My Corona

TAE

All you have is now
I love that Mick. But totally inaccurate.

America didnt enter WW2 until December 1941...............The Battle Of Britain was from July to October 1940 and the Germans defeated with British armaments and no Americans. You may have fed us but you didnt save our 'ass'. So your history teacher was an idiot.
Well Orson my brother it's all about perspective and how you look at something..After reading what you posted I decided to ask google who defeated Germany in WW2 well of course the Battle of Britain is a top hit but that was just Germany against Britain Kudo's to Britian for winning a battle but getting the Germans to frickin SURRENDER throw down their weapons and say I QUIT! Well you're neighboring countries don't give that award to Britain So they did a survey to see what the younger generation thinks today who was most instrumental...go figure Brits think they were the most important player...but don't ask France or Germany... ;) Here's a link to where the survey is posted

13790.jpeg
 

Orson

Well-known member
Well Orson my brother it's all about perspective and how you look at something..After reading what you posted I decided to ask google who defeated Germany in WW2 well of course the Battle of Britain is a top hit but that was just Germany against Britain Kudo's to Britian for winning a battle but getting the Germans to frickin SURRENDER throw down their weapons and say I QUIT! Well you're neighboring countries don't give that award to Britain So they did a survey to see what the younger generation thinks today who was most instrumental...go figure Brits think they were the most important player...but don't ask France or Germany... ;) Here's a link to where the survey is posted

13790.jpeg
Totally 100% (y) TAE. The Americans under no attack could mass produce the armaments. Those armaments were outmatched by the Germans, but they were many in number........................ Something you may find comes into play when you go up against China...........soon

I think until the P 38 Lightening that was the only time you produced something one on one that could beat the Germans. Your other planes and tanks were no match. The British armaments were a match and in some cases better. But for many reasons couldnt be produced anywhere near fast enough.

The British in a very short time of having nothing, soon became a match for the Germans and started to beat them on their own. But Britain was under attack daily from the German air force and V1 and V2 rockets.

The Germans were at the stage of being able to bomb the USA. The Germans were at the stage where their V2 variants would soon be able to reach the USA. There were within a year of producing a crude atom bomb.

Without outside help (America's) none of this could have been stopped and the Germans with an atom bomb could have beaten all opposition. The V rockets were too inaccurate to incapacitate Britain, but of course an atom bomb could. It would have probably been stalemate until a weapon like that was used and it could have been used against America as well.

Producing such a weapon is one thing and delivering it another. Also a much longer time period needed.

So America's intervention in WW2 didnt save Britains ass as your History teacher and distorted Hollywood movies tell you. But your intervention did save Britain and America from being bombed and defeated with such a weapon.

Perhaps you should ask your history teachers and Hollywood 'gung ho' movie producers how much Britain and allied forces helped America beat the Japanese in the Pacific? There were British, Australian, Kiwi, Canadian, Indian and other allied countries forces fighting the Japanese with American forces in WW2. Amy's, Airforce and Navy's. But does Hollywood ever mention this? .............Never.

History and the truth are one thing. Hollywood bollox and the distorted internet are another.

A Sherman tank up against a German Tiger tank is a really hilarious mismatch even with Brad Pitt in the turret:-) The Tiger could take you out at almost a mile away and even if Brad and his 2" of armoured tin can was ten yards away, he couldnt do much other than blow a track off a Tiger.

But 20, 30, or more Shermans driven by British, Canadian and French troops (with Brad Pitt in charge of course) could defeat the Tiger tank. The Germans called the Sherman tanks 'Tommie Cookers' after who was driving them (British troops...Tommies) and the way they just exploded into flames when hit at range.

Somehow Hollywood never shows anybody but someone with an American twang driving a Sherman tank does it?:ROFLMAO:

So why do Brits think as in your survey that they did the most to defeat the Germans? Well go to Britain and you will see that most major cities are all post WW2. That is because they were levelled by the Germans and rebuilt later. It is said after the evacuation of British Troops from Dunkirk that there were no armaments for the army as they were all left on the beaches of France. This was in June 1940. All that was left was the RAF to stop the Germans. There was nobody or nothing else. All else had been defeated throughout Europe. The battle of Britain where Britain was attacked day and night by thousands of German bombers each raid, started in July 1940.

Those British and some allied pilots stopped Germany in its tracks because as Americans know, if you cant control the air space you cant win on the ground.

