Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
That is logic. It's also the case I, and others like me, still have a 25 percent chance to become seriously ill or die. I know of people who took that bait and now no longer can get any mRNA vaccine. So no. Yes I might die but from the privileged ones viewpoint I might also cause a new mutation which might reduce the privileged one's protection.

Am I selfish? I try to be as heartless as the privileged ones lining up for their third mRNA jab. It's actually hard on me because I actually have a heart and soul.

Oh and if I'm forced to take that bogus vaccine and get infected I'll visit as many privileged ones as possible and give them a large hug. 😘
No. It is NOT logic. Preferring 0% over ANY reduced chance is NOT logic. It's feelings over fact.

The hope is to reduce YOUR chances of dying by any amount, as well as any OTHERS you may infect on the way if you get infected.

What you are going on about is spite.

Also what "bogus" vaccine? Unless of course vagueness really is intentional to 'mask' your own self awareness of trying pretend there's logic anywhere in any of what you've posted.
 
No. It is NOT logic. Preferring 0% over ANY reduced chance is NOT logic. It's feelings over fact.

The hope is to reduce YOUR chances of dying by any amount, as well as any OTHERS you may infect on the way if you get infected.

What you are going on about is spite.

Also what "bogus" vaccine? Unless of course vagueness really is intentional to 'mask' your own self awareness of trying pretend there's logic anywhere in any of what you've posted.
lol
So basically you probably received 90 percent protection vaccine and want others to get a crap vaccine so you'd get that 3rd jab? How about giving us that 90 percent protection now? We've waited long enough now. WE are those OTHERS you refer to.

And if we cause that mutation the privileged ones selfishness caused it.
 
lol
So basically you probably received 90 percent protection vaccine and want others to get a crap vaccine so you'd get that 3rd jab? How about giving us that 90 percent protection now? We've waited long enough now. WE are those OTHERS you refer to.

And if we cause that mutation the privileged ones selfishness caused it.
What?

You can guess whatever percent protection vaccine you've imagined I got. Because I got the vaccine at first availability that was offered to me. After having someone in the household get Covid ( fortunately for us the worst they suffered was loss of taste ) thus quarantining us all, when we could we took the earliest openings to get the vaccine. To insure the safety of ourselves & others. All this noise about percentages wasn't a thing when we got it. We got it for safety reasons.

I don't have a thing to do with what you get or what supposedly your gov't allows.

The point remains the same, you have a choice to get A vaccine, but choose NOT to. Claiming it isn't the one you want, because the one denied you is supposedly better. The only OTHERS you are that I've referred to, is the OTHERS that will create any tortured logic to justify NOT getting the vaccine.

That is YOUR choice. It's also a choice you are making for OTHERS around you, which is ultimately the point. That's people like myself try to get others to understand.

Besides we do understand that thus far the mutations will occur despite whatever version of the vaccine you get? Mutations or Variants are normal occurrences. It's with the unvaccinated, variations can be further fueled. It's the effects of the mutations that of concern, especially on those unprotected, as mutations seem to be more transmissible than previous versions. It's the hope that with a vaccine should one get any variation of Covid, the impact will be less deadly. If more people have a vaccine there maybe fewer infections, thus fewer chances for mutation.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: jk73 and millerj123
What?

You can guess whatever percent protection vaccine you've imagined I got. Because I got the vaccine at first availability that was offered to me. After having someone in the household get Covid ( fortunately for us the worst they suffered was loss of taste ) thus quarantining us all, when we could we took the earliest openings to get the vaccine. To insure the safety of ourselves & others. All this noise about percentages wasn't a thing when we got it. We got it for safety reasons.

I don't have a thing to do with what you get or what supposedly your gov't allows.

The point remains the same, you have a choice to get A vaccine, but choose NOT to. Claiming it isn't the one you want, because the one denied you is supposedly better. The only OTHERS you are that I've referred to, is the OTHERS that will create any tortured logic to justify NOT getting the vaccine.

That is YOUR choice. It's also a choice you are making for OTHERS around you, which is ultimately the point. That's people like myself try to get others to understand.

Besides we do understand that thus far the mutations will occur despite whatever version of the vaccine you get? Mutations or Variants are normal occurrences. It's with the unvaccinated, variations can be further fueled. It's the effects of the mutations that of concern, especially on those unprotected, as mutations seem to be more transmissible than previous versions. It's the hope that with a vaccine should one get any variation of Covid, the impact will be less deadly. If more people have a vaccine there maybe fewer infections, thus fewer chances for mutation.
All I know is I am not going to jeopardize my chances. So offer me that Moderna jab to protect those OTHERS which apparently I may not belong to.
 
