Stupid shit in Medellin

[JustTK]

The only case (s) where it would not is if you were to say the chance of getting COVID is exactly the same despite vaccination status (which you might be doing with your "everyone will eventually get COVID" statement) or you are less likely to get COVID by being unvaccinated.

Yes, this is exactly it! Exactly what I am saying and what most pro-vaxxers fail to take in to consideration. I agree that the vax has some efficacy in the short term. The stats are clear on that. So of course, all other things being equal, in the short term fewer vaxd people will contract COVID than non-vaxd (I. E. A smaller % of the group). But everyone will eventually get COVID (I assume this means not literally everybody, but enough people that it may as well be everybody). This has been confirmed by Biden COVID response leader.

Its also clear that the unvaxd is only more susceptible to contracting the virus bcos that group includes people who have yet to catch the virus. But over time more of that group will catch the virus and will have natural immunity, so essentially the vital characteristics of both groups will become equal. Both will undergo a period when they have the virus, and both groups will be equally dangerous to vulnerable people at that time.

So if the end result is the same in both groups, why is it essential to be vaccinated? The non-vaxd are only an extra danger to themselves, so why not leave them be?

[Villainy]

Here you go showing your ignorance again, there's no such thing as "my" European countries. No European would ever say or think something like that.

You're so stupid and gullible that you actually consider politicians to be smart, oh my god! Did you intentionally try to kill me by giving me a laughing attack?

No, ShooBreezer I didn't say politicians were smart. You seem to be infatuated with changing what someone says so that you can make your argument. Learn that from Elvis did you?

Here is what I did and still do say. European politicians are smarter and much better informed than you!.

Are Hillary Clinton, that brown VP chick and Joe Biden the smartest people USA got to offer? If that's the case then I can honestly say that I have severely overestimated the USAns.

I can't really comment on Kamala Harris or Joe Biden but Hillary Clinton is one of the smartest people that ever ran for President of the US. So why did she lose? She is unattractive and extremely unlikeable. In American politics smarts can not overcome being generally unattractive and unlikeable.

I could easily raise the GDP / capita of my country with over 10% in less than 2 years..

Of course you can, jajajajaja. Why don't you run for office and prove it? Otherwise you're just another narcissistic windbag.

Anyways you have constantly failed to make any sort of real argument, you have instead lied and changed the subject every time that I prove you wrong.

Like for real where are the evidence that supports your statement: "Those higher paying jobs that you are crowing about are largely with American companies."

And when will you explain why Peru with their lockdowns have twice as many deaths / capita than Colombia and Peru?

Not to mention the failed lockdowns in Spain, France, Belgium and so on.

For once, be a man and don't change the subject or lie.

OK, I seriously considered writing up an explanation and sourced analysis of each of your 'issues' but decided it isn't worth my time. You think these are 'gotcha' points but the reality is you are too lazy and incapable of analytical work to do it yourself. So you challenge anything and everything that doesn't fit your worldview. Why should I waste my time presenting the research and sources when you could do it yourself? (if you were not so lazy and incompetent). I think a better course for you would be to read and believe everything Elvis writes. It won't be right but at least you won't have to do any work. Have a nice day, wear your mask when you leave home and remember to take your Vaxx card.

[JC9999]

I don't wish to stand in your way of a good argument, but I would like to ask you where you get your %s from. Whatever reduction in % you give, kit is based on false logic. You ask "How does that basic concept elude you?. " - - I would like to ask you how does the concept elude you that all these studies have been based on a fixed length of time- which is false framing. How does it elude you and elude nearly all the pro-vaxers that in the real world, we do not restrict time. All credible scientists agree that we will all catch COVID eventually. So we are all at 100% certainty in the real world, not in a fictitious world where a short period will favour a vax. Even the head of the CDC agrees. So please explain to me, how is a vax person less likely to catch it when both vax and non-vax are 100% certain?

Apologies, I just realized you quoted the 5 in 100 and 20 in 100 numbers in your response. I made those numbers up for examples, but they have no relevancy for my core contention. Feel free to substitute in 3 and 10, or 5 and 7, or 11 and 15. It doesn't matter. The foundation of my argument stays exactly the same and still supports my next statement. The only case (s) where it would not is if you were to say the chance of getting COVID is exactly the same despite vaccination status (which you might be doing with your "everyone will eventually get COVID" statement) or you are less likely to get COVID by being unvaccinated.

[JC9999]

I don't wish to stand in your way of a good argument, but I would like to ask you where you get your %s from. Whatever reduction in % you give, kit is based on false logic. You ask "How does that basic concept elude you?. " - - I would like to ask you how does the concept elude you that all these studies have been based on a fixed length of time- which is false framing. How does it elude you and elude nearly all the pro-vaxers that in the real world, we do not restrict time. All credible scientists agree that we will all catch COVID eventually. So we are all at 100% certainty in the real world, not in a fictitious world where a short period will favour a vax. Even the head of the CDC agrees. So please explain to me, how is a vax person less likely to catch it when both vax and non-vax are 100% certain?

