Traveler

Requiring a COVID-19 Vaccine (shot/s)

Recommended Posts

On 8/24/2021 at 2:19 PM, clwnuke said:

 Grande’s team detected infectious virus in nearly everyone: from 88 percent of unvaccinated individuals and 95 percent of vaccinated people."

"If vaccinated people can still produce a lot of infectious viruses, it means they can spread the virus as easily as those who are not vaccinated."

I find this disturbing. Vaccinate people were a higher percentage with an infectious virus. With everything I hear about vaccines that shouldn't be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of February (right after the massive blizzard here in Texas that took out the power grid), I got sick for a few days. Exhausted to the point that I was only marginally functional, overly sensitive to the level of salt in what I ate, and with my stomach more sensitive than normal. But in time I was back on my feet, and largely recovered. My dad, however, was down for the better part of two weeks with similar symptoms, and never quite recovered; there are days where he'll just sleep. 

At first, mom suspected that we were dealing with after-effects of the blizzard, especially since we had our fireplace going around the clock; dad and I took turns tending it, so it was possible smoke inhalation combined with everything else. Now, however, she fears that the two of us had Covid (mom was vaccinated before a family trip she and dad took, but dad wasn't), and that my recovering so quickly was because with my history of health issues I've had to learn how to listen to what my body is telling me. 

Since then, I've had both shots. 

The sheer level of exhaustion I felt was greater than anything I dealt with during that period where I was sick, to the point that I spent most of the entire next day afterword asleep. I also had cold sweats, nightmares, and nose bleeds. 

In short, the side effects from the vaccine were worse than what I dealt with when I might have actually had it. 

After this, I'm not getting another one unless I absolutely have to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2021 at 1:31 PM, Ironhold said:

At the end of February (right after the massive blizzard here in Texas that took out the power grid), I got sick for a few days. Exhausted to the point that I was only marginally functional, overly sensitive to the level of salt in what I ate, and with my stomach more sensitive than normal. But in time I was back on my feet, and largely recovered. My dad, however, was down for the better part of two weeks with similar symptoms, and never quite recovered; there are days where he'll just sleep. 

At first, mom suspected that we were dealing with after-effects of the blizzard, especially since we had our fireplace going around the clock; dad and I took turns tending it, so it was possible smoke inhalation combined with everything else. Now, however, she fears that the two of us had Covid (mom was vaccinated before a family trip she and dad took, but dad wasn't), and that my recovering so quickly was because with my history of health issues I've had to learn how to listen to what my body is telling me. 

Since then, I've had both shots. 

The sheer level of exhaustion I felt was greater than anything I dealt with during that period where I was sick, to the point that I spent most of the entire next day afterword asleep. I also had cold sweats, nightmares, and nose bleeds. 

In short, the side effects from the vaccine were worse than what I dealt with when I might have actually had it. 

After this, I'm not getting another one unless I absolutely have to. 

It's just so interesting how this can affect people so differently.  I had both shots.  Never even got a sore arm with either of them.  Absolutely nothing with either one.   Yet my son got it and he had fever and chills for a day or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2021 at 3:33 PM, clwnuke said:

Oh, one last bummer related to this discovery - for months now the messaging has been "we need to get everyone vaccinated quickly to reduce the opportunity for the virus to further mutate!"  Unfortunately, with this new data showing that vaccinated and unvaccinated people are both virus reservoirs, vaccinations will not reduce the opportunities for mutation.  We are all living petri dishes now 😬.

Indeed. In fact, it raises the question of if the vaccines not being effective sterilizing agents (allowing viral infection and replication within the vaccinated) are not a causative factor leading to variants that are mutating in response to the vaccines, similar to how bacteria adapt to become antibiotic resistant. It certainly showcases the weakness of the greater good/ herd immunity argument that is always bandied about in these discussions as the vaccine is unlikely to lead to protection for others in light of this type of information.

Also speaking of virus reservoirs, with the many animal reservoirs that appear to be available it's extremely unlikely we can ever vaccinate our way out of this as the virus supposedly already made the jump from animal to human transfer and can be found in cats, dogs, deer and more it can continue to mutate and recirculate back and forth between critters and people, so unless we get an actually effective sterilizing vaccine to also shoot up all the mammals the world over, we just need to learn to live with this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2021 at 8:25 AM, Anddenex said:

Found this meme to be entertaining:

image.png.c082f053c35e4f891ebd86826f4fafc1.png

I got a kick out of seeing that the first time as well. The sad part is it may not be as far-fetched as we want to believe with boosters and vaccine passports being pushed all over the place.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I can't help but reflect on the irony in jurisdictions that are so stronly in favour or lethal injections, and so firmly opposed to potentially life-saving injections.  

