- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,466
- 3,423
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
If this is so prevalent then you should have no problem finding a better example then this one since it makes you look just wrong.
New York Hospital to Pause Delivering Babies After Unvaccinated Workers Resign En Masse
- Thread starter Cicada 5
- Start date
I have specifically corrected you on this, plus with reference to my initial statement. So that just means you're flat out lying.
Blatant lying not a good look, but at least it makes it clear how little worth there is in anything else you have say on this matter. This conversation is at an end.
" Party Chair, stating he represents the views of the Party " - You, saying something incorrect, forcing me to point to you a dozen times that it's just the opinion of that one guy.
"And to read around Oklahoma sources as I quickly did would suggest that although lots of high-ranking Republican officials are in favour of refugees, there clearly is at minimum a very significant (mostly Trump base aligned) groundswell of opposition to refugees, too." - You, actively saying that there is a "very significant groundswell of opposition to refugees" to be found when reading about Oklahoma.
If the conversation is at an end, it is because you don't believe the things you have said to dispute me in the first place.
The suggestion vaccines have no meaningful downsides, the description of how mRNA vaccines work is very far off, and then I'll concede that I read a bit into it, but there's a strong implication in the post that getting immunity from infection leaves you vulnerable in a way that the vaccine doesn't. You can get infected after either, nothing is perfect protection.
To be clear, I had the virus, and then got vaccinated, and I'm glad to have done so if for no other reason than my reactions to the shots confirmed for me that my immune system was responding properly after the infection. By no means would I tell people who were infected not to get vaccinated. I would however tell them not to do so when they had important plans or any heavy machinery to drive for the next 48 hours, because "oh, you'll maybe get some mild symptoms" is not an accurate description of the mRNA vaccine's potential side effects.
I know I said I wouldn't reply, but I will clear this up. If I implied that getting the vaccine is perfect protection, then I apologize, because that was not my intention. There is no 100% way to prevent re-infection, or to prevent COVID from re-infecting. My point was more to say that you are better protected with the vaccine even if you've already been infected. Essentially, getting COVID gets you X protection from re-infection, getting the vaccine gets you Y protection. Getting the vaccine after already having COVID gets you...some combination of X+Y that doesn't add up to 100%.
Essentially, I was trying to say that you can get re-infected after infection, and therefore should still get the vaccine to reduce the chances of getting COVID again. I was not trying to say that doing so makes you completely immune.
As for the side effects, my personal experience with side effects were minor. However, there is a chance of more severe side effects, so yes, I would agree that you should plan for the vaccine, and have a couple of days to spare in case you do get hit by more serious side effects. That said, I feel those side effects that may leave you out for a couple of days are a significant enough downgrade from the actual effects of COVID to where the risk is vastly outweighed by the reward of significantly reducing your chances of COVID, and reducing the severity of COVID if you do still get infected.
As for the mRNA thing...well, that's what I gleamed from studies on what the vaccine did, and breakdowns meant for laypeople like myself. If I misunderstood them, or the people breaking it down were inaccurate, I'll own that.
After rereading, I definitely took an implication you never explicitly said. I'll own that part.
As far as the mRNA thing (and I'll let someone like Agema come in and correct me when I'm wrong on this) a traditional vaccine sends in some version of a virus, and then your body learns to tear that apart. The mRNA vaccines send in human mRNA with a specific coding to turn the outside of some cells in your body into the same configuration as the relevant part of the virus. Your body sees something wrong with the small number of cells that have changed shape and cleans out the damaged cells, and learns from the structure your damaged cells were forced into to kill anything that looks like that. I basically turns some of your own cells into a faux virus to be a punching bag for your immune system. Cause your immune system isn't going to make antibodies based on the mRNA, it makes antibodies based on the protein structure that mRNA produces.
Sort of. The body is designed to recognise types of foreign material, and builds a specifically tailored response to it. A typical vaccine is either a disabled (can't replicate) virus of the type protection is desired against, or it's bits of the virus immunity is desired against inserted into a a different disabled virus (e.g. a coronavirus protein in a disabled adenovirus).
