Executive Order on Requiring Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination for Federal Employees

[tspwizard1]

I cannot wait to see all the new job opportunities when all these anti-vaxers quit the federal workforce! Good riddance too.

This says it all. The amount of disgust I hold for people with this view, pathetic.

You likely haven't lost anyone close to you to covid I'm guessing. Take a guess how people that have lost loved ones, care about the well being of others, and really more than anything want this damn pandemic to end feel about people with your 'view'. We have had enough waiting for your side to find its courage. You couldn't even wear a damn mask in the fight! Worthless. Worthless from the start.

[evilanne]

How is all this anti-vax conspiracy theory and misinformation posted on this site allowed to stay up? Pathetic. Utterly pathetic.

>700,000 Americans dead and counting

Why is it that the USA, with 5% of the world population, had 25% of COVID deaths?

When Trump mentioned HCQ, there were less than 300 deaths in the US. The media railed against it and other therapeutics like Budesinide, Ivermectin and vitamin supplements. There were no protocols in US Hospitals other than Remdesivir, Midazolam (a sedative) & Ventilators for COVID last. year. If you look at the data and side effects for Remdesivir, it is more likely that many of the people died from this protocol and lack of any early effective treatment (see https://rumble.com/vn2vod-dr.-bryan-ardis.html ). There may actually be a conspiracy but just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean that they are not out to get you

Since the vaccines will not prevent you from getting or dying from the Delta variant, it might be worthwhile for you to look into it alternative treatments if you or a loved one gets sick with COVID.

People are dying and getting serious medical issues from the vaccine (see https://renz-law.com/ ). Although I do think the federal government needs to be downsized, I don't wish any harm for you or anyone else.

Some videos and websites that may be useful for you
Dr. Peter McCullough https://rumble.com/vnbv86-winning-the-w ... -unte.html
Dr Ryan Cole https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhn1thjUgeg
America's Frontline Doctors https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/
Budesonide Works https://budesonideworks.com/
Dr. Bryan Ardis https://thedrardisshow.com/

[bloobs]

Why is it that the USA, with 5% of the world population, had 25% of COVID deaths?

Allow me. First, as of late, the US deaths comprises 14% of the total deaths attributed to COVID, not 25%. But much more importantly, you may have (inadvertently I hope) left out the time dimension from your assessment--of WHEN those 700k US deaths occurred).

Accordingly, I present the chart below illustrating WHEN these poor Americans perished, drawn from a published Lancet scientific study on, ironically, possible under-reporting of COVID deaths (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lan ... title0001)




The chart above essentially shows a histogram that graphically very clearly indicates that an estimated 85% of those US deaths occurred before widespread availability of the Pfizer, Moderna and Jannsen vaccines beginning in late January 2021 to the US public that you continue to repeatedly assert in posts here "do not work". Said chart also indicates a strong negative correlation between the death count and the increased vaccination rate. If it's not the vaccine that is driving the reduced deaths--then what is it then? Remember the number of vaccinated people in the US number at least 180 million, versus the up to 40 million who have been naturally infected.

There may actually be a conspiracy but just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean that they are not out to get you

Please add the following to your research: https://www.psypost.org/2020/11/conserv ... king-58459

Since the vaccines will not prevent you from getting or dying from the Delta variant...

Science (using basic math and statistical methods) have repeatedly established this oddly persisting assertion in social media to be completely unfounded.

Lastly, there is nothing brilliant and insightful about anything I wrote above. My response above was derived from basic (but apparently not common) reasoning and deductive thinking skills that anyone supposedly can employ if their biases would stop getting in the way.

[acidfly]

Yes your comment is basic as in basic thinking lacking critical thinking. I'm at the point of this post of not wanting to waste my time any longer providing facts just so people like you can disregard.

The fact is, America is so divided among many lines we can continue this discussion through the year and neither you nor I and all the others will ever see eye to eye. The lines are drawn, now it's just a waiting game to see what will happen. People like you stand for nothing I belive in and for the way America as a country stands/stood for. With all the talks of a civil war or state separation something is bound to happen. The economy will collapse or some other major event will take place and maybe then ya'll will wake up.

Thank you to the moderators for keeping this going, it's a very touchy subject and for the most part I believe it has been very civil but as I said America as a country is too divided, the lines are drawn. Many people do not look at their neighbors as fellow Americans now but look at them as an enemy. Keep your powder dry.

[bloobs]

Yes your comment is basic as in basic thinking lacking critical thinking. I'm at the point of this post of not wanting to waste my time any longer providing facts just so people like you can disregard.

...and yet again, you wasted your time to respond

[acidfly]

Yes your comment is basic as in basic thinking lacking critical thinking. I'm at the point of this post of not wanting to waste my time any longer providing facts just so people like you can disregard.

...and yet again, you wasted your time to respond

Exactly the childish response I expected

[PhilJohn]

This says it all. The amount of disgust I hold for people with this view, pathetic.

You likely haven't lost anyone close to you to covid I'm guessing. Take a guess how people that have lost loved ones, care about the well being of others, and really more than anything want this damn pandemic to end feel about people with your 'view'. We have had enough waiting for your side to find its courage. You couldn't even wear a damn mask in the fight! Worthless. Worthless from the start.

