New severe Ontario Restrictions

[ReserveTank]

Because it contributes to stopping people from getting sick.

The injection confers no immunity nor does it guarantee the stop of viral spread. Stop lying.

The irony in this is just amazing. A safe return to normal can happen when we have achieved some form of herd immunity.

Are you the chief epidemiologist here? And you're telling us with 100% certainty that herd immunity absolutely cannot occur through exposure to the virus itself?

It brings us off topic, but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you don't actually believe in or support the principle of political freedom. For example, what are your thoughts on immigration, recreational drug use, and non-traditional family arrangements?

If I were Montado's advocate, I would tell him not to touch this hot piece of leftist bait-trap.

the Canadian fatality rate is at ~1.9%,

Not even close.
.006%
You're using the disingenuous measure of confirmed cases. What other disease is measured like that? It's only for better media impact for midwits and below that they use that measure. The math generally involves population, not confirmed cases. Even by their own metric, 98.1% is good odds for survival. But for ALL Canadians, it's 99.994% survivable.

More surprising is that so many have found freedom to be a burden.

It's a sign that people were given a life so comfortable, they had to start trouble. It seems we go in 100 year cycles with this. Society develops, men increase technology and build trusting societies, then soon after, some parasites come along to suck out all the prosperity until collapse.

...which is unpublished, not peer reviewed, and doesn't mention anything about vaccines.

Life isn't your puppy-mill university English professor. Anything that threatens your party narrative, you try to find some cheap technicality on which to discredit. A direct quote from a PhD, DVM doing spike protein research on mice isn't good enough for you as a source? That's more than the "maybe," "we don't know yet," and "could be because they're doing things outside" that we get from the "official" sources.

I have news for you, from a graduate of multiple educational institutions, who deals daily with cheap, leftist party politics-- An interview of your Aunt Flossie by your Uncle Floyd can be a source if cited properly. It's about the relevance to your thesis and ensuring proper credit to those making a statement. But the point is becoming moot because that's really only applicable a high trust society, which we no longer have.

[photofly]

Because it contributes to stopping people from getting sick.

The injection confers no immunity nor does it guarantee the stop of viral spread. Stop lying.

Nobody, not I, not anyone, not in this thread, not in any thread, nor anywhere else, has said any vaccine confers immunity, not guarantees the stop of viral spread.

I said, very carefully, that it contributes to stopping people getting sick. Which it does.

I am not the one who is lying, here.

Life isn't your puppy-mill university English professor. Anything that threatens your party narrative, you try to find some cheap technicality on which to discredit.

It is not a technicality that the webpage doesn’t say what you suggest it says. The word vaccine isn’t mentioned, and it doesn’t suggest that there are any long term health issues with vaccines. There may or may not be, but the webpage you suggest as “evidence” is clearly no such thing.

It is also not a technicality to suggest that the research isn’t peer reviewed, has not been repeated anywhere else (which would be a sine qua non for your purported conclusion, if it even addressed the issue you raise) nor was it conducted under the supervision of a well-known academic institution.

I also know well what a Ph.D is worth. And what it’s not worth.

A direct quote from a PhD, DVM doing spike protein research on mice isn't good enough for you as a source?

it can be impeccably sourced, and still mistaken, irrelevant, unrepeatable or misunderstood. That’s the importance of peer review and repeatability. And it still isn’t research into the effects of vaccines.

Like I said, I am not the one lying, here.

[rjguy]

One recent animal study, from the, ahem, "Frank Reidy Research Center for Bioelectrics", which is unpublished, not peer reviewed, and doesn't mention anything about vaccines.

It does mention the potential danger of lung damage connected to spike proteins. Lung damage is already well document with Covid infections. Covid vaccine turns the cells of your body into spike protein factories. This is not a big leap. But you are right not peer reviewed and it doesn't mention vaccines. Just food for thought

I said, very carefully, that it contributes to stopping people getting sick. Which it does.

The VAERs database has numerous cases where all the vaccines show adverse severe life threating reactions.
https://vaers.hhs.gov/

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/h ... cases.html

As of April 26, 2021, more than 95 million people in the United States had been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. During the same time, CDC received reports of vaccine breakthrough infections from 46 U.S. states and territories.

Total number of vaccine breakthrough infections reported to CDC
Total number of vaccine breakthrough infections reported to CDC 9,245
Females 5,827 (63%)
People aged ≥60 years 4,245 (45%)
Asymptomatic infections 2,525 (27%)
Hospitalizations* 835 (9%)
Deaths† 132 (1%)

Anyone else find this statement from the CDC website a little concerning?

