Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 The Regulator wrote:

WHO have already suspended hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine trails for Covid-19 amid safety concerns as well. Not surprised people are anti-vax

To be fair, use of that drug appears to have been primarily politically driven and was never seriously proposed for widespread application, with extensive warnings about its use and likely ineffectiveness from the moment it was mentioned. Nobody should be linking Hydroxychloroquine use and vaccine efficacy.

Unless they really want to murder their husband and have a strangely suspicious cover story.

 The Regulator wrote:
Btw Seasonal flu is called seasonal because it mutates every season. Flu vaccines have to be taken every year, SARS may not be any different. Might be a little off with the facts there but that's pretty much the deal.

WHO have already suspended hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine trails for Covid-19 amid safety concerns as well. Not surprised people are anti-vax


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 The Regulator wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Edit - removed. Bowing out of this one for the sake of my blood pressure...

Too late buddy muahaha, you asked why its ones right to deny an injection deemed compulsory by an authority in whatever field, whether one believes it to be safe or not.

As QArevenge touched on, its very intrusive a method. It crosses a line for a lot of people. Matter if opinion. You might as well ban smoking and alcohol and junk food if you care about saving lives enough to force injections. You feel me? Some people don't want a nanny state, some do. It's not an argument either of us can win or lose, so I don't blame you for bowing out. In fact, I'll join you!

False Equivalency. Those things do not pose an immediate risk to the entire population, only the ones partaking in them. So no, I do not feel you. Your nanny state argument is absurd at best.

Bye.

Second hand smoke. Drunk drivers.

Hi.

"Those things do not pose an immediate risk to the entire population." It is illegal in most states to smoke in a public building. It is illegal in most states to smoke in a car with your child. It is illegal most states to drink and drive. You really should have just left the thread.

Also, oh my sweet lord do you really believe that about the Flu? Because that is dangerously wrong.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 The Regulator wrote:

Second hand smoke. Drunk drivers.

Hi.

Bloomberg tried to regulate the size of sodas. Because of course, the peasants cannot be trusted with their own health and the proper authorities must intervene.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I would start by avoiding those two groups or anybody who is clearly getting paid by a third party agency to push an agenda of "REOPEN TO SAVE THE ECONOMY" because that whole line is pretty much crap.

\

>Implying that people without jobs are full of crap

Okay, you've fully demonstrated that any discussion with you would be about as productive and thought-provoking as watching my neighbor's pug curl off a deuce.

Oh wow, rude. All because I pointed out two groups you should avoid talking to? Aren't you the guy crying about Insaniak being condescending?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
"Those things do not pose an immediate risk to the entire population." It is illegal in most states to smoke in a public building. It is illegal in most states to smoke in a car with your child. It is illegal most states to drink and drive. You really should have just left the thread.

Also, oh my sweet lord do you really believe that about the Flu? Because that is dangerously wrong.

You might wanna hash that out with the CDC, then. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/keyfacts.htm

People, chill out please, if you find you cannot respond to another poster without getting snippy, just ignore it and move on.

This thread is generating a ton of alerts, and that does not bode well.

Rather than make vaccinations compulsory the government should figure out a way to enable people to get better at spotting conspiracy theories so they would not believe in anti-vaxxing and so on.

Finland has done very well in this respect.

 The Regulator wrote:
WHO have already suspended hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine trails for Covid-19 amid safety concerns as well. Not surprised people are anti-vax

That's actually good case why the anti-vax'ers are stupid. The vaccines don't get to use just like that and instead go through rigorous testing to ensure they are safe and effective for use. If the anti-vax'ers had point they would not go through testing and corona vaxine could be in the streets within month or two. But instead they are being tested carefully.

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine issue comes because there's certain fool with influence due to status going on about it as supposed cure with zero evidence causing it to be tried in use it's not been tested and confirmed to be safe. Duh. That's not mark against vaxines but mark against doing rash decisions. If somebody asks why vaccines take so long to get into field hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine can be shown why. Don't use something until it's been tested and verified to be a) effective b) safe for use.

Vaccines go through testing.

Anti-vax people are just fools who have zero idea themselves and are just going by youtube video's designed to cause trouble.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Rather than make vaccinations compulsory the government should figure out a way to enable people to get better at spotting conspiracy theories so they would not believe in anti-vaxxing and so on.

Finland has done very well in this respect.

This. Exalt.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Rather than make vaccinations compulsory the government should figure out a way to enable people to get better at spotting conspiracy theories so they would not believe in anti-vaxxing and so on.

Finland has done very well in this respect.

