Are you getting the vaccine? - Anti vaxxers BTFO

[EyelessMC]

This doesn't even make sense. Yes, "significant numbers" is important in anything where you're delivering something to literally hundreds of millions of people. Are you pretending to be retarded or are you actually retarded?

Are you? What quantifies "significant numbers" and where is that to be found in the PREP Act? Hey, I could be wrong. Show me where the legislature specifically says anything remotely akin to
"These companies are indemnified from damages unless a significant number of patients (herein "significant number" is "more than X claimants") report and are proven to have suffered severe effects from the company's product."

I've been wrong before. I can take a hit. So show me, because from the reports I've read the only qualifier of whether a company is protected or not is "unintentionally", and since no one but actual tinfoil hatters believes these companies are intentionally trying to sicken or kill people with their products, that doesn't factor in here.

 

[Bad Take Crucifier]

1. It wasn't "rushed through", it went through the same phases of testing as other vaccines before it was approved by the FDA.

None of the vaccines are FDA approved. They were pushed through by congress. Most medications go through 10 years of testing before the FDA will approve them, because that's the only way to see what the long-term effects are.

mRNA vaccines are the first of their kind so really, who knows if that's safe. I'll take the vaccine when the FDA approves it.

 

[RA-5C Vigilante]

I like how the conversation is such a poisoned well that the moment I said I didn't want to get it, I was accused of believing that the vaccines were chipped and called a conspiracy theorist by my grandmother.

I don't trust it, and the fact that people are just willing doing it with so little question fucking terrifies me as much as how anyone who dissents is so quickly brushed off

 

[Roland Raygun]

I'm not taking it because I have a functioning immune system and I'm not scared of catching a cold. I also don't get the annual flu vaccine. That doesn't mean I think the flu vaccine is evil. It means I've made a personal choice not to take it because I haven't had the flu in over 20 years. And its a medical decision that's none of your business.
That doesn't make me an anti vaxer. I don't have kids but if I did they would receive whatever normal vaccines children receive. I'm not opposed to vaccines but I'm also not going to be shamed into getting unnecessary ones. I've never been one a plane, I don't travel and my employer doesn't care about this at all so calling me an anti vaxxer or a Qtard isn't going to get me to take your shot. My body my choice. Sorry you have a compromised immune system, faggot.

 

[Pinochet Was Right]

In my shithole country people are getting the Sinovac shot, I didn't trust it because well, it's Chinese. But now I've been reading it uses inactive viruses, so it isn't mRNA.

If I get the shot I'd rather get that one. Not very different than a flu shot.

 

[AnOminous]

Are you? What quantifies "significant numbers" and where is that to be found in the PREP Act? Hey, I could be wrong. Show me where the legislature specifically says anything remotely akin to
"These companies are indemnified from damages unless a significant number of patients (herein "significant number" is "more than X claimants") report and are proven to have suffered severe effects from the company's product."

What the fuck are you even talking about? They're indemnified no matter how many people are affected. It doesn't have to be "significant." If just one person is injured they have an administrative process to get compensation. If a million people are affected, they have an administrative process.

Are we even speaking in the same language? Because to me what you're saying is fucking gibberish and completely nonresponsive to what I just said.

In my shithole country people are getting the Sinovac shot, I didn't trust it because well, it's Chinese. But now I've been reading it uses inactive viruses, so it isn't mRNA.

Do not get the defective chink vaccine. It is at most 60% or so effective, compared to Moderna and Pfizer approaching 95%. And who knows what kind of poisonous chink shit is in it.

 

[Dude Weed]

Bro I don't care if there's long term effects I do hard drugs. I have other things to worry about. A little poke isn't scary cause I'm no pussy


So you got vaccinated for some random pathogen that isn't even endemic but you're against covid vax? Lol

Maybe delete this message, you power-leveled too much and made a fool of yourself.

 

[Merrick]

It's really interesting to see so many people get so angry over a personal decision.

Was that your intention, @Vulva Gape?

 

[RA-5C Vigilante]

It's really interesting to see so many people get so angry over a personal decision.

Was that your intention, @Vulva Gape?

