FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Blow Jab Anyone???
Blow Jab Anyone???
Jump to: Newest in thread
Was intrigued to read that Austria is offering free 'vouchers' that can be used in a legal brothel in return for getting vaccinated.
I quote:
"Austrian brothel offering vouchers for vaccinations"
"The initiative comes as Austria’s government announced Monday it would allow brothels to resume operation after the COVID-19 pandemic forced them to close."
"Austrian brothel “Funpalast” has announced that newly-vaccinated residents will receive a €30 Euro voucher for services at their Vienna establishment.
The initiative comes as Austria’s government announced Monday it would allow brothels to resume operation after the COVID-19 pandemic forced the closure of brothels and other sexual services. Prostitution is legal under Austrian law.
“Due to the pandemic, we have registered a 50% decrease; with this initiative, we hope that the number of customers will rise,” Funpalast's owner told Austrian newspaper Kurier.
The voucher is targeted to everyone, although specifically to foreign workers, who lag in their rate of vaccination, are unfamiliar with local laws and lack access to vaccines. The Funpalast hopes to boost vaccination rates among this key demographic in Austrian society. Furthermore, 95% of Austria’s sex workers are foreigners, according to Austria’s Federal Ministry." |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It seems like a novel, sweet idea that's smart to target those who are vulnerable as well as potential punters.
It must have been incredibly tough for the brothels etc having to have been out of business for so long. If it perks things up, great  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So cringeworthy. Imagine the uproar if people were being given vouchers to not take it  "
That would be like giving people vouchers for not wearing a seatbelt.... counter productive.
Even though these incentives are not something I believe is really useful, encouraging people to do something which benefits the wider community is a sensible option.
Cal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So cringeworthy. Imagine the uproar if people were being given vouchers to not take it
That would be like giving people vouchers for not wearing a seatbelt.... counter productive.
Even though these incentives are not something I believe is really useful, encouraging people to do something which benefits the wider community is a sensible option.
Cal"
You're not risking death, myocarditis or a range of other awful side effects when you put on a seatbelt so no it wouldn't be like that. It staggers me that people keep repeating that stupid analogy without thinking it through. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So cringeworthy. Imagine the uproar if people were being given vouchers to not take it
That would be like giving people vouchers for not wearing a seatbelt.... counter productive.
Even though these incentives are not something I believe is really useful, encouraging people to do something which benefits the wider community is a sensible option.
Cal
You're not risking death, myocarditis or a range of other awful side effects when you put on a seatbelt so no it wouldn't be like that. It staggers me that people keep repeating that stupid analogy without thinking it through. "
The seatbelt analogy has been done to death hasn’t it. You’re right, it’s like comparing oranges to hippos. It’s repeated constantly zzzz |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Aren't the majority of sex workers at risk, trafficked, abused, gang owned? "
Don’t worry about them, just get the jab.
Have the sex workers had the jab? Will they be sacked if they refuse (the jab, not the fucking strangers against their will)?
Make sure you wear your seatbelt on the journey to the brothel too! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
So we’re in a deadly pandemic but let’s incentivise the people to take what’s ‘needed’ to keep them well by using, beer, donuts, burgers and now sex. First three is a little counter intuitive if you want to help improve health and well being. Then if there’s a virus and a vaccine that doesn’t stop you catching it and spreading it, is it wise to encourage such intimacy. I was never the best at maths but if this adds up then I’m a madman.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Aren't the majority of sex workers at risk, trafficked, abused, gang owned?
Don’t worry about them, just get the jab.
Have the sex workers had the jab? Will they be sacked if they refuse (the jab, not the fucking strangers against their will)?
Make sure you wear your seatbelt on the journey to the brothel too! "
I'll have a jab while I keep my foot on your throat? ... I know this is a glib headline grabber and it's terribly hilariously funny and all that, but isn't there a serious side to the story? How can it be right to encourage a trade that relies so heavily on abusing those sex workers in the most horrific ways?
Next will be get a jab and have a free wrap of crack... You couldn't make some of this up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So cringeworthy. Imagine the uproar if people were being given vouchers to not take it
That would be like giving people vouchers for not wearing a seatbelt.... counter productive.
Even though these incentives are not something I believe is really useful, encouraging people to do something which benefits the wider community is a sensible option.
Cal
You're not risking death, myocarditis or a range of other awful side effects when you put on a seatbelt so no it wouldn't be like that. It staggers me that people keep repeating that stupid analogy without thinking it through.
