Why are highly educated and trained professionals refusing to vaccinate?

[pacomascarot]

So, how many people have you killed with respiratory viruses over the years?

I don't know. I hope it's zero. But if experts on the topic tell me that wearing a mask is what I should do I will do it. Because if I'm wrong I will possibly have harmed someone.

Now that you know and understand your social responsibility to keep your respiratory viruses to yourself, will you ever remove your mask?

What is so hard for you to understand about sin and knowledge of good and evil?

 

[pacomascarot]

Red font. Bold letters. Must be serious.

It is.

You don't understand science (obviously) or you wouldn't assume that from an article you know the perfected truth.

This is also a once in a century pandemic that has so far killed 700,000 Americans.

Fair enough. Just don't mandate that everyone does it.

You don't understand how pandemics are dealt with.

With respect, you have no idea what I do to help people.

By your fruit I know you. I know you very well now.

I see the rotting fruit on offer and I know the tree.

I make my sacrifices in private, to actually help people.

I doubt that. Sorry. By your fruit I know you.

 

[Brihaha]

People will never take you seriously if all you do is mock, you know. After a bit they'll just ignore you.

That is why I acknowledged the significance of your post about saying what you mean and meaning what you say. It had value. Peace

 

[probinson]

By your fruit I know you. I know you very well now.

I see the rotting fruit on offer and I know the tree.

I doubt that. Sorry. By your fruit I know you.

LOL.

You've talked to me. Online. For one day. On one topic. And you think you "know" me by my "fruit" that you haven't even seen.

Alrighty then.

 

[pacomascarot]

LOL.

You've talked to me. Online. For one day. On one topic. And you think you "know" me by my "fruit" that you haven't even seen.

Alrighty then.

Let's just say I know a LOT about you. I understand your relationship to your faith and I understand your level of scientific training. I know you profess yourself wise.

I see you are "an haughty spirit" and we all know what that leads to, don't we?

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

LOL.

You've talked to me. Online. For one day. On one topic. And you think you "know" me by my "fruit" that you haven't even seen.

Alrighty then.

We truly live in the age of the Instant Expert.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Let's just say I know a LOT about you. I understand your relationship to your faith and I understand your level of scientific training. I know you profess yourself wise.

I see you are "an haughty spirit" and we all know what that leads to, don't we?

Reread that first line, please.

"I know a LOT"..."I understand"..."I know"

Now read the second for a diagnosis (courtesy of yourself).

 

[probinson]

Let's just say I know a LOT about you.

I understand your relationship to your faith and I understand your level of scientific training. I know you profess yourself wise.

I see you are "an haughty spirit" and we all know what that leads to, don't we?

It's telling that after just a few dozen posts on an online forum you think you are qualified to pass judgment on me.

In my estimation, argumentum ad hominem is the only thing you can do well, because here we are, again, focusing on me and my character instead of actually addressing anything I've posted.

By the way, since you seem to think you understand matters of Christianity and faith, you should educate yourself on who the accuser is.

 

[essentialsaltes]

the fact that you're making up these sorts of scenarios in your head when people close to your mindset are taking horse medication and drinking clorox makes it funnier.

I don't know about Clorox but ivermectin is approved for human use in some countries. Yes some people go overboard with it.

I have no idea why people refer to Ivermectin as "horse medication".

mala's statement was entirely correct. Sure ivermectin is approved for people as an antiparasitic, but the point is that many people were taking animal formulations of it, despite appropriate warnings put up in feedstores.

 

[probinson]

Sure ivermectin is approved for people as an antiparasitic, but the point is that many people were taking animal formulations of it, despite appropriate warnings put up in feedstores.

Many.

How many?

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Sure ivermectin is approved for people as an antiparasitic, but the point is that many people were taking animal formulations of it, despite appropriate warnings put up in feedstores.

I believe all that was overblown. Preppers have long suggested freely acquired animal antibiotics as a backup alternative to restrictive human prescriptions. Ivermectin paste seems to be on this plane as well. I doubt there has been any mass use of the dread "Y'all Ain't Horses" Dewormer.

Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine and etc. are already available under an EUA, though not "recommended" by the FDA (a little research explains why this is meaningless as to its actual efficacy). One only needs a sympathetic doctor to prescribe them.

 

[pacomascarot]

It's telling that after just a few dozen posts on an online forum you think you are qualified to pass judgment on me.

As I said, I know you by the fruit you bear.

In my estimation, argumentum ad hominem is the only thing you can do well,

That's because you have no clue what an argumentum ad hominem is. You think it is someone insulting you but that isn't it. An argumentum ad hominem is to make the point that I don't need to listen to you because of your personality rather than the points you raise. I have been rather clear that you have raised points which you say support your position and I've raised points which support my position. The fact that you can't understand the argument is not my problem.