In the coming weeks, CDC will transition from monitoring all reported vaccine breakthrough cases to focus on identifying and investigating only vaccine breakthrough infections that result in hospitalization or death.

Only time will tell if the vaccine will actually stop people from getting sick or if any of the vaccinated will have a new long term health issue. Looks like the CDC in a few weeks will no longer be tracking all vaccinated breakthrough cases. I sure would like to know if 100 million + U.S. folks who got the jab, how many of them potentially will not be protected and later still get Covid. Is it just me or is anyone else just a little curious why they would decide to stop reporting all of the vaccine related breakthrough cases. If they no longer will track this data how will one actually know that the vaccine provides any form of future protection?

[shimmydampner]

But nobody is at liberty to refuse a vaccine and remain free from the possible consequences, which might include social restrictions, ostracism, the ridicule of your peers, etc.

It's interesting that over the course of our entire lives up until this point, we are told to be exceedingly careful with regards to what we put in our bodies. It starts as kids, being told not to trust food from anyone you don't know. Then when you get a little bit older, it's don't do drugs. Then you get a little bit older still, and if you're into athletics, it's don't do PEDs. If a healthy 30 year old man were to post here that he's going to take a cycle of anabolic steroids, for which there exists decades of research and knowledge on, he would most likely be widely ridiculed and ostracized for the choice to put that substance into his body, in spite of the fact that it can be done very safely and in a way that actually increases his health and fitness.
But take these vaccines, for which there is at most, 10 months of research on, none of which are actually approved, 2 of which have exhibited fatal side effects, and none of which have been proven to stop viral transmission...in spite of all that, if you remain skeptical and choose not to allow yourself to be injected with it, you are somehow deserving of being ridiculed and ostracized by your peers, for not blindly following the common narrative. It's a fascinating example of groupthink.

[telex]

It's a fascinating example of groupthink.

You spelled terrifying wrong.

[photofly]

You can call it groupthink if you like, but a less provocative term is public consensus. You’re welcome to be the iconoclast, the sore thumb, the objector - and society needs a proportion of people who behave that way. But there are consequences for going against the grain, and you’ll have to put up with them. That may mean you’re not allowed in restaurants or to travel. If you have strong beliefs that the rest of society sincerely believes that if followed through on will endanger everyone else, that’s correct and appropriate.

You have the freedom to be a rebel. You have the freedom to know without a shadow of doubt that you alone right and everyone else is wrong. But it’s not without consequence.

[telex]

" It's against the Nuremberg code to force vaccinations on a person, and informed consent overrides public policy."

[photofly]

Right. Nobody is forcing a vaccination on anyone. Nobody, anywhere in Canada, is going to hold you down and stick a needle in your arm. It's just not going to happen.

[ayseven]

Surprising number of great big babies out there in the world. Shocking really.

[7ECA]

" It's against the Nuremberg code to force vaccinations on a person, and informed consent overrides public policy."

The Nuremberg Code is focussed on "permissible medical experiments"; and deals primarily with issues of voluntary informed consent of participants.

The Code was drawn up in large part due to the absolutely abhorrent and heinous medical experimentation that Nazi doctors performed on prisoners, without any consent and very much involuntarily.

If you're trying to compare a voluntary mass vaccination campaign with war crimes, that's absolutely disingenuous - and frankly disgusting.

[Hot Wings]

" It's against the Nuremberg code to force vaccinations on a person, and informed consent overrides public policy."

The Nuremberg Code is focussed on "permissible medical experiments"; and deals primarily with issues of voluntary informed consent of participants.

The Code was drawn up in large part due to the absolutely abhorrent and heinous medical experimentation that Nazi doctors performed on prisoners, without any consent and very much involuntarily.

If you're trying to compare a voluntary mass vaccination campaign with war crimes, that's absolutely disingenuous - and frankly disgusting.

Wait wait wait, you mean to tell me these clowns don’t know what they’re talking about?!

[telex]

" It's against the Nuremberg code to force vaccinations on a person, and informed consent overrides public policy."

The Nuremberg Code is focussed on "permissible medical experiments"; and deals primarily with issues of voluntary informed consent of participants.

The Code was drawn up in large part due to the absolutely abhorrent and heinous medical experimentation that Nazi doctors performed on prisoners, without any consent and very much involuntarily.

If you're trying to compare a voluntary mass vaccination campaign with war crimes, that's absolutely disingenuous - and frankly disgusting.

Apply whatever label suits you.
Millions of people are lining up for a substance to be injected which is not approved. Simply authorized.
Isn't freedom great?

[shimmydampner]

You can call it groupthink if you like, but a less provocative term is public consensus.

Not equivalent terms at all.

https://www.smartbrief.com/original/201 ... t-mix-them

[photofly]

I’m sticking with consensus, thanks.

