This is one of your major problems, you make it all about the people and seek to pass the blame or pass insults. You are to blame for your own ignorance, your comments are related to the outbreak referenced; why the fuck would you only want to limit the discussion about it as it is described on some MSM blog? The article spoke's posted was clearly dated mid march this year, and the first 5 words provided the source you could go for more information.
"A shark on whiskey is mighty risky, but a shark on beer is a beer engineer" - Tad Ghostal
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
That's one of the issues. There are a number of measures of vaccine effectiveness, and how well you are protected against the disease in the wild isn't of them. The reasons for that should be fairly obvious.
It's also worth noting that people are not generally regarded as fully vaccinated unless there is documented proof. So some of those classified as unvaccinated may have had all of the shots, but have no evidence.
People are also classified as unvaccinated if they didn't have all of the shots. That's not right, as a percentage of those will be fully vaccinated.
So when they say that 20% were vaccinated, the real number is likely to be significantly higher.
Sent from my SM-G9208 using Tapatalk
"A shark on whiskey is mighty risky, but a shark on beer is a beer engineer" - Tad Ghostal
Well, if you think that's "baseless conjecture", then you're not that well informed.
Most people think vaccination is 100% effective. They might be disappointed to find there is a chance they don't have immunity if there is an outbreak.
Don't know if you saw the interview on TV with Dr Julia Peters from Auckland Public Health, but she more or less said that adults who'd had mumps as a child had full immunity but adults who'd had the vaccine as a child should consider a "booster".
I'll piss off now. I'm definitely not against vaccination, but I think we're all over the "trust us, we know what we're doing" BS.
Sent from my SM-G9208 using Tapatalk
I think it baseless conjecture because while the conjecture may be logical in some situations, there is no basis showing that it applies in this case.
Obviously I agree that they are not 100% effective, but we're clearly not over the 'trust us, we know what we're doing' BS, just look at the anti-vaccer's arguments; absolute garbage but people trust them anyway.
"A shark on whiskey is mighty risky, but a shark on beer is a beer engineer" - Tad Ghostal
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks