Stupid shit in Medellin

[Villainy]

On a personal note, I have mentioned here before but not to you directly, I am against taking the vax. This is bcos I am anti-vivisection and I do not want to support industries that conduct animal testing. Many people argue that animal testing is necessary, but that is neither true nor would it be persuasive. Pharma tests on animals bcos it is cheap and bcos it is legal. If we took away that right, they would use other methods to obtain the same information. Proof of this lies in the recent history of animal testing in the cosmetics industry. For decades cosmetics companies argued it was necessary. When the EU finally stopped listening to their lies and banned it, they switched to other methods and there have been no negative medical issues since. Further I do not believe we have the moral right to subject a non-consenting sentient being to be tortured for the benefit of others. Imagine if we took your child or wife (or whoever you love) and did the same thing. I am therefore not an anti-vaxer per se, rather I am an anti-animal-tested-vaxer...

Let's take your "approach" and play it out just a little, shall we? Let's say everyone in the world was just like you. Oh wait. There wouldn't be a world because small-pox, polio, and every other plague known to man would have decimated the world's population to near nothingness. I'm sure you're consistent. Right? So to stand by what you call your principles, you must not take any medications whatsoever. Afterall we can't do anything to support the pharmaceutical companies. Right? I also assume given your principles that you don't step on spiders or swat flies or smack mosquitoes right?

You must be a vegan or maybe just a vegetarian? I am BTW. So why spend your time rationalizing the avoidance of a vaccine that is saving millions of lives, when you would use your energy to attack the food factories that torture and abuse animals in order to make oversized profits and generally damage the health of the end users?

If you really wanted to do some good you would make generous and extra generous donations to PETA or similar organizations, instead of tilting at windmills. Oh and I'm sure you're aware that animal testing is disappearing rapidly given the advances in technology which have led to the cloning of human cells for use in testing.

BTW I didn't see the need to call you names. I strongly disagree with most of what you say but we can disagree as adults without resorting to childish insults, right Elvis and MarquisdeSade1?

[JustTK]

here is a simple thought experiment: assume you have two populations that are identical in demographics, genetic background, socioeconomics, everything. In one population everybody agrees to take a vaccine that is safe and shows some effectiveness, in the other population this is not the case. Can you describe a set of circumstances where the fully vaccinated would be worse off than the not fully vaccinated if the same policies were implemented?

Yes, I can think of 2.

1. Everything has an opportunity cost. So if the financial costs associated with developing and administering the vaccines outweigh the benefits then the net effect would be negative.

2. If the social and / or psychological fallout of the vax program outweighs the benefits. So let's say some people suffer trauma from being forced in to having a vax, realizing that they are living in an authoritarian state where their freedom of choice has been taken away.

On a personal note, I have mentioned here before but not to you directly, I am against taking the vax. This is bcos I am anti-vivisection and I do not want to support industries that conduct animal testing. Many people argue that animal testing is necessary, but that is neither true nor would it be persuasive. Pharma tests on animals bcos it is cheap and bcos it is legal. If we took away that right, they would use other methods to obtain the same information. Proof of this lies in the recent history of animal testing in the cosmetics industry. For decades cosmetics companies argued it was necessary. When the EU finally stopped listening to their lies and banned it, they switched to other methods and there have been no negative medical issues since. Further I do not believe we have the moral right to subject a non-consenting sentient being to be tortured for the benefit of others. Imagine if we took your child or wife (or whoever you love) and did the same thing. I am therefore not an anti-vaxer per se, rather I am an anti-animal-tested-vaxer.

I must say that I have enjoyed this back and forth. You have presented your arguments eloquently and provided context that I hadn't really considered before. I hope I did a reasonable job of supporting my position too.

[JustTK]

You hit the nail on the head! I think it is fair to say that polio has been eradicated in the US.

Its good that we can have this conversation. I want to think about the thought experiment you posed at the end. But in the meantime I wanted to make a couple of comments:

"One of my buddies was diagnosed with ALS. ".

