Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
sMASH wrote:U get immunity naturally, after infection.Dohplaydat wrote:eitech wrote:Dohplaydat wrote:eitech wrote:adnj wrote:That is not anti-vaxx.eitech wrote:So tell me this, aren’t there people who cannot take the vaccine?
If you have medical or religious reasons, most governments allow for special dispensations.
---------
"... there are certain categories of unvaccinated safe zone employees that can enter these area once they have in their possession a medical exemption certificate or a medical deferral certificate."
https://trinidadexpress.com/newsextra/u ... 3f0fe.html
All i am saying is that there are balanced arguments for and against. This has nothing to do with antivaxx or provaxx extremists. But some of you have on blinders and jus shoot out the stables. Geez boi
Let's hear some of your so called balanced arguments then.
Someone stated that there is no good argument against the vaccines.
So aren’t those who have genuine reasons for not taking the vaccine as you mentioned above arguments against the vaccine?
That's not an argument against vaccines, it's actually an argument FOR vaccines. All vaccines have had this problem where some persons are not able to take it due to allergies, immune-compromised, etc.
Therefore, the only way these persons get protected is if all of us take the vaccine.
Vaxed people can still catch it.
Who harden and dont want to vax will either develop immunity or die.
There isn't a big gain if all get vaxed,
And there isn't an increased risk if some people don't Vax. Cause they will either die or get naturally immune.
sMASH wrote:If unvaxed, would rather die than take a jab, and vaxed can spread it still, why force people?
If ur unvaxed and get it, u die or gain immunity. U vaxed, and still spreading it.
Dohplaydat wrote:sMASH wrote:U get immunity naturally, after infection.Dohplaydat wrote:eitech wrote:Dohplaydat wrote:eitech wrote:adnj wrote:That is not anti-vaxx.eitech wrote:So tell me this, aren’t there people who cannot take the vaccine?
If you have medical or religious reasons, most governments allow for special dispensations.
---------
"... there are certain categories of unvaccinated safe zone employees that can enter these area once they have in their possession a medical exemption certificate or a medical deferral certificate."
https://trinidadexpress.com/newsextra/u ... 3f0fe.html
All i am saying is that there are balanced arguments for and against. This has nothing to do with antivaxx or provaxx extremists. But some of you have on blinders and jus shoot out the stables. Geez boi
Let's hear some of your so called balanced arguments then.
Someone stated that there is no good argument against the vaccines.
So aren’t those who have genuine reasons for not taking the vaccine as you mentioned above arguments against the vaccine?
That's not an argument against vaccines, it's actually an argument FOR vaccines. All vaccines have had this problem where some persons are not able to take it due to allergies, immune-compromised, etc.
Therefore, the only way these persons get protected is if all of us take the vaccine.
Vaxed people can still catch it.
Who harden and dont want to vax will either develop immunity or die.
There isn't a big gain if all get vaxed,
And there isn't an increased risk if some people don't Vax. Cause they will either die or get naturally immune.
This (that there isn't a big gain) has proven to be completely untrue. 95% of the covid deaths we're having right now would not have happened if those persons were fully vaccinated. 90% of the hospitalizations we have now would not need to be there if they were vacinated.
You can't go back to any normalcy without vaccines, and you can't NOT overload hospitals without vaccines.
Basic logic, I still can't understand how some of you all don't get it.
You want to develop natural immunity? Fine, just expect hospitals jam up for months on end, and unnecessary deaths skyrocketing. So that isn't a solution.
If 99% of people took the vaccine the covid problem would be eliminated. Simple as that.
Let's talk actual deaths at rate... they are higher than they used to be, higher than what is reported and very, very likely have only one explanation - COVID. But you should know this.drchaos wrote:Dohplaydat wrote:sMASH wrote:U get immunity naturally, after infection.Dohplaydat wrote:eitech wrote:Dohplaydat wrote:eitech wrote:adnj wrote:That is not anti-vaxx.
If you have medical or religious reasons, most governments allow for special dispensations.
