Noam Chomsky says the "right response" to The Unvaccinated is "to insist that they be isolated

[Brian4Liberty]

If you accept that:
1) the vaccine provides at least a small amount of immunity, and
2) people with immunity are less likely to be spreaders

Then it follows that vaccinating everybody would indeed reduce the number of people speading covid, and reduce covid overall.

Am I the only person in this thread, that understands that they have a legitimate argument here?

There are of course numerous & bountiful reasons to not take the vaccine, but the lack of a coherent argument is not one of them...

That is their argument, although it is simplistic and based upon assumptions that have been proven wrong in the past. How much immunity comes from a specific vaccine is based upon which variant of the virus it targets. These vaccines are obsolete at this point. A “small amount of immunity” does not create herd immunity or block the spread.

As for people with immunity being less likely to spread a disease, that is not a given at all. As a matter of fact, it is sometimes the opposite. You can have an immune person spreading a disease like crazy. When they came out with the new Pertussis vaccine, it turned out that the vaccinated spread the disease twice as long as the unvaccinated. The vaccinated were asymptomatically contagious for 2 weeks, while the unvaccinated were only contagious for 1 week. Immunity does not mean less contagious. Ask Typhoid Mary.

[acptulsa]

That's quite possibly, the dumbest thing I have heard from you in quite a while. Well done, sir.

Yes, that's the usual response from the propagandized. Those versed in actual science (as opposed to The Science®) react differently.

[TheTexan]

Yes, that's the usual response from the propagandized. Those versed in actual science (as opposed to The Science®) react differently.

"Actual science" according to you, is that immunity is absolute, and you are either 100% immune from a disease or you are not immune at all

Where did you get you your medical degree lol they need to revoke it

[oyarde]

The Great Oyarde is immune .

[acptulsa]

"Actual science" according to you, is that immunity is absolute, and you are either 100% immune from a disease or you are not immune at all

Where did you get you your medical degree lol they need to revoke it

Either your immune system knows exactly how to defeat a disease or it has to figure it out.

Where do you imagine you see a gray area?

[TheTexan]

That is their argument, although it is simplistic and based upon assumptions that have been proven wrong in the past. How much immunity comes from a specific vaccine is based upon which variant of the virus it targets. These vaccines are obsolete at this point. A “small amount of immunity” does not create herd immunity or block the spread.

As for people with immunity being less likely to spread a disease, that is not a given at all. As a matter of fact, it is sometimes the opposite. You can have an immune person spreading a disease like crazy. When they came out with the new Pertussis vaccine, it turned out that the vaccinated spread the disease twice as long as the unvaccinated. The vaccinated were asymptomatically contagious for 2 weeks, while the unvaccinated were only contagious for 1 week. Immunity does not mean less contagious. Ask Typhoid Mary.

Valid points. I don't know that we necessarily have enough evidence to declare the vaccines "obsolete" but I generally agree.

My general point is/was - there are valid points on both sides. The Left isn't completely without reason for wanting everyone to get vaccinated.

I just think it's important to recognize that the Left is morally vacant - not stupid*. There is a big difference between the two.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

(*at least, not stupider than average, all else being equal)

[TheTexan]

Either your immune system knows exactly how to defeat a disease or it has to figure it out.

Where do you imagine you see a gray area?

Your immune system will always have to figure it out. Partly because it forgets over time, and partly because the viruses mutate over time. Plus probably 800 other factors that we do not yet understand because there remains a great deal unknown about how the human body works.

[ClaytonB]

[acptulsa]

Your immune system will always have to figure it out.

No, but thanks for playing. If it just fought the thing off, there's no guess work at all.

Partly because it forgets over time...

Which is called losing immunity.

...and partly because the viruses mutate over time.

Which creates a different disease. No one said immunity to one creates immunity to all.

[TheTexan]

No, but thanks for playing. If it just fought the thing off, there's no guess work at all.



Which is called losing immunity.



Which creates a different disease. No one said immunity to one creates immunity to all.

