Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[Akzle]

Do we get to forcefully quarantine the fuckwits yet?

vote akzle.

i'll build big facilities, where all the fuckwits will be kept. with reticulated air. and they never get to leave. so they can have their supervirii to themselves. i might instigate a programme of hosing them down with bleach just to make sure i breed the sikkest resistant microorganisms.
and they can inject each other with as much shit as they like. (for free, because fuck jews)

[Katman]

Do we get to forcefully quarantine the fuckwits yet?

Which ones? The vaccinated fuckwits or the unvaccinated ones?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/w...accinated.html

Fuckwit.

[Ocean1]

Which ones? The vaccinated fuckwits or the unvaccinated ones?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/w...accinated.html

Fuckwit.

So what? Of course there's diminishing returns, only fuckwits like you hold that as some sort of proof of a conspiracy for BIG PHARMA to make money.

Given that immunisation rates have dropped as a direct result of fuckwits like your main squeeze Wakefield and morons like you then of course you're going to get pandemics, even the most rabid anti-vax fuckwits admit that, and as no vaccine is 100% effective then of course the number who who are vaccinated are also affected.

So yes, the blame falls squarely on the anti-vax fashionista. Trendy wee fuckwits like you and your hairdressing circle of advisors. None of this is secret shit, dude, the biology has been been proven time and again for half a century, the arithmetic continues to prove the efficacy of the science.

Now fuck off and deal with something you have a clue about. You do have a clue about something doncha? Only it's not obvious from your traditional vacuous, recycled bullshit.

[Katman]

Given that immunisation rates have dropped as a direct result of fuckwits like your main squeeze Wakefield and morons like you then of course you're going to get pandemics, even the most rabid anti-fax fuckwits admit that, and as no vaccine is 100% effective then of course the number who who are vaccinated are also affected.

Did you miss this bit?

Dr. Patricia Quinlisk, the medical director and state epidemiologist for the Iowa Department of Public Health, dealt with an outbreak at the University of Iowa and surrounding area in 2015 to 2016 of more than 450 cases of mumps. The students involved had all had their childhood M.M.R. shots, she said, as required by the university, and the decision was made to hold a series of clinics offering a third dose of vaccine.

That goes way beyond "not 100% effective".

In fact, it's a 100% abject failure.

[RDJ]

Did you miss this bit?

That goes way beyond "not 100% effective".

In fact, it's a 100% abject failure.

You have, again, beclowned yourself.

You could go to the source (a published paper by Dr Q and 2 others) for the science - but it wouldn't fit your narrative.

METHODS
Of 20,496 university students who were enrolled during the 2015–2016 academic year, mumps was diagnosed in 259 students. We used Fisher’s exact test to compare unadjusted attack rates according to dose status and years since receipt of the second MMR vaccine dose. We used multivariable time-dependent Cox regression models to evaluate vaccine effectiveness, according to dose status (three vs. two doses and two vs. no doses) after adjustment for the number of years since the second dose.
RESULTS
Before the outbreak, 98.1% of the students had received at least two doses of MMR vaccine. During the outbreak, 4783 received a third dose. The attack rate was lower among the students who had received three doses than among those who had received two doses (6.7 vs. 14.5 cases per 1000 population, P<0.001). Students had more than nine times the risk of mumps if they had received the second MMR dose 13 years or more before the outbreak. At 28 days after vaccination, receipt of the third vaccine dose was associated with a 78.1% lower risk of mumps than receipt of a second dose (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.12 to 0.39). The vaccine effectiveness of two doses versus no doses was lower among students with more distant receipt of the second vaccine dose.
CONCLUSIONS
Students who had received a third dose of MMR vaccine had a lower risk of mumps than did those who had received two doses, after adjustment for the number of years since the second dose. Students who had received a second dose of MMR vaccine 13 years or more before the outbreak had an increased risk of mumps. These findings suggest that the campaign to administer a third dose of MMR vaccine improved mumps outbreak control and that waning immunity probably contributed to propagation of the outbreak. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)

Does 'waning immunity' ring a bell in your belfry?

[TheDemonLord]

Does 'waning immunity' ring a bell in your belfry?