What about my buddy who has learning difficiculties. If I let him out in to the streets alone, there is a good chance he will get run over. Shall we ban cars so that we can protect him and others like him?

(This is a totally inviented hypothetical BTW. I am just trying to identify if there is any material difference between the scenarios.).

Or here's another. Some people are allergic to bee stings. Shall we eradicate all bees from urban areas to protect them?

There are always situations where some people are at greater risk than others. Is it fair to make the mitigation of their risk encumbent upon others?

The second thing I want to say is that I think Marcus Aurelius was one of the greatest. Superb thinker amd moralist for his time.

[Ptrbrgr]

There is a very big difference here:

Polio 99% effective, 18+ years.

Measles 96% effective, lifelong.

COVID 39-47%, 5 minutes. Whoops! . 5 months.

No case of polio has originated in USA since the 1970's bcos the virus HAS been eliminated in the USA bcos the vas was so highly effective! 99% compared to 40%-ish. The virus WAS prevented from circulating, whereas COVID will not. COVID will always find new hosts unless pharma can get the long term effectiveness much higher. It is not the case right now. Note also: that WHO refuses vaccine licenses if the efficacy is below 50% . I wonder what the future holds for the current Pfizer vaccine.

You hit the nail on the head! I think it is fair to say that polio has been eradicated in the US. But this is not solely because of the super-high effectiveness of the vaccine, it is because of the effectiveness of the vaccine in combination with the fact that virtually everybody is vaccinated. If the vaccination rate would only be 70% say, the first polio-infected traveler to the US under all probability would start the next outbreak. I agree, with SARS-CoV-2 we will never get down to these low prevalences. But as long as the vaccines have some effectiveness in preventing infection and / or transmission, it is a fact that higher vaccination rates mean less circulation, less disease, fewer things to worry about. And the verdict is still out whether or not some local herd immunity can be achieved. If R0 in some place like New Zealand can permanently be dropped to less than 1, then the answer is yes. It doesn't mean the virus is eradicated, it simply means there aren't a ton of transmissions and things are not getting out of hand.

It is true but I think that is an unfair comparison. The "unvaccinated" is a pool of people some have natural immunity, many do not. I would love to see a study that measures vaccinated against natural immunity at 6 months. Have you seen any studies on that?

Absolutely agree. But I think you might be shooting yourself in the foot a bit as far as your argument is concerned. If you were to take out the previously infected from the comparison group, the (relative) benefits for the vaccinated would be even larger.

But to answer your question: I am not aware of a definitive answer either. There are a bunch of lab studies reporting what happens on the molecular level, but that doesn't necessarily translate into real life outcomes, and I imagine it will be tricky to get an accurate estimate from epidemiological studies because of the survivor bias, for one. The vaccine doesn't kill you, but the virus may well do so. If you had a virus that would kill people unless they were Superman, then comparing outcomes between vaccinated and previously infected would likely show much better outcomes for the previously infected, because they are all like Superman. You don't have to be Superman to survive a SARS-CoV-2 infection, but it tends to kill the most vulnerable, so the survivors on average are younger, fitter, etc.

There is of course the infamous study from Israel our buddy Elvis was peddling, where the authors found that vaccinated people had a 13-fold increase in infection risk compared to people with a previous natural infection, and the odds of hospitalization were eight times higher (no joke). However, anyone who knows a bit about the field and looks at it for five minutes sees more red flags in this short pre-print than you see in Havana on May Day. There mere fact that the levels of a factor they matched on showed odds ratios of 161 (with upper confidence interval bound of 1300!) did not stop them at all ploughing forward. The study design and approach were so deeply flawed it would have been funny, except for all the nonsense being propagated.

