placeholder

Are you sure about this? Here are 2 definitions of infection. 'The invasion and growth of germs in the body. The germs may be bacteria, viruses, yeast, fungi, or other microorganisms. Infections can begin anywhere in thebody and may spread all through it. An infection can cause fever and other health problems, depending on where it occurs in the body... https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/infection "The invasion and multiplication of microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, and parasites that are not normally present within the body. " https://www.medicinenet.com/infection/definition.htm I have found no definition of "infection" that says it is merely the entrance of a bacteria or virus into the body. There has to be reproduction of bacteria or virus to occur before it is said to be an infection. Yet the CDC is explicit in saying that vaccines can prevent infection. "COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing infection, serious illness, and death. Most people who get COVID-19 are unvaccinated. However, since vaccines are not 100% effective at preventing infection, some people who are fully vaccinated will still get COVID-19." https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/why-measure-effectiveness/breakthrough-cases.html#:~:text=COVID-19 vaccines are,get COVID-19.

I understand exactly what you mean. It's like seatbelts. They don't make you invulnerable if your car crashes, so why use them? Who cares if they reduce the odds of getting seriously injured or dying? Any measure that offers less than a 100% guarantee is absolutely worthless.

You know that old joke about people who can't walk and chew gum at the same time? I got news for you. Some people can. Or to put it another way: speak for yourself.

Got a link for that? Does this meme take any account for the projected life span of an EV vs an ICE vehicle? Does it take account of the fact that by 2025 EVs are expected to reach purchase price parity with ICE vehicles? Does it take account of what maintenance costs will be for the 6-10 year period?

You really should look up what effectiveness means in regards to epidemiology.

It's a good thing that oil and gas production doesn't consume huge quantities of water and has a sterling record as regards pollution.

"we looked upon a vaccine as a stopper more or less?" And the flu vaccine? Has that been viewed as a stopper more or less? There's also the shingles vaccine. Has that been viewed as a stopper,more or less? What about the HSV1 Herpes vaccine? Has that been viewed as a stopper, more or less? What do you mean by "more or less"? Clearly, if anyone is changing the criteria for what constitutes a vaccine it's you and the vanishingly small number of those who support your position.

And then your contention that "Covid Vaccines do not meet the true definition of vaccines" was criticized by me. And as I have pointed out, it wasn't a true definition of the vaccine but an outmoded one. And, in fact this has been the history of the meaning of vaccine. It started out meaning the pus from a cowpox infections. IAs the history of the word shows, it's scientists who get to decide what the relevant facts are to determine what is and isn't a vaccine. Not dictionaries.

And, of course, the best qualified people to judge what a vaccine is and isn't are virologists and epidemiologists. Not lexicographers. Dictionaries are merely playing catch-up to how the term is used by the scientific community.

It's also the case that because an electric motor is much simpler and has far fewer parts, EVs should last a long longer than an ICE vehicle.

HOW LONG SHOULD AN ELECTRIC CAR’S BATTERY LAST? "The bottom line here is that if it’s properly cared for, an electric car’s battery pack should last for well in excess of 100,000 miles before its range becomes restricted. Consumer Reports estimates the average EV battery pack’s lifespan to be at around 200,000 miles, which is nearly 17 years of use if driven 12,000 miles per year." https://www.myev.com/research/ev-101/how-long-should-an-electric-cars-battery-last

But here's your original claim: "Covid Vaccines did not meet the true vaccine definition so wording of definition was changed. You pick your own source." As that Merriam Webster article I linked to shows, the definition of vaccine has been repeatedly changed because as science advanced, earlier definitions became outmoded. Luddite much?

I just did. A vaccine originally meant the pus that was extracted from cowpox sores. The very word vaccine derives from the latin for cattle. It's definition changed over time to encompass the discovery of bacteria and viruses. Now it's encompassing duplication of part of those viruses. Science marches on. Here's what Merriam Webster has to say about it: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/vaccine-the-words-history-aint-pretty

. There is also the issue of how to dispose of millions of defunct used batteries. New Tesla Battery Recycling Process Reportedly Produces No Waste Tesla’s new process that claims it can save up to 92 percent of the elements that make up a battery pack. https://insideevs.com/news/525965/tesla-battery-recycling-no-waste/

If there's one thing that is consistent is that the predictions about the progress in battery technology has been uniformly too conservative. For one thing, the drop in the cost of lithium ion batteries has dropped dramatically. https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/storage/annual-survey-finds-battery-prices-dropped-13-in-2020/#gref And there are plenty of predictions out there that counter Samsung's. https://www.mining.com/solid-state-battery-deployment-expected-to-by-mid-decade-report/ https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/8/22158573/quantumscape-solid-state-battery-ev-range-charge-vw

Please. When someone goes to the trouble to write those objections, and presents them in an internally inconsistent and misleading way, I don't think it's unreasonable to doubt their bona fides. His presentation certainly demonstrated more than a little familiarity with the issue. The fact that mortality wasn't even mentioned by the OP says it all.

