Search results

I am aware that there are many. Here it is all Pfizer, so I tend to refer to it as "the vaccine".

1. Yes, I personally know of cases 2. See here: https://www.science.org/news/2020/11/more-people-are-getting-covid-19-twice-suggesting-immunity-wanes-quickly-some

Have you read the article?

1. We don't know that yet. People have gotten infected twice. Do you have statistics? 2. Right now, the vaccine is far far safer than getting infected. Billions have been vaccinated. So you are suggesting "don't take the vaccine, risk your life, because maybe, someday, they may find out some...

It helps the human body fight disease, at far lower risk than actually getting the disease.. What exactly is the problem with that?

No, the same report that you linked to reports both the claim and that most researchers are skeptical. Read the report. Do you have more recent reports, perhaps ones from actual scientific journals? There's something else here: What is supposed to be the mechanism for the virus "weakening"? The...

So this one report, from over a year ago, a report that was met with skepticism by most other people in the field: "These claims are not supported by anything in the scientific literature, and also seem fairly implausible on genetic grounds", is the basis for your reasoned scientific opinion...

Two things have happened: 1. The vaccine's effectiveness has dropped over time. This is being countered by means of a third "booster" vaccination. 2. The Delta variant spreads much faster than earlier variants As I have posted in the past, the plain fact is that you are much less likely to...

Um, how does the virus get "diluted"? What research?

I hope you had the sense to not go to church while you were ill.

Edge browser got it wrong. It can't handle the right-left issue.

back in Reality: Link: https://datadashboard.health.gov.il/COVID-19/general

If all information from standard sources is suspect, anything goes. As it does, apparently. So the Real Thinkers among us have to cherry pick data to fit The Truth. Fine. I'm not playing.

For those who do care about facts: https://www.advisory.com/en/daily-briefing/2021/01/11/asymptomatic-spread https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774707?utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_term=010721

If only we knew who was healthy and who was sick, this would make some sense. But we often don't, as you well know. If you really cared for people or for truth, you wouldn't ignore inconvenient facts like that.

Your analysis of whether I care more or less than you basically boils down to: "My analysis of the pandemic situation and how to handle it is correct, yours is wrong. THEREFORE I care and you don't." This is ridiculous. My analysis (and the common one that most governments follow) leads me to...

This is a variation on B. You've got somebody to blame, but still need to deal with the real pandemic. You claim that the real pandemic isn't so bad, and that governments are overreacting, but it remains real, and being able to blame somebody isn't relevant.

This doesn't make it less nasty

Nah, I've just gotten tired of dealing with the nastiness on this site. I mistakenly thought you were above it.

I know you have convinced yourself that you care more than I, but besides being false, it doesn't add anything concrete to the discussion. I will admit that it is far milder than some of the disgusting slander I've been exposed to here, but it is still annoying and pointless.