So, this relates to how proteins are made. DNA is the base information source, from which proteins are encoded. However, it doesn't go straight from DNA to protein: a short copy of the relevant segment of DNA is made using RNA, and it is that mRNA that is read to manufacture the protein. The "m" in mRNA stands for messenger: because it's taking the information for the protein from the DNA to the protein manufacture system.
So if you dump a load of mRNA into people, some of it is taken up by cells, and those cells use it to make proteins, which can then go out and generate an immune response. mRNA has a pretty short lifespan, so after a relatively short period all the injected stuff is broken down and production of the protein will cease.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,466
- 3,423
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Don't forget to mention that while to some people it might sound scary to use your bodies own cells to make something that would make your body kill them. Your body is killing its own cells all the time. For instance Killer T cells are always on the look out for cancerous cells and destroying them whenever they are found.
I do trust people enough, I don't even use a key to get into my house (I'm not even joking, the normal lock has been busted for like 2 years and it just opens with a jiggle and I'm not locking the deadbolt lock when leaving the house). What study shows natural immunity fades over time (not counting antibodies because that is not a true sign of how much immunity you have)? We've seen no lower immunity to covid by anyone naturally infected in the ~20 months since the start of the pandemic. Naturally immune are doing better against the Indian variant than vaccinated. We don't know who is legit immune and who isn't because we don't know how the immune system completely works so we don't know exactly what to look for. Antibodies are obviously useful but they aren't the only thing, you can make more antibodies yourself when you get reinfected. If your standard of safety is having everyone having antibody levels as high as they are after recently vaccinated (say 3 months), then that's not a standard that's feasible or realistic. You have to trust that the human immune system works at some point.
I just renewed my license and didn't have to do a single test. Wouldn't some issue of not having the motor skills to drive be in their health history from getting a physical when a kid? The standards for driving should be a lot higher IMO but the problem there is how poorly American cities are designed to where driving is basically a necessity.
I know that, the first car I drove didn't have anti-lock brakes so pumping the brake was required. I know that the brakes need to be pumped whether by me or by the brakes themselves.Even with this you're wrong. With Anti-lock breaks you don't want to pump the breaks, you want to hold the pedal down and let the anti-lock breaks do their job.
Austraila has a mandate, Britan has a mandate, Canada is having a mandate, Fiji has a mandate, Greece has a mandate, Hungary has a mandate, Indonesia has a mandate, Malta has a mandate, Russian has one, Saudi Arabia has one. How are you this badly informed?
Countries making COVID-19 vaccines mandatory
A growing number of countries also stipulate that a shot, or a negative test, will be needed for dining out, among other activitiesnews.trust.org
Infographic: The Countries Where Covid-19 Vaccination Is Mandatory
This chart shows the countries which impose Covid-19 vaccine mandates on their population based on age (as of Feb 7, 2022).www.statista.com
Your source is missing a lot of "ors" like in Britain the following is true:
Under the scheme [that isn't even implemented], people would have been required to show proof - whether of double vaccination, a negative Covid test or finishing self-isolating after a positive PCR test - in order to gain entry to clubs and other crowded events.
England vaccine passport plans ditched, Sajid Javid says
The health secretary rules out the scheme for nightclubs and large events, following much criticism.
www.bbc.com
No they don't. The studies show a 2nd shot to previously infected confers no benefit with all the potential harm. If you didn't know about the normal side effects like being out for a weekend or the much more serious myocarditis issue where many countries (like Sweden and Denmark) have suspended Moderna for young people. There are countries also just doing a single dose to younger people as well. Why would society benefit from some previously infected person getting a 2nd dose that literally does nothing to help them when that 2nd dose could've went to someone in the world that didn't get a first dose yet?