Well don't you know in current year you can have a personal opinion as long as its the correct and only valid one according to certain groups of people

 

[Pinochet Was Right]

Do not get the defective chink vaccine. It is at most 60% or so effective, compared to Moderna and Pfizer approaching 95%. And who knows what kind of poisonous chink shit is in it.

Perhaps I was too optimistic. But so far everyone here seems fine. No matter, I won't take it unless forced to.

And again, I'm not saying they chip you (lol), or intentionally poison you.

If that ever happens, they're not gonna do it by force or secretly, since realistically any gadget like that has to be big enough. They'll make one openly, advertise it as Covid Safety, and as time goes on it'll be Cyberpunk Fashion. Just like we bought the telescreens in the form of smartphones.

 

[EyelessMC]

What the fuck are you even talking about?

Alright let's actually see what just happened and who's being incoherent:

Spoiler: The entire thing

1. Someone posts info regarding Pfizer, one of the major vaccine companies for the Covid mRNA vaccine, and how the company killed 11 and brain damaged many more Nigerian children with experimental antiobiotics, and ended up settling out of court for 50 million pounds

2. I tag you into my response to this to get your response regarding the validity of concern over Covid vaccine and the background info about them (including the companies)--concern which you keep saying is just retarded

3. You respond by essentially saying you never said BigPharma companies were saints (which you did not, but I never implied you did, only that your smearing concern about/against the Covid vaccine as illegitimate is itself retarded). Then you say:

Of course they'd do shit like that in countries where there aren't functioning legal systems where they'd be eviscerated if they harmed significant numbers of people.

Implying A) Pfizer & Friends would never be so shady in countries since they would be eviscerated (further implying being forced to settle out of court for 50 million pounds is not being "eviscerated") and B) they would be eviscerated if they "harmed a significant number of people"

4. Since you never said what countries would "eviscerate" these companies, I took that to mean you were speaking about countries with "functioning legal systems" ie more civilized countries like USA, etc. I then reply that these companies are absolutely indemnified in countries like the USA, etc. in that they cannot suffer in any way due to protective legislature. I post an article saying as much.

5. You reply

They're not completely indemnified

You explain how the claims process for damages (or "harm" as you put it above) is administrative instead of judicial and when it could be judicial it end up in a Federal Claims court and, quote

and good luck.

Implying you're unlikely to get damages from anyone, neither from the companies nor government--which is what the article says regarding the sweeping protection of the PREP Act: "Under the PREP Act, companies like Pfizer and Moderna have total immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines."

So both the article and your own words so far only further my point about the indemnification of these--as you call them--"evil ghouls who would gladly use African children as guinea pigs", which itself further adds to my point about people's concerns regarding the Covid vax and the background info about them (like one of the "evil ghoul" companies making it which did this) being valid.
Which you reject as being valid and say it jsut retarded.

5. I call you out on this and then show you that the caveat you vaguely mention of "significant numbers" makes no difference according to the protections set in place over said companies in these countries which you had said would "eviscerate" them. I also mention how these--as you know and called them to be "evil ghoul"--companies have tens of billions of potential profit annually by being evil ghouls, so concern about or against the vaccine and the background info is, as I keep repeating, very valid.

6. You reply

Yes, "significant numbers" is important in anything where you're delivering something to literally hundreds of millions of people.

7. To which I reply and clarify yet again about your vague "significant numbers" caveat to the indemnification protection:

What quantifies "significant numbers" and where is that to be found in the PREP Act? Hey, I could be wrong. Show me where the legislature specifically says anything remotely akin to
"These companies are indemnified from damages unless a significant number of patients (herein "significant number" is "more than X claimants") report and are proven to have suffered severe effects from the company's product."

Pointing out that the singular caveat which would show a company is NOT protected/indemnified is that they are intentionally trying to harm others with their product or that they intentionally didn't take the right measures to ensure the product is safe.
Since I never said the companies are intentionally trying to harm people, and since they can lie and say they did all they could to make it safe even if they really didn't, this means that--despite being on-paper not totally indemnified--they are in-practice absolutely indemnified in this area.

