing you getting the virus or spreading it" and then you include a stat like "The overall vaccine effectiveness of 3 doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine against COVID-19–associated hospitalization was 69% during the BA.1/BA.2 period; it was 31% during the BA.4/BA.5 period."
WHich one is it? No efficacy or known efficacy?

And if a vaccine doesn;t exist to prevent infection or to prevent the spread of infection, then what DOES one do?

Lots of fluff so let me keep on the point and the point only. The covid vaccine was made to reduce the chances of hospitalization, death, and long covid for the person who gets it. That is all, nothing more. In the beginning some tried to peddle it prevented you from getting the virus and spreading it. That isn’t true, it’s the same with the flu vaccine, if the flu vaccine prevented spread and a person getting the virus it would be eradicated. Covid and the flu are not polio or like other viruses. Some viruses can be eradicated and that is why it’s mandatory to get a vaccine that is capable of doing that. You are beating around the bush here, the bottom line is you get a covid vaccine for yourself, not to save others but to save yourself. If you want to believe the vaccine prevents a person from getting the virus and spreading it, you need to say it’s your opinion, cause it most certainly isn’t a fact. I’m not an antivaxxer, it’s clear vaccines do work but we can’t pretend a vaccine does something it doesn’t. This is why I mentioned virtue in the first place cause I never said it does nothing I never said it doesn’t work. I said it doesn’t prevent spread or a person from getting it. You not understanding that and even after proof is shown, the only reason I could think of why you want to die on this hill is simply cause of virtue.

 

[RobGMN 5,000+ posts]

Supposed to take 5 to 12 years to “safely” develop a vaccine:

‘“I have a friend who’s, believe it or not, he tends to be liberal and he said, ‘Why don’t you ever talk about the fact that you had the vaccines approved in nine months instead of 12 years?’ Five to 12 years they said it was going to take,” Trump claimed.’

‘“These data confirm the favorable efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine,” Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said in response to the release of a company analysis that claimed the Pfizer shot showed “[n]o serious safety concerns.”’ <- he can be sued for lying about that, false claim about a medical product to sell the product

Why Trump Should Acknowledge The Covid Shot's Risks

Trump is declining to acknowledge the documented side effects associated with the Covid jabs, but he shouldn't.

thefederalist.com

What is the rule that it should take 5-12 years? Is it written?

And "the risks"?
How come a 1% death rate when talking about 330,000,000 potentially infected people is "nothing" (we lost 1.1 Million to COVID), but a vaccine that may cause the death of .00002% of people who take it (potential of 6,600 people) is a horrow show?

That seems to be a very selective concern to me.