I think the Bell has long since crumbled to Dust...

[Katman]

Does 'waning immunity' ring a bell in your belfry?

Yeah, it's what you get if you don't gain a lifetime immunity from the disease itself.

[Ocean1]

Yeah, it's what you get if you don't gain a lifetime immunity from the disease itself.

Dude, you've got this perpetual hole going where you continuously recycle the same shit.

You wrung the last dregs of conspiracy nutrition out of it all years ago, for the love of god stop digging.

[mashman]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/986...es-in-auckland

"Herman said people between the ages of 10 and 29 represented a lost generation to MMR vaccinations and was the likely reason behind the outbreak this year.

A generation born in 1988 reached the age where they would be eligible for their second MMR vaccination at age 11 in 1999, one year after a study published in British Medical Journal The Lancet falsely linked the vaccination to autism."

Do we get to forcefully quarantine the fuckwits yet?

There's entirely too much of this "Do we get to forcefully quarantine the fuckwits yet?" shit going on. Stop it.

Allow me to introduce the Rational Anarchist:

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me.
If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them.

I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible For everything I do."

- Robert A. Heinlein

... mob rule only when it suits eh. Someone's a sanctimonious hypocrite.

[Katman]

Perfect!

[Ocean1]

There's entirely too much of this "Do we get to forcefully quarantine the fuckwits yet?" shit going on. Stop it.

Allow me to introduce the Rational Anarchist:

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me.
If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them.

I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible For everything I do."

- Robert A. Heinlein

... mob rule only when it suits eh. Someone's a sanctimonious hypocrite.

That'd be you in the mirror, there.

And unlike you I don't require a mob to validate my behavior. Which is perfectly simple: Anti vax fuckwits are perfectly free to do whatever they like, but when their behaviour threatens the safety of me and mine I am also free to kill them for it. That's the foundation of personal responsibility, right there.

I suspect that when the first of the inevitable pandemics with widespread fatalities arrive, however most of the rest of us will suddenly find that they're rational anarchists at heart also.

[mashman]

That'd be you in the mirror, there.

And unlike you I don't require a mob to validate my behavior. Which is perfectly simple: when Anti vax fuckwits threaten the safety of me and mine I will kill them.

I suspect that when the first of the inevitable pandemics with widespread fatalities arrive, however most of the rest of us will do exactly the same.

Then you're not a Rational Anarchist. You're a fascist. Every 10 seconds a child dies of hunger. Hunger, as it turns out is the biggest killer on the planet, still. Yet you support a system that makes money scarce enough for that to happen and your religion allows you to accept that. If you were as honourable as you claim, then you'd have to be ok with a parent coming to kill you for letting their child die of something that is 100% avoidable.

You suspect what when a pandemic arrives? Actually, don't answer that. I suspect that when the next decent pandemic arrives, all of our vaccinations will mean diddly squat. Madagascar plague outbreak: WHO helps countries prepare for further spread after death toll rises to 124.

[Katman]

......but when their behaviour threatens the safety of me and mine I am also free to kill them for it.

What an irrational fuckwit you are.

[Ocean1]

Then you're not a Rational Anarchist. You're a fascist. Every 10 seconds a child dies of hunger. Hunger, as it turns out is the biggest killer on the planet, still. Yet you support a system that makes money scarce enough for that to happen and your religion allows you to accept that. If you were as honourable as you claim, then you'd have to be ok with a parent coming to kill you for letting their child die of something that is 100% avoidable.

You suspect what when a pandemic arrives? Actually, don't answer that. I suspect that when the next decent pandemic arrives, all of our vaccinations will mean diddly squat. Madagascar plague outbreak: WHO helps countries prepare for further spread after death toll rises to 124.

My children aren't dying of hunger.

Anarchists don't have "systems"

I'm not in any position to "let" someone else's child die of hunger, that would be the parents.

And your "suspicions" are worth about as much as your drivel about most things, dude: sweet fuck all.

[Ocean1]

What an irrational fuckwit you are.

Dude, anyone with your capacity to believe six mutually impossible things before breakfast doesn't have the rational wherewithal to be evaluating the intellectual capacity of anyone.