"Before closing this opinion we deem it appropriate, in order to prevent misapprehension as to our views, to observe—perhaps to repeat a thought already sufficiently expressed, namely—that the police power of a state, whether exercised directly by the legislature, or by a local body acting under its authority, may be exerted in such circumstances, or by regulations so arbitrary and oppressive in particular cases, as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent wrong and oppression. Extreme cases can be readily suggested. Ordinarily such cases are not safe guides in the administration of the law. It is easy, for instance, to suppose the case of an adult who is embraced by the mere words of the act, but yet to subject whom to vaccination in a particular condition of his health or body would be cruel and inhuman in the last degree. We are not to be understood as holding that the statute was intended to be applied to such a case, or, if it was so intended, that the judiciary would not be competent to interfere and protect the health and life of the individual concerned. 'All laws,' this court has said, 'should receive a sensible construction. General terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence. It will always, therefore, be presumed that the legislature intended exceptions to its language which would avoid results of this character. The reason of the law in such cases should prevail over its letter.' United States v. Kirby, 7 Wall. 482, 19 L. ed. 278; Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 144 U. S. 47, 58, 36 L. ed. 340, 344, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 517. Until otherwise informed by the highest court of Massachusetts, we are not inclined to hold that the statute establishes the absolute rule that an adult must be vaccinated if it be apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty that he is not at the time a fit subject of vaccination, or that vaccination, by reason of his then condition, would seriously impair his health, or probably cause his death. No such case is here presented. It is the cause of an adult who, for aught that appears, was himself in perfect health and a fit subject of vaccination, and yet, while remaining in the community, refused to obey the statute and the regulation adopted in execution of its provisions for the protection of the public health and the public safety, confessedly endangered by the presence of a dangerous disease."

Is a private venue a local body acting with the authority of the state legislature vis a vis police power?

Perhaps more simply: how does this ruling relate to a venue that takes it upon itself to implement a vaccine requirement prior to entry? The ruling talks about statutes, and near the end seems to say it is only limited to this one statute without judicial notice of any reason why the pastor cannot be vaccinated.

Be curious to get the take of any legal beagles here.

This case has nothing to do with rules made by private parties.
 
All I know is I am not going to jeopardize my chances. So offer me that Moderna jab to protect those OTHERS which apparently I may not belong to.
Your chances are seemingly already jeopardized by choosing to forego ANY vaccine.

If you aren't aware of Moderna or Pfizer or whatever being available to you in the near future, crossing your arms & holding your breath until you get only what you specifically want may not be the wisest decision.

If your excuse / choice is NOT wanting the vaccine available, that's for you to make. Once again that doesn't involve me, so trying to throw anyone else in your mix about vaccine availability is a diversion.

Just realize it's a decision you make for yourself & for those around you, should you get infected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: millerj123
Your chances are seemingly already jeopardized by choosing to forego ANY vaccine.

If you aren't aware of Moderna or Pfizer or whatever being available to you in the near future, crossing your arms & holding your breath until you get only what you specifically want may not be the wisest decision.

If your excuse / choice is NOT wanting the vaccine available, that's for you to make. Once again that doesn't involve me, so trying to throw anyone else in your mix is a diversion. Just realize it's a decision you make for yourself & for those around you, should you get infected.
This is just getting better. Moderna/Pfizer is available here. Government decided who is to be privileged and who not. For some strange reason the rich, MDs and politicians seem to have gotten it. Sure people who've gotten mRNA don't care about our lives.

Moreover they'd move on and happily let us suffer a lesser protection lining up for their 3rd jab. Unfortunately for them we might take those ICU beds but they can still get around that denying us medical care. All solved were it not for the chance of a mutation.

But you didn't care for a difference of 20 percent so why are you afraid for that smaller chance? Could it be because you care about your own life and not that of mine?
 
More data: https://theexpose.uk/wp-content/upl...y-mandated-vaccines-are-pointless-final-1.pdf


Given all the above evidence, mandating others to take a vaccine is a potentially harmful, damaging act.


Since the principal reason for COVID-19 vaccine mandates—protecting others from infection—has evaporated with the ascendance of the Delta variant, those who mandate COVID-19 vaccines may wish to seek legal counsel regarding their culpability and liability (including personal) for potential long-lasting harm to those whom they pressure into vaccination with threat of exclusion from employment or education or other public activity. Remind your attorney that if an unborn or nursing baby is damaged, liability persists until the child is age 23—plenty of time for discovery of the ways whereby vaccine producers and government regulators may have suppressed important information about harmful effects.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: jk73 and millerj123
More data: https://theexpose.uk/wp-content/upl...y-mandated-vaccines-are-pointless-final-1.pdf


Given all the above evidence, mandating others to take a vaccine is a potentially harmful, damaging act.


