Dangerous Delta COVID-19 Variant Infecting Vaccinated Adults In Israel

sp free

Well-known member
May 31, 2003
2,106
608
113
Did you miss the big black letters in bold that looked like this:
The law
You are referring to the religious exemption, sorry to say you are wrong, it is more than a video to get an exemption.
For conscience or religious belief
Starting September 1, 2017, you’ll need to:

  1. Go to your local public health unit to complete an education session that covers:
  • Basic information about immunization
  • Vaccine safety
  • Immunization and community health
  • Immunization law in Ontario

    At the end of the session, you’ll receive a Vaccine Education Certificate signed and dated by your public health unit.
  1. Complete a Statement of Conscience or Religious Belief form and get it is signed by a commissioner for taking affidavits in Ontario.
  2. Make copies of your certificate and your signed Statement of Conscience or Religious Belief form and submit the originals to your local public health unit (they will tell you how). It is important that you keep your copy because the ministry and local public health units do not keep records of your exemption documents.
Your kids would be removed from school because they would be the most likely to bring it in ad spread it, vaccinated kids remain in school.
So…a video. 😂

Don’t talk to me.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
34,952
67,239
113
Yes, when you’re unable to refute any of his points because they’re all 100% accurate, attack the person / source.

You people are pathetic and weak.
The points in his tweet?
I didn't think it worth bothering, but sure.

Serious question: what is the justification for any healthy person to need a shot that doesn’t confer immunity, doesn’t limit “transmission,” only reduces symptoms w/ a 0.7% ARR, has 0 longterm safety data and was made by criminal companies, for a disease w/ 99.7% survival rate?
"doesn't confer immunity": wrong.
"doesn't limit 'transmission' ": wrong. (nice use of scare quotes though)
"only reduces symptoms w/ a 0.7% ARR": not technically wrong, but deeply misleading
"has 0 longterm safety data and was made by criminal companies": arguing no vaccine should ever be used if developed during an outbreak is a bit nuts. The "criminal companies" is good, though.
"a disease w/ 99.7% survival rate": misleading

So when you see a tweet full of misleading catchphrases and buzzwords like that, you don't develop a high opinion of the writer.
 

sp free

Well-known member
May 31, 2003
2,106
608
113
The points in his tweet?
I didn't think it worth bothering, but sure.



"doesn't confer immunity": wrong.
"doesn't limit 'transmission' ": wrong. (nice use of scare quotes though)
"only reduces symptoms w/ a 0.7% ARR": not technically wrong, but deeply misleading
"has 0 longterm safety data and was made by criminal companies": arguing no vaccine should ever be used if developed during an outbreak is a bit nuts. The "criminal companies" is good, though.
"a disease w/ 99.7% survival rate": misleading

So when you see a tweet full of misleading catchphrases and buzzwords like that, you don't develop a high opinion of the writer.
No, there’s nothing misleading about it at all. If Pfizer itself says that the “vaccines” don’t make you immune, don’t stop infection and don’t stop transmission…where are you getting your information from?

The only misleading statistic is the “95% effective” number that gets thrown around.

The absolute risk reduction is LESS THAN 1%.

You’re just a willing mark at this point. There is just no way to justify the risks these shots present.
 

Halloween Mike

Active member
Dec 1, 2011
297
51
28
I think Halloween Mike has said he is basically a libertarian, so there's that.
But really, he is being rational. As long as the rest of the country gets vaccinated enough to drive the rates down, he should be well protected even if he didn't get the vaccine himself.
It's the classic free rider problem, and kind of inevitable. You will notice that unlike Canada Man and Tee Jay and sp Free, he isn't attacking the vaccines overall very much and has even encouraged others to get it.
He is just making the rational calculation that his personal odds are better if everyone else does it and he free rides. You can argue his estimates of the risk are wrong, but the actual strategy is perfectly sound.