The seatbelt analogy has been done to death hasn’t it. You’re right, it’s like comparing oranges to hippos. It’s repeated constantly zzzz"
They never want to talk about natural immunity. So using their stupid apology, I'm already wearing the best seatbelt but they need me to wear two seatbelts otherwise their shitty seatbelt won't work. WTF. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So cringeworthy. Imagine the uproar if people were being given vouchers to not take it
 
I wonder if women will take up the offer of a free shag."
dammit thats my business start up idea shot down!!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Aren't the majority of sex workers at risk, trafficked, abused, gang owned?
Don’t worry about them, just get the jab.
Have the sex workers had the jab? Will they be sacked if they refuse (the jab, not the fucking strangers against their will)?
Make sure you wear your seatbelt on the journey to the brothel too! "
Or something about Orange & Monkeys?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Aren't the majority of sex workers at risk, trafficked, abused, gang owned? "
"30 minutes with the lady of their choice".
So she can't say no because he got the jab in return for a free fuck. Presumably only men will take up this offer.
The sex workers don't matter. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Aren't the majority of sex workers at risk, trafficked, abused, gang owned?
Don’t worry about them, just get the jab.
Have the sex workers had the jab? Will they be sacked if they refuse (the jab, not the fucking strangers against their will)?
Make sure you wear your seatbelt on the journey to the brothel too!
Or something about Orange & Monkeys? "
hippos - orange hippos!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So cringeworthy. Imagine the uproar if people were being given vouchers to not take it
That would be like giving people vouchers for not wearing a seatbelt.... counter productive.
Even though these incentives are not something I believe is really useful, encouraging people to do something which benefits the wider community is a sensible option.
Cal
You're not risking death, myocarditis or a range of other awful side effects when you put on a seatbelt so no it wouldn't be like that. It staggers me that people keep repeating that stupid analogy without thinking it through.
The seatbelt analogy has been done to death hasn’t it. You’re right, it’s like comparing oranges to hippos. It’s repeated constantly zzzz
They never want to talk about natural immunity. So using their stupid apology, I'm already wearing the best seatbelt but they need me to wear two seatbelts otherwise their shitty seatbelt won't work. WTF. "
I can feel a new philosophical "saying" coming on.
. In the same way as we have occams razor, and pavlovs dogs, schrodingers cat and humes razor, we will have covids seatbelt. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So cringeworthy. Imagine the uproar if people were being given vouchers to not take it
That would be like giving people vouchers for not wearing a seatbelt.... counter productive.
Even though these incentives are not something I believe is really useful, encouraging people to do something which benefits the wider community is a sensible option.
Cal
You're not risking death, myocarditis or a range of other awful side effects when you put on a seatbelt so no it wouldn't be like that. It staggers me that people keep repeating that stupid analogy without thinking it through.
The seatbelt analogy has been done to death hasn’t it. You’re right, it’s like comparing oranges to hippos. It’s repeated constantly zzzz
They never want to talk about natural immunity. So using their stupid apology, I'm already wearing the best seatbelt but they need me to wear two seatbelts otherwise their shitty seatbelt won't work. WTF.
I can feel a new philosophical "saying" coming on.
. In the same way as we have occams razor, and pavlovs dogs, schrodingers cat and humes razor, we will have covids seatbelt."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
What I'm reading in this article is a brothel is reopening after a long lockdown and is offering vaccinated customers 30 euros off their first visit.
Spin doctors and what you want to see right here |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So cringeworthy. Imagine the uproar if people were being given vouchers to not take it
That would be like giving people vouchers for not wearing a seatbelt.... counter productive.
Even though these incentives are not something I believe is really useful, encouraging people to do something which benefits the wider community is a sensible option.
Cal
You're not risking death, myocarditis or a range of other awful side effects when you put on a seatbelt so no it wouldn't be like that. It staggers me that people keep repeating that stupid analogy without thinking it through.
The seatbelt analogy has been done to death hasn’t it. You’re right, it’s like comparing oranges to hippos. It’s repeated constantly zzzz
They never want to talk about natural immunity. So using their stupid apology, I'm already wearing the best seatbelt but they need me to wear two seatbelts otherwise their shitty seatbelt won't work. WTF. "
To be factual. The evidence has demonstrated that there is still a huge benefit from being vaccinated even when you've had the virus. A "natural" immunity is not in any way "better" than a vaccine acquired one, as in both cases the immune response is generated by you body rather than the pathogen. However, additional exposure to the pathogen (or Pseudo pathogen in the case of vaccines) helps to refine and strengthen the immune response. The same effects can be achieved be becoming infected multiple times, ideally with different variants.
