I'm no doctor, but my understanding is that only a minority of vaccines prevent transmission or infection (notable ones that do are the measles and hepatitis B vaccines). So, either you're scare mongering or you're ignorant to the wider truth of things and simply parroting an isolated technical fact without contemplating the broader truth in proper context.
VIC Pressing charges against Victorian Premier
- Thread starter Samantha Dingle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- charges
I am not trying to 'scare-monger' anyone, I don't know where I might have indicated that. I am simply passing on a fact that should hold some relevance to the majority of the population who, sadly, unlike yourself and myself, actually do not realise that this vaccine does not create 'herd immunity', because much of the public DO equate 'vaccines' with ' herd immunity.' If anybody is scare-mongering here it is the mainstream narrative that this is such a terrifying virus when even the CDC documents that approximately 99.9% of the approximately 1% of people who actually catch this virus, have a cold or flu-like illness that they fully recover from, and it has been demonstrated that up to 97% of 'cases' counted are false positives due to a proven not-fit-for-purpose PCR 'diagnostic' test.
You're scaremongering by:
- Raising a topic which is of high concern publicly (i.e. the COVID pandemic and the issue of vaccination), and also divisive (i.e. vaccination);
- Stating "COVID vaccines do not prevent transmission or infection" without qualifying that that is not unusual (in fact, it is apparently more common than not that vaccines do not prevent transmission or infection). Presenting such a statement, which is not likely to be common knowledge, in such a manner, could reasonably be a source of alarm or concern for people; and
- Then stating a conclusion with no apparent basis as a matter of fact, "They therefore cannot and will not create 'herd immunity'". Unless you're a medical practitioner or similar, or better yet an immunologist, I doubt you're qualified to be making such conclusions.
Since scaremongering is the 'spreading of frightening or ominous reports or rumours', I'd say you're squarely scaremongering.
I'd rather put my trust in the professionals - like the Mayo Clinic - thanks (see Herd immunity and COVID-19 (coronavirus): What you need to know.)
Anti-vaxxers are, in my ever so humble opinion, a noxious breed of idiot at least one order of magnitude dumber than flat-earthers - who at least are not actively dangerous.
PERSONAL OPINION
While having a strong libertarian streak, in the instance of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases that have the potential to affect large portions of the population with disastrous results, I suggest many Government benefits should not be provided to those who refuse to be vaccinated.
I support your right to refuse vaccination, I just don't expect the Government though to fully uphold its social contract with you or whoever else refuses to be vaccinated. The Government should withdraw some if not many benefits (child care subsidy, first home grants, tax breaks etc), maybe have a higher taxation rate because of the increased burden on the health system anti-vaxxers cause. No different to increasing taxes on tobacco for the costs it causes to the community.
Our standard of living has increased because of science and the scientific method and it disturbs me some people allow their prejudiced beliefs to corrupt and debase science.
The indiscriminate posting of materials masquerading as facts is one of the largest problems with the internet.
I don't support your attempts to blame our premier for the actions he has taken to keep people safe and alive during the COVID-19 pandemic and just as you refuse to be vaccinated, I refuse to assist you with any opinions I have regarding Andrews' legal liability.
While having a strong libertarian streak, in the instance of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases that have the potential to affect large portions of the population with disastrous results, I suggest many Government benefits should not be provided to those who refuse to be vaccinated.
I support your right to refuse vaccination, I just don't expect the Government though to fully uphold its social contract with you or whoever else refuses to be vaccinated. The Government should withdraw some if not many benefits (child care subsidy, first home grants, tax breaks etc), maybe have a higher taxation rate because of the increased burden on the health system anti-vaxxers cause. No different to increasing taxes on tobacco for the costs it causes to the community.
Our standard of living has increased because of science and the scientific method and it disturbs me some people allow their prejudiced beliefs to corrupt and debase science.
The indiscriminate posting of materials masquerading as facts is one of the largest problems with the internet.
I don't support your attempts to blame our premier for the actions he has taken to keep people safe and alive during the COVID-19 pandemic and just as you refuse to be vaccinated, I refuse to assist you with any opinions I have regarding Andrews' legal liability.
So back on task kiddies.
Sure you don't have to have the vaccine. As is the case with other vaccinnes, the govt can refuse your kids access to pre-school if you don't have them (or at least refuse to fund the place). All good. If not having the vaccination means you can't get on a qantas flight then that is the right of that business to refuse (for example). Don't have the vaccine. YOUR CHOICE. But charging the Victorian premier for implementing some regulations to prevent the spread of Covid. Hell no. Especially not when this thread was started mid last year when we had no idea how bad this thing could have been.
More importantly, we are in a bloody good position becuase of the regulations state and federal govt implemented. If you don't like them, go live in a country where their daily cases are in the thousands and the deaths over the past year also in the thousands.... when you get there you wanna hope they have a bloody good health care system to look after you.
Sure you don't have to have the vaccine. As is the case with other vaccinnes, the govt can refuse your kids access to pre-school if you don't have them (or at least refuse to fund the place). All good. If not having the vaccination means you can't get on a qantas flight then that is the right of that business to refuse (for example). Don't have the vaccine. YOUR CHOICE. But charging the Victorian premier for implementing some regulations to prevent the spread of Covid. Hell no. Especially not when this thread was started mid last year when we had no idea how bad this thing could have been.
More importantly, we are in a bloody good position becuase of the regulations state and federal govt implemented. If you don't like them, go live in a country where their daily cases are in the thousands and the deaths over the past year also in the thousands.... when you get there you wanna hope they have a bloody good health care system to look after you.
Similar threads