I don't see anything ironic about it at all.  They aren't related in any way beyond the injections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I can't help but reflect on the irony in jurisdictions that are so stronly in favour or lethal injections, and so firmly opposed to potentially life-saving injections.  

Ah, the irony. I will never understand those who act all shocked and outraged when a man beats his disobedient wife, yet think nothing-- NOTHING,  I say!-- of a man beating a mugger senseless.

Irony, thou art the mugger-beater!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I can't help but reflect on the irony in jurisdictions that are so stronly in favour or lethal injections, and so firmly opposed to potentially life-saving injections.  

Oh, I think for every person that has a problem with the vaccine, there are 50 people who have a bigger problem with government overreach and infringements on liberties.   Trump falls squarely in the latter camp, although nobody believes it.  He rammed through Operation Warp Speed to get vaccines into the arms of his constituents in record speed.  He's on record multiple places urging folks to get vaccinated.  I listened last week to an interview where he's even ok with the booster shot, and is considering getting one himself even though he's actually had COVID.  But nobody can hear any of that, because the other 80% of stuff he's yelling about it, is how government can't force people to take it. 

The larger issue is, of course, in how the principle of government force is applied.  If you break the law in ways so evil/abhorrently that police arrest you, courts and juries and judges try/convict/sentence you, of breaking laws that legislators voted would be punishable by death, and the executive branch doesn't use their pardon power, then yes, the government gets to remove your agency, by force if necessary.

The federal government, with it's divinely inspired constitution, of course, does not have the power to apply such force in matters of vaccines and public health.

I'm sure you can see the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I can't help but reflect on the irony in jurisdictions that are so stronly in favour or lethal injections, and so firmly opposed to potentially life-saving injections.  

That was funny, but one shot causes death, one does it’s best to prevent it, like you said. I’m against the death penalty but in favor of the vaccine, lol. 

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I can't help but reflect on the irony in jurisdictions that are so stronly in favour or lethal injections, and so firmly opposed to potentially life-saving injections.  

On a related tangent this reminds me of an argument I come across from time to time against pro-lifers. If they care so much about life why then do they also so often support capital punishment? I can only speak for myself, but suspect I'm not alone in my reasoning, is that those that I favour the idea of consequences for actions to those with the greatest responsibility in driving the decisions (i.e. if lady doesn't want a baby she shouldn't be sleeping around, and if a person doesn't want the death penalty they shouldn't kill or commit capital offences in their respective jurisdiction). The unborn are innocent and did not have a decision in the process that brought about the circumstance for which they are being terminated, the criminal did. 

Of course, that is just the logic side of my reasoning, but what trumps that is the fact that God has taught in favour against abortion and in favour of capital punishment under certain circumstances.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I can't help but reflect on the irony in jurisdictions that are so stronly in favour or lethal injections, and so firmly opposed to potentially life-saving injections.  

Right, lethal injection is the decision and result of someone who purposefully killed many people and receives punishment. And you somehow are relating this to vaccines injections? It would be like likening this to a shot for Strep Throat.  There isn't any irony at all.

You are comparing apples to oranges. You might want to think through this a little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Right, lethal injection is the decision and result of someone who purposefully killed many people and receives punishment. And you somehow are relating this to vaccines injections? It would be like likening this to a shot for Strep Throat.  There isn't any irony at all.

You are comparing apples to oranges. You might want to think through this a little.

I just think its an odd situation that the same group of people who insist on the government using its maximum available powers to punish and protect them from the bad guys are equally insistent that that same government not use its powers to protect people from themselves. Hundreds of thousands more people have died, and will continue to die from covid spread from other people, than have been killed by all the people currently sentenced on death row.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I just think its an odd situation that the same group of people who insist on the government using its maximum available powers to punish and protect them from the bad guys are equally insistent that that same government not use its powers to protect people from themselves. Hundreds of thousands more people have died, and will continue to die from covid spread from other people, than have been killed by all the people currently sentenced on death row.  

