Why I won’t be getting the COVID vaccine (Page 6): The source seems suspect to me.

NewGuy

The source seems suspect to me.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

SteveHmeyer wrote:

Information is poorly sourced br br Many points t... (show quote)

clint f. Loc: Priest Lake Idaho, Spokane Wa

Pablo8 wrote:

If you lived in the UK, my argument would be that you would probably expect free treatment from our NHS staff, should you have developed the Virus. However the health service in the US is different.

Here in the US you use available information find a location, make an appointment and get your vaccine, make an appointment for the next one and return for the second injection. They give a card with the pertinent information. The locations are in Dr. offices, pharmacy, even grocery. Ours was at an office suite donated by the landlord. No cost associated. All paid for by the government. Doesn’t sound much different from the UK except for the many thousands of locations for getting jabbed.

Ollieboy

If you don't want it, don't get it. Why must you try to convince anyone to not get it? Move on with your life.

Fredrick Loc: Former NYC, now San Francisco Bay Area

andesbill wrote:

If you’re a Democrat as I am, I want you to get the vaccine. If you’re not, I don’t care.
I hope you encourage your like-minded young friends and family members who are of child bearing age, to follow your example.
Think of it as a liberal conspiracy to reduce the population of conspiratorially minded conservatives. Especially those who follow Q Anon.

😁

Hallelujah!

srt101fan

RustyM wrote:

The heads of CDC and NIH did not say that. Here are the facts: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/scicheck-posts-distort-testimony-of-federal-health-officials-on-employee-vaccinations/.

Thank you for posting this!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

David NW wrote:

This B*S* would not be allowed elsewhere. Why here? It is 99.9% rehashed and distorted information that was long ago debunked. The problem with publishing here is that there are people who are not able to parse the truth or even willing to try to do so. I would love to read his argument on not wearing seatbelts 😵‍💫😵‍💫

I remember arguments against seat belts before they became standard. The most ridiculous one was that it would encourage people to drive recklessly because they couldn't be injured in a crash.

I'm surprised this thread is still in Chit-Chat.

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

RustyM wrote:

The heads of CDC and NIH did not say that. Here are the facts: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/scicheck-posts-distort-testimony-of-federal-health-officials-on-employee-vaccinations/.

I listened to the original hearing and just reviewed the official transcript. When asked by Senator Burr how many of your employees have been vaccinated Fauci replied, “I’m not sure, Senator, but I think it’s a little more than half, probably around 60%.” Dr. Marks replied, “I can’t tell you the exact number but probably in the same range”. Wallensky answered, “...as you understand the Federal Government is not requiring it (reporting) so we do not know”. So when I said 50% there is no way I could know exactly but Fauci who has been changing the narrative and fudging facts to suit his narrative said a little more than half, probably around 60%. His words (2:26:13 in the official transcript)not mine. Those are the facts. Now speaking of facts I would love to know the factual basis for stating how many physicians (96%)have been vaccinated before that “mike drop” assertion (as aspac1 asserted).

RustyM

Effate wrote:

I listened to the original hearing and just review... (show quote)

The main point is that those heads of federal scientific agencies did NOT say that half of their employees refused, or even chose, not to be vaccinated. Spreading the false information that they did, will cause some people to pass on getting vaccinated.

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

RustyM wrote:

The main point is that those heads of federal scientific agencies did NOT say that half of their employees refused, or even chose, not to be vaccinated. Spreading the false information that they did, will cause some people to pass on getting vaccinated.

I never cited a reason for the response or lack there of to the vaccine. Just clarifying that I know what I saw and heard from their mouths not through the filter of punditry or even fact checkers who demonstrate bias.

srt101fan

Effate wrote:

I listened to the original hearing and just review... (show quote)

Incredible how you twisted that around!

In your first post you said "According to testimony to Congress from head of the CDC and NIH 50% of their employees chose not to be vaccinated". To support your claim you quote testimony that doesn't say that at all!!

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

srt101fan wrote:

Incredible how you twisted that around!

In your first post you said "According to testimony to Congress from head of the CDC and NIH 50% of their employees chose not to be vaccinated". To support your claim you quote testimony that doesn't say that at all!!

If you do not get vaccinated when the vaccine is widely available is that not a choice? Again I don’t draw any conclusions for that choice. Personally, I chose to get vaccinated and assume any long term risk for the short term benefit.

btbg

Kmgw9v wrote:

To what do you attribute the decreased rate of infections in the U.S.in the last six months?

I would attribute it to two things. One changes in humidity, and two, fewer people wearing masks. The link below is to an article that cites and links to previous studies on the efficacy of masks, and points out that the masks not only don't work, but may well become a source of infection.

In addition the article talks at length about how seasonal spikes in flu and other upper respiratory infections can largely be accounted for by humidity levels, which are seasonal.

https://thewallwillfall.org/2020/06/23/masks-dont-work-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covid-19-social-policy/

RustyM

Effate wrote:

I never cited a reason for the response or lack there of to the vaccine. Just clarifying that I know what I saw and heard from their mouths not through the filter of punditry or even fact checkers who demonstrate bias.

You said that the half the employees “chose” not to get vaccinated, which undoubtedly will cause some people to conclude that they had qualms about the vaccines, when all the agency heads (two of the three) did was estimate how many of their employees had gotten it (60%). They also said that the number could be higher, because employees were not required to report whether they had been vaccinated. Also, this was in May; these number could be higher now. For many reasons, saying 50% of the employees chose not to be vaccinated misrepresented the testimony.

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

cwp3420 wrote:

Very good article. If you disagree with his opinions, I look forward to your reasons why. This one’s for you, brother Soba.

https://www.afinalwarning.com/511361.html

Welcome to your new world

Good luck