You're either trolling or extremely dumb, either way I give up.

[acptulsa]

You're either trolling or extremely dumb, either way I give up.

It's the propagandists who trolled you, by using terms used by scientists, but misdefining them.

Liberals love to do that, because even too many conservatives lap it right up.

[TheTexan]

It's the propagandists who trolled you, by using terms used by scientists, but misdefining them.

Liberals love to do that, because even too many conservatives lap it right up.

Uh huh. You're basically saying 1=2 and calling it science

[acptulsa]

Uh huh. You're basically saying 1=2 and calling it science

There is no two in immunity. There is no scale of one to ten. There is no eleven. There are no fractions. One, you have it, or zero, you don't.

If you want to talk about fascism, don't call it free enterprise. Don't call riots mostly peaceful protests, and don't call mostly peaceful protests insurrections. And if you want to talk about resistance, don't call it immunity. If you aren't an ignorant, pompous liberal, why sound like one?

[A Son of Liberty]

Well, the general idea is that the vax reduces your chances of getting covid, doesn't eliminate it entirely. So, if there's more spreaders (e.g., the unvax'd), there is more chances of getting covid (vax'd or not).

But the vax'd are spreaders, too.

Again, if one is unvax'd and contagious and gives it to a vax'd person, how is that somehow worse than if a vax'd person spreads it to that same vax'd person?

LOL the cloth mask thing makes 0 sense to me. May need you to explain that to me.

I can vaguely understand the idea that if someone is out and about in public and huffing-puffing and/or sneezing and coughing, that the mask may intercept SOME droplets carrying the Bug. I didn't say I agreed with it - if I saw someone out and about clearly sick, I'm giving them a wide berth, COVID or not. But as I said I can at least pull a thread of logic out of it. This idea that the unvax'd are a threat to the vax'd makes ZERO sense to me.

[A Son of Liberty]

How are these two topics in any way different?
Both involve engaging in mere theatrics that have no discernible effect on the issue at hand.
Both have pretty serious counterarguments that are simply disregarded.
Both are sociological experiments in identity politics.
Both are, at this point, pretty much totally falsified.

The only substantive difference between the two is that they've raised the stakes with the vax. Before it was just an incredibly disgusting (and formerly very illegal) inconvenience, and now they're injecting multiple rounds of experimental crap into you.

They're openly talking about the Great Reset and now even referring to "the before time" like it's literally Mad Max level post-apocalypse at this point. We're totally at Brawndo right now. I mean just look at how they're blaming everything under the sun for the disastrous economy right now EXCEPT the vax mandates.

I think it's abundantly clear they think you're stupid enough to believe this without even a coherent argument.

This is most likely the simplest and most frightening explanation. I can't believe we're here.

[A Son of Liberty]

Assuming the vaccine works at all, it seems to be a coherent argument.

Greater average immunity = less spreaders = less chance of murdering Colin Powell

This argument for the vax of course becomes less and less viable, as more people gain immunity the natural way, but still - the logic is there, is it not?

Well, no... because the vax'd can both spread the Bug and GET the Bug.

What we're told is that the vax provides a less virulent infection, and basically at this stage of the game, that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

So - AGAIN - what's the harm in a vax'd person being around an unvax'd person?

[Anti Federalist]

"Your Terms Are Acceptable"

[ClaytonB]

I posted this in the other doomsday-vax thread, but looks like it needs to be posted here, too:

According to this table from the Mayo Clinic (grabbed today):



... nearly 100% of the major risk groups have received the first vaccine dose. So, the entire narrative that "we have to maintain economy-busting epidemic-control policies because otherwise the doomsday-virus would swamp the capacity of hospitals" is busted. Not to mention that we've had 18 months to put into place additional medical flex-infrastructure in the event of an outbreak (perhaps of something completely other than the doomsday-virus). If you're 18-50 and you want to run the risk of coming down with it, that's your choice. Yes, that presents some very tiny, yet real, additional risk to others. But you present a vastly greater additional risk to others (thousands of times greater) every time you get behind the wheel, regardless of whether you're insured (insurance does not and cannot reduce the risk you pose to others when behind the wheel).