The difference between the two... is a little thing called Due Process.   Being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.  This annoying little rule of law some times means that murders walk free.   But if you or anyone that thinks they have a solid legal proof of a individual guilty of Homicide by COVID.. you or they should absolutely run with it though the legal system.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I just think its an odd situation that the same group of people who insist on the government using its maximum available powers to punish and protect them from the bad guys are equally insistent that that same government not use its powers to protect people from themselves

I can't help but think this is a terrible mischaracterization and not well thought through. I think you're a highly intelligent person and appreciate your thoughts, so in addition to the observation pointed out by @estradling75 in response to this I feel the need to point out what I see to be the inconsistencies here.

First: Most people opposing lockdowns and forced injections for protection against a virus that is over 99% survivable, are not against protecting and saving lives from said virus, but are also aware that decisions around it don't live in isolation. Lockdowns come with an incredible cost of human lives through suicide and suffering in many forms such as mental health issues, financial stress, and so on. It's unclear that the risk/reward to society is in favour of ongoing lockdowns that aren't sustainable. They simply want the freedom to make their own health decisions and wish that information was presented in a clear unbiased way without censorship.

Second: They do not want governments to use the maximum available powers to protect them from "potential" bad guys, but "known" bad guys. Most would also agree that even outside of this pandemic that it would be a good idea for sick people to stay home and get better. Disease has always been with us and always will be until we are loosed from mortality. Sure asymptomatic spread is a possibility, but it's less common. It makes more sense to focus on stopping known illness from spreading than stopping everyone from being able to go about their lives and pay their bills.

Third: Protection from themselves is a nightmarish condition if allowed to go too far. Who gets to make those decisions of what is taking the proper steps for personal protection? Shall we force everyone to eat a whole foods diet and eliminate overprocessed junk foods to nearly eradicate heart disease and diabetes? Should everyone be forced to the gym? Should women found to be at genetic risk of breast cancer be forced to undergo prophylactic mastectomies? No more driving because a collision could occur? There are risks inherent to the human condition and people need to be allowed to make decisions on their own to navigate those risks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My sister has a mental health issue that is controlled by meds. When she stops those meds, she gets awful....harassment, destruction of property, verbal abuse/attacks and on occasion, physical abuse/attacks. We cannot make her take that medication. It isn't until she either threatens or does actual harm to herself/others before we can get her help. And even then, we had to take her to court to get it ordered for her to take her medication. 

So, why is it that something that could possibly save her life (she has serious other medical conditions that when she stops her mental health meds she also stops those--and she has threatened suicide or on one occasion actually physically attacked someone) not be mandated for her to take? But, yet, this vax which may or may not (depending on your health and underlying conditions) save your life and from a disease that has nearly a 99% survivor rate (again, depending on individual health) should be mandated? I honestly don't understand why one should not be mandated but the other should? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's look at all the curtains have been pulled back from the false narratives of the Vazi authorities out there during the last year and a half:

1. The virus was a natural mutation that transferred from animals to man - FALSE

2. The vaccines prevent you from infecting others - FALSE

3. The vaccines protect you from breakthrough infections - FALSE

4. The vaccines provide better protection than getting Covid - FALSE

5. The vaccines will bring herd immunity faster - FALSE

6. A vaccinated society will reduce the mutation rate - FALSE  (it may actually be driving mutations according to some virologists)

7. Vaccinated people will likely get milder symptoms when they do get infected - TRUE

So why would anybody mandate a vaccine whose only remaining benefit is milder symptoms of the disease in the unlikely chance that they have any symptoms at all? Especially after all the lies? Society doesn't benefit in any significant way once you take away #2-#6, hence no mandate is justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, clwnuke said:

Vazi authorities

Oy.  First time I've heard that phrase.  I'm wondering if a phrase that utterly divisive is basically the deadly poison that kills off any hope of reasoned civil debate and discussion, or if that hope died a while ago, and this nasty phrase is just another sign of such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Oy.  First time I've heard that phrase.  I'm wondering if a phrase that utterly divisive is basically the deadly poison that kills off any hope of reasoned civil debate and discussion, or if that hope died a while ago, and this nasty phrase is just another sign of such.

It is strong, but I only adopted it recently once the civil discussion ended and government/healthcare authorities started threatening people's careers, jobs, travel, education, and basic freedoms. Once those threats started, Vazi authorities became an accurate description IMHO. I would use something much stronger against those that have suggested that the unvaccinated be rounded up and shot (pun?).

The modern day Vazis are acting in a very similar manner as the National Socialists in Germany did when they created fear and hysteria regarding non-pure races. That type of hate and fear leads people to do things they otherwise would never do in a free country to their fellow man. It needs to be labeled for what it is and stopped.