This kind of nonsense comes from the fact that vaccines can now be created in such a way that they don't come from killed viruses. But the word vaccine was created to describe the substances for smallpox vaccine which was not purified viruses but was essentially the diseased matter taken from those afflicted with cowpax. This had to be the case since viruses weren't even known to exist until the 1920's. So I guess the polio vaccine, among others really isn't a vaccine. Or, for that matter, the modern version of the smallpox vaccine. Does it somehow disqualify something from being a vaccine because now scientists can see a virus in every detail and extract the information it needs from the virus to direct the immune system to battle against a piece of itself? And even if that silly point was valid, what of it? You think that semantics has a significant role to play in the battle against a pandemic?

On second thought, I do agree with you, in a way. CharlieH is not missing anything but rather willfully distorting the evidence as exposed by the internal contradictions in the statements he offers to justify his alleged puzzlement. On the one hand he states absolutely that vaccinations don't stop people from contracting the virus or spreading it to others. But it's not a question of absolutes, is it? It does reduce the risk. On the other hand, he claims that vaccinations "may" reduce the severity of symptoms. So here he's acknowledging probability but in a way that minimizes the effect of vaccines. The odds are very strong that vaccines will reduce the severity of symptoms. But what really gives his game away is the fact that he makes no mention at all of mortality. Most of us would think that death is the worst thing that covid can result in. Are we to believe that CharlieH doesn't? Pretty glaring omission, no? I guess those facts that show overwhelmingly that the unvaccinated run a far graver risk of dying from Covid were just too damning to address. And just to clear something up...vaccines can and do prevent infections. Vaccines may not stop a virus from entering the body, but they can stop that virus from getting that body to produce more copies of itself. If the virus is unsuccessful at hijacking those cellular processes, then it hasn't infected the body. That's why the CDC explicitly says that Covid vaccinations can prevent infections. "COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing infection, serious illness, and death. Most people who get COVID-19 are unvaccinated. However, since vaccines are not 100% effective at preventing infection, some people who are fully vaccinated will still get COVID-19. " https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/why-measure-effectiveness/breakthrough-cases.html

"It's that anyone would stand-up, like a sugar-coated pansy and proclaim, "It's so great to wear a mask, isn't it?". As if wearing a mask is the best thing to ever happen to mankind - sorry, but I just find that extremely weird." What's extremely weird is the alternative reality you inhabit. Maybe I don't get out enough but I have yet to encounter "a sugar-coated pansy" proclaiming "It's so great to wear a mask, isn't it?" or anything like that. I do very occasionally encounter into a homophobe like you, though. They tend to be coated in bile, not sugar.

It's common knowledge that every time you drink a carbonated beverage you are risking death. But if you must, keep a tank of oxygen handy.

More than 60 per cent of fleets would see financial gains if they transitioned to electric today https://electricautonomy.ca/2021/01/25/electric-fleets-financial-gain/

There was a study from Singapore that showed the viral load could reach the same level but that it persisted for a much shorter period of time.

Here's what you're missing: When you put on a seatbelt, do you believe that it makes you invulnerable in case of a crash? Or do you believe it lessens the odds of injury or death? You seem to accept the need for masks. Do you believe that they are 100% effective in keeping you from transmitting the virus to others? Or contracting it yourself? Or rather that they lessen the odds? As for "it may you from becoming worse/seriously ill if you do contract the virus", you seem to acknowledge the issue of probability, after all. Although the use of "may" is clearly your way of minimizing the issue. "May", really? Why do you fail to acknowledge the huge difference in probability between the unvaccinated and vaccinated in "becoming worse/seriously ill if you do contract the virus". The evidence is overwhelming that vaccination massively decreases the odds of becoming worse or seriously ill. And I notice that you neglected to mention the little matter of mortality. As I've noted elsewhere, Pennsylvania is the latest state to report its statistics on covid: 97% of those who died were unvaccinated.

It's very impressive but I think solid state batteries are going to have the edge. They are inherently non flammable, can hold a greater charge than batteries with a liquid electrolyte, and charge more quickly. Not so long ago a Toyota powered by a prototype solid state battery was spotted on a highway in Japan. https://www.thedrive.com/tech/42287/toyota-is-road-testing-a-prototype-solid-state-battery-ev

This is a false issue raised against PCR machines. All these machines are calibrated against an index sample with a known concentration of viruses.