Also, the seat-belt analogy works well here because both vaccines and seat-belts are devices designed to reduce the impact of an adverse event, and offering an incentive to "not mitigate" that risk would be foolhardy.
I seem to remember when the government were trying to make seat-belts mandatory, there were several groups making claims about "dangers they posed"... but they literally save thousands of lives every year.
Cal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What I'm reading in this article is a brothel is reopening after a long lockdown and is offering vaccinated customers 30 euros off their first visit.
Spin doctors and what you want to see right here "
The unvaccinated will be locked down anyway... So won't be able to avail of the promotion...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59245018
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"What I'm reading in this article is a brothel is reopening after a long lockdown and is offering vaccinated customers 30 euros off their first visit.
Spin doctors and what you want to see right here
The unvaccinated will be locked down anyway... So won't be able to avail of the promotion...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59245018
"
I will watch this with interest, I'm curious to know how they will identify unvaccinated people in the Provence |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So cringeworthy. Imagine the uproar if people were being given vouchers to not take it
That would be like giving people vouchers for not wearing a seatbelt.... counter productive.
Even though these incentives are not something I believe is really useful, encouraging people to do something which benefits the wider community is a sensible option.
Cal
You're not risking death, myocarditis or a range of other awful side effects when you put on a seatbelt so no it wouldn't be like that. It staggers me that people keep repeating that stupid analogy without thinking it through.
The seatbelt analogy has been done to death hasn’t it. You’re right, it’s like comparing oranges to hippos. It’s repeated constantly zzzz
They never want to talk about natural immunity. So using their stupid apology, I'm already wearing the best seatbelt but they need me to wear two seatbelts otherwise their shitty seatbelt won't work. WTF.
To be factual. The evidence has demonstrated that there is still a huge benefit from being vaccinated even when you've had the virus. A "natural" immunity is not in any way "better" than a vaccine acquired one, as in both cases the immune response is generated by you body rather than the pathogen. However, additional exposure to the pathogen (or Pseudo pathogen in the case of vaccines) helps to refine and strengthen the immune response. The same effects can be achieved be becoming infected multiple times, ideally with different variants.
Also, the seat-belt analogy works well here because both vaccines and seat-belts are devices designed to reduce the impact of an adverse event, and offering an incentive to "not mitigate" that risk would be foolhardy.
I seem to remember when the government were trying to make seat-belts mandatory, there were several groups making claims about "dangers they posed"... but they literally save thousands of lives every year.
Cal"
Typical nonsense. For me, the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine is greater than the risk that I would have died from covid, even if I didn't have natural immunity, which I do. The risk of it being worse in a reinfection is absolutely miniscule where as the risk of all sorts of nasty side vaccine side effects is comparably much higher. It's very immoral for people to demand I risk my health, for theirs.
As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What I'm reading in this article is a brothel is reopening after a long lockdown and is offering vaccinated customers 30 euros off their first visit.
Spin doctors and what you want to see right here
The unvaccinated will be locked down anyway... So won't be able to avail of the promotion...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59245018
"
Austrians blaming a disease on a minority group and locking them up again, nice to see how much they've learnt from history |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Aren't the majority of sex workers at risk, trafficked, abused, gang owned?
Don’t worry about them, just get the jab.
Have the sex workers had the jab? Will they be sacked if they refuse (the jab, not the fucking strangers against their will)?
Make sure you wear your seatbelt on the journey to the brothel too!
I'll have a jab while I keep my foot on your throat? ... I know this is a glib headline grabber and it's terribly hilariously funny and all that, but isn't there a serious side to the story? How can it be right to encourage a trade that relies so heavily on abusing those sex workers in the most horrific ways?
Next will be get a jab and have a free wrap of crack... You couldn't make some of this up. "
Agreed, absolutely disgraceful.
saying that though. they were offering free joints for a jab in the USA so its only a matter of time before : free hit on a meth pipe if you get your jab. Couple lines of nose sugar if you get your jab.
health?!?!
LOL. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone. "
On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone.