---------
"... there are certain categories of unvaccinated safe zone employees that can enter these area once they have in their possession a medical exemption certificate or a medical deferral certificate."
https://trinidadexpress.com/newsextra/u ... 3f0fe.html
All i am saying is that there are balanced arguments for and against. This has nothing to do with antivaxx or provaxx extremists. But some of you have on blinders and jus shoot out the stables. Geez boi
Let's hear some of your so called balanced arguments then.
Someone stated that there is no good argument against the vaccines.
So aren’t those who have genuine reasons for not taking the vaccine as you mentioned above arguments against the vaccine?
That's not an argument against vaccines, it's actually an argument FOR vaccines. All vaccines have had this problem where some persons are not able to take it due to allergies, immune-compromised, etc.
Therefore, the only way these persons get protected is if all of us take the vaccine.
Vaxed people can still catch it.
Who harden and dont want to vax will either develop immunity or die.
There isn't a big gain if all get vaxed,
And there isn't an increased risk if some people don't Vax. Cause they will either die or get naturally immune.
This (that there isn't a big gain) has proven to be completely untrue. 95% of the covid deaths we're having right now would not have happened if those persons were fully vaccinated. 90% of the hospitalizations we have now would not need to be there if they were vacinated.
You can't go back to any normalcy without vaccines, and you can't NOT overload hospitals without vaccines.
Basic logic, I still can't understand how some of you all don't get it.
You want to develop natural immunity? Fine, just expect hospitals jam up for months on end, and unnecessary deaths skyrocketing. So that isn't a solution.
If 99% of people took the vaccine the covid problem would be eliminated. Simple as that.
Your whole point is hinged on covid deaths ... What is the definition of a Covid death?
Also how does a vaccine prevent a covid death when a covid death is not actually a covid death???
De Dragon wrote:Dotish kants like hover and "dr" Falsi will never be convinced. They keep shifting goalposts because they are struggling for attention and relevance.
adnj wrote:Let's talk actual deaths at rate... they are higher than they used to be, higher than what is reported and very, very likely have only one eeexplanation - COVID. But you should know this.drchaos wrote:Dohplaydat wrote:sMASH wrote:U get immunity naturally, after infection.Dohplaydat wrote:eitech wrote:Dohplaydat wrote:eitech wrote:
All i am saying is that there are balanced arguments for and against. This has nothing to do with antivaxx or provaxx extremists. But some of you have on blinders and jus shoot out the stables. Geez boi
Let's hear some of your so called balanced arguments then.
Someone stated that there is no good argument against the vaccines.
So aren’t those who have genuine reasons for not taking the vaccine as you mentioned above arguments against the vaccine?
That's not an argument against vaccines, it's actually an argument FOR vaccines. All vaccines have had this problem where some persons are not able to take it due to allergies, immune-compromised, etc.
Therefore, the only way these persons get protected is if all of us take the vaccine.
Vaxed people can still catch it.
Who harden and dont want to vax will either develop immunity or die.
There isn't a big gain if all get vaxed,
And there isn't an increased risk if some people don't Vax. Cause they will either die or get naturally immune.
This (that there isn't a big gain) has proven to be completely untrue. 95% of the covid deaths we're having right now would not have happened if those persons were fully vaccinated. 90% of the hospitalizations we have now would not need to be there if they were vacinated.
You can't go back to any normalcy without vaccines, and you can't NOT overload hospitals without vaccines.
Basic logic, I still can't understand how some of you all don't get it.
You want to develop natural immunity? Fine, just expect hospitals jam up for months on end, and unnecessary deaths skyrocketing. So that isn't a solution.
If 99% of people took the vaccine the covid problem would be eliminated. Simple as that.
Your whole point is hinged on covid deaths ... What is the definition of a Covid death?
Also how does a vaccine prevent a covid death when a covid death is not actually a covid death???
----------
How many people have died because of the covid-19 pandemic? The answer depends both on the data available, and on how you define “because”. Many people who die while infected with SARS-CoV-2 are never tested for it, and do not enter the official totals. Conversely, some people whose deaths have been attributed to covid-19 had other ailments that might have ended their lives on a similar timeframe anyway. And what about people who died of preventable causes during the pandemic, because hospitals full of covid-19 patients could not treat them? If such cases count, they must be offset by deaths that did not occur but would have in normal times, such as those caused by flu or air pollution.