Is one vaccine dose enough if you’ve had COVID? What the science says
Research shows that a previous coronavirus infection plus one dose of vaccine provides powerful protection — but concerns linger.
www.nature.com
Read my response to Worgen up above. And you have to use China as an example? Kids can only play video games there like an hour or day or something like that and they locked people in their homes to die of covid to stop the spread. Yeah, I'm not following China's lead in most anything.Er, what?
Also, China./cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/LI5WUFEXARJVNGPTSO3APLPLC4.jpg)
Countries making COVID-19 vaccines mandatory
A sharp upturn in infections due to the Delta variant and a slowdown in vaccinations have pushed governments to make COVID-19 shots mandatory for health workers and other high-risk groups.www.reuters.com
Column: You think vaccine mandates are controversial? What if the police pinned you down and injected you?
It’s shocking that local Chinese authorities are immunizing people against their will. That violates a bedrock principle of bioethics.www.latimes.com
Last edited:
Bad cholesterol, LDL, is only bad when it oxidizes, which sugar causes. Cholesterol technically doesn't build up in the arteries (where the blood is flowing) but behind the intima layer/wall. Oxidized LDL damages the intima and makes the gaps in it larger allowing for the smaller oxidize LDL to squeeze behind it, building up over time and causes a blockage. You think I just saw someone say sugar is bad and just went with it. Sugar causes obesity because your body burns carbs first and then all your fats that you eat get stored as fats because you body isn't burning them for energy. Sugar also causes insulin resistance that leads to diabetes in about 20 years because your body can only weather the storm for so long.
No, I'm sure you watched a couple of YouTube videos.
OK? I'm not sure why you're explaining this; everybody here recognises that sugar contributes significantly to obesity, diabetes, etc. But so does saturated fat.
... Jesus christ. All other health conditions aside obesity is not "caused" by sugar. It's also not "caused" by fat. It's caused by calories. You're gonna get fat by consuming more calories than you use. Doesn't matter where those calories come from.
Also no, your body won't burn calories from carbs first as a matter of principle that's just Joe rogan keto diet nonsense. It's oversimplified nonsense and what you're body uses for fuel can vary and is largely dependent on what your body is doing. High carb, keto or whatever other diet you want to look at are all equally effective for weightloss when controlled for calories. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you a book. At high levels of athletic performance alterations to macro balances might yield some results but most people aren't fat because of, specifically, too much fat or too much sugar. They're fat because of far greater access to calorie dense, low nutrition food and the fact that most of us don't till the fields for a living anymore.
Also no, your body won't burn calories from carbs first as a matter of principle that's just Joe rogan keto diet nonsense. It's oversimplified nonsense and what you're body uses for fuel can vary and is largely dependent on what your body is doing. High carb, keto or whatever other diet you want to look at are all equally effective for weightloss when controlled for calories. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you a book. At high levels of athletic performance alterations to macro balances might yield some results but most people aren't fat because of, specifically, too much fat or too much sugar. They're fat because of far greater access to calorie dense, low nutrition food and the fact that most of us don't till the fields for a living anymore.
Yes, as an example of you being wrong that no countries are mandating vaccination.
The standing assumption is that if you drive a car, you don't need to be continually retested because you are maintaining your skills. (In practice, of course, we know people do develop elements of sloppiness, but...)
Arguably therefore, someone who doesn't drive for many years probably should be retested. But that is not practical to enforce - it's not like the state can usefully go round proving people haven't been driving enough. Mandatory testing every 10 years might be an option, but it would run into a colossal shitstorm of public opposition. And in some jurisdictions, drivers are legally obliged to report certain health issues to whoever deals with licences, and possibly in some also due to age.
Realistically, however, I'm not sure stricter tests would necessarily improve much. An awful lot of accidents, after all, are caused more by people who can pass tests and drive well, but prefer not to because they are pricks who would rather show off. Normally male, under 25 or middle aged, in a souped up or expensive car.
Last edited:
Broadly, yes. It is slightly more complex than that, but for the most part as many or more calories out than in should prevent significant fat build up.