America lost just under 105,000 men/women in Europe in WW2. Out of the 16 million American servicemen in WW2, only 2 million served in Europe.

Britain lost almost 400,000 men/women servicemen against the Germans. British servicemen were over 5 million from Britain. There were others who served in Europe from Canada, Australia and others.

Britains population was almost 4 times smaller than America's back then, so a very much larger man power contribution by Britain who were defending their country as well as trying to repel the Germans from occupied Europe.

So TAE just by looking at the death figures it gives you some idea on who did most of the fighting and not what Hollywood tells you. American servicemen didnt win the war against the Germans, but their armaments which were a big contribution did. A lot purchased by the British and not given free by the Americans.

By the way. The war was with the Germans who in the majority adored Hitler.

I doubt you would hear anything good about Britain from the French or Germans. Brexit is a prime example. Those countries have always despised Britain and British people.
 
Last edited:

Mickster

Well-known member
I love that Mick. But totally inaccurate.

America didnt enter WW2 until December 1941...............The Battle Of Britain was from July to October 1940 and the Germans defeated with British armaments and no Americans. You may have fed us but you didnt save our 'ass'. So your history teacher was an idiot.
Well....let's see now. In December 1940....a year before the US entered the war.....Roosevelt created a policy that gave Britain a sigificant amount of military supplies....American military supplies. America did not charge Brtain for these things. It wasn't just food....check it out.

Yeah......sure....Britain would have won the war without America. 😉 Sure......if you need to believe that...no problem. The Battle of Britain certainly didn't end the war in Europe....or for Britain....by any stretch. The war didn't end in October 1940. It went on until 1945. But I guess American soldiers weren't in Europe or Britain huh? And Britain wasn't attacked or in trouble after 1941?? Think V1 and V2 rocket attacks in 1943. And the US bombing of Germany (with the Allies) didn't change the war for Britain by targeting German manufacturing?

Look......it seems to be VERY important for you to hate America. Hey......grit your teeth and hate away. Such a waste of what seems like a good brain living a good life that's not at all being affected by America in any way.

If it was someone else.....I'd say you're just jealous of America and Americans........but I don't believe that at all. What in your history brought you to the hatred you feel for Americans?

Mick
 

Orson

Well-known member
Well....let's see now. In December 1940....a year before the US entered the war.....Roosevelt created a policy that gave Britain a sigificant amount of military supplies....American military supplies. America did not charge Brtain for these things. It wasn't just food....check it out.

Yeah......sure....Britain would have won the war without America. 😉 Sure......if you need to believe that...no problem. The Battle of Britain certainly didn't end the war in Europe....or for Britain....by any stretch. The war didn't end in October 1940. It went on until 1945. But I guess American soldiers weren't in Europe or Britain huh? And Britain wasn't attacked or in trouble after 1941?? Think V1 and V2 rocket attacks in 1943. And the US bombing of Germany (with the Allies) didn't change the war for Britain by targeting German manufacturing?

Look......it seems to be VERY important for you to hate America. Hey......grit your teeth and hate away. Such a waste of what seems like a good brain living a good life that's not at all being affected by America in any way.

If it was someone else.....I'd say you're just jealous of America and Americans........but I don't believe that at all. What in your history brought you to the hatred you feel for Americans?

Mick
Jeez Mick you are really well away on this one. :ROFLMAO:

I never said or implied I hated America which I don't. But if you have done wrong at any time then you deserve the critism. That doesnt mean that those who criticize hate.

Regards the history stuff.......you have tried to twist everything I detailed to mean other.

Britain the country was attacked right up to the last months of the war well into 1945. V2 rockets were falling on the south of England in that time.

Britain won the Battle of Britain which stopped the Germans ever being able to invade the place. But to stop Britain being attacked by Germany, Britain had to continue and form alliances to attack Germany and invade Europe. America joined in the war to attack Germany and free Europe not to save Britain. You had no choice because Germany was developing the power to attack America.

Yes America gave Britain military supplies which I stated earlier but there was a cost if not money you got all the British overseas bases. How do you think you got them?...........The Lottery?
 

Mickster

Well-known member
Jeez Mick you are really well away on this one. :ROFLMAO:

No offense taken....and I still hold you in high esteem.

Love ya brother Orson.

"Live long and prosper".

Come visit me here in America. Really.

We can toss a few brews.......have some BBQ......and talk some music.

Mick
 

Orson

Well-known member
No offense taken....and I still hold you in high esteem.