Rather than trying to distinguish between types of deaths, The Economist’s approach is to count all of them. The standard method of tracking changes in total mortality is “excess deaths”. This number is the gap between how many people died in a given region during a given time period, regardless of cause, and how many deaths would have been expected if a particular circumstance (such as a natural disaster or disease outbreak) had not occurred. Although the official number of deaths caused by covid-19 is now , our single best estimate is that the actual toll is people. We find that there is a 95% chance that the true value lies between and additional deaths.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detai ... -estimates
drchaos wrote:adnj wrote:Let's talk actual deaths at rate... they are higher than they used to be, higher than what is reported and very, very likely have only one eeexplanation - COVID. But you should know this.drchaos wrote:Dohplaydat wrote:sMASH wrote:U get immunity naturally, after infection.Dohplaydat wrote:eitech wrote:Dohplaydat wrote:
Let's hear some of your so called balanced arguments then.
Someone stated that there is no good argument against the vaccines.
So aren’t those who have genuine reasons for not taking the vaccine as you mentioned above arguments against the vaccine?
That's not an argument against vaccines, it's actually an argument FOR vaccines. All vaccines have had this problem where some persons are not able to take it due to allergies, immune-compromised, etc.
Therefore, the only way these persons get protected is if all of us take the vaccine.
Vaxed people can still catch it.
Who harden and dont want to vax will either develop immunity or die.
There isn't a big gain if all get vaxed,
And there isn't an increased risk if some people don't Vax. Cause they will either die or get naturally immune.
This (that there isn't a big gain) has proven to be completely untrue. 95% of the covid deaths we're having right now would not have happened if those persons were fully vaccinated. 90% of the hospitalizations we have now would not need to be there if they were vacinated.
You can't go back to any normalcy without vaccines, and you can't NOT overload hospitals without vaccines.
Basic logic, I still can't understand how some of you all don't get it.
You want to develop natural immunity? Fine, just expect hospitals jam up for months on end, and unnecessary deaths skyrocketing. So that isn't a solution.
If 99% of people took the vaccine the covid problem would be eliminated. Simple as that.
Your whole point is hinged on covid deaths ... What is the definition of a Covid death?
Also how does a vaccine prevent a covid death when a covid death is not actually a covid death???
----------
How many people have died because of the covid-19 pandemic? The answer depends both on the data available, and on how you define “because”. Many people who die while infected with SARS-CoV-2 are never tested for it, and do not enter the official totals. Conversely, some people whose deaths have been attributed to covid-19 had other ailments that might have ended their lives on a similar timeframe anyway. And what about people who died of preventable causes during the pandemic, because hospitals full of covid-19 patients could not treat them? If such cases count, they must be offset by deaths that did not occur but would have in normal times, such as those caused by flu or air pollution.
Rather than trying to distinguish between types of deaths, The Economist’s approach is to count all of them. The standard method of tracking changes in total mortality is “excess deaths”. This number is the gap between how many people died in a given region during a given time period, regardless of cause, and how many deaths would have been expected if a particular circumstance (such as a natural disaster or disease outbreak) had not occurred. Although the official number of deaths caused by covid-19 is now , our single best estimate is that the actual toll is people. We find that there is a 95% chance that the true value lies between and additional deaths.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detai ... -estimates
With this logic we should start counting all road traffic deaths as caused by alcohol since some road traffic victims and perpetrators have alcohol in their systems.
You sir are a true loyal Tribal drone like the PNMites/dUNCes ... Even when you see your party/side spewing out sheit you lap it up and tell everyone to come they giving out free chocolate ice cream and its great.
drchaos wrote:adnj wrote:Let's talk actual deaths at rate... they are higher than they used to be, higher than what is reported and very, very likely have only one eeexplanation - COVID. But you should know this.drchaos wrote:Dohplaydat wrote:sMASH wrote:U get immunity naturally, after infection.Dohplaydat wrote:eitech wrote:Dohplaydat wrote:
Let's hear some of your so called balanced arguments then.