Either way, "significant numbers" makes no difference and does not annul their protections from liability--which is itself protection from culpability. If there was such a caveat or clause about specific numbers of claimants/"harmed" people annulling the protection/indemnification then you would need to show me where it exists in the PREP Act which is cited in the article.


And now we're here:

They're indemnified no matter how many people are affected. It doesn't have to be "significant." If just one person is injured they have an administrative process to get compensation.

Which was literally my point, that the numbers don't matter and all that matters is that it can be proven in court the vaccine companies intentionally harmed them or intentionally didn't take measures to ensure the security and safety of the vaccine they produced.

And this "process" you detailed and mention again here does not entail the vaccine company (unless proven what I said above about intent) being held liable/culpabale, and people damaged by the vaccine cannot take the FDA to court nor can they take their employers who mandated they get the vax which ultimately "harmed"/damaged them.

You have flip-flopped your ass off while pretending I'm the retard. You mention countries which would "eviscerate" the companies but then acknowledge their indemnification. You mention the process but overlook the reality of it only having one caveat, "intent". You mention "significant numbers" but then acknowledge that the number of people doesn't matter, only that someone was injured, and then we go right back to the previous sentence of you not understanding what the only thing that can annul their protection is--"intent", not simply people being harmed/damaged.

I have been excruciatingly specific from top to bottom here just to carefully show how legitimately incoherent you have been, all because you want to dance around the central point like sped instead of just accepting it: the fact that there are legitimate reasons for people to be concerned about/against the Covid mRNA vaccines.

Are we even speaking in the same language? Because to me what you're saying is fucking gibberish and completely nonresponsive to what I just said.

Get a CT scan. You might have a brain tumor.

If I get the shot I'd rather get that one.

Don't trust any vaccine made by the country that kept lying to the world about the pandemic not being a pandemic. Also don't trust the WHO for that matter.

 

[Roland Raygun]

Bro I don't care if there's long term effects I do hard drugs. I have other things to worry about. A little poke isn't scary cause I'm no pussy


So you got vaccinated for some random pathogen that isn't even endemic but you're against covid vax? Lol

But you're scared of getting a cold? I wonder if those are connected. It would make sense that you have a compromised immune system from being a degenerate IV drug user and now you think everyone else should be responsible for keeping you healthy.

 

[Sweet Yuzu]

So there's a little media/twitter tard fight going on in Canada RN. The country's highest authority on vaccines stated they do not recommend the Astra Zeneca vaccine to young people under 30, especially ones who don't go out much and live in provinces like those in Atlantic Canada who aren't as hard hit because the risk of the clots is actually higher than dying of COVID in that age group.
This caused some I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE people to tard rage on twitter and call our country's vaccine authority "anti-vaxers" who are "spreading disinformation". All they did was issue a nuanced recommendation that takes into account different demographics and risks.
Justin Trudeau got the Astra Zeneca vaccine and is telling people to get the first vaccine available to them. This article is all about this shitshow and I think it's pretty well balanced even though the National Post is known for conservative bullshit:

NACI is right about AstraZeneca. It shouldn’t be 'unsettling' to trust the public with uncomfortable information

Analysis: Despite repeated calls to 'listen to the science,' politicians are now openly telling Canadians to ignore one of our most unbiased scientific bodies

nationalpost.com

https://archive.md/wip/JSpvv

Last month, risk modelling out of the University of Cambridge found that, based on a daily COVID-19 case rate of two per 10,000 (which is almost exactly on par with Canada’s case rate), among people in their 20s the AstraZeneca vaccine will prevent 0.8 ICU admissions for every 1.1 blood clots it causes.
It’s vanishingly rare that a young person will suffer a severe blood clot from an AstraZeneca shot. But it’s also vanishingly rare that the same young person will wind up on a ventilator after contracting COVID-19. In short, for the under-30 set the marginal benefits of viral vector immunization are already so low that even a trivial safety issue is worth a second look.

New Brunswick Education Minister Dominic Cardy has strong views on NACI “If a vaccine is approved by Public Health Canada … take that shot. Ignore NACI, ignore anti-masker, ignore the people undermining the faith in science" #cdnpoli #nbpoli

LOL @ Dominic Cardy talking about science like a religion.