I am merely saying that given that NEITHER of us is suited to make value judgements on the actual science that the person who takes the more conservative approach of doing something that may help is making the rational decision while the person who says they won't do anything (and helping to propagate information that may harm others) is not making a rational choice.

because here we are, again, focusing on me and my character instead of actually addressing anything I've posted.

I have addressed your points. The largest being that YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SUFFICIENT TO ADVISE PEOPLE TO TAKE RISKS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND.

Of course it is becoming about you and the type of person you are: an actual potential DANGER to others.

Sorry but that's what you are. You are passing off stuff that you can't actually vet and trying to give people permission to follow your lazy approach of not even giving a care about possibly hurting others.

And you are witnessing for your faith with each post.

By the way, since you seem to think you understand matters of Christianity and faith, you should educate yourself on who the accuser is.

I know you by the fruit you bear and the stumbling blocks you are placing in front of others.

 

[pacomascarot]

Reread that first line, please.

"I know a LOT"..."I understand"..."I know"

Now read the second for a diagnosis (courtesy of yourself).

I know the poster by the fruit they bear. Is this not something I am to be wary of? Must I accept rotten fruit?

 

[rambot]

We truly live in the age of the Instant Expert.

Absolutely we do. Look at all the epidemiologists, statisticians, immunologists that took the time to "research for themselves" and are now dying or dead because they don't know how to differentiate good research from bad.
Or they're not dying or dead, but just posting here! Sooooo many people saying it's unsafe or ineffectual; and that's just incorrect.

 

[hislegacy]

Whatever you need to tell yourself to make yourself feel better about yourself! Are you a trained medical professional/researcher? I bet you aren't.

Are you?

 

[rambot]

Fared. This makes it sound as if the delta variant is over. It's not. And the states that were doing well just a few weeks ago are experiencing larger outbreaks now.

And then there's this;

At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days (Fig. 1). In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people.

Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States - European Journal of Epidemiology​

But this is kind of a useless comparison. There are fewer VACCINATED people getting sick compared to unvaccinated. At a societal level why would you see a positive correlation between the WHOLE POPULATION and COVID vaccinations?

If you have 80,000,000 people and 50,000,000 are vaccinated, that still leaves a HUGE pool of individuals who are succeptable to getting ill. Not only that but if those same individuals have a propensity to ignore all other safety suggestions (6ft, hand washing and masks) well, you'll see a high rate of transmission in those populations.

The above study is being misapplied as if to infer that COVID vaccines are NOT helping but that's false. It's helping VACCINATED people. It's NOT helping unvaccinated people who are getting sick at high rates.

 

[rambot]

Cat poop smeared inside the mask, gives total protection against the virus! Yep some people would do it.

If the President stood in front of a podium and said that, I wouldn't be too surprised if someone did it. SOME people managed to even drink bleach after he suggested it.

But I don't listen to politicians; I'll listen to doctors thank you.

 

[pacomascarot]

Are you?

You should read more thoroughly lest you end up looking like you aren't really following the conversation.

I am not a trained medical expert which is why I take the conservative and rational approach that is wearing a mask.

There's a lot of data from well-trained professionals who say wearing a mask is effective. If another person who is not a trained medical professional also finds data that says something different the only RATIONAL approach is to wear a mask. If there is ANY doubt then the more conservative approach is what is called for.

And wearing a mask is hardly a sacrifice or a problem. BEING WRONG about the efficacy of masks only makes a difference if one thinks wearing a mask in unnecessary and they turn out to be wrong. At that point they become complicit in harming others.

I'm really concerned that some of you can't follow this simple approach. I assume your lives are a complete mess if you don't utilize rational thought when weighing risks and rewards.

 

[pacomascarot]

Absolutely we do. Look at all the epidemiologists, statisticians, immunologists that took the time to "research for themselves" and are now dying or dead because they don't know how to differentiate good research from bad.
Or they're not dying or dead, but just posting here! Sooooo many people saying it's unsafe or ineffectual; and that's just incorrect.

This is the part that worries me. Even if the other posters truly and honestly think that masks are ineffective, the very FACT that there are MANY highly trained experts in this field who say that masks ARE effective should be enough for them to say "Just to be safe I'll wear a mask and recommend others do it too!"

The worst that can happen if masks turn out to not be effective is mild inconvenience.

But if someone says masks should not be worn and they are wrong then I fear for their soul. What would it feel like to wake up one day and realize your vocal error led others to perdition, pain, suffering, illness and possibly death?

Guilt is a horrible thing for those who are capable of feeling it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Many.

How many?

Enough for feedstores to run out of product in Jacksonville, Las Vegas, Stanislaus County...

Even the distributors were out of product.

Some of those stories mention huge increases in calls to Poison Control for ivermectin.