à
I do encourage peoples that are old (or oldish, like 50+, the ones who actually dies of it) and peoples with weak immunity system to get it. They need the protection. Once vaccinated they should be protected. End of story. Its not about "free riding". I think its ludacris to want KIDS to get it. I think its out of bounds to try to get 18-30s to get it too. The death risk for them is ridiculously low. Most don't even have any symptoms. I even read something about kids having more chances to die from the flu than covid.
 

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
22,011
17,074
113
No, there’s nothing misleading about it at all. If Pfizer itself says that the “vaccines” don’t make you immune, don’t stop infection and don’t stop transmission…where are you getting your information from?

The only misleading statistic is the “95% effective” number that gets thrown around.

The absolute risk reduction is LESS THAN 1%.

You’re just a willing mark at this point. There is just no way to justify the risks these shots present.
You are a moron! 90% efficacy means 10 folks out of 100 will fall through the crack and get infected. The difference is those 10 folks will mostly not feel very sick with COVID.

Get your facts straight before you spout off nonsense and bullshit.
 

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
22,011
17,074
113
I do encourage peoples that are old (or oldish, like 50+, the ones who actually dies of it) and peoples with weak immunity system to get it. They need the protection. Once vaccinated they should be protected. End of story. Its not about "free riding". I think its ludacris to want KIDS to get it. I think its out of bounds to try to get 18-30s to get it too. The death risk for them is ridiculously low. Most don't even have any symptoms. I even read something about kids having more chances to die from the flu than covid.
The problem is those 18 to 30 who you want to leave out will carry the virus and possibly cause mutations and spikes in the fall. We do not need another full lockdown. Do your part if you actually want to see an end to the lockdowns.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
34,952
67,239
113
No, there’s nothing misleading about it at all. If Pfizer itself says that the “vaccines” don’t make you immune, don’t stop infection and don’t stop transmission…where are you getting your information from?

The only misleading statistic is the “95% effective” number that gets thrown around.

The absolute risk reduction is LESS THAN 1%.

You’re just a willing mark at this point. There is just no way to justify the risks these shots present.
Yes, sp free, you've made it very clear you don't understand the science but are proudly going to keep talking despite that.
Give yourself a cookie.

I do encourage peoples that are old (or oldish, like 50+, the ones who actually dies of it) and peoples with weak immunity system to get it. They need the protection. Once vaccinated they should be protected. End of story. Its not about "free riding".
It is though. You may not be thinking about it that way, but you are basing your risk calculation on the fact other people get it so you don't have to.

I think its ludacris to want KIDS to get it. I think its out of bounds to try to get 18-30s to get it too. The death risk for them is ridiculously low. Most don't even have any symptoms. I even read something about kids having more chances to die from the flu than covid.
The flu does tend to be riskier for infants and the very young as far as we can tell. But again, you are encouraging everyone to make an individual choice based on death (and death only) because your individual risk may be better if other people take on more risk for you instead. (And these kids.)

You are a moron! 90% efficacy means 10 folks out of 100 will fall through the crack and get infected. The difference is those 10 folks will mostly not feel very sick with COVID.

Get your facts straight before you spout off nonsense and bullshit.
No, the fact is more or less correct. They don't like people using the virus efficiency calculation (because it sounds like a good number) so they use the absolute risk reduction from the trials as if it is a more valid measure. Misleading, yes, but not an incorrect fact.

The problem is those 18 to 30 who you want to leave out will carry the virus and possibly cause mutations and spikes in the fall. We do not need another full lockdown. Do your part if you actually want to see an end to the lockdowns.
I think he has already said that he just ignores the lockdowns and sees who he wants anyway, so that isn't really a good argument.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,571
6,768
113
N
Yes, when you’re unable to refute any of his points because they’re all 100% accurate, attack the person / source.

You people are pathetic and weak.
You are a moron! 90% efficacy means 10 folks out of 100 will fall through the crack and get infected. The difference is those 10 folks will mostly not feel very sick with COVID.