Sort of like a Reich Minister of Propaganda, right?

How about we let people figure things out for themselves, and hold them accountable for their decisions. The more you try to smokescreen certain things, the more people get curious. It's called the Streisand Effect.

Because freedom and choice do not occur in a vacuum and ultimately, peoples decisions always affect others.

tneva82 wrote:

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine issue comes because there's certain fool with influence due to status going on about it as supposed cure with zero evidence causing it to be tried in use it's not been tested and confirmed to be safe.

You sure about that? https://www.fda.gov/safety/medical-product-safety-information/hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-drug-safety-communication-fda-cautions-against-use

Because like any drug, it has side effects (AKA 'undesired effects', let's be real about what they are). And this one has already been in use to treat malaria, chronic discoid lupus erythematosus, systemic lupus erythematosus in adults, and rheumatoid arthritis. It's not brand new to the human body, it's just that they aren't sure if it's going to work on COVID-19- hence, they are actually testing it.

It's not some experimental Trioxin container that came out of a sinister black market lab secretly working for the Evil Orange.Some of you folks might need to take a moment and read a few things before stating something that isn't entirely true.

Essentially, the 'threat' with this stuff? Don't take it from some guy off the streets, don't use it at your house. It's a treatment that requires medical professional oversight, in a controlled environment, and like many other drugs there are side effects. It's far from the only drug like this.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Rather than make vaccinations compulsory the government should figure out a way to enable people to get better at spotting conspiracy theories so they would not believe in anti-vaxxing and so on.

Finland has done very well in this respect.

Sort of like a Reich Minister of Propaganda, right?

How about we let people figure things out for themselves, and hold them accountable for their decisions. The more you try to smokescreen certain things, the more people get curious. It's called the Streisand Effect.

Lol, hyperbole much adeptus.
Nobody stated censorship, what was meant was to point out common markers of conspiracy theories in Order to make them easier avoided in research.

Also good if you want to fight ponzi schemes



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Rather than make vaccinations compulsory the government should figure out a way to enable people to get better at spotting conspiracy theories so they would not believe in anti-vaxxing and so on.

Finland has done very well in this respect.

This. Exalt.

So you are in Support of the Propaganda ministry?/s

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Because freedom and choice do not occur in a vacuum and ultimately, peoples decisions always affect others.

Sounds like something a failed third-world dictator would have scribbled in some memoir.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Lol, hyperbole much adeptus.
Nobody stated censorship, what was meant was to point out common markers of conspiracy theories in Order to make them easier avoided in research.

What constitutes a 'conspiracy theory', or 'making' one rather than 'discussing' one for entertainment? What's the difference between a 'conspiracy theory' and a 'possible theory that has not been proven'?

What's preventing this from being used during, say- a national leader's scandal, or possible criminal activities?

"That is fake news" certainly seems to range from being 'something the government should totally be doing!' to 'oh my god this tyrant is attacking the free press like a fascist!' depending on who's pointing the finger and whose brand of info-tainment is getting called out.

It's not hyperbole. It's common sense that these tools are delightful... when your guy is in charge. When it's not...

And a Ponzi scheme is a crime- being wrong, having a weird theory, speculation to the point of something being a bit wild- none of these are a crime. And then they become a crime, that's when you need to be afraid. Or be considered an enemy collaborator, it's all up to you.

Not Online!!! wrote:
So you are in Support of the Propaganda ministry?/s

The only Ministry I'm particularly thrilled with performed 'Jesus Built My Hot Rod".

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine issue comes because there's certain fool with influence due to status going on about it as supposed cure with zero evidence causing it to be tried in use it's not been tested and confirmed to be safe.

You sure about that? https://www.fda.gov/safety/medical-product-safety-information/hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-drug-safety-communication-fda-cautions-against-use

Because like any drug, it has side effects (AKA 'undesired effects', let's be real about what they are). And this one has already been in use to treat malaria, chronic discoid lupus erythematosus, systemic lupus erythematosus in adults, and rheumatoid arthritis. It's not brand new to the human body, it's just that they aren't sure if it's going to work on COVID-19- hence, they are actually testing it.

It's not some experimental Trioxin container that came out of a sinister black market lab secretly working for the Evil Orange.Some of you folks might need to take a moment and read a few things before stating something that isn't entirely true.

Essentially, the 'threat' with this stuff? Don't take it from some guy off the streets, don't use it at your house. It's a treatment that requires medical professional oversight, in a controlled environment, and like many other drugs there are side effects. It's far from the only drug like this.

Sweet lord, please read your links!

"Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine:


should be used for COVID-19 only when patients can be appropriately monitored in the hospital as required by the EUA or are enrolled in a clinical trial with appropriate screening and monitoring. FDA is reviewing the safety of their use when used outside of the setting of hospitalized patients for whom use was authorized.

have not been shown to be safe and effective for treating or preventing COVID-19.

are being studied in clinical trials for COVID-19, and FDA authorized their temporary use during the COVID-19 pandemic under limited circumstances through the EUA, and not through regular FDA approval.

being used under the EUA when supplied from the Strategic National Stockpile, the national repository of critical medical supplies to be used during public health emergencies.

can cause abnormal heart rhythms such as QT interval prolongation

can cause dangerously rapid heart rate called ventricular tachycardia.

pose risks that may increase when these medicines are combined with other medicines known to prolong the QT interval, including the antibiotic azithromycin, which is also being used in some COVID-19 patients without FDA approval for this condition.

should be used with caution in Patients who also have other health issues such as heart and kidney disease, who are likely to be at increased risk of these heart problems when receiving these medicines."

You are scared the government is going to give you something that could hurt you, yet you are out here promoting exactly what you are scared of. I bolded, italicized, and underlined the important part.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine issue comes because there's certain fool with influence due to status going on about it as supposed cure with zero evidence causing it to be tried in use it's not been tested and confirmed to be safe.

You sure about that? https://www.fda.gov/safety/medical-product-safety-information/hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-drug-safety-communication-fda-cautions-against-use

Because like any drug, it has side effects (AKA 'undesired effects', let's be real about what they are). And this one has already been in use to treat malaria, chronic discoid lupus erythematosus, systemic lupus erythematosus in adults, and rheumatoid arthritis. It's not brand new to the human body, it's just that they aren't sure if it's going to work on COVID-19- hence, they are actually testing it.

It's not some experimental Trioxin container that came out of a sinister black market lab secretly working for the Evil Orange.Some of you folks might need to take a moment and read a few things before stating something that isn't entirely true.

Essentially, the 'threat' with this stuff? Don't take it from some guy off the streets, don't use it at your house. It's a treatment that requires medical professional oversight, in a controlled environment, and like many other drugs there are side effects. It's far from the only drug like this.

The problem being that people are doing just that, Evil Orange has made it out like it's perfectly safe, point blank saying it won't kill anybody when fatal overdoses can and have occured, and such drugs can cause more harm than good if used in conditions they aren't proven effective for (many drugs can cause harm if the original condition they're made for isn't present as conditions in the body are different) and there's little to no evidence that the drug is actually effective at treating Covid-19 outside a single study that wasn't conducted under approved clinical trials protocols.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Rather than make vaccinations compulsory the government should figure out a way to enable people to get better at spotting conspiracy theories so they would not believe in anti-vaxxing and so on.

Finland has done very well in this respect.

This sounds good. I’d be up for making vaccines compulsory (think of seatbelts) but if there’s an easier way it should be explored. What’s Finland done exactly?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Sweet lord, please read your links!

You may want to read my post, because I was pretty clear about what it was. How about before you start concerning yourself with your immunity from bans because you believe in science, you take the first brave and bold steps into reading something thoroughly before you start commenting?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
You are scared the government is going to give you something that could hurt you, yet you are out here promoting exactly what you are scared of. I bolded, italicized, and underlined the important part.

What am I promoting, exactly? Information?

I thought so. Listen, take your own advice. Go leave the thread. Find a thing, read it entirely, and do a check on learning to see how much of it you retained. It'll help you out.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The problem being that people are doing just that-

You mean like that woman that is under investigation for murder, for poisoning her husband, and claimed that Orange Man said it was safe so they took fish tank cleaner...? Even though her political activities and donations speak of someone who doesn't like the Evil Orange or take him very seriously, at a certain point even if she didn't actually poison him- let's let Darwin do his job and clean up the gene pool a little, all right?

 Vaktathi wrote:
Evil Orange has made it out like it's perfectly safe, point blank saying it won't kill anybody when fatal overdoses can and have occured, and such drugs can cause more harm than good if used in conditions they aren't proven effective for (many drugs can cause harm if the original condition they're made for isn't present as conditions in the body are different) and there's little to no evidence that the drug is actually effective at treating Covid-19 outside a single study that wasn't conducted under approved clinical trials protocols.

Can you show me a citation where he says this? I'm not defending him, I'm not saying he didn't. But let's just say there's a growing trend around here of repeating a talking point that is demonstrably a half-truth at best and twisting it to the point where inaccurate information is being passed off as objective fact. Let's just say I'd like to see this specific citation.