In short, the entire doomsday-virus narrative is completely busted, and has been completely busted from the moment the first provisionally-approved dose of vaccine rolled out of the lab. It was always political theater but now it's transparently political theater. Throughout this entire "epidemic" the infection rates in Democrat-controlled states was higher than in Republican-controlled states, just go back and look at the historical infection-rate maps, they look pretty much the same as the US political map for any recent Presidential election. I haven't done a county-by-county comparison, but it might be even more enlightening in this regard.

If I need to take the vaccine for some legitimate reason, I'll take it. But otherwise, no, I don't trust the same bungling morons that have screwed up on every possible dimension that you can screw up, and yet somehow keep managing to pass themselves off as "the experts in the room". I won't voluntarily become a lab-rat.

Remember, folks: THE ARGUMENT FOR LOCKDOWNS AND OTHER TYRANNICAL, ECONOMY-DESTROYING POLICIES WAS NEVER EPIDEMIOLOGICAL. It was based on this idea that hospitals have a "fixed capacity" which, if exceeded, would result in mass deaths. This, combined with the highly contagious nature of the Chinavirus and the fact that it is as deadly or nearly as deadly as the seasonal flu, meant that it could act like an "overnight flu" where basically the entire country comes down sick all at once and everyone who would need hospitalization will show up to the hospital all at once.

Now that almost 100% of risk groups have been vaccinated, even if they were all simultaneously exposed overnight to the doomsday-virus, it would not cause the hypothetical swamping of the hospitals which was the original rationale given for all of this theater. Everything else is just details. The "epidemiology" -- or even the existence! -- of this doomsday-virus is completely irrelevant! They flat don't matter at all!

[RJB]

The one thing I used to admire about the communist/socialists was their supposed resistance to corporatism and corporate influence, but hell, they have been by far the most gullible. People with fricken Che pictures all over are the most militant for Pfizer's hour long commercial breaks disguised as "news."

I want to grab some of them by the collars and say, "Look! Dumb ass! That same news channel that was bought off by the military industrial complex and told America that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and led us into endless wars... That's the exact same news channel bought off by the pharma industrial complex scaring you about covid and endless booster shots, closing down main street, and all that other crap that's hurting the working class!"

[TheTexan]

Well, no... because the vax'd can both spread the Bug and GET the Bug.

What we're told is that the vax provides a less virulent infection, and basically at this stage of the game, that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

So - AGAIN - what's the harm in a vax'd person being around an unvax'd person?

It's just a question of probabilities. Vax'd people can spread the bug, and they can catch the bug, just as can anyone else. But how likely compared to the population of people without antibodies?

Given what we know about the immune system in general, people with antibodies (vax'd or otherwise) should catch the bug less, have a less severe infection when they do, and transmit the bug less.

Do the current statistics contradict that? I don't know, maybe. I'm not a doctor. More importantly I don't care. But it's not unreasonable to expect that the general rules of diseases and immune systems still apply, meaning that people with antibodies should be less likely to spread the disease.

I do know however that statistics can be re-arranged to fit whatever thesis you want it to fit, and without actually digging into the raw data yourself, none of the statistics should be trusted. I have neither the time nor the inclination for that...

[TheTexan]

But the vax'd are spreaders, too.

Again, if one is unvax'd and contagious and gives it to a vax'd person, how is that somehow worse than if a vax'd person spreads it to that same vax'd person?

I think you're overthinking this.

If we assume your purpose is to avoid Covid, would you rather live in a house with 5 people with antibodies, or 5 people that do not? (all else being equal)

[fisharmor]

Assuming the vaccine works at all, it seems to be a coherent argument.

Greater average immunity = less spreaders = less chance of murdering Colin Powell

This argument for the vax of course becomes less and less viable, as more people gain immunity the natural way, but still - the logic is there, is it not?