I don't dispute that the vax helps prevent deaths in the vaxd. What I dispute is that it is effective in preventing deaths in the non-vaxd what I mean by this is I hear the claim all the time that it is selfish to not have the vax bcos you put those immune compromised non-vaxd people at risk. Well, I don't accept that. We have to accept some level of risk in everything we do driving cars, drinking alcohol. We can't simply claim its selfish to drive a car because it might kill old people that can't cross the road quick enough. Also the claim ignores non-vaxd people with natural immunity.

I am 100% with you on having to accept some risks in real life. But maybe consider the following. One of my buddies was diagnosed with ALS. If he catches the virus, it will be bad news. He is vaccinated, but it is unclear whether he was able to produce enough antibodies to have a realistic chance to fight off an infection. He could go into complete isolation, but if you only have a bit of time left on the clock, that doesn't sound very appealing. So he still hangs out with his friends, and we do accept that there is some risk. I know I decrease the risk of him getting infected by being vaccinated. By how much I do not know, but I know the difference is not zero. This is the least bit I think I can do for him. The dad of another friend is battling cancer, and if he gets infected, the outcome will be the same as it was for Colin Powell. So my friend has to be super careful. What kind of friendship would that be if I thought getting a pinch in the arm was too much trouble, especially under those circumstances? You might say there isn't anyone in your circle who is at high risk. But if the two of us were to hang out some time in Medellin over a cup of coffee or a beer to discuss this, you would be two contacts away from my buddy with ALS. That's how fast that goes. So even if there was nothing in it for me, in my opinion (emphasize, opinion), getting vaccinated is an ethical imperative as a human being. I am not saying you are an unethical person, but I would like to encourage you to give this reasoning some thought.

It also ignores other things that people can do in being effective against infection. I have seen studies that show vegans and vegetarians have 70% better COVID outcomes. So can I claim that everyone that eats meat is selfish bcos they present a higher risk to the non-vaxd? No. That road is a very complicated one to travel with many on and off ramps. But I don't see a rational difference between claiming non-vaxd are immoral whereas meat eaters are not.

I can imagine that diet is associated with COVID health outcomes, because diet is related to a bunch of risk factors and co-morbidities, and these are what we believe put people at risk. And diet is a modifiable variable. So I take your point is that the vaccinated overweight couch potato has no business giving the unvaccinated Ironman shit. This argument is not easily dismissed, I agree. That said, I could still come up with reasons why the Ironman should get a vaccine nonetheless.

I agree that's the target. I just don't think vaxs are necessary. The virus is not dangerous enough to healthy people, and I believe we can develop effective natural immunity and take other measures (such as diet) to prevent overloading health systems with infections.

Every bug will run its course, and eventually drop to some equilibrium, at least for a while. Marcus Aurelius got knocked out of the saddle by what we believe was smallpox, and it must have been some sucky times back then, because there were recurrences of the virus for more than 100 years. The medieval plague (not a virus, but still plenty bad) in Europe claimed about 100 million lives and lasted for five years. I think we all what this current pandemic to end. What we disagree about is how we quantify 'damage' (health, social, economic) and what the best strategy is to minimize that damage. But here is a simple thought experiment: assume you have two populations that are identical in demographics, genetic background, socioeconomics, everything. In one population everybody agrees to take a vaccine that is safe and shows some effectiveness, in the other population this is not the case. Can you describe a set of circumstances where the fully vaccinated would be worse off than the not fully vaccinated if the same policies were implemented?

[JustTK]

the purpose of your post was to convey that the vaccine will not prevent the continued circulation of the virus. I agree the evidence points that way. But I also think this is not the right dichotomy to look at.

I agree, but it is the dishonest aim that is constantly pushed by the media. We are bombarded with the demand that we must get vaxd in order to eliminate the virus and get back to normal.

With the exception of smallpox, no virus affecting humans has ever been eradicated. All others, including highly contagious ones such as polio and measles, are still with us and circulating. But we don't worry much about polio and measles in our day to day lives. Why? Because there are effective vaccines, almost everybody is vaccinated, the virus has a terrible time finding a new host, and that led to a very low prevalence in the population.

There is a very big difference here:

Polio –99% effective, 18+ years.