First and most importantly, if you lost someone due to covid, I am truly sorry and of course I feel empathy. That is without question.

Nonetheless, I contracted covid before vaccines became available. You seem to have a lot of anger built up for people that don't receive the vaccinations. Since I already had the illness, I'm pretty confident that I am much more safe to be around than individuals who are vaccinated, who never had the illness. In other words, I have nothing to do with your loss. You anger is misdirected as is your advocacy of censorship for merely a discussion.

As for people that don't have NI who are not vaccinated. I had a cousin who died in a car accident. Does that mean I freak out when I see people talking at a car dealership? Should I run into the building and demand no one talks about selling cars because it somehow disrespects the memory of my cousin? I think you probably should seek some help (not meant to be disrespectful).

[Aitrus]

acidfly / tspwizard / bloobs,

We all get it - you guys don't like each other to one degree or another and aren't shy about saying so. Let's tone it down a bit, ok? There's a good conversation going on, and I don't want to have to lock the thread because you guys let it get out of hand.

Remember what Thumper's father told him? "If ya can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all."

[Tomanyiron]

[bloobs]

acidfly / tspwizard / bloobs,

We all get it - you guys don't like each other to one degree or another and aren't shy about saying so. Let's tone it down a bit, ok? There's a good conversation going on, and I don't want to have to lock the thread because you guys let it get out of hand.

Remember what Thumper's father told him? "If ya can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all."

How about this Aitrus: would you, or other members here, agree that any member post of an opinion/claim made on this forum simply has more credibility if it makes an effort to ascribe to the criteria listed on the left column of the table below (regardless of the post's social, economic, and political stance)?



Personally, I have a natural predisposition to raise a challenge to any post that considers the right-hand column criteria as more than adequate to prove their point. Isn't that the main point and value of this discussion?

That's how I was raised, taught in school and, subsequently, in my professional work.

Just to be clear, when I say right-hand, I don't mean right in the political sense. That's purely coincidental

I hope I asked this nicely enough

[Aitrus]

bloobs,

That's how I was taught to think and debate as well, and I encourage this way of thinking. Science doesn't govern by consensus, of course, and debate is what moves knowledge and understanding forward. Even if 1% disagree with a commonly held view, that 1% may have a valid point that is worth hearing out - and which in the end may be proven to be correct.

Still, science can't answer all our disputes or provide an explanation for everything. Whether to value the will of the majority or the rights of the minority, for example, are not easily solved by science. The idea of "the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the few" has been thoroughly abused by tyrants in the past. I see the current vaccine mandate debate our society is having thusly: one side arguing for the needs of the many, and the other side arguing for the rights of the individual. Science can't provide an answer this conundrum. Each side is attempting to use science as the tool whereby they justify their position, and both are succeeding to greater or lesser degrees.

And even if one side has seemingly conclusive evidence, that still doesn't automatically override the other side's opinion because 1) it's easy to mislead and lie with statistics, and 2) the mandate issue involves vague terms like "well being". One side may argue that the "well being" of the group is more important, and therefore justifies the mandate. But the other side argues that putting the "well being" of the group before the "well being" of the individual is unethical. The second side views the "well being" of the individual includes that individual's rights as being held paramount and sacrosanct - forming the foundation of the nation and the nation's values - and thus their opposition. When you attack a man's rights, expect that man to resist if he has any sense of self-worth, integrity, and responsibility. But attack a man's country, and you'll see the same thing. Both sides want what's best, they just disagree on "what's best" looks like.

I have no problem with this debate writ large. Healthy debate is one of the cornerstones of our society, and of Western Civilization in general. The problem I have is the way that some people - not specifically you, just people in general - respond when they disagree. Both sides can be nasty about it, resorting to personal insults and attacks. This place is one forum where those kinds of insults have largely been kept at bay, and the better for everybody here, I think.

That's why I try to play referee nowadays instead of wading in on everything I agree or disagree with. I can do that kind of posting elsewhere - and I often do. On this site, however, my role is different. I'm trying to keep my personal feelings about various topics out of the debate because of the power I wield - albeit not always successfully, I'll admit. Just because I have a platform doesn't make my opinion any more valid or important than anybody else's.

[Optimus187]

bloobs,

That's how I was taught to think and debate as well, and I encourage this way of thinking. Science doesn't govern by consensus, of course, and debate is what moves knowledge and understanding forward. Even if 1% disagree with a commonly held view, that 1% may have a valid point that is worth hearing out - and which in the end may be proven to be correct.

Still, science can't answer all our disputes or provide an explanation for everything. Whether to value the will of the majority or the rights of the minority, for example, are not easily solved by science. The idea of "the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the few" has been thoroughly abused by tyrants in the past. I see the current vaccine mandate debate our society is having thusly: one side arguing for the needs of the many, and the other side arguing for the rights of the individual. Science can't provide an answer this conundrum. Each side is attempting to use science as the tool whereby they justify their position, and both are succeeding to greater or lesser degrees.