Please forgive my emotion on this, but friends and family (and potentially myself) are losing their jobs and homes based on this hate and fear, which is rooted in false science. 

When the threats and mandates stop from government and healthcare leaders, I'll agree to stop labeling them as Vazis and Vazi authorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, clwnuke said:

It is strong, but I only adopted it recently once the civil discussion ended and government/healthcare authorities started threatening people's careers, jobs, travel, education, and basic freedoms. Once those threats started, Vazi authorities became an accurate description IMHO. I would use something much stronger against those that have suggested that the unvaccinated be rounded up and shot (pun?).

The modern day Vazis are acting in a very similar manner as the National Socialists in Germany did when they created fear and hysteria regarding non-pure races. That type of hate and fear leads people to do things they otherwise would never do in a free country to their fellow man. It needs to be labeled for what it is and stopped.

Please forgive my emotion on this, but friends and family (and potentially myself) are losing their jobs and homes based on this hate and fear, which is rooted in false science. 

When the threats and mandates stop from government and healthcare leaders, I'll agree to stop labeling them as Vazis and Vazi authorities.

So you truly believe that comparing someone to a legit Nazi isn’t insulting to the six million Jews who died under their regime? Not to mention the millions and millions more who died in World War 2? 
 

If you believe that, fine. Luckily it’s regulated to the internet and in the offline world, such comparisons are rightfully dismissed without much consideration. If you lived under the Nazis, you’d see how wrong you were. 

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, beefche said:

So, why is it that something that could possibly save her life (she has serious other medical conditions that when she stops her mental health meds she also stops those--and she has threatened suicide or on one occasion actually physically attacked someone) not be mandated for her to take? But, yet, this vax which may or may not (depending on your health and underlying conditions) save your life and from a disease that has nearly a 99% survivor rate (again, depending on individual health) should be mandated? I honestly don't understand why one should not be mandated but the other should? 

I am not sure if you were venting or asking rhetorical question?  But the answer is because this is not about safety or protection... its about power.    In politics there is a saying "Never let a crisis go to waste." and they have not.  For COVID there was some projections about how lethal (Which turned out to be wrong) it would be.  Thus we had a crisis that they took (and are still taking) advantage of.  If they can rile up their bases... if they can make people respond out of fear then they gain power...

They simply can not make your Sister's behaviors on lack of meds a "Public Health Crisis"  so we do not get any movement to forcible medicate her

We can see this also happen with a mass shooting events.  Politics can't rile people up on the subject of mental health which is really were we need to look for answers, but they can on the subject of "Gun Control"  (Be afraid of Guns) thus  we do not get real solutions to issues, just power grabs by people promising to 'fix' things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, clwnuke said:

Let's look at all the curtains have been pulled back from the false narratives of the Vazi authorities out there during the last year and a half:

1. The virus was a natural mutation that transferred from animals to man - FALSE

2. The vaccines prevent you from infecting others - FALSE

3. The vaccines protect you from breakthrough infections - FALSE

4. The vaccines provide better protection than getting Covid - FALSE

5. The vaccines will bring herd immunity faster - FALSE

6. A vaccinated society will reduce the mutation rate - FALSE  (it may actually be driving mutations according to some virologists)

7. Vaccinated people will likely get milder symptoms when they do get infected - TRUE

So why would anybody mandate a vaccine whose only remaining benefit is milder symptoms of the disease in the unlikely chance that they have any symptoms at all? Especially after all the lies? Society doesn't benefit in any significant way once you take away #2-#6, hence no mandate is justified.

Most of your post is - FALSE....

So....not sure who you are trying to convince except those already converted to your cause.

The vaccine was NOT supposed to completely STOP you from getting COVID-19, though some media may have portrayed it that way.  It was to reduce death and harmful symptoms of Covid-19.  What they observed was that this was caused because you got a lower viral load affecting you (though the viral load that you initially got could be just as high if not higher).  This meant the symptoms you got were more likely to not exist or be mild symptoms.  It also meant that you would be over the virus in a much shorter time period (2-7 days rather than 9-21 days) and be less likely to spread it to others (though you could probably still spread it, just not in as high dosage or for as long of a period).

1 - We do not know the answer to this yet...so saying True or False to this is actually not a right answer.