Measles –96% effective, lifelong.

COVID – 39-47%, 5 minutes. Whoops! . 5 months.

No case of polio has originated in USA since the 1970's bcos the virus HAS been eliminated in the USA bcos the vas was so highly effective! 99% compared to 40%-ish. The virus WAS prevented from circulating, whereas COVID will not. COVID will always find new hosts unless pharma can get the long term effectiveness much higher. It is not the case right now. Note also: that WHO refuses vaccine licenses if the efficacy is below 50% . I wonder what the future holds for the current Pfizer vaccine.

We agree that vaccinated people are less likely to get infected than the unvaccinated..

It is true but I think that is an unfair comparison. The "unvaccinated" is a pool of people – some have natural immunity, many do not. I would love to see a study that measures vaccinated against natural immunity at 6 months. Have you seen any studies on that?

the data that came out a few days ago about switching vaccines for the booster shot look fantastic.

Who can say what the future will hold in terms of medical breakthroughs. But its just speculation at this stage for anyone to claim that a 3rd booster shot will have long term effectiveness. Indeed, the USA has refused to recommend it at this stage, hasn't it? Israel pushed it thru. I find it hard to believe the necessary clinical trials on long term effects were done on that. Yet, now they have vax cards that only show "fully vaxd" if they had the 3rd shot.

The Puerto Rico paper also compared death rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated. Instead of 2,096 deaths they would have expected if the rates were the same in both groups, they only saw 167 deaths in the vaccinated.

I don't dispute that the vax helps prevent deaths in the vaxd. What I dispute is that it is effective in preventing deaths in the non-vaxd – what I mean by this is – I hear the claim all the time that it is selfish to not have the vax bcos you put those immune compromised non-vaxd people at risk. Well, I don't accept that. We have to accept some level of risk in everything we do – driving cars, drinking alcohol. We can't simply claim its selfish to drive a car because it might kill old people that can't cross the road quick enough. Also the claim ignores non-vaxd people with natural immunity.

It also ignores other things that people can do in being effective against infection. I have seen studies that show vegans and vegetarians have 70% better COVID outcomes. So can I claim that everyone that eats meat is selfish bcos they present a higher risk to the non-vaxd? No. That road is a very complicated one to travel with many on and off ramps. But I don't see a rational difference between claiming non-vaxd are immoral whereas meat eaters are not.

So in my opinion, the target is not 'no virus circulating', but being able to put a lid on the numbers and get back to something that resembles normal life. And the evidence is strong that this is possible (and might require annual booster shots, as you say).

I agree that's the target. I just don't think vaxs are necessary. The virus is not dangerous enough to healthy people, and I believe we can develop effective natural immunity and take other measures (such as diet) to prevent overloading health systems with infections.

And I am sick of hearing this "shaming" attitude by pro-vaxers that think they are saving the world, when there is clearly a whole lot missing from that line of thinking.

[BlackThought]

There are a few things in the post you responded to which are more baffling than usual. That's in addition to his offer of a wager to prove himself. After all it's only been a few months since he turned down my offer to let him prove his claims.

First, who hands out business cards to people who they don't want to contact them through the information on the card? You give them your WhatsApp and that's all they need. That's like giving your home address to a streetwalker.

The other head scratcher is how mentioning you met someone compromises their anonymity. I'd I post that I met you for lunch, we're both still just anonymous posters. Even if I name the restaurant it's no help for anyone to identify either of us.

"A couple of days ago 2 gringos ate here. One was Jjbee62 and the other was Villainy. Can you give me their full names, addresses, phone numbers and passport numbers? Did they at least leave business cards?

Everybody knows the coward is going to make up some BS excuse as to why he won't take the bet then try to change the topic by adding ass licking and CCP to the discussion. He's a cowardly loser that likely doesn't even have a passport. He lives vicariously through people's trip report / blogs.

