Then it's not really my fault, is it. Why do you bother?
safety v. compliance
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: safety v. compliance
Who's talking about fault? This is not a blame game.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 8:55 pm Then it's not really my fault, is it. Why do you bother?
If you know that you are saying dumb shit - just choose to stop speaking.
Write/talk less - read/listen more.
Re: safety v. compliance
Is this a serious question or are you just taking the piss?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 3:27 pmThen why take the risk of getting vaccinated if it doesn't do any good?
Re: safety v. compliance
FALSE
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: safety v. compliance
Yes, it has. Just get your vaccine and stop whining about it.
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Tue Jul 27, 2021 7:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: safety v. compliance
It's a matter of credence. The credence given to the vaccine not killing you is many times higher than that given to covid not killing you. Simple enough! Also, to say that the vaccine has killed a fair number of people is misleading. It presupposes upon having received the covid shot and by happenstance that person died shortly after, the vaccine must be responsible, whereas there may be a whole number of reasons why that person died. One could have received the shot when already having covid in which case the vaccine has no or almost no effect which certainly must have happened repeatedly; people who resisted in the past begging for the vaccine now that they have covid would not be unusual. Clearly, not everyone who received the jab under those circumstances is going to make it. When that happens, as it must have many times, it goes without saying the anti-vaxers would make the vaccine responsible.
Re: safety v. compliance
You are adding too much context. Conext creates ambiguity. The issue is really simple when you strip away all the context.Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 1:46 am It's a matter of credence. The credence given to the vaccine not killing you is many times higher than that given to covid not killing you. Simple enough! Also, to say that the vaccine has killed a fair number of people is misleading. It presupposes upon having received the covid shot and by happenstance that person died shortly after, the vaccine must be responsible, whereas there may be a whole number of reasons why that person died. One could have received the shot when already having covid in which case the vaccine has no or almost no effect which certainly must have happened repeatedly; people who resisted in the past begging for the vaccine now that they have covid would not be unusual. Clearly, not everyone who received the jab under those circumstances is going to make it. When that happens, as it must have many times, it goes without saying the anti-vaxers would make the vaccine responsible.
There is one choice resulting in two possible futures. Is there any detectable difference in outcomes for those who make the choice vs those who don't make the choice? We find this out using A/B testing with all the guardrails to avoid human biases (RCT, double-blind, placebo-controlled) etc etc etc.
If there is no difference - there was never any choice.
If there is a difference - it correlates with the choice.
Science is the direct application of the Serenity prayer.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
courage to change the things I can,
and wisdom to know the difference.
Re: safety v. compliance
No idea what you're talking about or how it relates to what I wrote which isn't any philosophy just an observation...so go away!Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 8:28 amYou are adding too much context. Conext creates ambiguity. The issue is really simple when you strip away all the context.Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 1:46 am It's a matter of credence. The credence given to the vaccine not killing you is many times higher than that given to covid not killing you. Simple enough! Also, to say that the vaccine has killed a fair number of people is misleading. It presupposes upon having received the covid shot and by happenstance that person died shortly after, the vaccine must be responsible, whereas there may be a whole number of reasons why that person died. One could have received the shot when already having covid in which case the vaccine has no or almost no effect which certainly must have happened repeatedly; people who resisted in the past begging for the vaccine now that they have covid would not be unusual. Clearly, not everyone who received the jab under those circumstances is going to make it. When that happens, as it must have many times, it goes without saying the anti-vaxers would make the vaccine responsible.
There is one choice resulting in two possible futures. Is there any detectable difference in outcomes for those who make the choice vs those who don't make the choice? We find this out using A/B testing with all the guardrails to avoid human biases (RCT, double-blind, placebo-controlled) etc etc etc.
If there is no difference - there was never any choice.
If there is a difference - it correlates with the choice.
Science is the direct application of the Serenity prayer.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
courage to change the things I can,
and wisdom to know the difference.
Re: safety v. compliance
How it relates to what you wrote is that you are getting too involed with the details.
You are doing the same thing the edgy idiots did in the early months of the pandemic.
AAAAH!!!! But did those people die FROM covid or WITH covid?
AAAAH!!!! But did those people die FROM the vaccine or WITH the vaccine?
And if we are going to be playing the stupid "prove causality" game and going full retard.
AAAAH!!!! But did that guy die FROM a gunshot wound to the head or WITH a gunshot wound to the head?
Well, it strongly correlates with the gunshot wound, but we can never really be sure it's what truly caused it! Because not all people die when shot in the head.