On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles. "
Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone.
On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles.
Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected. "
There is no difference between the immunity from an infection and that from a vaccine, it's your immune system that creates the immunity. The only difference is multiple exposures to the vaccine allows for the immune system to further refine it's response... getting infected more than once will work just as well. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone.
On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles.
Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected.
There is no difference between the immunity from an infection and that from a vaccine, it's your immune system that creates the immunity. The only difference is multiple exposures to the vaccine allows for the immune system to further refine it's response... getting infected more than once will work just as well."
No that's just nonsense. Seriously where do you get your fake news from, I'm actually curious? Is it CNN? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone.
On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles.
Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected.
There is no difference between the immunity from an infection and that from a vaccine, it's your immune system that creates the immunity. The only difference is multiple exposures to the vaccine allows for the immune system to further refine it's response... getting infected more than once will work just as well.
No that's just nonsense. Seriously where do you get your fake news from, I'm actually curious? Is it CNN?"
Living in the UK, CNN is not really on my list of media sources, but then again I've never been one to rely on the news to educate me... and more importantly I don't rely on propaganda from facebook either.
Personally, I find that the science journals are the best source of FACTS and information. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone.
On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles.
Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected.
There is no difference between the immunity from an infection and that from a vaccine, it's your immune system that creates the immunity. The only difference is multiple exposures to the vaccine allows for the immune system to further refine it's response... getting infected more than once will work just as well.
No that's just nonsense. Seriously where do you get your fake news from, I'm actually curious? Is it CNN?"
Have you Googled "vaccine"? Or "immune system"? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected. "
To arrive at the point of having natural immunity you will first need to have the crash. The crash is being infected with covid, how that crash unfolds is anyones guess, it could be a small bump or you could go straight through the windscreen. You don't want the vaccine, great don't have it, that is your choice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected.
To arrive at the point of having natural immunity you will first need to have the crash. The crash is being infected with covid, how that crash unfolds is anyones guess, it could be a small bump or you could go straight through the windscreen. You don't want the vaccine, great don't have it, that is your choice."
Not it's not a guess, it's called probability |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone.
On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles.
Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected.
There is no difference between the immunity from an infection and that from a vaccine, it's your immune system that creates the immunity. The only difference is multiple exposures to the vaccine allows for the immune system to further refine it's response... getting infected more than once will work just as well.
No that's just nonsense. Seriously where do you get your fake news from, I'm actually curious? Is it CNN?
Living in the UK, CNN is not really on my list of media sources, but then again I've never been one to rely on the news to educate me... and more importantly I don't rely on propaganda from facebook either.
Personally, I find that the science journals are the best source of FACTS and information."
Ah yes, the journal of bad analogies, I must read it sometime |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone.
On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles.
Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected.
There is no difference between the immunity from an infection and that from a vaccine, it's your immune system that creates the immunity. The only difference is multiple exposures to the vaccine allows for the immune system to further refine it's response... getting infected more than once will work just as well.
No that's just nonsense. Seriously where do you get your fake news from, I'm actually curious? Is it CNN?
Living in the UK, CNN is not really on my list of media sources, but then again I've never been one to rely on the news to educate me... and more importantly I don't rely on propaganda from facebook either.
Personally, I find that the science journals are the best source of FACTS and information.
Ah yes, the journal of bad analogies, I must read it sometime "
Are you saying that you don't believe the actual science, and real evidence that the actual scientists publish so it can be reviewed, verified and queried by other actual real scientists? Because that sounds like a less than logical viewpoint to me.
Cal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So cringeworthy. Imagine the uproar if people were being given vouchers to not take it
That would be like giving people vouchers for not wearing a seatbelt.... counter productive.
Even though these incentives are not something I believe is really useful, encouraging people to do something which benefits the wider community is a sensible option.
Cal
You're not risking death, myocarditis or a range of other awful side effects when you put on a seatbelt so no it wouldn't be like that. It staggers me that people keep repeating that stupid analogy without thinking it through.
The seatbelt analogy has been done to death hasn’t it. You’re right, it’s like comparing oranges to hippos. It’s repeated constantly zzzz
They never want to talk about natural immunity. So using their stupid apology, I'm already wearing the best seatbelt but they need me to wear two seatbelts otherwise their shitty seatbelt won't work. WTF. "
Natural immunity....good one! You have absolutely no idea how that one would plan out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone.
On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles.
Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected.
There is no difference between the immunity from an infection and that from a vaccine, it's your immune system that creates the immunity. The only difference is multiple exposures to the vaccine allows for the immune system to further refine it's response... getting infected more than once will work just as well."
Not sure that is quite true. The immune system develops antibodies that are as a result of exposure to the virus. However, if the exposure is to the vaccine, antibodies are made to attack something similar (with the spike protein). Therefore, whilst those antibodies will attack the virus, they may not be as effective.
But, that's about as much I can question your argument which means it's pretty much spot on... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone.
On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles.
Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected.
There is no difference between the immunity from an infection and that from a vaccine, it's your immune system that creates the immunity. The only difference is multiple exposures to the vaccine allows for the immune system to further refine it's response... getting infected more than once will work just as well.
Not sure that is quite true. The immune system develops antibodies that are as a result of exposure to the virus. However, if the exposure is to the vaccine, antibodies are made to attack something similar (with the spike protein). Therefore, whilst those antibodies will attack the virus, they may not be as effective.
But, that's about as much I can question your argument which means it's pretty much spot on..."
Whilst not disagreeing with what you say. The bad things about naturally acquired antibodies is it not finite. A person can get ready good long lasting immunity response or virtually none. The main bad thing about naturally acquired antibodies is the much more prevalent side affects such as death long covid, Organ damage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone.
On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles.
Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected.
There is no difference between the immunity from an infection and that from a vaccine, it's your immune system that creates the immunity. The only difference is multiple exposures to the vaccine allows for the immune system to further refine it's response... getting infected more than once will work just as well.
No that's just nonsense. Seriously where do you get your fake news from, I'm actually curious? Is it CNN?
Living in the UK, CNN is not really on my list of media sources, but then again I've never been one to rely on the news to educate me... and more importantly I don't rely on propaganda from facebook either.
Personally, I find that the science journals are the best source of FACTS and information.
Ah yes, the journal of bad analogies, I must read it sometime
Are you saying that you don't believe the actual science, and real evidence that the actual scientists publish so it can be reviewed, verified and queried by other actual real scientists? Because that sounds like a less than logical viewpoint to me.
Cal"
I find that most the people here have no idea what science actually is. If you're not making disprovable statements and trying to disprove them, you're not doing science. Putting the opinions of scientists into a journal and having other scientists give their opinion on the opinions isn't science. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone.
On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles.
Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected.
There is no difference between the immunity from an infection and that from a vaccine, it's your immune system that creates the immunity. The only difference is multiple exposures to the vaccine allows for the immune system to further refine it's response... getting infected more than once will work just as well.
No that's just nonsense. Seriously where do you get your fake news from, I'm actually curious? Is it CNN?
Living in the UK, CNN is not really on my list of media sources, but then again I've never been one to rely on the news to educate me... and more importantly I don't rely on propaganda from facebook either.
Personally, I find that the science journals are the best source of FACTS and information.
Ah yes, the journal of bad analogies, I must read it sometime
Are you saying that you don't believe the actual science, and real evidence that the actual scientists publish so it can be reviewed, verified and queried by other actual real scientists? Because that sounds like a less than logical viewpoint to me.
Cal
I find that most the people here have no idea what science actually is. If you're not making disprovable statements and trying to disprove them, you're not doing science. Putting the opinions of scientists into a journal and having other scientists give their opinion on the opinions isn't science. "
It's called peer review and is the standard way scientific evidence is tested. Has been this way for probably 200 years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone.
On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles.
Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected.
There is no difference between the immunity from an infection and that from a vaccine, it's your immune system that creates the immunity. The only difference is multiple exposures to the vaccine allows for the immune system to further refine it's response... getting infected more than once will work just as well.
No that's just nonsense. Seriously where do you get your fake news from, I'm actually curious? Is it CNN?
Living in the UK, CNN is not really on my list of media sources, but then again I've never been one to rely on the news to educate me... and more importantly I don't rely on propaganda from facebook either.
Personally, I find that the science journals are the best source of FACTS and information.
Ah yes, the journal of bad analogies, I must read it sometime
Are you saying that you don't believe the actual science, and real evidence that the actual scientists publish so it can be reviewed, verified and queried by other actual real scientists? Because that sounds like a less than logical viewpoint to me.