[BlackThought]

OK I'm game for the wager. What would you like it to be? Why don't we pick a reasoable number that both can bring to the meeting. 5,000 US equates to 18,835,000 based on today's closing exchange rate.

So let's round it to 20 million. We'll meet at an arranged place. We'll pick a board member not connected to me. He will be the arbiter. All you have to do to take my 20 million pesos is show up with your passport and demonstrate that you've been to the places you've claimed. If your passport doesn't show those trips you lose. If it does, I lose. Pretty easy bet for you to win, kiddo.

Oh and you're right you can tell a lot about people by who they hang with. In your case no one spends any time with you on all your make-believe travels so I guess that makes you a loner who has no friends or perhaps even more likely a teenager want to-be who hasn't be outside his momma's house. C'mon. Big boy. Easy money waiting for you. Prove to everyone on the board that you are not just a bag of hot wind like everyone thinks.

Now I'll wait for the ass-licking comments that seem to be your go-to response.

I'd like to wager 5000 US as well. He claimed 10 weeks in BKK and 120 nights in Philippines in 2019 LOL. Lets see the passport stamps jajajaj.

[JjBee62]

OK I'm game for the wager. What would you like it to be? Why don't we pick a reasoable number that both can bring to the meeting. 5,000 US equates to 18,835,000 based on today's closing exchange rate.

So let's round it to 20 million. We'll meet at an arranged place. We'll pick a board member not connected to me. He will be the arbiter. All you have to do to take my 20 million pesos is show up with your passport and demonstrate that you've been to the places you've claimed. If your passport doesn't show those trips you lose. If it does, I lose. Pretty easy bet for you to win, kiddo.

Oh and you're right you can tell a lot about people by who they hang with. In your case no one spends any time with you on all your make-believe travels so I guess that makes you a loner who has no friends or perhaps even more likely a teenager want to-be who hasn't be outside his momma's house. C'mon. Big boy. Easy money waiting for you. Prove to everyone on the board that you are not just a bag of hot wind like everyone thinks..

There are a few things in the post you responded to which are more baffling than usual. That's in addition to his offer of a wager to prove himself. After all it's only been a few months since he turned down my offer to let him prove his claims.

First, who hands out business cards to people who they don't want to contact them through the information on the card? You give them your WhatsApp and that's all they need. That's like giving your home address to a streetwalker.

The other head scratcher is how mentioning you met someone compromises their anonymity. I'd I post that I met you for lunch, we're both still just anonymous posters. Even if I name the restaurant it's no help for anyone to identify either of us.

"A couple of days ago 2 gringos ate here. One was Jjbee62 and the other was Villainy. Can you give me their full names, addresses, phone numbers and passport numbers? Did they at least leave business cards?

[Ptrbrgr]

Hey, I got making the vaccines mandatory early on. They were that great but now? Can you prove to me they even work given the latest data? Because I sure as hell do not see it.

Figure 2 b in the paper JustTK cited. Published October 16,2021.

[Ptrbrgr]

Thanks for your reply. And great to meet someone here that can disagree without resorting to insult.

I understand well what effectiveness means. In this context it is describiing the effectiveness of the vaccine against infection. The Pfizer vax is only 47% effective against infection after 5 months. This is clearly greater than zero, but a lot less than the 88% that it started at. It says nothing about the long term ability of the vax to prevent serious illness or death.

My purpose in posting that link was to show that the vax will not prevent the spread and continued circulation of the virus, even in fully vaccinated regions. We hear every day on the news "Get vaccinated bcos this is the only way we can prevent the spread of the virus and prevent new variants from appearring". And "if you do not get vaccinated, you are causing the virus the mutate". These claims are simply false. The vax gives some protection to the vaccinated. And will help avoid short term emergency overloads at hospitals. The vax will not prevent new variants from appearring and further vaccines being required (should you choose to follow that route).

Thank you for your reply, and likewise, I also appreciate civility.

