cdemundo

I wonder which war he is referring to? Given their ages it has to be either the Khmer Rouge (Cambodia) Border Raids into Thailand (1975-1979) or Thai-Laotian Border War (1987-1988). Or is it just complete nonsense?

I know everybody looks to Charles for his plain-spoken wisdom. Here it is short and sweet. Last month, Barkley told CNBC that “everybody should be vaccinated” and “the only people who are not vaccinated are just a$$holes.” https://sports.yahoo.com/charles-barkley-hits-anti-vaccine-065447176.html He is talking about the US where vaccinations are readily available. Didn't know if that anatomical word was ok on this forum.

I'm asking, if you get Sinovac will you be refused Pfizer in the near future?

Referring to : "Pfizer is not the best out there 1. AZ 2.Moderna 3. Pfizer" Source: "Family Feud" hosted by Steve Harvey

wait, kids are wanting to commit suicide cuz old men are overweight? Is that like every time I eat a hamburger an acre of rainforest disappears? Man, some things I just don't get.

Or those who leave their nose uncovered all the time.

I wear a surgical/procedure mask most of the day with no problem, but I thought I would try an N95, and I found it really is a lot more uncomfortable and hot.

sorry forgot the reference for these quotes https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/17/health/covid-vaccinated-infections.html

What is the number of vaccinated people who are still becoming infected? "Breakthrough infections in vaccinated people accounted for at least one in five newly diagnosed cases" so at least 20% of newly diagnosed cases, so that means 80% of newly diagnosed cases are unvaccinated. Definitely true that a significant number of breakthrough cases are occurring. “If the chances of a breakthrough infection have gone up considerably, and I think the evidence is clear that they have, and the level of protection against severe illness is no longer as robust as it was," But if 80% of cases are still in the unvaccinated that kinda speaks for itself.

Don't shoot me, I'm only the piano player.

I didn't prove your point, you used the phrase "name calling" incorrectly. It's a question of English usage. "Name calling" if you check the definition given by Google is "abusive language or insults." [Google uses "Definitions from Oxford Languages" for its definitions.] You are objecting to people being classified as "anti-vaxxers", that might be described as "inappropriate labeling" or "pigeonholing". It isn't name calling. Name calling would be something like calling someone a "cork sacker" or a "mother flower", or simply "stupid" as some here do.

changing goal posts? don't know what you are talking about. I said nothing about denying medical treatment to anybody. Maybe your whole problem is reading comprehension. I simply pointed out that your comparison doesn't hold water. As I predicted you immediately blamed the people who had the conditions you specified. They (the people, the problems) have nothing to do with people who don't get vaccinated. And you agreed that the problems persisted over time, as I said not simple problems, not easily solved problems. Leaving aside the question of whether a person should get vaccinated or not: A person can get vaccinated in one or two visits to a clinic, very different from the problems you describe. Your comparison is an example of a "false analogy" in elementary logic.

"Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty (koe-mir’-na-tee), for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 16 years of age and older." https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine Pretty simple statement the vaccine "has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine" and "will now be marketed as Comirnaty". This vaccine has been approved as of August 23, 2021.

What name calling? You mean "anti-vaxxer"? I don't get it.

Yes, exactly, we must also go to youtube.

That is a false analogy. Those 3 are intractable public health problems that have multiple causes and to the extent that they are manageable, take time to correct. ( Anti-smoking programs have taken decades to show progress for instance.) If you have a solution to these problems other than to blame those that have them; keep your phone handy, the Nobel prize committee is trying to reach you. The difference with the non-vaccinated that they can become vaccinated with one or two trips to the clinic.

Raoult is very controversial. [He is a world leading expert for Q fever and Whipple's disease, not so much for Corona viruses. Raoult's extremely high publication rate results from his "attaching his name to nearly every paper that comes out of his institute",] these are from his entry in Wikipedia which does look suspiciously hostile to him, although citations are there for everything said about him. He is definitely an expert in microbiology, he appears to like the limelight and a lot of controversy over research he has been associated with. So if we accept his opinion on hydroxychloroquine on the basis of him being a renowned expert, what about the renowned experts who do not agree? do we dismiss them?

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has weighed in that he thinks if we can make some other planet habitable, we can probably keep earth habitable as well. Just a thought.

I had a an "inconclusive" test and had to extend quarantine in the states for a week waiting for the result when the labs were backed up in December 2021. Came back negative on the retest. I guess a certain percentage are inconclusive. Good luck.

No. Definition is "resistance to the spread of an infectious disease within a population that is based on pre-existing immunity of a high proportion of individuals as a result of previous infection or vaccination." {Definitions from Oxford Languages} definition if you simply google "herd immunity". The percentage sought is the percentage that causes that resistance in the population. Has been estimated at different percentages, looks like it must be pretty high percentage to reach herd immunity.

I think what I said was true and that I am much less insulting than the person that I was responding to typically is in his replies. I believe I was more condescending or patronizing than insulting, in this case I think my tone and content were both appropriate.

You can't understand the difference between: testing a hypothesis to discover if it is true or false and having an opinion and looking only for information that supports it. That indicates a very limited capacity for critical thinking. So in topics as complex as are involved in the discussion of a world wide viral pandemic, you really are not able to contribute anything significant. Your continued posting in these discussions is nothing more than an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I am not really surprised that you have resentments against teachers. When you were in school were all your teachers stupid?

The scientific consensus always changes when new information becomes available. That is axiomatic in science. Following the scientific method hypotheses are tested to see if they are supported by evidence. Many people form their opinion and then search for evidence to support it. That is the difference.

Is this true? Where did you learn this? Do you have a link or reference?