placeholder

As I just pointed out, I have never claimed that vaccination stops transmission. I was replying to Longwood50 who claims that it doesn't slow transmission. If you have a problem with anyone over this issue, it's with him. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

If anyone is doing gaslighting here, it's you. The person I was replying to contends that vaccination does nothing to slow the spread of covid-19 much less prevent its transmission. I have never claimed that vaccination stops the transmission of covid-19.

Another case of I'm vaccinated but...

Are you aware that those same Americans who believe that the world was created 6000 years ago are the ones who overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage and gay adoption? Like you, they believe it's unnatural.

Whatever the merits of that point, and i think they're feeble, businesses should definitely not be forbidden to exclude customers who they feel pose a health threat to themselves or other customers. Several governors in the USA have explicitly forbidden businesses from doing so. Sometimes with the support of state legislatures. In one particularly flagrant case, the governor of Florida actually attempted to prohibit cruise companies from testing passengers for Covid before they were allowed to board their ships.

This finding about continued effectiveness in reducing hospitalizations and deaths has been found to be the case everywhere it's been studied.

It's not so much a flaw in your thinking that has drawn criticism so much as flaws in your alleged facts.

That doesn't address the issue of comparative severity, though.

Contrary to what some people might think, the UK is not the world. And to get further into this, how long was the duration of stress imposed on the UK during these past events?

Covid-19 vaccine: First person receives Pfizer jab in UK 8 December 2020 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55227325

Do you think invoking that one study repeatedly is going to establish its authority. It was published in the correspondence section of a journal. It is not peer reviewed. I connect to a CDC tally of many studies showing that vaccination effects transmission. Why do you believe that one non-peer reviewed study trumps all of them? Give it up.

What don't you understand about the fact that you're at far greater risk of dying or developing serious symptoms if you're not vaccinated? And thanks for setting the loaded standard "that has better research on side effects." Just because you're not happy with the research that shows side effects are few and far far outweighed by the effects of coming down with covid, doesn't mean that research hasn't been very thorough, The kind of results you're looking for comes from the dept, of fiction, where I suspect you hale from.

So, it could be the case that some who might ordinarily have been assigned to standard hospital beds get bumped up to intensive care.

Maybe in Denmark there aren't a lot of politically aligned covid denialists. But in many western nations there are. Lots of these people are in denial about the severity of covid. Because the medicine is most effective when given in the first 5 days, when symptoms can still be ignored or discounted, it may not do much good for the unvaccinated. But for those rare individuals who are fully vaccinated and still suffer a symptomatic breakthrough infection, it's a blessing.

There's an article from msn.com that says he had his 2nd vaccination in january and hadn't gotten booster. If true, then that article in the Mirror and others like it are lies by suppressing facts!

But that's just what you accused me of doing after I pointed out that one of the 2 species closest to homo sapiens engages frequently in homosexual behavior. Namely justifying such behavior on the grounds it's natural. Here's what you wrote: "I've never denied that other species engage in homosexual activity. Humans steal and engage in violent behaviour and so do Apes so using your theory its acceptable for humans to steal and hurt others because it goes on in nature?" According to the criterion that you invoked to disqualify homosexuality on the grounds of being unnatural the answer would be yes it is" ok for humans to steal and hurt others because it goes on in nature".

You're the one claiming that what's "natural" should be the guidelines for human behavior because ,according to you, homosexual behavior is not natural. It's your reasoning the elevates the "natural" over the unnatural. As for genetic and biologic faults and the purpose of male and female sexes... Do you understand that in nature, if survival is the guideline, the only way to evaluate whether something fulfills that criterion is whether it increases the number of genes encoding certain traits or not. Now you may think it's a cut-and-dried case that homosexual behavior can't posssibly fulfill that criterion. But you'd be wrong. There was a brilliant biologist named William Hamilton who mathematically established the existence of something called kin selection. It would be to the genetic advantage of certain siblings that didn't reproduce so long as their assistance to family members resulted in the increase of enough individuals carrying their genes Kin selection Kin selection is the evolutionary strategy that favours the reproductive success of an organism's relatives, even at a cost to the organism's own survival and reproduction.[1] Kin altruism can look like altruistic behaviour whose evolution is driven by kin selection. Kin selection is an instance of inclusive fitness, which combines the number of offspring produced with the number an individual can ensure the production of by supporting others, such as siblings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection This of course would provide a "natural" explanation of why there are homosexual human beings. Not that it's really necessary.

One thing puzzles me. Germany has one of the highest ratios of ICU beds to population in the world. Yet the occupancy rate even without Covid is very high. Could this be linked to the fact that Germany has the 4th oldest median age population in the world? And 2 of the countries that surpass it, San Pierre & Miquelon and Monaco, are so small as not to really merit consideration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_median_age

I don't think we know enough about the effect of a 3rd vaccination. Also, whether a 3rd vaccination of a different vaccine is the better way to go. Most likely it is. In addition there are new vaccines being developed. One kind, which I've mentioned before, is administered as a nasal spray thus giving increased immunity to nasal cells. Since these are the chief locus, whereby the virus particles are transmitted, that alone could help reduce the R factor to below 1. Also, there is a another vaccine, applied by a patch, that is supposed to stimulate the T cell system. Lots of other ones, too. So we'll see if it's something inherent in the nature of the virus that makes it impossible to subdue, or just a matter of finding the right vaccine or vaccines.

And when covid wasn't raging were hospital ICUs being overwhelmed?

I guess that's why people who or not volunteering their time but actually do this for a living do 7 or 14-day averaging. Just to be clear I'm in no way suggesting that you follow their example. You're doing plenty already.

That point about a hypothetical injection was excellent.

At least you're explicitly ignoring the evidence now. So on the one hand you're aware that in nature there are gay animals but on the other, when it comes to humans it's only natural when it's male plus female? Maybe you don't believe in the theory of evolution? That humans are descended from other species? Those of us who do subscribe to that theory know that bonobos, one of the two species of primate closest to humans engage in flagrant homosexual behavior with great frequency and Gusto.

And once again you ignore the evidence.

And once again, you ignore the evidence.