Cal
I find that most the people here have no idea what science actually is. If you're not making disprovable statements and trying to disprove them, you're not doing science. Putting the opinions of scientists into a journal and having other scientists give their opinion on the opinions isn't science.
It's called peer review and is the standard way scientific evidence is tested. Has been this way for probably 200 years."
Thanks for making my point for me. You think science is anything peer reviewed. That's why you post ridiculous statements everyday which such confidence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone.
On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles.
Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected.
There is no difference between the immunity from an infection and that from a vaccine, it's your immune system that creates the immunity. The only difference is multiple exposures to the vaccine allows for the immune system to further refine it's response... getting infected more than once will work just as well.
No that's just nonsense. Seriously where do you get your fake news from, I'm actually curious? Is it CNN?
Living in the UK, CNN is not really on my list of media sources, but then again I've never been one to rely on the news to educate me... and more importantly I don't rely on propaganda from facebook either.
Personally, I find that the science journals are the best source of FACTS and information.
Ah yes, the journal of bad analogies, I must read it sometime
Are you saying that you don't believe the actual science, and real evidence that the actual scientists publish so it can be reviewed, verified and queried by other actual real scientists? Because that sounds like a less than logical viewpoint to me.
Cal
I find that most the people here have no idea what science actually is. If you're not making disprovable statements and trying to disprove them, you're not doing science. Putting the opinions of scientists into a journal and having other scientists give their opinion on the opinions isn't science.
It's called peer review and is the standard way scientific evidence is tested. Has been this way for probably 200 years.
Thanks for making my point for me. You think science is anything peer reviewed. That's why you post ridiculous statements everyday which such confidence. "
I suggest that my scientific background is a lot stronger than yours. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Living in the UK, CNN is not really on my list of media sources, but then again I've never been one to rely on the news to educate me... and more importantly I don't rely on propaganda from facebook either.
Personally, I find that the science journals are the best source of FACTS and information.
Ah yes, the journal of bad analogies, I must read it sometime
Are you saying that you don't believe the actual science, and real evidence that the actual scientists publish so it can be reviewed, verified and queried by other actual real scientists? Because that sounds like a less than logical viewpoint to me.
Cal
I find that most the people here have no idea what science actually is. If you're not making disprovable statements and trying to disprove them, you're not doing science. Putting the opinions of scientists into a journal and having other scientists give their opinion on the opinions isn't science.
It's called peer review and is the standard way scientific evidence is tested. Has been this way for probably 200 years.
Thanks for making my point for me. You think science is anything peer reviewed. That's why you post ridiculous statements everyday which such confidence.
I suggest that my scientific background is a lot stronger than yours."
See above |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *D835Man
over a year ago
London |
"
As i say, seatbelts were never killing people. Nobody ever said "every time you clip in your seat belt, you're taking a risk" but every vaccination is a risk. So there's a risk / reward trade off, the vaccine doesn't make sense for everyone.
On the contrary, there are actually still active campaigns trying to overturn the compulsory use of seatbelts. Organisations such as "Against Seatbelt Compulsion" and "Campaign for unrestrained Travel" publish reports of the dangers of seatbelts and lists of seatbelt victims. They tell stories of limbs torn off by belts and people unable to escape from burning vehicles.
Semantic silliness. If you're in a car crash and the seat belt traps you, the problem is that you're in a car accident. The vaccine doesn't require any additional event to hurt you, you inject it and them you're injured or worse. Besides, being unvaccinated isn't like driving without a seat belt. Having natural immunity is a better 'seat belt' than vaccine immunity so you're just wrong whichever way you try and play it. I feel like your side just doesn't understand that every unvaccinated person is, was or expects to get infected.
There is no difference between the immunity from an infection and that from a vaccine, it's your immune system that creates the immunity. The only difference is multiple exposures to the vaccine allows for the immune system to further refine it's response... getting infected more than once will work just as well.
Not sure that is quite true. The immune system develops antibodies that are as a result of exposure to the virus. However, if the exposure is to the vaccine, antibodies are made to attack something similar (with the spike protein). Therefore, whilst those antibodies will attack the virus, they may not be as effective.
But, that's about as much I can question your argument which means it's pretty much spot on...
Whilst not disagreeing with what you say. The bad things about naturally acquired antibodies is it not finite. A person can get ready good long lasting immunity response or virtually none. The main bad thing about naturally acquired antibodies is the much more prevalent side affects such as death long covid, Organ damage. "
That’s true |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