Someone stated that there is no good argument against the vaccines.
So aren’t those who have genuine reasons for not taking the vaccine as you mentioned above arguments against the vaccine?
That's not an argument against vaccines, it's actually an argument FOR vaccines. All vaccines have had this problem where some persons are not able to take it due to allergies, immune-compromised, etc.
Therefore, the only way these persons get protected is if all of us take the vaccine.
Vaxed people can still catch it.
Who harden and dont want to vax will either develop immunity or die.
There isn't a big gain if all get vaxed,
And there isn't an increased risk if some people don't Vax. Cause they will either die or get naturally immune.
This (that there isn't a big gain) has proven to be completely untrue. 95% of the covid deaths we're having right now would not have happened if those persons were fully vaccinated. 90% of the hospitalizations we have now would not need to be there if they were vacinated.
You can't go back to any normalcy without vaccines, and you can't NOT overload hospitals without vaccines.
Basic logic, I still can't understand how some of you all don't get it.
You want to develop natural immunity? Fine, just expect hospitals jam up for months on end, and unnecessary deaths skyrocketing. So that isn't a solution.
If 99% of people took the vaccine the covid problem would be eliminated. Simple as that.
Your whole point is hinged on covid deaths ... What is the definition of a Covid death?
Also how does a vaccine prevent a covid death when a covid death is not actually a covid death???
----------
How many people have died because of the covid-19 pandemic? The answer depends both on the data available, and on how you define “because”. Many people who die while infected with SARS-CoV-2 are never tested for it, and do not enter the official totals. Conversely, some people whose deaths have been attributed to covid-19 had other ailments that might have ended their lives on a similar timeframe anyway. And what about people who died of preventable causes during the pandemic, because hospitals full of covid-19 patients could not treat them? If such cases count, they must be offset by deaths that did not occur but would have in normal times, such as those caused by flu or air pollution.
Rather than trying to distinguish between types of deaths, The Economist’s approach is to count all of them. The standard method of tracking changes in total mortality is “excess deaths”. This number is the gap between how many people died in a given region during a given time period, regardless of cause, and how many deaths would have been expected if a particular circumstance (such as a natural disaster or disease outbreak) had not occurred. Although the official number of deaths caused by covid-19 is now , our single best estimate is that the actual toll is people. We find that there is a 95% chance that the true value lies between and additional deaths.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detai ... -estimates
With this logic we should start counting all road traffic deaths as caused by alcohol since some road traffic victims and perpetrators have alcohol in their systems.
You sir are a true loyal Tribal drone like the PNMites/dUNCes ... Even when you see your party/side spewing out sheit you lap it up and tell everyone to come they giving out free chocolate ice cream and its great.
"More than a third of 26 major trials of [ivermectin] for use on Covid have serious errors or signs of potential fraud. None of the rest show convincing evidence of ivermectin's effectiveness."
"Molnupiravir, known as MSD outside the US."Dohplaydat wrote:UK has almost become a testbed for the rest of the world. It seems like they've got the right size, weather (sheit weather), population density, social interactions and money to throw at the pandemic....giving us a good glimpse of what we can expect in other countries.
Now we'll see how boosters, and molnupiravir (really should choose a better name) affect covid cases and deaths this winter.
US and the rest of the temperate world take note.
Trinidad might now follow the dynamics of these countries, especially during the winter effects. That said, delta is still very contagious and trinis are becoming more relaxed.
I do feel our delta outbreak will take place around Dec.
Delta has been here weeks now probably months and we only expected to see an outbreak in Dec, where is the pandemonium where is the crisis of epic proportions, where are the full ICU units....just fear mongeringDohplaydat wrote:UK has almost become a testbed for the rest of the world. It seems like they've got the right size, weather (sheit weather), population density, social interactions and money to throw at the pandemic....giving us a good glimpse of what we can expect in other countries.
Now we'll see how boosters, and molnupiravir (really should choose a better name) affect covid cases and deaths this winter.