I'm not sure I fully understand what % reduction in numbers you are questioning, but I believe it was the effectiveness of the vaccines over time. If so, those were straight out of links in the article linked in the original post in which egregious cherry-picking occurred. The main point is that if you don't have COVID, you can't spread COVID. Anything that prevents you from having COVID, no matter how long a period you wish to choose to look at, prevents the transmission of COVID. Now maybe there are good arguments that say "yeah, but, the costs of vaccination outweigh the benefits of that", but if the starting premise is false, the rest of the argument is suspect and difficult (at least for me) to accept.

Even if I were to accept that 100% of people will get COVID at some time, I find your "we do not restrict time" a bit contradictory, as what you have effectively done is not "restrict time" versus a longer period, but actually condensed it into a single time period. Which is the ultimate restriction of time.

[JustTK]

So if 100 people are vaccinated, and 5 get COVID anyways, that is better to reduce transmission than 20 unvaccinated people getting it and walking around. How does that basic concept elude you?.

I don't wish to stand in your way of a good argument, but I would like to ask you where you get your %s from. Whatever reduction in % you give, kit is based on false logic. You ask "How does that basic concept elude you?. " - - I would like to ask you how does the concept elude you that all these studies have been based on a fixed length of time- which is false framing. How does it elude you and elude nearly all the pro-vaxers that in the real world, we do not restrict time. All credible scientists agree that we will all catch COVID eventually. So we are all at 100% certainty in the real world, not in a fictitious world where a short period will favour a vax. Even the head of the CDC agrees. So please explain to me, how is a vax person less likely to catch it when both vax and non-vax are 100% certain?

[Villainy]

And when will you explain why Peru with their lockdowns have twice as many deaths / capita than Colombia and Peru?..

I sorry, I can't explain why Peru has twice as many deaths as Peru. Just a hint, if you can't write or understand English. At least proofread what you scribble out.

[Paulie97]

Yet despite all your protestations against getting vaccinated. "It has major side effects", "it doesn't prevent transmission", "it isn't effective", "it's only a political ploy" and on and on and on. Yet you've been vaccinated. I guess that makes you one of the biggest hypocrites around. Or perhaps you don't believe your own BS?

For Elvirus, preaching the latest right wingnut propaganda is a very high priority, yet his survival instincts trump that by a nose. Wink.

[JC9999]

And yes, no matter how much you douches scream and pout and click your heels and wish for it, the vaccine does not prevent transmission. The CDC says so and if a treatment is only 3% effective that would stand to reason..

It's been a long-time, if ever, that anyone has argued those that have been vaccinated are not contagious. But clearly, if you don't have the virus, you can't spread it. So if 100 people are vaccinated, and 5 get COVID anyways, that is better to reduce transmission than 20 unvaccinated people getting it and walking around. How does that basic concept elude you? Regarding your 3% argument, did you bother to follow your own link? That was just for JnJ. Moderna and Pfizer numbers were stated as being 64% and 50% effective in the same original article. Not as good as anyone would hope, but light years away from your basic premise. You are really showing yourself to be a dullard for the ages.

BTW, let me save you some keystrokes. I know "douche" will be coming my way. But since I'm not a democrat, you don't need to add "democratic" in the front of it. And will save you from being wrong once again. And just to note, douche was an insult that was used in the 80's. Time to update your vernacular a bit (hint: "whippersnapper" is not considered current either).

[MarquisdeSade1]

Watch this short video. It explains so well why neo-libs in the USA are so staunchly pro-vax for everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At-BI1KAUJw

Brainwashed by propaganda, paid for by Big Pharma.

https://thejewishvoice.com/2021/10/l...arian-control/

[ShooBree]

OK Elvis. I mean ShooBreezer. One post you claim I'm too arrogant the next post you claim that Europeans are so much smarter than the rest of us. Then you turn around again and claim that you are smarter than the politicians in charge of European countries. You know what is best is regards to lockdowns, partial lockdowns, vaccination mandates etc. . Even though your European countries are reinstituting those same lockdowns, partial lockdowns and vaccination mandates.

Excuse my stating the obvious. But if you want a good look at arrogance, try looking in the mirror. As far as knowing what is effective in combating CoVid, you might try listening to scientists because you sure as hell don't know anything. As to you being smarter than European politicians? I doubt you're as smart as their pets.

Here you go showing your ignorance again, there's no such thing as "my" European countries. No European would ever say or think something like that.

You're so stupid and gullible that you actually consider politicians to be smart, oh my god! Did you intentionally try to kill me by giving me a laughing attack?

Are Hillary Clinton, that brown VP chick and Joe Biden the smartest people USA got to offer? If that's the case then I can honestly say that I have severely overestimated the USAns.