Unless of course you're in the "vaccine does not work at all" camp at which point I would humbly retire from this line of debate, as I have no horse in that race. (I don't know, and I don't care, if the vaccine works)

Ok. Time to define terms.
According to what you wrote "The Earth is flat and you therefore shouldn't sail across that seemingly endless stretch of water" is a coherent argument.
The main problem is that in formal logic, the premisesdon't have to be true in order for the argument to be valid, but the premises do have to be true for the argument to be sound. And if it isn't sound, it can't be a logical conclusion.
Coherency isn't something that shows up in deductive logic. I get that we're trying to get inside the heads of people who have never heard of any of this, so you have a point.

There is a reason why CRT is blowing up at the same time. The CRT folks have openly admitted that they have no intention of ever debating with anyone. They say it's because all this formal logic stuff is another symptom of white supremacy but the real reason is because they'd get destroyed and they know it - and they also know, very well, that they can win without valid, sound, or conclusive arguments.

It's also no accident that the Venn diagram of people who are balls deep into experimental vaccines and people who at least tolerate if not support CRT is pretty much a single circle. The CRT people are pretty open about the fact that their worldview is one of exercise of power. Truth isn't part of their equation. Therefore argumentation isn't part of their equation either.

They're broadcasting news in front of burning buildings with a crawl that says "mostly peaceful protest". They're openly mocking the whole concept of truth.

Whether or not the vaccine works isn't just a dealbreaking part of whether the argument is sound. When you don't care whether that part of their argument is true, you're capitulating to their framing of the argument.

If it's not an argument by the formal definition of an argument then it's not an argument. The end. It's been 13 years since Ron's first run when we all got front row seats to the idea that there is no reason to change the rules unless you think you can't win with the rules as they are. So $#@! 'em. They don't get to change the rules.

[TheTexan]

There is no two in immunity. There is no scale of one to ten. There is no eleven. There are no fractions. One, you have it, or zero, you don't.

Biology isn't a binary system. It's more like analog.

There are no two Covid's that are exactly the same. By your definition, every single case of Covid, should be considered a completely different disease.

I'm saying this for your own edification, though I doubt it will be received.

[A Son of Liberty]

It's just a question of probabilities. Vax'd people can spread the bug, and they can catch the bug, just as can anyone else. But how likely compared to the population of people without antibodies?

I know we're on the same side of this, so don't mistake me for arguing with you... maybe I'm just being dense here, but this doesn't get to the question I'm asking - How are vax'd people at risk from unvax'd people? Simple as that. AGAIN, the vax'd can get AND spread the Bug; thus they're transmission vectors just like the unvax'd. Theoretically, they're (the vax'd) less likely to experience severe symptoms than the unvax'd... Do the unvax'd somehow spread a more virulent strain of the Bug? Otherwise, the notion that "the unvax'd pose a threat to the vax'd" makes ZERO logical sense.

I do know however that statistics can be re-arranged to fit whatever thesis you want it to fit, and without actually digging into the raw data yourself, none of the statistics should be trusted. I have neither the time nor the inclination for that...

Agreed. But as I stated initially, usually I can parse out a thread of logic within their broader rhetoric. But in this case, I can find none. It's entirely incoherent, and I think what it actually comes down to is what @fisharmor stated - that they just think we're that stupid at this point.

[acptulsa]

Biology isn't a binary system.

Immunity is not the same thing as biology.

You're basically saying, electricity can be produced in a huge range of voltages, so a lamp can't have a simple SPST switch on it.

A Spark and a Silverado may both be Chevrolets, but I guarantee I can cut a garage door that will make the garage immune from the Silverado, but not the Spark.

Read what fisharmor wrote. You don't show how wrong these people are by dumbing your own self down to their moronic level.

Edify yourself. Or keep making an ass of yourself, as you please.

It's entirely incoherent, and I think what it actually comes down to is what @fisharmor stated - that they just think we're that stupid at this point.