You say the purpose of your post was to convey that the vaccine will not prevent the continued circulation of the virus, and I do not have an issue with that statement. We do not know this for sure, but I agree the evidence points that way. But I also think this is not the right dichotomy to look at. With the exception of smallpox, no virus affecting humans has ever been eradicated. All others, including highly contagious ones such as polio and measles, are still with us and circulating. But we don't worry much about polio and measles in our day to day lives. Why? Because there are effective vaccines, almost everybody is vaccinated, the virus has a terrible time finding a new host, and that led to a very low prevalence in the population.

For SARS-CoV-2 to keep circulating it needs to find new hosts, and the new hosts have to be pass it on to the next person. We agree that vaccinated people are less likely to get infected than the unvaccinated (that was the effectiveness piece you cited). We also know that vaccinated people with breakthrough infections are less likely to transmit the virus to other people (that was one of the pieces missing in the story). We don't see a big difference in maximum viral load between those groups, but viral load declines much faster in vaccinated people, and they are contagious for a shorter time. Taken together, this means it is much less likely that a vaccinated person becomes part of the infection chain than an unvaccinated person. If everybody got vaccinated, the virus most likely would still be circulating as you say, but it would do so at much lower levels.

Nobody will be able to tell you exactly how big that difference is, and things are changing all the time anyways. Antibodies waning is a concern, as you noted. The results of another study in Puerto Rico were posted yesterday, and those numbers corroborate what you saw in the Lancet paper. On the other hand, the data that came out a few days ago about switching vaccines for the booster shot look fantastic. Pfizer / BioNTech have already developed a vaccine that targets the full spike protein of the more contagious delta variant. And the paper you cited shows that in contrast to infection, there has not been a noticeable decrease in effectiveness as far as people getting clinically ill is concerned. The Puerto Rico paper also compared death rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated. Instead of 2,096 deaths they would have expected if the rates were the same in both groups, they only saw 167 deaths in the vaccinated. So it is not a stretch at all to say we could push the numbers in the US to well under 100 deaths a day if everybody went with the program. You might say this still sounds like a lot, and it is. But for perspective, there are about 100 deaths in car crashes every day in the US. And people usually don't fret when they drive, because we have accepted this rate as an acceptable risk of daily life.

So in my opinion, the target is not 'no virus circulating', but being able to put a lid on the numbers and get back to something that resembles normal life. And the evidence is strong that this is possible (and might require annual booster shots, as you say).

[Villainy]

I will bother to respond to you, since I haven't kicked your teeth in lately, you really want to run with the childish tactic of accusing someone of something no one believes is true because you are so weak, lame and desperate you have nothing else, OMG you even used bolder italics OMG (what ISG wouldn't let you use RED)? Jajajaaaaaaaaa.

Only a fool tells someone like you who they are, I gave a monger a business card in Mexico once and he was sending me emails on an acct I didn't give him and stalking my Linkedin page, never again.

We can place a large wager, ok pussy? Lets do it, how much can you afford? I'm guessing not much, hanging around with that scumbag pedophile in Laureles, did you know you can tell a lot about someone by the company they choose to keep jajajajaa scumbags are attracted to scumbags, you're such a classless monger, the bottom of the barrel variety!

You sound like a low rent govt worker of some type? Not sure what, but I'm guessing bus driver or garbage collector.

I have met mongers from all over the world, I respect their anonymity and they respect mine. This is, an anonymous website and I do have a real life (I'm guessing unlike your lame ass).

We can place a large wager that I can back up what I say and prove it, maybe you can steal some money from your grandmother?.

OK I'm game for the wager. What would you like it to be? Why don't we pick a reasoable number that both can bring to the meeting. 5,000 US equates to 18,835,000 based on today's closing exchange rate.

So let's round it to 20 million. We'll meet at an arranged place. We'll pick a board member not connected to me. He will be the arbiter. All you have to do to take my 20 million pesos is show up with your passport and demonstrate that you've been to the places you've claimed. If your passport doesn't show those trips you lose. If it does, I lose. Pretty easy bet for you to win, kiddo.