[photofly]

Millions of people are lining up for a substance to be injected which is not approved. Simply authorized.
Isn't freedom great?

And if had been "approved", you would instead be finding fault with the approval process as a reason not to accept a vaccine.

Your reticence is ideological. There's nothing wrong with that - you can hold whatever beliefs you want - but don't try to pretend to rationality, or that you alone know better than everyone else.

[telex]

Millions of people are lining up for a substance to be injected which is not approved. Simply authorized.
Isn't freedom great?

And if had been "approved", you would instead be finding fault with the approval process as a reason not to accept a vaccine.

Your reticence is ideological. There's nothing wrong with that - you can hold whatever beliefs you want - but don't try to pretend to rationality, or that you alone know better than everyone else.

I know what's right for me. That's all.

Unlike you who wants to see the worst befall me for my decisions which do not affect you.

[photofly]

I don't know why it's helpful to demonize me and ascribe to me evil intent. I actually want the very best for you.

To claim that your decisions don't affect me, is incorrect. Your decision to refuse a vaccine affects me, my wife, my children, and everyone I love. Despite that, my regard for your freedoms is so high that I will accept your choice. I will do my best to ensure you keep that choice even if others think it should be denied to you.

I have not the slightest respect for that choice, however.

[ReserveTank]

Your decision to refuse a vaccine affects me, my wife, my children, and everyone I love.

No it does not. This has not been proven at all. The fact that it is unproven is their reasoning for maintaining masks, quarantines, and "only doing limited stuff outside." No one in the public knows what's in it, its efficacy, or the long term effects. So how can you know?
Additionally, if any stats are to be believed, if you and your family are not in the high-risk demographic, then the lot of you can go pound salt--because you're safe. So enough with the lying and victim politics. This is low-trust behaviour.

[montado]

Your decision to refuse a vaccine affects me, my wife, my children, and everyone I love.

No it does not. This has not been proven at all. The fact that it is unproven is their reasoning for maintaining masks, quarantines, and "only doing limited stuff outside." No one in the public knows what's in it, its efficacy, or the long term effects. So how can you know?
Additionally, if any stats are to be believed, if you and your family are not in the high-risk demographic, then the lot of you can go pound salt--because you're safe. So enough with the lying and victim politics. This is low-trust behaviour.

Photofly is really hamming it up. The flu has a higher IFR in young children than covid has. Grade school kids and younger a pretty much statistically not even affected by the virus. But you can bet your arse the big vax companies will be testing and pushing these vaccines on kids because this is billions of dollars to be made.

I just don’t know where this ends... because one could argue masks should be mandatory forever, because by photofly’s logic you not wearing a mask affects me and my family and children. So you should wear a mask forever, whether it be covid, or flu season... just always wear a mask. So where do we draw a line in the sand?

[photofly]

Photofly is really hamming it up. The flu has a higher IFR in young children than covid has. Grade school kids and younger a pretty much statistically not even affected by the virus. But you can bet your arse the big vax companies will be testing and pushing these vaccines on kids because this is billions of dollars to be made.

I just don’t know where this ends... because one could argue masks should be mandatory forever, because by photofly’s logic you not wearing a mask affects me and my family and children. So you should wear a mask forever, whether it be covid, or flu season... just always wear a mask. So where do we draw a line in the sand?

I reject your characterization.

I also reject your right to choose which diseases it's acceptable for my children to get or not to get. That's not for you to decide.

Not only would I like my children not to get sick, but I'd like them to go back to school; that won't happen while there's a significant risk not just to them but also to their teachers and other school staff, some of whom are elderly and all of whom are entitled to a safe workplace.

Once again I have to say there's good evidence that high uptake of vaccines reduces the number of COVID19 cases, and your refusal to accept one is putting everyone else at a disadvantage.

I understand that's your choice, and you're free to make it. But I don't understand the reasoning behind it, if there is any, and as a decision I don't respect it.

As a postscript, why do you care so much what I or anyone else things about your stance on vaccines? I'm not disadvantaging you, am I?

I'm curious - are you against all vaccines? Measles/Mumps/Rubella? Pertussis? Influenza? Diphtheria? Tetanus? Varicella? Polio? My children have had all these vaccines. Were they also "pushed" on kids to make billions of dollars? Personally I'm extremely grateful that these vaccines are availble to my children and I'm grateful to the companies that developed and produce them. You see I'm old enough to remember having had measles, mumps and German measles. Chicken Pox (Varicella) too. I wasn't one of the unlucky ones who suffered long term disability from any of them, but all were extremely unpleasant. I think vaccines against these diseases are a great benefit to mankind.

