Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You don't need to be because that's bogus data. It's never been repeated in any scientific study and is likely due to not adjusting vaccinated and unvaccinated for time.
If you have group A that is exposed to the virus for a few months vs group B who was exposed for 2 years, you'd expect more infections in group B, if everything was equal.
I don’t know Democrats have a stick up their butt over the unvaccinated. They supposedly have compassion for every group but us.
Take a look at Carroll, the guy pushing it:
He’s a lard a$$. Maybe he should take some personal responsibility
It really isn't a partisan thing. I know Dems and Republicans who are for and against the vaccinations...
Most Trumpists are against it, but if you consider they are really just a side-show of the legitimate Republican Party (and proud to denounce Republicans that still believe in American values as RINOs), then it's much more evenly split. Probably more support from D's than R's, but far from "split along party lines".
Sure if smokers, the overweight, people who don't work out, drunks, etc also pay out of pocket. I'm healthier than all of those people so why should I have to pay out of pocket for not taking an EXPERIMENTAL AND UNTESTED shot with no legal recourse?
Anyone who took these jabs should also pay out of pocket for any situations that arise. Oh wait, they will
Because the downside(s) of not taking a vaccine is very significant and fairly well understood while the risks to taking one and boosters are minimal.
No.
Governments are formed to protect their citizens against forces so large no individual can ever protect himself.
An epidemic is exactly like a enormous, strong, foreign invasion. No person, state, nor region can fight off such an invasion alone. Only a nation has the strength to do it.
I'll be calling his office to say that people who smoke, are obese, are alcoholics, etc., should be added to his bill. That way, he would be included since he's a fatty.
These numbers are copied from his website in case anyone wants to call.
You don't need to be because that's bogus data. It's never been repeated in any scientific study and is likely due to not adjusting vaccinated and unvaccinated for time.
If you have group A that is exposed to the virus for a few months vs group B who was exposed for 2 years, you'd expect more infections in group B, if everything was equal.
They're just fooling you.
Right, it's a big conspiracy.
We don't need scientific studies to compare vaccination status vs. deaths.
The report was about 20x more deaths not infections per se.
Because the downside(s) of not taking a vaccine is very significant and fairly well understood while the risks to taking one and boosters are minimal.
What? Hospitals are filling up all over Europe and Israel with people who have had two jabs and no booster. Boosters every six months or you're no longer protected. You become the same as an unvaccinated person and should be considered as such.
We don't need scientific studies to compare vaccination status vs. deaths.
The report was about 20x more deaths not infections per se.
That's not a scientific study [what you quoted].
This is:
Quote:
Findings: Vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 against infection waned progressively from 92% (95% CI, 92-93, P<0·001) at day 15-30 to 47% (95% CI, 39-55, P<0·001) at day 121-180, and from day 211 and onwards no effectiveness could be detected (23%; 95% CI, -2-41, P=0·07). The effectiveness waned slightly slower for mRNA-1273, being estimated to 59% (95% CI, 18-79) from day 181 and onwards. In contrast, effectiveness of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was generally lower and waned faster, with no effectiveness detected from day 121 and onwards (-19%, 95% CI, -97-28), whereas effectiveness from heterologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 / mRNA was maintained from 121 days and onwards (66%; 95% CI, 41-80). Overall, vaccine effectiveness was lower and waned faster among men and older individuals. For the outcome severe Covid-19, effectiveness waned from 89% (95% CI, 82-93, P<0·001) at day 15-30 to 42% (95% CI, -35-75, P=0·21) from day 181 and onwards, with sensitivity analyses showing notable waning among men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities.
Effectiveness declined gradually thereafter, with the decline accelerating after the fourth month to reach approximately 20% in months 5 through 7 after the second dose. Effectiveness against symptomatic infection was higher than effectiveness against asymptomatic infection but waned similarly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