And even if one side has seemingly conclusive evidence, that still doesn't automatically override the other side's opinion because 1) it's easy to mislead and lie with statistics, and 2) the mandate issue involves vague terms like "well being". One side may argue that the "well being" of the group is more important, and therefore justifies the mandate. But the other side argues that putting the "well being" of the group before the "well being" of the individual is unethical. The second side views the "well being" of the individual includes that individual's rights as being held paramount and sacrosanct - forming the foundation of the nation and the nation's values - and thus their opposition. When you attack a man's rights, expect that man to resist if he has any sense of self-worth, integrity, and responsibility. But attack a man's country, and you'll see the same thing. Both sides want what's best, they just disagree on "what's best" looks like.

I have no problem with this debate writ large. Healthy debate is one of the cornerstones of our society, and of Western Civilization in general. The problem I have is the way that some people - not specifically you, just people in general - respond when they disagree. Both sides can be nasty about it, resorting to personal insults and attacks. This place is one forum where those kinds of insults have largely been kept at bay, and the better for everybody here, I think.

That's why I try to play referee nowadays instead of wading in on everything I agree or disagree with. I can do that kind of posting elsewhere - and I often do. On this site, however, my role is different. I'm trying to keep my personal feelings about various topics out of the debate because of the power I wield - albeit not always successfully, I'll admit. Just because I have a platform doesn't make my opinion any more valid or important than anybody else's.

Drop the mic Aitrus. Well done

[evilanne]

Why is it that the USA, with 5% of the world population, had 25% of COVID deaths?

Allow me. First, as of late, the US deaths comprises 14% of the total deaths attributed to COVID, not 25%. But much more importantly, you may have (inadvertently I hope) left out the time dimension from your assessment--of WHEN those 700k US deaths occurred).

I believe the 25% figure was for 2020 or prior to EUA vaccine rollout. I couldn't find the breakout by year, but let's just accept your figure on the low end of the spectrum and let say that the high end (excluding 2021) was only 20%.
14% = 2.8 X 5% US Population
20% = 4 Times
Why in a country with a top rated healthcare system (#18 out of 167 countries https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... -the-world) do we have 2.8+ times deaths than what would be expected based on our population?

Most western developed countries didn't have any early treatment protocols either. The difference between the US and other countries is that we were the only country using Remdesivir
Previously Posted in this thread

Remdesivir is the only antiviral in the CDC hospital protocol for COVID (https://trialsitenews.com/discovery-tri ... l-benefit/). . . showed no benefit; here is the Ebola study where Remdesivir was pulled from the trial because more than 1/2 of the patients died. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1910993

Anthony Fauci used the latter study in claiming Remdesivir was safe & effective when it had the highest death rate of 4 drugs. So for the large number of deaths, how many were from COVID vs Remdesivir vs the lack of any preventative/early treatment? It is malpractice IMO, all with the goal of pushing these EAU vaccines

[evilanne]

[evilanne]

There may actually be a conspiracy but just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean that they are not out to get you

Please add the following to your research: https://www.psypost.org/2020/11/conserv ... king-58459

So you think a hit piece on conservatives from psychology site proves anything? Would’t this fall in the pseudoscience side of your chart?

Since the vaccines will not prevent you from getting or dying from the Delta variant...

Science (using basic math and statistical methods) have repeatedly established this oddly persisting assertion in social media to be completely unfounded.

Your last statement proves nothing. Logically, if the vaccines prevented you from getting COVID, you wouldn’t need a booster and you can go to the FDA hearing (posted twice previously) on the boosters and find the evidence that it isn’t effective against the Delta variant. I totally agree that there is nothing brilliant and insightful about anything you wrote above. Perhaps you should check your biases. I think your victory lap is premature to say the least.

You asked “If it's not the vaccine that is driving the reduced deaths--then what is it then?”
There are many variables that have already been addressed in this thread.
--Once they started the vaccines, they reduced the iterations of the PCR tests resulting in less false positives
--Viruses mutate and change over time. The Delta variant is less deadly.
--Despite the censorship, some Doctors did step up & provide early treatment to their patients thus reducing hospitalizations & deaths. Early Treatment information is spreading online and by word of mouth. There are now research studies that show that HCQ, Ivermectin and Budesonide are effective in treatment protocols although Fauci and MSM railed against them all last year.

You totally ignore the facts about deaths and injuries caused by the vaccines (it goes against your Pro Vax Only argument.). I suspect some of the vaccine deaths are not counted at all or included in the COVID death count since you are considered Unvaccinated until 2 weeks past your final shot (interesting how they keep changing definitions... reminds me of Animal Farm) and hospitals are incentivized financially to report everything as COVID. Social Media is even censoring deaths was attributed to a vaccine even if the individual was perfectly healthy prior to the shot(s). They have gone from everything COVID to nothing attributable to COVID vaccines Many like Bloobs seem to buy the official narrative without question.

So if you or someone you care about comes down with COVID, whether or not fully vaccinated, and need to go to the hospital for treatment, are you going to let them give you/them Remdesivir or Ivermectin? (Both are approved for COVID treatment, although many hospitals will not offer you the option)