And they seem to be targeting the stupid. Is the vaccine designed to save the obedient, or target the stupid and arrogant?

[TheTexan]

Ok. Time to define terms.
According to what you wrote "The Earth is flat and you therefore shouldn't sail across that seemingly endless stretch of water" is a coherent argument.
The main problem is that in formal logic, the premisesdon't have to be true in order for the argument to be valid, but the premises do have to be true for the argument to be sound. And if it isn't sound, it can't be a logical conclusion.
Coherency isn't something that shows up in deductive logic. I get that we're trying to get inside the heads of people who have never heard of any of this, so you have a point.

There is a reason why CRT is blowing up at the same time. The CRT folks have openly admitted that they have no intention of ever debating with anyone. They say it's because all this formal logic stuff is another symptom of white supremacy but the real reason is because they'd get destroyed and they know it - and they also know, very well, that they can win without valid, sound, or conclusive arguments.

It's also no accident that the Venn diagram of people who are balls deep into experimental vaccines and people who at least tolerate if not support CRT is pretty much a single circle. The CRT people are pretty open about the fact that their worldview is one of exercise of power. Truth isn't part of their equation. Therefore argumentation isn't part of their equation either.

They're broadcasting news in front of burning buildings with a crawl that says "mostly peaceful protest". They're openly mocking the whole concept of truth.

Whether or not the vaccine works isn't just a dealbreaking part of whether the argument is sound. When you don't care whether that part of their argument is true, you're capitulating to their framing of the argument.

If it's not an argument by the formal definition of an argument then it's not an argument. The end. It's been 13 years since Ron's first run when we all got front row seats to the idea that there is no reason to change the rules unless you think you can't win with the rules as they are. So $#@! 'em. They don't get to change the rules.

No argument here, I never intended to claim their logic was sound. Just that it was valid (or "coherent").

I am personally inclined to believe the vaccine works however. In the absence of reliable data (of which we have none), I have to go with my basic understanding of biology. The mRNA vaccine is a new type of vaccine but I understand how it works and I see no reason why it wouldn't confer some level of immunity. It's likely not as robust as natural immunity, but it should confer some immunity nonetheless. There very well could however be long term side effects that are yet unknown from mRNA vaccines, which is one of the several reasons I have personally opted out of taking the vaccine.

At the end of the day I don't care if the vaccine works or not however. I'm not taking it, even if it was 100% effective. I'm not going to live my life getting stabbed in the arm every 3 months for a $#@!ing flu.

[TheTexan]

Immunity is not the same thing as biology.

You're basically saying, electricity can be produced in a huge range of voltages, so a lamp can't have a simple SPST switch on it.

A Spark and a Silverado may both be Chevrolets, but I guarantee I can cut a garage door that will make the garage immune from the Silverado, but not the Spark.

Read what fisharmor wrote. You don't show how wrong these people are by dumbing your own self down to their moronic level.

Edify yourself. Or keep making an ass of yourself, as you please.



And they seem to be targeting the stupid. Is the vaccine designed to save the obedient, or target the stupid and arrogant?

I'll make an ass out of myself as much as I want - I do not need your permission to do so.

[acptulsa]

I'll make an ass out of myself as much as I want - I do not need your permission to do so.

I hope you don't want to make a bigger ass of yourself than Noam Chomsky. You have a hell of a lot of catching up to do.

[TheTexan]

I hope you don't want to make a bigger ass of yourself than Noam Chomsky. You have a hell of a lot of catching up to do.

One can only aspire to so much.

[A Son of Liberty]

I think you're overthinking this.

If we assume your purpose is to avoid Covid, would you rather live in a house with 5 people with antibodies, or 5 people that do not? (all else being equal)

But all else is not equal, because no matter what 5 people are in the house, they're able to get and spread the Bug. And if I'm vax'd, and thus regardless of from whom I get the Bug, my symptoms will be less severe, why should I care?