Because viruses apparently get more deadly with time.
You say retarded shit like this, yet I'm supposedly the science denier.

Maybe not always but the new variants of COVID seem to be able to get into cells better and transmit more easily so they are going to win over variants without those advantages. It's simple Darwinism.

 

[Billy_Sama]

If it helps people figuring about the vaccine, I got fully vaccinated with the Pfiser shots and went to a large gathering without wearing a mask. I had a great time and didn't catch anything.

 

[Sweet Yuzu]

which are being pushed to make everyone get vaccinated, even those who recovered illness.

That's because not everyone who has had COVID even makes antibodies, especially older people:

Q:If a person has had COVID-19, will they still need to get the vaccine?​

Yes, if someone had COVID-19 they should still receive the vaccine. They may not be immune to the virus and therefore could become ill again. However, if the vaccine supply is limited, initial doses of the vaccine may be prioritized for those who have not previously been infected with the virus that causes COVID-19. If you have been previously diagnosed as having had COVID-19, you can check with your primary care physician or local public health authority to see when you will be eligible to receive the vaccine.

Q:How long after having COVID-19 can I be vaccinated?​

Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) recommends COVID-19 vaccination even for people who have already had COVID-19. In general, you should wait until all symptoms of any acute illness, including COVID-19, have gone away before getting your COVID-19 vaccine.
More specific details about when you can receive the vaccine may depend on vaccine supply and local immunization strategies where you live. In some cases, where supply is limited, NACI notes that it may be recommended that people who have had COVID-19 wait three months after they have had a lab-confirmed infection before getting immunized. Why? There have been almost no reports of people being re-infected with COVID-19 within three months of having had it. This suggests that the risk of re-infection during that period is probably low. Waiting would also allow more people who don’t have any immunity to get the shot.

https://covidquestions.ca/

https://archive.md/wip/Jv9uX

The problem is that not everyone will develop immunity after a SARS-CoV-2 infection. As many as 9% of infected people do not have detectable antibodies, and up to 7% of people don’t have T cells that recognize the virus 30 days after infection.

For people who do develop immunity, the strength and duration of the protection can vary a lot. Up to 5% of people may lose their immune protection within a few months. Without a strong immune defense, these people are susceptible to reinfection by the coronavirus. Some have had second bouts of COVID–19 as soon as one month after their first infection; and, though rare, some people have been hospitalized or even died.

https://theconversation.com/why-you-should-get-a-covid-19-vaccine-even-if-youve-already-had-the-coronavirus-155712

https://archive.ph/BKx41

In my shithole country people are getting the Sinovac shot, I didn't trust it because well, it's Chinese. But now I've been reading it uses inactive viruses, so it isn't mRNA.

If I get the shot I'd rather get that one. Not very different than a flu shot.

The Chinese vaccine is the worst one going: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/china...t-unsafe-in-world-with-73-side-effects.83077/

The vaccine expert found that in addition to pain in the injection site and headache, there were severe side effects listed that were "more likely to occur," such as high blood pressure, loss of vision, loss of taste, delayed menstruation, and urinary incontinence.
He wrote that the 73 adverse reactions to the vaccine listed on the manual make it what he describes as the "most unsafe vaccine in the world in one fell swoop."

 

[X Pac Heat]

lol no way. Everyone who is anyone knows it is actually a prototype for the gay shot, which is the successor of the gay bomb project.

I mean, no hate if you want it but I'm perfectly happy being straight.

 

[Pinochet Was Right]

LOL Vaccine Supremacy
LOL Faith In Science

 

[N. Gin]

Having to get the vaccine for work, had the first Pfizer dose on Monday. Haven't grown a set of tiddies or started listing my pronouns on every website yet, so clearly progress has been slow.

 

[AnOminous]

Alright let's actually see what just happened and who's being incoherent:

Like I'm going to read that unintelligible torrent of Gish galloping.

 

[Pinochet Was Right]

And here.... we... go.

https://twitter.com/WHCOVIDResponse/status/1389707168413274114