However, the complexity might be that high sugar intake can cause fat build-up in certain places (e.g. waistline for men) - even if the general fat levels remain constant. And some fats may be problematic in excess as they promote inflammation, irrespective of the fact that they are ultimately broken down.
Yes, 100% but the massive rise in obesity in modern times is far more related to the sheer number of calories people consume compared to what they burn in largely sedentary lifestyles. The point I was making is that the main problem people face is eating too much.
Things like macro balance can have an effect but odds are if you're eating realistic portions of wholefoods and not drinking your calories you will stay at a healthy size. I was directly responding to the idea that sugar is more to blame for obesity than fat is, specifically the idea that sugar is the cause of obesity, not fat, because we've been eating fat all through human history but processed sugar is relatively new. Ignoring that we ar now eating far more fats, and saturated fats, than we ever have in history. Cavemen weren't eating bacon double cheese burgers fried in lard.
Mm. M-a-y-b-e. As far as I'm aware, we don't really know what promotes oxidised cholesterol in the body.
But you sure can eat oxidised cholesterol and dump a load of it straight into your blood vessels, which you're quite likely to do when eating fried food because heating cholesterol is pretty good at oxidising it.
I just explained the internal body processes of why LDL becomes bad and you just ignore it. Go look up experts in nutrition field that actually know how your body breaks down things and how it affects the rest of the body. Heart disease is caused by inflammation, and that's what sugar causes. If you have to choose between eating something that has saturated fat vs something with sugar, the saturated fat is far far healthier; bacon is better than a donut or can of pop. The pop from McDonalds is killing you so many times more than the burger. There's nothing wrong with saturated fats, too much of anything is bad (even water).
5 Studies on Saturated Fat
For decades, saturated fat has been blamed for causing heart disease. This article explores the findings from 5 recent studies on this.
www.healthline.com
Sugar consumption plays greater role in heart disease than saturated fat
Atherosclerotic Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) is responsible for one in every six deaths in the United States as well as being the leading cause of death throughout the developed world. Healthcare professionals have for many years sought to limit and control CHD by focusing on prevention and...
www.sciencedaily.com
Every calorie is far far from being equal. The calories that cause inflammation are bad and those that do not are good. Why are sumo wrestlers healthy and those that drink pop daily are unhealthy?
Almost no countries are mandating vaccines... How does that change the argument? If most countries aren't mandating the vaccine, doesn't that tell you something? I noticed you failed to respond to the science of fully vaccinating those previously infected is basically pointless and greatly likelihood for causing harm, especially on the 2nd dose in younger people via the myocarditis issue.I'm talking about legit driving testing like see if people know how to actually set their mirrors properly and know if someone is along side them by just using their mirrors. Very very few people can do such basic things that everyone should know. The actual road test in the US is a joke that really only completely incompetent people can fail. Test if people can actually get out of a slide would be great, though that kinda test would be difficult to setup obviously but it's something every driver should know how to do, possibly a simulator could accomplish that. Some kind of reaction test would be good to see if people have fast enough reactions or if the person just freezes up in such a situation.
The association between blood glucose and oxidized lipoprotein(a) in healthy young women
Oxidized lipoproteins play important roles in the atherosclerotic processes. Oxidized lipoprotein(a) (oxLp(a)) may be more potent in atherosclerotic pathophysiology than native Lp(a), a cardiovascular disease-relevant lipoprotein. Increased blood glucose ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Also, back to the actual debate of vaccines and why the previously infected need them. This PBS video popped up in my feed and I watched it. Guess what? At 4 months after vaccination, antibody levels were at the same level as to prior to vaccination. So why do we need to mandate previously infected get fully vaccinated (when the 2nd dose does nothing) and when their antibody levels only get a 3 month boost? Are you gonna mandate a booster then every 3 months? And the proof that firing health care workers over a mandate is going to actually cause less total harm to public health vs just letting them be and continue working providing, you know, healthcare?