Get your facts straight before you spout off nonsense and bullshit.
Not necessarily true. Those who have had covid without knowing or who recovered easily will be just as fine as those who were vaccinated. The "very sick" applies to those 10% who are at risk and vaccinated. And due to the abandonment of the universal testing, we will never know for sure, either way.
 

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
22,011
17,074
113
The "very sick" applies to those 10% who are at risk and vaccinated. And due to the abandonment of the universal testing, we will never know for sure, either way.
That is false! Most of the 10% had very mild symptoms.

 

sp free

Well-known member
May 31, 2003
2,106
608
113
That’s why places that aren’t even close to as vaccinated are doing just as well, or better.

I wonder if there’s a seasonal component being purposely omitted.
 

Halloween Mike

Active member
Dec 1, 2011
297
51
28
The problem is those 18 to 30 who you want to leave out will carry the virus and possibly cause mutations and spikes in the fall. We do not need another full lockdown. Do your part if you actually want to see an end to the lockdowns.
Those peoples may cause spike of CASES but they won't be much affected from it. Peoples 18-30 goes trough covid like they go trough a cold most of the time, or have no symptom at all. Some unlucky ones may go trough it like a very bad flu and a tiny tiny low % may die from it but those are very rare. Then peoples who are older and have been vaccinated will be protected if they get in contact with them. Mutations so far have not been proved to be deadlier or anything. Viruses mutate all the time its normal.

No we don't need another lockdown and thats exactly IT, enough with the governements going banana for Covid. It was fine the first time when it was the unknown, its not now !! We have to learn to live with it.
 

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
22,011
17,074
113
No we don't need another lockdown and thats exactly IT, enough with the governements going banana for Covid. It was fine the first time when it was the unknown, its not now !! We have to learn to live with it.
Then do your part and stop the spread! 18 to 30 year olds spread it just like anyone else and some of the receivers of the germs are dumbass folks that refuse the vaccine and are in danger. Mind you, I really don't mind a good solid culling of the dumbasses.
 

idcloak

Active member
Mar 10, 2021
185
198
43
Some unlucky ones may go trough it like a very bad flu and a tiny tiny low % may die from it but those are very rare....
No we don't need another lockdown and thats exactly IT, enough with the governements going banana for Covid. It was fine the first time when it was the unknown, its not now !! We have to learn to live with it.
And some unlucky one got hospitalized and admitted to ICUs.
Sure, most would survive but likely live with effects from Covid for the rest of their lives.
At 18-30, with long lives ahead, taking this risk is not worth it. So everyone should get vaccinated, protect your friends and family, and get us out of this pandemic.
 

Halloween Mike

Active member
Dec 1, 2011
297
51
28
Then do your part and stop the spread!
If i catch it ill stay home. No worry. I will repeat myself AGAIN, but im not taking an experimental vaccine for such a low danger virus that has been extremely exagerated by the medias and governements.

And some unlucky one got hospitalized and admitted to ICUs.
Sure, most would survive but likely live with effects from Covid for the rest of their lives.
At 18-30, with long lives ahead, taking this risk is not worth it. So everyone should get vaccinated, protect your friends and family, and get us out of this pandemic.
This is acceptable damage. The complications in the 18 to 40 bracket is MINIMAL. Look, life ain't risk free. I woke up today reading that the Blue Jackets goaltender at only 24 y.o died because he slipt (is that the right word, from slippery?) going out of a hot tub after fireworks gone wrong? What a stupid and terrible way to die. Dude was a millionaire and super young and dies on a freak accident. Thats life.

Anyway. Im pretty much done with this conversation, we just agree to disagree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drewstar

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,571
6,768
113

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
34,952
67,239
113
Then do your part and stop the spread! 18 to 30 year olds spread it just like anyone else and some of the receivers of the germs are dumbass folks that refuse the vaccine and are in danger. Mind you, I really don't mind a good solid culling of the dumbasses.
He does not care. He's said it repeatedly.
Once he notices he has symptoms he will stay home, but for the rest of the time he will just infect people without a care in the world.
He doesn't consider it his responsibility to be careful.
 
Toronto Escorts