Why are you so negative towards a vaccine for COVID19?

[montado]

Photofly is really hamming it up. The flu has a higher IFR in young children than covid has. Grade school kids and younger a pretty much statistically not even affected by the virus. But you can bet your arse the big vax companies will be testing and pushing these vaccines on kids because this is billions of dollars to be made.

I just don’t know where this ends... because one could argue masks should be mandatory forever, because by photofly’s logic you not wearing a mask affects me and my family and children. So you should wear a mask forever, whether it be covid, or flu season... just always wear a mask. So where do we draw a line in the sand?

I reject your characterization.

I also reject your right to choose which diseases it's acceptable for my children to get or not to get. That's not for you to decide.

Not only would I like my children not to get sick, but I'd like them to go back to school; that won't happen while there's a significant risk not just to them but also to their teachers and other school staff, some of whom are elderly and all of whom are entitled to a safe workplace.

Once again I have to say there's good evidence that high uptake of vaccines reduces the number of COVID19 cases, and your refusal to accept one is putting everyone else at a disadvantage.

I understand that's your choice, and you're free to make it. But I don't understand the reasoning behind it, if there is any, and as a decision I don't respect it.

As a postscript, why do you care so much what I or anyone else things about your stance on vaccines? I'm not disadvantaging you, am I?

I'm curious - are you against all vaccines? MMR? Pertussis? Influenza? Diphtheria? Tetanus? Varicella? Polio? My children have had all these vaccines. Were they also "pushed" on kids to make billions of dollars?

What is my stance on vaccines?

I happen to also reject your right to choose which diseases it's acceptable for my children to get or not to get. That's not for you to decide, and that’s why you should always wear a mask around me and my family. Even when covid restrictions end, I don’t want your asymptomatic breath even near me... definitely keep that snotty mask on so you don’t spread whatever it is you got to my family. Mandatory masks forever!

[photofly]

What is my stance on vaccines?

I don't know what your stance on vaccines is; that's why I asked. From your comment you appears to be wholly negative towards them. Do you think children shouldn't be vaccinated against any of the other diseases I've mentioned because those are being "pushed" for billions of dollars of profit, too? If those are OK, why is a COVID19 vaccine different?

I happen to also reject your right to choose which diseases it's acceptable for my children to get or not to get. That's not for you to decide, and that’s why you should always wear a mask around me and my family. Even when covid restrictions end, I don’t want your asymptomatic breath even near me... definitely keep that snotty mask on so you don’t spread whatever it is you got to my family. Mandatory masks forever!

You have a thing about masks. i don't really know why, because they're not a huge inconvenience to most people. I'm quite ok with wearing one around you forever, as a courtesy to you, if you wish. It really doesn't trouble me very much. There are a whole bunch of other COVID19-related impositions that I'd like to be rid of, a lot more.

[telex]

Color me shocked.

Photofly doesn't know somebody's stance on vaccines.

But...

"And if had been "approved", you would instead be finding fault with the approval process as a reason not to accept a vaccine."

He certainly knows my stance on a situation which doesn't exist.

This is the problem when conversing with the omnipotent.

[ReserveTank]

I'm curious - are you against all vaccines? Measles/Mumps/Rubella? Pertussis? Influenza? Diphtheria? Tetanus? Varicella? Polio? My children have had all these vaccines. Were they also "pushed" on kids to make billions of dollars?

why is a COVID19 vaccine different?

There is a huge difference between Bill Gates and Jonas Salk. Plus, now we know the long-term effects of these vaccines. Anyone with 3 brain cells knew in 2009 (swine flu) that these guys (Wuhan lab, anyone?) were working on profiting from overhyping the flu. They spent the last decade lamenting that the public were so free as to have a choice in what they inject into their bodies. Essentially, Gates wants the public to be his software with subscription until death. Rent your life from your master.
And by definition, being injected with a COVID jab isn't vaccination. You'd need killed or weakened germs for that definition to fit. This is a mystery goo, not unlike the tanker car loads of manufactured "food" that's making everyone sick.

You have a thing about masks. i don't really know why, because they're not a huge inconvenience to most people.

Most people, LOL. You left Canada and seen how other people handle it since this all started? It's a major inconvenience. Worse, it's an act of subjugation, akin to the burka.
Additionally, our most important social cues come from the face. The telling part of how psychopathic your party is-Children must wear them.

[photofly]

This is the problem when conversing with the omnipotent.

I think, from the tenor of your words, you meant to say omniscient. (You're welcome.)

Essentially, Gates wants the public to be his software with subscription until death. Rent your life from your master.

And by definition, being injected with a COVID jab isn't vaccination.

This thread just jumped the shark.