Last edited by Skepdick on Tue Jul 27, 2021 8:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: safety v. compliance
I you were as skilled in shooting yourself in the head as you are in thinking there would still be something left for you to think about.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 8:47 amHow it relates to what you wrote is that you are getting too involed with the details.
You are doing the same thing the edgy idiots did in the early months of the pandemic.
AAAAH!!!! But did those people die FROM covid or WITH covid?
AAAAH!!!! But did those people die FROM the vaccine or WITH the vaccine?
And if we are going to be playing the stupid "prove causality" game and going full retard.
AAAAH!!!! But did that guy die FROM a gunshot wound to the head or WITH a gunshot wound to the head?
Because not all people die when shot in the head.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: safety v. compliance
How strange. When a person is diagnosed with Covid, if they die it is automatically assume Covid is the cause of their death, but a person who receives the vaccine and almost immediately begins to have symptoms they've never had before and dies, it was probably something else that caused the death.Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 1:46 am Also, to say that the vaccine has killed a fair number of people is misleading. It presupposes upon having received the covid shot and by happenstance that person died shortly after, the vaccine must be responsible, whereas there may be a whole number of reasons why that person died.
You're not supposed to think about that. Just close your eyes and get the shot.
Very sad that in the age of the pandemic of paranoia those who hated the government to tell them what they couldn't put in their bodies are now demanding the government to tell them what they must put in their bodies.
You deserve what you ask for.
-
- Posts: 5235
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: safety v. compliance
I know that only a small percentage of people who are vaccinated has died, but can anyone tell me how many of those were due to the vaccines and how many were due to breakthrough Covid? I ask because both of these are often cited as legitimate reasons not to get vaccinated. Are these numbers significant or not?
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: safety v. compliance
See, that's the problem those who have not bought the Covid vaccine cool-aid have. It's almost impossible to get a straight answer from anyone pushing their view on either side of the issue.commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 1:50 pm I know that only a small percentage of people who are vaccinated has died, but can anyone tell me how many of those were due to the vaccines and how many were due to breakthrough Covid? I ask because both of these are often cited as legitimate reasons not to get vaccinated. Are these numbers significant or not?
So long as no one is forced (or prevented) from making their own choice about what to do (or not do) there really is no problem, but the fact that so many people are ready to force their view of what ought to be done on other's is very dangerous--much more dangerous than Covid.
It all sounds very much like, "if we have to kill a thousand people to save one life, it will be worth it," nonsense. Almost all the arguments promoting the vaccine are based on the collectivist view that its for the sake of, "the community," or, "society," and if you have to die or get sick, so long as the community benefits, your life doesn't matter.
Re: safety v. compliance
I find it quite surprising that after a year and a half and after 4 million deaths and 200million confirmed cases, that you are still peddling complete bollocks about the pandemic.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 1:37 pm
How strange. When a person is diagnosed with Covid, if they die it is automatically assume Covid is the cause of their death, but a person who receives the vaccine and almost immediately begins to have symptoms they've never had before and dies, it was probably something else that caused the death.
You're not supposed to think about that. Just close your eyes and get the shot.
Very sad that in the age of the pandemic of paranoia those who hated the government to tell them what they couldn't put in their bodies are now demanding the government to tell them what they must put in their bodies.
You deserve what you ask for.
It is NOT automatically assumed that people with covid die of covid. Fact is that in the UK the deaths are only recorded if within 28 days of a positive covid test.
This means that some untested people dying of covid will not be recorded. SKid row in the US is having its own silent pandemic, and in places like India it is anyone's guess how many have died.
And you ought to know that NO one can die of the virus as such. But you die of the things the virus does to your body, such as massive organ failure, respitory collapse, heart attack, liver damage, oxygen starvation, blood pressure ad infinitem..
SO yeah what a conspiracy no one ever died of a virus what a bunch of lying c*nts those doctors are!
And this bit "but a person who receives the vaccine and almost immediately begins to have symptoms they've never had before and dies, it was probably something else that caused the death.", gets GOLD medal in the total bollocks award for the week. Get a fucking grio on yourself or prove this stupid statement.
There is not a pandemic of fear, but there is a pandemic of fucking idiots like you peddling bullshit.
This gets SILVER.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 1:37 pm Then why take the risk of getting vaccinated if it doesn't do any good?
1) There is basicay no risk in the vaccine - who is the paranoid twat now?
2) Yes, you idiot vaccinated people can pass on the virus. nothing can stop you passing on a virus unless you live in a box. but the vaccine is highly likely to reduce the severity of your illness and might stop you dying.
You are also likely to carry the virus for a shorter period so that moron covid deniers like you might avoid getting sick from someone else.