(Edit: I'm scanning over a few sources now. Still not sure what kind of person would go and find this stuff and chug it, considering that you'd have to be significantly mentally defective to think you could just go and pick up some chemical without going to a doctor and start chugging it- Darwin might have this one).

And while I can certainly fault the man for being wrong about something, or speaking misinformed... it's not like he's the only one. WHO was saying this couldn't be transferred from Person to Person back when we were getting leaked video from China of guys in Hazmat suits bagging & gagging suspected infected and welding doors shut. We were also being told to go to festivals, movies, etc. Oh- this was around March, too. I'm all for people being held to task for their words and actions, as long as it's consistent.

I was confused, then I realized I still have the same signature from years and years ago. Then I just laughed and facepalmed. Oh boy, this is just amazing.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Evil Orange has made it out like it's perfectly safe, point blank saying it won't kill anybody when fatal overdoses can and have occured, and such drugs can cause more harm than good if used in conditions they aren't proven effective for (many drugs can cause harm if the original condition they're made for isn't present as conditions in the body are different) and there's little to no evidence that the drug is actually effective at treating Covid-19 outside a single study that wasn't conducted under approved clinical trials protocols.

Can you show me a citation where he says this? I'm not defending him, I'm not saying he didn't. But let's just say there's a growing trend around here of repeating a talking point that is demonstrably a half-truth at best and twisting it to the point where inaccurate information is being passed off as objective fact. Let's just say I'd like to see this specific citation.

Here

"Now, a drug called chloroquine — and some people would add to it “hydroxy-.” Hydroxychloroquine. So chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine. Now, this is a common malaria drug. It is also a drug used for strong arthritis. If somebody has pretty serious arthritis, also uses this in a somewhat different form. But it is known as a malaria drug, and it’s been around for a long time and it’s very powerful. But the nice part is, it’s been around for a long time, so we know that if it — if things don’t go as planned, it’s not going to kill anybody."

Also, Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine are two different chemical compounds/drugs, and he doesn't appear to recognize this.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


So you are in Support of the Propaganda ministry?/s

There's a difference between putting out information that is ultimately good for the health of the people and thus the public, and propaganda.

I'm not anti vax. I believe in the science behind vaccines. Not blindly... There have been mistakes, as with everything in human history, but mistakes don't invalidate the overall concept.

my issue is at a liberty level. I don't believe in ceding to government control of our bodies.

this is the problem, particularly in the US. People who in any other world would likely only view it as an issue of freedoms, throw their lot in with the anti vax nutcases. I imagine just to feel that natural human urge for support.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
this is the problem, particularly in the US. People who in any other world would likely only view it as an issue of freedoms, throw their lot in with the anti vax nutcases. I imagine just to feel that natural human urge for support.

Actually, it's less 'throwing in their lot' and more like 'being lumped in with'.- happens quite a bit, too. Also known as 'poisoning the well'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What you're saying here-

 Vaktathi wrote:
The problem being that people are doing just that, Evil Orange has made it out like it's perfectly safe, point blank saying it won't kill anybody when fatal overdoses can and have occured....

Isn't matching up with what's being said here-

 Vaktathi wrote:

"Now, a drug called chloroquine — and some people would add to it “hydroxy-.” Hydroxychloroquine. So chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine. Now, this is a common malaria drug. It is also a drug used for strong arthritis. If somebody has pretty serious arthritis, also uses this in a somewhat different form. But it is known as a malaria drug, and it’s been around for a long time and it’s very powerful. But the nice part is, it’s been around for a long time, so we know that if it — if things don’t go as planned, it’s not going to kill anybody."

Though I can see where there's some confusion, looks like there was a bit of a word stumble there at the end.

I can see where it could cause confusion but your claim isn't matching up with the quote- don't take this the wrong way, but when you try to dilute down a statement (or it's been presented to you in a diluted manner), rest assured that the little details that can make the difference... are often omitted.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Also, Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine are two different chemical compounds/drugs, and he doesn't appear to recognize this.

I did notice this earlier.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
WHO was saying this couldn't be transferred from Person to Person back when we were getting leaked video from China of guys in Hazmat suits bagging & gagging suspected infected and welding doors shut. We were also being told to go to festivals, movies, etc. Oh- this was around March, too. I'm all for people being held to task for their words and actions, as long as it's consistent.

