Discussion in 'Sports' started by kidbourbon, Oct 24, 2011.
It's insane. Indefensible.
Bill Maher hits the nail on the head.
Too bad there’s nothing he himself can personally do to clear the whole thing up. Oh well.
Had it twice... "natural immunity." I do think requiring the vaccine at this point is something to be updated, but let's not pretend like "natural immunity" is any more of an assurance than the original vaccines at this point. If natural immunity was so great for COVID, he wouldn't have had it twice.
Unclear what your argument is here. Natural immunity doesn't protect you from reinfection. I agree. The vaccine also doesn't protect you from infection or reinfection or any subsequent reinfections. So, it's just as good as the vaccine. Though, to be clear, it's certainly arguable that nothing at all -- meaning neither natural immunity nor the vaccine -- is just as good as the vaccine, which has done literally nothing it was purported to do, and also does nothing that would really even make it fall under the definitional gambit of "vaccine" at all.
Either way, the fact that Novak was barred from playing any of those tournaments on account of his vaccination status is ri-goshdarn-diculous.
Also, props to Novak for winning his 23rd major. Passing Nadal for the all-time lead, and likely to win Wimbledon in a couple weeks. Dude is insane.
Oh, and he will finally be able to play the US Open again this year.
You support government mandated vaccine injections even when there is literally not a single decent argument that could be advanced that such requirements protect the safety of any of said government's citizens?
That's a puzzling take.
Moreover, I'm of the belief that literally everybody has had covid at this point. I mean, LITERALLY everybody. Even with the initial Covid-19, asymptomatic infections were the rule, not the exception. And with the variants, the vast majority of people are asymptomatic, and its highly contagious. Indeed, the omicron variant was a much better vaccine than the vaccine itself. It should have been celebrated.
I mean this with utmost sincerity when I say this.
Go [uck fay] yourself.
What argument? We have the same conclusion, I was just commenting that "had it twice" does not equate to meaningful natural immunity any more than "was vaccinated" did by this year. Ya, should have been allowed in. Though I wouldn't say "literally nothing it was purported to do," that is false. But that's for another thread.
Well again, this just isn't true. Guess we are [uck fay]ed next pandemic, if people believe this.
It isn't true? You sure?
Statement: the vaccine never -- not even initially -- prevented transmission of the virus.
Do you agree or disagree with the above statement?
If you agree, and you sorta have to, because it's objectively true, then what is the possible justification for the government to mandate this particular "vaccine"?
Why is that? See above response to IP. You are similarly invited to respond with a reasoned justification for the government to mandate this partiular "vaccine".
And you are similarly invited to take your head, shove it up your ass and [uck fay] yourself off into the sun.
Hey man, no vaccine has ever 100% prevented something. So your premise is based on a false metric of success.
Okay. But this vaccine 0% prevented transmission. So, I'm not sure it is.
That isn't true, it was pretty effective against the early strains. There were breakthroughs, but for there to be a "breakthrough, it means there are less transmission events occurring than without. To this day, you can look at the rate of infection and death and it is higher among the unvaccinated.
You're really adding a lot to the discussion.
Separate names with a comma.