Love ya brother Orson.

"Live long and prosper".

Come visit me here in America. Really.

We can toss a few brews.......have some BBQ......and talk some music.

Mick
Your on....... (y)
 

Mick Doobie

Resist We Much
Any rumor of my recent demise is a falsity.

I have something, I would normally say a virus of some sort. Evident since Thursday(perhaps a bit earlier, but thought I was just not feeling tops). I've been laying low since, hadn't really spent much time outside the house the week preceding Thursday. I can't imagine where I could have picked up something other than in & out of the grocery or convenience store(s). They say possibly up to 14 days before symptoms, so who knows. Started with a bit of the sniffles, pretty much simultaneous scratchy throat. Quickly turned to feeling like crap, general malaise and physical exhaustion. In short, started feeling like shit. Have been monitoring my body temperature. The good news is, I have had one, it is normal. Count your blessing where you can find them, know what I mean? Well, i've taken my temperature with 2 separate thermometers which were both reading in the 97.4-97.6 range. Most recently taken reads 98.2-98.4. I'm not sure what that means, if anything. Up a bit but still within the normal range of 98.6? I've had a few mild aches in the neck and shoulder area, and although not constant, occasional hints of a headache. Haven't had much of an appetite, but have maintained both a sense of taste and smell. Lungs are clear as far as I can tell.

Damned if I know. I feel a little bit like I might be rounding the corner, or maybe i've just eased into getting a bit used to it. Apparently the pharmacy is out of home test kits, a resulting miscommunication has a 2 pack kit coming in the mail at some point, probably Monday. I guess i'll do 2 home tests 24 hours apart and decide from there a next move, if any. Depending on how I feel will determine an actual test.

It might be earlier than I yet realize? Could also be just a run of the mill virus soon to be on its happy way? I think I probably have it. I probably don't. I guess i'll see.

What, the The Covit! party comes to town and i'm going to sit out the dance? Relax, gallows humor I think they call it.

^^<<wrote that last evening but never posted. Temp back in the 97.4 range. Still feel like dog doo doo. Have a QuickVue At-Home test in hand i'll be giving a go at some point today.
 

SHEPPARDB.

Active member
Any rumor of my recent demise is a falsity.

I have something, I would normally say a virus of some sort. Evident since Thursday(perhaps a bit earlier, but thought I was just not feeling tops). I've been laying low since, hadn't really spent much time outside the house the week preceding Thursday. I can't imagine where I could have picked up something other than in & out of the grocery or convenience store(s). They say possibly up to 14 days before symptoms, so who knows. Started with a bit of the sniffles, pretty much simultaneous scratchy throat. Quickly turned to feeling like crap, general malaise and physical exhaustion. In short, started feeling like shit. Have been monitoring my body temperature. The good news is, I have had one, it is normal. Count your blessing where you can find them, know what I mean? Well, i've taken my temperature with 2 separate thermometers which were both reading in the 97.4-97.6 range. Most recently taken reads 98.2-98.4. I'm not sure what that means, if anything. Up a bit but still within the normal range of 98.6? I've had a few mild aches in the neck and shoulder area, and although not constant, occasional hints of a headache. Haven't had much of an appetite, but have maintained both a sense of taste and smell. Lungs are clear as far as I can tell.

Damned if I know. I feel a little bit like I might be rounding the corner, or maybe i've just eased into getting a bit used to it. Apparently the pharmacy is out of home test kits, a resulting miscommunication has a 2 pack kit coming in the mail at some point, probably Monday. I guess i'll do 2 home tests 24 hours apart and decide from there a next move, if any. Depending on how I feel will determine an actual test.

It might be earlier than I yet realize? Could also be just a run of the mill virus soon to be on its happy way? I think I probably have it. I probably don't. I guess i'll see.

What, the The Covit! party comes to town and i'm going to sit out the dance? Relax, gallows humor I think they call it.