I could easily raise the GDP / capita of my country with over 10% in less than 2 years. The politicians are corrupt and incompetent, only brain damaged fools like you are impressed by them.

Anyways you have constantly failed to make any sort of real argument, you have instead lied and changed the subject every time that I prove you wrong.

Like for real where are the evidence that supports your statement: "Those higher paying jobs that you are crowing about are largely with American companies."

And when will you explain why Peru with their lockdowns have twice as many deaths / capita than Colombia and Peru?

Not to mention the failed lockdowns in Spain, France, Belgium and so on.

For once, be a man and don't change the subject or lie.

[Elvis 2008]

Yet despite all your protestations against getting vaccinated. "It has major side effects", "it doesn't prevent transmission", "it isn't effective", "it's only a political ploy" and on and on and on. Yet you've been vaccinated. I guess that makes you one of the biggest hypocrites around. Or perhaps you don't believe your own BS?

I guess your tiny pea brain can only handle two POVs, Republican and Democrat, provaxx and antivaxx. MDS and I have been among the first to get vaccinated, and we have been open about that since day one.

The other part your little pea brain cannot get is that you have to be devoted to one POV despite the new data coming in. So if a treatment goes from being 88% effective to 3% effective, you have to continue to recommend that treatment even when it does not work: https://fyi.com/living/health-fitnes...f-august-2021/.

And yes, no matter how much you douches scream and pout and click your heels and wish for it, the vaccine does not prevent transmission. The CDC says so and if a treatment is only 3% effective that would stand to reason.

But I have never been anti-vaxx but anti-douche. I am against almost all mandates and the bird brained one size fits all vaccine policy you dummies think is necessary. Vaccinating 5 year olds? Really? Given it does not affect transmission, I believe in freedom of choice when it comes to vaccination.

Of course, the vaccines have been political. Hell, half the reason I got vaccinated was political in that I wanted to travel. I suspected we would need vaccine cards to travel and sure enough that day has arrived.

But I never thought I would need a vaccine card to eat in a restaurant. I never imagined that things would get that stupid.

[Villainy]

Yeah, there you go again in your imagined majority. Sorry, douche, I am not Shoo Bree.

And yes, Europe is locking down again and just like I have been tired of you douches using Covid to control our lives under the guise of saving them, Europe and other places have rebelled against lockdowns. See the link: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...w-restrictions.

Nobody is listening to you douches and your "scientists" anymore.

Yet despite all your protestations against getting vaccinated. "It has major side effects", "it doesn't prevent transmission", "it isn't effective", "it's only a political ploy" and on and on and on. Yet you've been vaccinated. I guess that makes you one of the biggest hypocrites around. Or perhaps you don't believe your own BS?

[JustTK]

Watch this short video. It explains so well why neo-libs in the USA are so staunchly pro-vax for everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At-BI1KAUJw

Brainwashed by propaganda, paid for by Big Pharma.

[Villainy]

It's no secret that politicians are incompetent, just look at Biden! Yeah, I'm smarter than the politicians in charge, ...... That is laughable.

Its already been proven that lockdowns are ineffective, extremely harmful and an extreme way to punish innocent people.

You are dumber than I even thought was possible, you should come to Europe so more Europeans get to laugh at your stupidity.

OK Elvis. I mean ShooBreezer. One post you claim I'm too arrogant the next post you claim that Europeans are so much smarter than the rest of us. Then you turn around again and claim that you are smarter than the politicians in charge of European countries. You know what is best is regards to lockdowns, partial lockdowns, vaccination mandates etc. . Even though your European countries are reinstituting those same lockdowns, partial lockdowns and vaccination mandates.

Excuse my stating the obvious. But if you want a good look at arrogance, try looking in the mirror. As far as knowing what is effective in combating CoVid, you might try listening to scientists because you sure as hell don't know anything. As to you being smarter than European politicians? I doubt you're as smart as their pets.

[Elvis 2008]

What a ridiculous new system the Colombian government is imposing.

The vax pass has a large QR code (for scanning only in the country of origin), his name, and a valid until date. It also mentions "COVID Pass" somewhere among a load of small print.

It is not possible for anyone in Colombia to read the QR code, and there are not even any details on the pass about what vaccine was taken or where etc.

I was asked "do you have a vax card? So I showed them the one that I had and I entered the restaurant with a shrug. Great protection this new system is offering.

I wonder how much Pfizer donated to the president of Colombia. He was on CNBC saying anyone spreading misinformation about the virus should be charged criminally.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/09/covi...criminals.html

He said life for many people can go "back to normal" once many of the unvaccinated get vaccinated.

End of quote.

Guess he has not heard what is going on in Gibraltar. Maybe we should charge him for criminally spreading lies about the vaccine touting how great it is.

I just wonder what a restaurant is supposed to do? Is this like using a fake ID? There is no photo on my Covid card, and it can be doctored so easily and it cannot be verified in Colombia. Haven't the restaurants been through enough hell yet?