US and the rest of the temperate world take note.
Trinidad might now follow the dynamics of these countries, especially during the winter effects. That said, delta is still very contagious and trinis are becoming more relaxed.
I do feel our delta outbreak will take place around Dec.
hover11 wrote:Delta has been here weeks now probably months and we only expected to see an outbreak in Dec, where is the pandemonium where is the crisis of epic proportions, where are the full ICU units....just fear mongeringDohplaydat wrote:UK has almost become a testbed for the rest of the world. It seems like they've got the right size, weather (sheit weather), population density, social interactions and money to throw at the pandemic....giving us a good glimpse of what we can expect in other countries.
Now we'll see how boosters, and molnupiravir (really should choose a better name) affect covid cases and deaths this winter.
US and the rest of the temperate world take note.
Trinidad might now follow the dynamics of these countries, especially during the winter effects. That said, delta is still very contagious and trinis are becoming more relaxed.
I do feel our delta outbreak will take place around Dec.
Mask wearing? These cloth masks do nothing against the delta variant and we have alot of chin diapers here but alrightDohplaydat wrote:hover11 wrote:Delta has been here weeks now probably months and we only expected to see an outbreak in Dec, where is the pandemonium where is the crisis of epic proportions, where are the full ICU units....just fear mongeringDohplaydat wrote:UK has almost become a testbed for the rest of the world. It seems like they've got the right size, weather (sheit weather), population density, social interactions and money to throw at the pandemic....giving us a good glimpse of what we can expect in other countries.
Now we'll see how boosters, and molnupiravir (really should choose a better name) affect covid cases and deaths this winter.
US and the rest of the temperate world take note.
Trinidad might now follow the dynamics of these countries, especially during the winter effects. That said, delta is still very contagious and trinis are becoming more relaxed.
I do feel our delta outbreak will take place around Dec.
We are currently in a bad situation, it's a manageable situation only because things aren't fully open, we have mask-wearing mandates. Delta in other places caused increases in spite of that, give it a few more weeks, there will be an uptick.
hover11 wrote:Delta has been here weeks now probably months and we only expected to see an outbreak in Dec, where is the pandemonium where is the crisis of epic proportions, where are the full ICU units....just fear mongering
adnj wrote:"More than a third of 26 major trials of [ivermectin] for use on Covid have serious errors or signs of potential fraud. None of the rest show convincing evidence of ivermectin's effectiveness."
---------
Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug
By Rachel Schraer & Jack Goodman
BBC Reality Check
Ivermectin has been called a Covid "miracle" drug, championed by vaccine opponents, and recommended by health authorities in some countries. But the BBC can reveal there are serious errors in a number of key studies that the drug's promoters rely on.
For some years ivermectin has been a vital anti-parasitic medicine used to treat humans and animals.
But during the pandemic there has been a clamour from some proponents for using the drug for something else - to fight Covid and prevent deaths.
The health authorities in the US, UK and EU have found there is insufficient evidence for using the drug against Covid, but thousands of supporters, many of them anti-vaccine activists, have continued to vigorously campaign for its use.
Members of social media groups swap tips on getting hold of the drug, even advocating the versions used for animals.
The hype around ivermectin - based on the strength of belief in the research - has driven large numbers of people around the world to use it.
Campaigners for the drug point to a number of scientific studies and often claim this evidence is being ignored or covered up. But a review by a group of independent scientists has cast serious doubt on that body of research.
The BBC can reveal that more than a third of 26 major trials of the drug for use on Covid have serious errors or signs of potential fraud. None of the rest show convincing evidence of ivermectin's effectiveness.
Dr Kyle Sheldrick, one of the group investigating the studies, said they had not found "a single clinical trial" claiming to show that ivermectin prevented Covid deaths that did not contain "either obvious signs of fabrication or errors so critical they invalidate the study".
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809
Interesting but the exact opposite is true. The most profound way to decrease population is to increase affluence.nismotrinidappa wrote:Social engineering. Tests are being done to check systems. If they put it in the water many people will die yes. But they are trying to depopulate with a strategy. To answer the question posted before.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 131 guests