^^<<wrote that last evening but never posted. Temp back in the 97.4 range. Still feel like dog doo doo. Have a QuickVue At-Home test in hand i'll be giving a go at some point today.
Hope you feel better soon Mick. Probably best to get it over with and build natural immunity. I’m sure some dick head (IBB) will be along directly to scold you for not lining up for the experimental vaccine. Just remember that those people are commie scum that want to destroy the American way of life, and that if they actually believed that the vaccine prevented covid, they would not be in the least concerned about those that decline. If you are otherwise healthy, Covid-19 won’t be your demise. Good luck, and get well soon.
 

ibleedburgundy

The Anti-Lambo
Hope you feel better soon Mick. Probably best to get it over with and build natural immunity. I’m sure some dick head (IBB) will be along directly to scold you for not lining up for the experimental vaccine. Just remember that those people are commie scum that want to destroy the American way of life, and that if they actually believed that the vaccine prevented covid, they would not be in the least concerned about those that decline. If you are otherwise healthy, Covid-19 won’t be your demise. Good luck, and get well soon.

My daughter is 6 years old and has a compromised immune system. She is not allowed to get the vaccine at this time. People who refuse the vaccine are far more likely to be spreading COVID, thus needlessly putting my daughter at increased risk. So clearly I have a legitimate concern about those that decline.
 

Orson

Well-known member
My daughter is 6 years old and has a compromised immune system. She is not allowed to get the vaccine at this time. People who refuse the vaccine are far more likely to be spreading COVID, thus needlessly putting my daughter at increased risk. So clearly I have a legitimate concern about those that decline.
I am sorry that your daughter has health issues.

The word 'legitimate' if not accidental means ........ conforming to the law or to rules........... or.............able to be defended with logic or justification; valid.

Unless it is 'law' to get the jab now in your country which would mean the state is imposing their will over citizens. Or in the second meaning you think that it is logical or justified that people have the jab are obviously at odds with peoples freedom.

As someone who has had the jab, I don't think it should be imposed on people. Of later years governments and people who think only their view of life is the 'right one' are trying to impose their will on others in an ever increasing way daily. They do this even though common sense or even science tells them other. This should stop immediately.

If it was the case that this virus could be eradicated by the vaccine, then imposing such may have a case and justification in this situation only............................But unfortunately vaccination does not eradicate the virus. It only gives those who will suffer severe symptoms from the virus a better chance of survival. And now it appears booster jabs are needed.

So people imposing their views on others to force all to have the vaccination will not help your daughter or others in a similar situation in the slightest. The virus can still rampage through the population vaccinated or not. So the virus will be there forever or until it is in someway eradicated by other means.

I had the vaccination to possibly help me and not to help others.

The only way to eradicate this or most virus's or germs that affect people is to isolate everybody for the timespan of the diseases activity. This could still be done with the will of the population quite easily, as I believe the time span is such a short period of a few weeks. Then only none diseased people should be allowed into your country and those who leave and return should be locked up for the incubation period needed. This would prevent the virus ever re-emerging. It is that simple.

We do this process with animals and other living things. It is proven to be quite effective.
 
Last edited:

LazerBeakShiek

AKA Optimus Prime LEGO Vampire
People who refuse the vaccine are far more likely to be spreading COVID, thus needlessly putting my daughter at increased risk.
No. You are morally wrong here. You cannot have me change my immune system because your daughters' is compromised. Boundaries.

The CDC is also still claiming that once vaccinated, booster shots are not necessary. However, evidence shows..They are soon releasing more info and waffling on the great vaccine.
 

Orson

Well-known member
The virus is everywhere where humans have been and touched. The virus soon dies if it doesnt get inside its host which are people. Even vaccinated people carry the virus and get Covid. The only difference between a vaccinated person and an unvaccinated person is that you may stand a better chance of recovery.

Vaccination does nothing to stop the spread of the virus.
 

ibleedburgundy

The Anti-Lambo
No. You are morally wrong here. You cannot have me change my immune system because your daughters' is compromised. Boundaries.

Well, IMO you are morally wrong, and it may be philosophical or it may be because you've assumed the weight of the consequence is a non-factor and it's just a simple 1 for 1.

The weight of the consequence to the vulnerable is death. 660,000 have died from COVID in the USA so far, 4.55M in the world. -That's an awful lot of people. IMO, this is far more serious than the weight of the consequence of coerced vaccination. Whereas the vulnerable person who dies from COVID loses 100% of their rights (because dead people don't exercise rights), the person coerced to be vaccinated loses...what exactly? -The ability to claim they are free to determine their own vaccine status? That freedom doesn't exist in the first place because a) schools and doctor's offices already mandate a half dozen vaccines and b) those vaccines are forced upon you when you are a baby - which means you never consented. It would be generous to say a coerced COVID vaccination surrenders even 1% of your rights.