Oh and you're right you can tell a lot about people by who they hang with. In your case no one spends any time with you on all your make-believe travels so I guess that makes you a loner who has no friends or perhaps even more likely a teenager want to-be who hasn't be outside his momma's house. C'mon. Big boy. Easy money waiting for you. Prove to everyone on the board that you are not just a bag of hot wind like everyone thinks.

Now I'll wait for the ass-licking comments that seem to be your go-to response.

[MarquisdeSade1]

I will bother to respond to you, since I haven't kicked your teeth in lately, you really want to run with the childish tactic of accusing someone of something no one believes is true because you are so weak, lame and desperate you have nothing else, OMG you even used bolder italics OMG (what ISG wouldn't let you use RED)? Jajajaaaaaaaaa.

Only a fool tells someone like you who they are, I gave a monger a business card in Mexico once and he was sending me emails on an acct I didn't give him and stalking my Linkedin page, never again.

We can place a large wager, ok pussy? Lets do it, how much can you afford? I'm guessing not much, hanging around with that scumbag pedophile in Laureles, did you know you can tell a lot about someone by the company they choose to keep jajajajaa scumbags are attracted to scumbags, you're such a classless monger, the bottom of the barrel variety!

You sound like a low rent govt worker of some type? Not sure what, but I'm guessing bus driver or garbage collector.

I have met mongers from all over the world, I respect their anonymity and they respect mine. This is, an anonymous website and I do have a real life (I'm guessing unlike your lame ass).

We can place a large wager that I can back up what I say and prove it, maybe you can steal some money from your grandmother?

I don't have to prove anything (but I will take your money if you want) to a worthless asslicking scumbag like you, evidenced by your choice of BMs you meet up with ala scumbag JJquasimodo spreading the Chinese virus all over MDE, and the latest scumbag pedophile to appear on ISG, that tells us everything we need to know about dirtbag V..

I read this and was surprised I would compare this turd to bus drivers or garbage collectors, both honest ways to earn a living.

No offense was intended, again I offer my global apology to them all.

[MarquisdeSade1]

He hasn't traveled any further than the length of his momma's umbilical cord. This was confirmed beyond doubt when he was caught posting a gringa's 2012 travel photos as his own.

I don't lie here or anywhere else scumbag, I don't need to!!

You on the other hand were IMing me to warn me about visiting MDE and getting kidnapped for ransom and / or forced to make indefinite daily ATM runs jajajajaaaaaa.

You are the biggest loser on ISG to do shit like that, I would think that would get someone banned? So tell us scumbag how many members have you steered away from MDE doing that?

I guess the admin could read your PMs and find out?

Caught posting a gringas fotos? WTF are you talking about, are you another alcoholic?

What I did do is googled images for Pargue Arvi gondolla to show scumbag JJquasimodo that you can see thru the windows on them and that there are cams atop the.

Poles you lame little turd, you have nothing to attack me with so just make shit up just like JJscumbag virus spreader his butt buddy V, and scaryselfharmingthoughts.

The 4 of you scumbags have nothing to attack except making shit up like a grade schooler!! LMAO how pathetic.

You do the same thing with Elvis, how lame.

You sound like that retarded Blk atty from Seinfeld.

There was a saying whilst I was growing up in Chicago in the 1970's.

If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance then at least baffle them with BULLSHIT.

You must copy JJ the scumbag virus super spreader.

He does the same lame shit just makes up shit people didn't even say or post like he did with Elvis and try to.

Tangle them up with nonsense you are a total piece of shit.

I don't know who is worse you or him.

I can't believe the admin hasn't banned you for writing what you did to me.

This website is meant to encourage the sharing of info to strengthen the hobby.

You are the antithesis of that purpose.

You are fighting against the reason the website exists.

Anyone reading needs to know you are a vile scumbag and not to trust a fucking word he tells you in PM or in person!