Since the principal reason for COVID-19 vaccine mandates—protecting others from infection—has evaporated with the ascendance of the Delta variant, those who mandate COVID-19 vaccines may wish to seek legal counsel regarding their culpability and liability (including personal) for potential long-lasting harm to those whom they pressure into vaccination with threat of exclusion from employment or education or other public activity. Remind your attorney that if an unborn or nursing baby is damaged, liability persists until the child is age 23—plenty of time for discovery of the ways whereby vaccine producers and government regulators may have suppressed important information about harmful effects.

The U.K. just announced it’s abandoning vax passports. I’m sure they did that because they’re so confident in the vaccines.

LOL.

This charade is just about over. Unfortunately, some of the Covid cultists will still be spreading nonsense for years to come.

How do those two things even remotely tie together?

Some people can't get a vaccine in their countries true, so bigger countries are hopefully stepping into rectify that. That is of course understandable & unfortunate why one isn't getting a vaccine.

If your country is NOT one of those short changed, it means you have a choice(s) for a vaccine. NOT getting one is A choice, which I would argue does NOT make sense with the amount of unvaccinated overflowing hospitals & impairing the treatment of others who have other life ( heart attack victims, tumor surgeries, etc ) threatening situations. The rippling effect for NOT getting a vaccine when one is available has been devastating.

E_GFwxLXsAI_hPJ

Nice charts.

How many of those unvaccinated previously had Covid?

Probably none.

How many of those unvaccinated were ineligible for the vaccine because they were already too old and/or sick?

Probably a lot.

Weird how the “experts” won’t tell us, though.
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: avz and millerj123
This is just getting better. Moderna/Pfizer is available here. Government decided who is to be privileged and who not. For some strange reason the rich, MDs and politicians seem to have gotten it. Sure people who've gotten mRNA don't care about our lives.

Moreover they'd move on and happily let us suffer a lesser protection lining up for their 3rd jab. Unfortunately for them we might take those ICU beds but they can still get around that denying us medical care. All solved were it not for the chance of a mutation.

But you didn't care for a difference of 20 percent so why are you afraid for that smaller chance? Could it be because you care about your own life and not that of mine?
I don't know you. I know myself, my family, my friends, who got a variety of vaccines, because they were available.

I do care enough that I believe ANY vaccine is better than NO vaccine. If you need percentages to rationalize why you won't take a vaccine, you do you. Trying to foist it on others as if they should mail you personally doses or it means they don't care isn't going to fly.

It's on you if you take the vaccine available to you. It's what I did here out of concern for myself, family, friends, and fellow citizens.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: jk73
Nice charts.

How many of those unvaccinated previously had Covid?

Probably none.

How many of those unvaccinated were ineligible for the vaccine because they were already too old and/or sick?

Probably a lot.

Weird how the “experts” won’t tell us, though.
Probably doesn't equal likely.

You want to dispute it, have it with your own charts & stats.

Otherwise it's just more desperate clawing for anything to pass as something that might sound like a fact instead of poorly thought of speculation.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: millerj123 and jk73
Probably doesn't equal likely.

You want to dispute it, have it with your own charts & stats.

Otherwise it's just more desperate clawing for anything to pass as something that might sound like a fact instead of poorly thought of speculation.

Someone didn’t read very carefully before responding. Tsk, tsk.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: millerj123
Someone didn’t read very carefully before responding. Tsk, tsk.
If you are addressing me, there's only one chart to respond about.

Which is what I did.

There will always be some super specific question you may conjure up and if the "experts" didn't think to answer it beforehand they must be hiding something. So if you have the means to dispute, you should share. Otherwise "probably" is using unsubstantiated speculation in place of anything to actually contribute.

Meh.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: millerj123 and jk73
If you are addressing me, there's only one chart to respond about.

Which is what I did.

There will always be some super specific question you may conjure up and if the "experts" didn't think to answer it beforehand they must be hiding something. So if you have the means to dispute, you should share. Otherwise "probably" is using unsubstantiated speculation in place of anything to actually contribute.

Meh.