Whatever it is an individual loses from coerced vaccination, it is a microscopic fraction of what a vulnerable person loses when they die from COVID.

Your assumption that these two things are of equal value - a 1 for 1 - is wildly miscalculated IMO.

Nevermind that in reality coerced vaccination is a huge net benefit to an individual's rights and that the drawbacks are virtually entirely imagined. It reduces chances of dying from COVID by 1100% on average. It significantly reduces the chances of a severe case with long term effects. And it enables people to reduce spread, thus decreasing the likelihood of lockdowns.

____________________________________

I think there is a philosophical difference between us. I am a utilitarian - I believe in the greater good. I think we are all in this together. Indeed I would sacrifice a fraction of a percent of one group's rights to save a huge portion of another group's rights. For example, I would gladly sacrifice your right to drive drunk in order to save the victims of drunk drivers, even though I fully support your right to drink, and your right to move freely. Or I would gladly enact seatbelt laws to prevent your body from flying through your windshield and needlessly orphaning your children. You see, by forcing you to wear a seatbelt, I've crossed well into your boundaries, but I've done it because there is a clear net good for society there.

Or another example that may hit home: If I were a Government would tax you (take your $$$) in order to pay for ambulance drivers and medics. Now you may believe I am crossing a boundary there and stealing from you. IMO, it is very clearly NOT stealing because medics and ambulance drivers are a net good, and a worthy investment that we all benefit from. But I've certainly debated libertarians who classify this as theft. On this forum actually.

IMO a Government needs to think in terms of net societal gains, and if it doesn't, that country is going to fail. But I certainly recognize that I am a utilitarian, and many people are not.

Whereas I suspect you look at things far more through the lens of individual self. You see your rights and boundaries as a bubble existing in isolation, and nobody has a right to penetrate your bubble. You think little about how your bubble is impacting other people's bubble's, and even if it does, tough shit that's their problem. But chances are you will deny the impact's very existence, and you think it's not whether the impact actually exists that matters, it's whether you believe it exists. And if you don't believe the impact exists, then nobody has a right to penetrate your bubble to rectify the impact.
 
Last edited:

ibleedburgundy

The Anti-Lambo
I am sorry that your daughter has health issues.
Thank you for saying that.

The word 'legitimate' if not accidental means ........ conforming to the law or to rules........... or.............able to be defended with logic or justification; valid.

Unless it is 'law' to get the jab now in your country which would mean the state is imposing their will over citizens. Or in the second meaning you think that it is logical or justified that people have the jab are obviously at odds with peoples freedom.

As someone who has had the jab, I don't think it should be imposed on people. Of later years governments and people who think only their view of life is the 'right one' are trying to impose their will on others in an ever increasing way daily.

I've heard lots of people say stuff like this - that rights codified by Governments only ever decrease and never increase. I've lived a different experience.

Where I live, gay marriage used to be illegal. Now it is legal. Interracial marriage was illegal until the 1970s. That is unfathomable now. Black people were lawfully blocked from buying homes in certain areas. Those racist practices are now illegal, and rights for blacks are significantly expanded.

Smoking pot used to be illegal. Cops used it to throw hundreds of thousands of people in prison for the victimless act of smoking weed. Now pot is legal here in Virginia. Our local cops are pissed about it too because it was the pretext they used to fuck with people. In fact there were more arrests and prosecutions for pot smoking than for every violent crime combined. This is true throughout the United States. So our cops are not focused on protecting people, and actually seconding much of their time fucking with pot smokers.

One more example: Our local district attorney is now disallowing cops from searching cars that they pulled over for broken tail lights and shit like that. This has always been a pretext to harass black people and poor people and arrest them for things that white people or rich people never get troubled with.

So anyway, freedom where I live has expanded significantly, and it's because we have good governance. We used to be a hardcore conservative state, and in the past 20 years we changed to being a liberal blue state. As a direct result we have far more freedoms.

They do this even though common sense or even science tells them other. This should stop immediately.

If it was the case that this virus could be eradicated by the vaccine, then imposing such may have a case and justification in this situation only............................But unfortunately vaccination does not eradicate the virus. It only gives those who will suffer severe symptoms from the virus a better chance of survival. And now it appears booster jabs are needed.

So people imposing their views on others to force all to have the vaccination will not help your daughter or others in a similar situation in the slightest.