[Elvis 2008]

Point being: when you want to communicate something about effectiveness, there is always a ton of context. It doesn't help at all to just knock out a number and amplify stuff you read somewhere without understanding the meaning of it. Be better. And dare to think for yourself.

Well, yeah. The 39% number is just laughable in the sense that a vaccine being 95% effective against a cold virus was never going to hold up because of the mutations. Fauci is off saying being vaccinated means you are 5 X less likely to be hospitalized and 11 X less likely to die, however that is comparing not what is going on recently but from the start. Yes, the vaccine worked great early on, but the latest data showed that you had to vaccinate 50 people to prevent one hospitalization and the risk of hospitalization with Covid vaccination went from 4% to 2% and doubtless it is lower now as that data is a month old now.

Looking at the vaccine data is like looking at the lockdown data in Colombia and Peru. Those countries locked down hard core, and Peru in particular had the highest death rate per capita, and it looked to me that all these hard core lockdowns did was lead to misery, death, and economic destructiveness, a finding confirmed by a Stanford study. The irony is the Stanford study could not find a developed nation that did nothing. Sweden came the closest to doing nothing and had similar outcomes to other nations studied and so the Stanford study showed that minimal Covid intervention was as good as full lockdowns.

And so here we go again. Israel had the highest vaccinated rate in the world and the highest per capita number with Covid. Two other countries, the USA and UK, are heavily vaccinated and have huge numbers of cases. The only thing that makes sense to me is the vaccine is causing disease.

But this goes against what was happening in Peru. Lockdowns work I was told and when I mentioned Peru, a paper was written by a bunch of Yale yahoos who said Peru sucks. Okay, I said but wasn't that known before Covid? And how about Colombia? There was never a good explanation given for the data Colombia and Peru had outside of the fact that lockdowns do not work.

So you are saying that we need context, we need to understand that % effectiveness is not the only way to go, and I see this is the same crap being spewed all over again. It is just now that the unvaxxed suck versus the Peruvians suck because people want to hold onto the notion that being vaxxed, like wearing a mask, like covering the hands with antibacterial goo makes them virtuous, and they care about Covid, their fellow man, and are superior even if they are not. You are not going to tell those people that such interventions are fruitless.

Time and again I see people go to other countries and see people masked outside and say "This country takes Covid way more seriously than the USA" when in fact "taking things seriously" and spreading disease IMO has never been shown to correlate. Show me a study that outdoor masking works.

Yeah, the vaccines worked great early on, and their fall from grace was completely predictable and maybe just maybe the notion that "I am vaxxed and therefore am safe" may be driving this latest wave of Covid infections.

Hey, I got making the vaccines mandatory early on. They were that great but now? Can you prove to me they even work given the latest data? Because I sure as hell do not see it.

All I see is the same bullshit I saw about lockdowns and Colombia and Peru. Lockdowns work. The vaccine works, and Elvis, you can take the data that shows it does not and go fuck yourself.

That is fine, but you do not dare call ignoring the data "science". It is politics. And this notion that "jobs come back while lives never do" is looking dumber and dumber every day now. All I see is a whole lot of lives lost and completely unnecessary economic carnage.

Paying people not to work, going into massive debt, stay home and stay safe, closing down gyms, is anyone going to own this stupidity now? Or are we just going to listen to the same fools as spouted off this other crap before?

[JustTK]

On this same hand, is there not a need to know how many unvaccinated people that died of covid were afflicted by other illnesses (or obesity) that would hinder an immune response?
CNN's own Dr Gupta did not think they were being a legit news source by saying Joe Rogan was taking animal drugs.

Those stats were circulating a lot when COVID first came out. The death rate was very low for persons under 65 and with no underlying med conditions. I just had a quick look and found this paper:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8209444/

It says that death rate of people with conditions is 4 times higher than that without. Interestingly it also show the risk of men is almost twice as high as for women. This is based on confirmed cases only.

Gupta. Yeah I saw that. It was an amazing interview. Another dishonest and lying prominent health expert. That's all we need.