You told me if I “want to dispute it, have it with your own charts & stats,” which was really dumb, since I specifically mentioned the government and hospitals refuse to disclose the information needed for such “charts & stats.” You’re embarrassing yourself here, yet again.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: millerj123
You told me if I “want to dispute it, have it with your own charts & stats,” which was really dumb, since I specifically mentioned the government and hospitals refuse to disclose the information needed for such “charts & stats.” You’re embarrassing yourself here, yet again.
No, you are claiming they are refusing to disclose such information, because they didn't have answers to questions before you ask them. I imagine if they answered those questions, you'd have more questions they should have answered, but since they didn't they must be refusing to. It's the thing of conspiracy theorists that there is always some information withheld and it must be for nefarious purposes. So it's easy to just throw up a "probably" as if you have an inkling why information wasn't shared.

This wouldn't be the first time a poster like yourself claimed I was embarrassing myself. I just judged the source of the claim, laughed, and moved on with no concern.

It's just how things work. If you want to dispute something, you provide the information to do so, not hide behind word games of things you added after the fact.

Nice charts.

How many of those unvaccinated previously had Covid?

Probably none.

How many of those unvaccinated were ineligible for the vaccine because they were already too old and/or sick?

Probably a lot.

Weird how the “experts” won’t tell us, though.

Perhaps you can read to the rest of the class where you say...

You told me if I “want to dispute it, have it with your own charts & stats,” which was really dumb, since I specifically mentioned the government and hospitals refuse to disclose the information needed for such “charts & stats.” You’re embarrassing yourself here, yet again.

...in the above passage.

Tsk. Tsk.

I only saw "probably" mentioned a couple of times trying to clumsily hint at something, which is what I addressed. "Weird how the experts won't tell us, though" is just more insinuation trying pass as something insightful & instead sounding more like low budget 1 follower Youtube channel conspiracy talk. THAT isn't 'specific'.

THAT'S embarrassing!
 
More data: https://theexpose.uk/wp-content/upl...y-mandated-vaccines-are-pointless-final-1.pdf


Given all the above evidence, mandating others to take a vaccine is a potentially harmful, damaging act.


Since the principal reason for COVID-19 vaccine mandates—protecting others from infection—has evaporated with the ascendance of the Delta variant, those who mandate COVID-19 vaccines may wish to seek legal counsel regarding their culpability and liability (including personal) for potential long-lasting harm to those whom they pressure into vaccination with threat of exclusion from employment or education or other public activity. Remind your attorney that if an unborn or nursing baby is damaged, liability persists until the child is age 23—plenty of time for discovery of the ways whereby vaccine producers and government regulators may have suppressed important information about harmful effects.

more nonsense from another conspiracy theory website followed by your own nonsensical and mostly unrelated analysis.

I presume this is the same Nina Pierpont who dreamed up "wind turbine sickness" and tried to gain expert witness status on a hearing about a wind farm near her home claiming to be an expert in "brain and ear physiology and pathophysiology, population-level studies in free-living organisms, and medical interviewing" even though she had no such expertise and her only evidence was her own self published book
 
The U.K. just announced it’s abandoning vax passports. I’m sure they did that because they’re so confident in the vaccines.

LOL.

This charade is just about over. Unfortunately, some of the Covid cultists will still be spreading nonsense for years to come.

in the usa you are back to averaging 1500 dead a day. that's a 9-11 every two days. "just about over" indeed!
 
more nonsense from another conspiracy theory website followed by your own nonsensical and mostly unrelated analysis.

I presume this is the same Nina Pierpont who dreamed up "wind turbine sickness" and tried to gain expert witness status on a hearing about a wind farm near her home claiming to be an expert in "brain and ear physiology and pathophysiology, population-level studies in free-living organisms, and medical interviewing" even though she had no such expertise and her only evidence was her own self published book
More proof and hard evidence that threatens your own choices so you must attack mine. People are allowed to choose, there are hundreds of millions of us who chose not to vaccinate.

but I get it, you chose to rush. But don’t punish us for waiting, and seeing what happen.

vaccine mandate narrative is falling apart.
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: millerj123 and jk73
More proof and hard evidence that threatens your own choices so you must attack mine. People are allowed to choose, there are hundreds of millions of us who chose not to vaccinate.

vaccine mandate narrative is falling apart.

could you direct us to the proof and hard evidence in that link. and what exactly it is proof and hard evidence of?

do you even read this stuff before you link it?

..................

"hundreds of millions"!?!?!? that's a stretch to say the least!
 
LOL. Have you seen the vaccination numbers? Why do you post so much if you don’t even know the basics?

indeed. in the United States 210,000,000 have had at least one dose. the total population is now around 330,000,000 so that leaves 120,000,000 unvaccinated. subtract from that those who are ineligible to be vaccinated due to age or some legitimate medical reason and you certainly have less than 100 million.

the United States is surely the most populous vaccine hesitant country so you would have a tough time getting to hundreds of millions of people CHOOSING not to be vaccinated
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.