You are not correct. The vaccines still significantly reduce the likelihood of contracting the virus, thus significantly reducing the spread of the virus. Yes, it was 90-something percent with the older variant, and with the delta variant that percentage is reduced to roughly 66%. But it's still a tremendous reduction.


There is a mountain of evidence that backs this up. In the USA right now, COVID is rampant in areas of low vaccination (West Virginia, Wyoming, Tennessee, South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, etc) and COVID rates are much lower in highly vaccinated states. In fact, you could pretty much rank the states in order of unvaccination rates, and those same states are leading in the amount of COVID cases (and also deaths).

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap..._coronavirus_sn_coronavirus-us-cases-deaths_1
 
Last edited:

LazerBeakShiek

AKA Optimus Prime LEGO Vampire
Well, IMO you are morally wro
Well, IMO you are morally wrong, and
Ok, so I will expect you to be limiting your breathing in public. People have asthma. You're breathing up all their oxygen they need. If you only breath twice a minute the O2 concentrations will be higher in the room.

I will allow you 2 breaths a minute. Starting now. You cannot be using up their oxygen. It will reduce their chances of having an asthma attack.
 
Last edited:

Orson

Well-known member
Well, IMO you are morally wrong, and it may be philosophical or it may be because you've assumed the weight of the consequence is a non-factor and it's just a simple 1 for 1.
It doesnt work like that. I may want air travel banned and everybody on public transport and everybody a vegetarian (I dont). This you could say is for the 'greater good'. But all I would be doing is imposing my beliefs and wants on others and taking away their freedoms. Nothing in comparison to self mutilation but its just an example. Actually there is another example. Some believe that circumcision is healthier and cleaner. Some may want all to partake in it. But the actual truth is cleanliness is an individual thing and proof of better health could be argued for ever.
 

Orson

Well-known member
You are not correct. The vaccines still significantly reduce the likelihood of contracting the virus, thus significantly reducing the spread of the virus.

No it doesnt. Cases of the virus have rocketed since lockdown has ended but less people have died because of having the vaccine.

You can still get the virus after having the vaccine. I know that for a fact 100%. :-) So you are 100% wrong!
 

ibleedburgundy

The Anti-Lambo
You are not correct. The vaccines still significantly reduce the likelihood of contracting the virus, thus significantly reducing the spread of the virus.

No it doesnt. Cases of the virus have rocketed since lockdown has ended but less people have died because of having the vaccine.

You can still get the virus after having the vaccine. I know that for a fact 100%. :-) So you are 100% wrong!

If you think that disproves what I said, then you are not understanding what I am saying.

Yes, vaccinated people can still get COVID. I know 4 vaccinated people who got COVID in Florida. They went on vacation with 6 other vaccinated people who did not get COVID despite them all being around each other for 10 days.

But it is a fact that the vaccinations still significantly reduce your chances of getting COVID. Whereas before it was over 90%, now it is 60-something percent. This still goes a long way towards reducing the spread of COVID, thus impacting vulnerable people.
 

TAE

All you have is now
With regards to being vaccinated and it reducing the spread.....

Yes Vax'd people can get the virus and yes if they have the virus they can spread it. This is true.
What is also factual is that Vax'd people have much milder symptoms than unvaxed ..... less severe symptoms means ...
1. They will not be hacking and sneezing as severely as the unvaxed....less airborne particulates in the air means less virus being spread which validates that being vaccinated reduces the spread of the virus.. Black and white fact... 100% reduction...no, 50% maybe, 25% probably at minimum.
2. Less than 1% of those being hospitalized or worse yet dying are vaccinated ..99% that are being hospitalized and or are dying are the un-vaccinated Link to the facts here . 99% of those who are spreading the virus in hospitals are the unvax'd.... 99% of those who are dying are the unvax'd

Conclusion: Being vaccinated reduces the spread of the virus in a myriad of ways. If you don't want to get vax'd that's your choice but don't try justifying that choice by implying that not doing so you pose no greater risk to the public than those that choose to.

If you're unvax'd you will have a more severe case, and have a much higher chance of spreading the virus, ending up hospitalized and dying...And that my friend, like it or not is the scientific reality of this dodgy situation.
 

Orson

Well-known member
What about if the symptoms are mild or so mild that the vaccinated person just carries on with their daily life and does not isolate. Then spreads the virus to lots of people. Whereas if they had a good dose through not being vaccinated, they wouldn't be able to be out or go to work etc and not infect people.

Your science aint so clear cut is it?
 
Top