2- It CAN help prevent you from infecting them, or at least reduces the time period of infection and the viral load they get from you.  HOWEVER, you can still infect others.  If you have 20 vaccinated people around one unvaccinated, that unvaccinated individual is going to be infected and probably have a good dosage of the virus. 

3 - They have had "Breakthrough" infections from the very beginning.  They are only being sensationalized by a certain group of people who have no idea how vaccines work and thus are promoting against taking it.  The REASON Pfizer was only 95% effective on the original Covid strain was because 5% of people got COVID EVEN WITH the vaccine.  This is NOT some big mysterious secret.  In fact, they've been quite open about it.  The idea of herd immunity is that the virus lacks anyplace to actually go and kill people eventually becuase if you want a 70% herd immunity as it were, where you have 70% who aren't going to die from the disease, than you with a 95% rate you'd need around 72-74% of people vaccinated.  Delta variant is somewhat more resistant to the vaccine, but the vaccine is still effective at preventing death and serious symptoms in most individuals.  Delta is, however, FAR MORE infectious and getting infected by it is far easier than the original strain the vaccines were made for.

4-  Yes it does.  What evidence do you have that it does not.  99.5% of the people currently dying from Covid-19 are the unvaccinated.  That seems to indicate the vaccine is better protection overall.

5- Herd protection from dying...well...see point #4.  For the vaccinated it seems to be working rather well currently, even against a mutated strain the vaccine wasn't even designed against.  It seems REALLY good against the strain that it WAS designed against.

6 -Not sure where you source is on this, so though it goes against what I've read, I'll say...I don't think that' been determined yet.

7 - In most cases...this is true.  However, remember, the vaccines are not 100%, NONE of them have claimed to be.  There will still be those who have been vaccinated who will die from Covid-19, just like people who were vaccinated from a flu strain will still die of that flu strain in the year they got vaccinated.  It just tends to be far less than if no vaccination was ever taken or given.

 

My take on it, which obviously won't convince you...but is far different than your stated ideas as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, estradling75 said:

I am not sure if you were venting or asking rhetorical question?  But the answer is because this is not about safety or protection... its about power.    In politics there is a saying "Never let a crisis go to waste." and they have not.  For COVID there was some projections about how lethal (Which turned out to be wrong) it would be.  Thus we had a crisis that they took (and are still taking) advantage of.  If they can rile up their bases... if they can make people respond out of fear then they gain power...

They simply can not make your Sister's behaviors on lack of meds a "Public Health Crisis"  so we do not get any movement to forcible medicate her

We can see this also happen with a mass shooting events.  Politics can't rile people up on the subject of mental health which is really were we need to look for answers, but they can on the subject of "Gun Control"  (Be afraid of Guns) thus  we do not get real solutions to issues, just power grabs by people promising to 'fix' things.

I realize that those in power see this as a power grab. But I'm curious about those who don't have power--my fellow voters, everyday people--who insist that vax should be mandated/forced and that people should lose jobs, freedoms, etc. If the virus is a threat to the lives of people so vax should be mandated, then how is it that someone off meds and could be a danger to self/others not be mandated to take meds? How is that explained? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, beefche said:

I realize that those in power see this as a power grab. But I'm curious about those who don't have power--my fellow voters, everyday people--who insist that vax should be mandated/forced and that people should lose jobs, freedoms, etc. If the virus is a threat to the lives of people so vax should be mandated, then how is it that someone off meds and could be a danger to self/others not be mandated to take meds? How is that explained? 

Because COVID is contagious. 🤷‍♂️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LDSGator said:

So you truly believe that comparing someone to a legit Nazi isn’t insulting to the six million Jews who died under their regime? Not to mention the millions and millions more who died in World War 2? 
 

If you believe that, fine. Luckily it’s regulated to the internet and in the offline world, such comparisons are rightfully dismissed without much consideration. If you lived under the Nazis, you’d see how wrong you were. 

Comparing the types of governmental actions that the National Socialists took in Germany to the actions being taken now is in no way disrespectful. The six million deaths was an eventual result of where those types of actions ultimately led, and avoiding similar paths is both wise and prudent. 

Yes I believe in learning from history. Nobody ever imagined the Nazi movement would lead to such a result at the beginning. It started subtle, but step-by-step it was tolerated.

Do you not believe that threatening people's jobs and freedoms based on a desire to force them to be vaccinated against their will is serious? Or are you in agreement with throwing them into the streets and preventing them from providing for their families? To me it strikes at the heart of personal freedom and is serious enough for the comparison to the early actions of the National Socialists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now