Can you provide a source of this? I do not remember this at all. I have been following this the whole time. I would really like to see this evidence, hate to see half truths spread around.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Can you provide a source of this? I do not remember this at all. I have been following this the whole time. I would really like to see this evidence, hate to see half truths spread around.

https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fworld%2Fworld-health-organization-january-tweet-china-human-transmission-coronavirus

I'm sure you got part of the way through it and started commenting, missed the key parts. I didn't think it as a new habit of yours.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Can you provide a source of this? I do not remember this at all. I have been following this the whole time. I would really like to see this evidence, hate to see half truths spread around.

https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fworld%2Fworld-health-organization-january-tweet-china-human-transmission-coronavirus

I'm sure you got part of the way through it and started commenting, missed the key parts. I didn't think it as a new habit of yours.

Jan 14. Seems a little far off from them supposedly saying this in March, but alright. You got me there. NO HALF TRUTHS!

I'm not sure what details are missing, he said it was perfectly safe and wasn't going to kill anybody, but he doesn't know that as proper clinical trials for the usage he's suggesting haven't been done, he has no idea what the results will be if things don't "go as planned" because again, proper testing hasn't been done, hydroxocholorquine is known to extremely toxic if overdosed and deaths have occurred due to such, which would seem to undercut his statement regarding if things...don't go "as planned". Not sure what I'm diluting there. We're dancing around an awfully fine point there.

Either way, time for sleep. A warning for the thread in general, please play nice people, for I assure you the other mods will not be as merciful as I have been.

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Jan 14.

Oh, okay.

Oh, we're working down the line, my good lad. Don't think it's over just yet. We got February right here...

https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/079-20/mayor-de-blasio-speaker-johnson-queens-chamber-commerce-encourage-new-yorkers-visit#/0

Oh, look- I got you something from March, too!

https://twitter.com/BilldeBlasio/status/1234648718714036229

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm not sure what details are missing, he said it was perfectly safe and wasn't going to kill anybody, but he doesn't know that as proper clinical trials for the usage he's suggesting haven't been done, he has no idea what the results will be if things don't "go as planned" because again, proper testing hasn't been done, hydroxocholorquine is known to extremely toxic if overdosed and deaths have occurred due to such, which would seem to undercut his statement regarding if things...don't go "as planned". Not sure what I'm diluting there. We're dancing around an awfully fine point there.

Either way, time for sleep. A warning for the thread in general, please play nice people, for I assure you the other mods will not be as merciful as I have been.

Looks more to me like he was saying "If all goes as planned" no one will die. He wouldn't be the first president to speak without all the information (I remember one saying 'Mission Accomplished....a couple of years before I was there, you know, again).

Sleep well. Hands above the covers, you know the rules.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
this is the problem, particularly in the US. People who in any other world would likely only view it as an issue of freedoms, throw their lot in with the anti vax nutcases. I imagine just to feel that natural human urge for support.

Actually, it's less 'throwing in their lot' and more like 'being lumped in with'.- happens quite a bit, too. Also known as 'poisoning the well'.

That is true, but I've seen plenty of them throwing in their lot when it comes up online too. its understandable, you drift towards things that seemingly support your argument. most people are guilty of it to some degree or in some circumstances. myself included.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Jan 14.

Oh, okay.

Oh, we're working down the line, my good lad. Don't think it's over just yet. We got February right here...

https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/079-20/mayor-de-blasio-speaker-johnson-queens-chamber-commerce-encourage-new-yorkers-visit#/0

Oh, look- I got you something from March, too!

https://twitter.com/BilldeBlasio/status/1234648718714036229

So, the WHO said it on Jan 14. Then nothing else from the WHO. But the Mayor of New York(Not a Doctor and pretty much a moron) said some stuff? I see, I see, you are really clearing up these half truths that the WHO said this in March and encouraged people to go outside.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

That is true, but I've seen plenty of them throwing in their lot when it comes up online too. its understandable, you drift towards things that seemingly support your argument. most people are guilty of it to some degree or in some circumstances. myself included.

Oh, yeah- of course. I mean, when you're just stoked about Batman and you hear someone else say "HEY I ALSO LOVE BATMAN!" you don't always realize that... it's a crackhead pooping in an alleyway until you get over there and see, and by that time it's too late. And he'll follow you for like four or five blocks, even if you tell him you don't carry cash- he knows where all the ATM's are.

...oddly specific, no reason. I... totally made all of that up. It never happened, don't bring it up again.

Overall, though- we have a larger problem in the US with people getting lumped into categories- quite unfairly, because it's easier to dismiss someone's position, beliefs, etc. if you can do that.

A good example would be people who say "I do not believe a member of the clergy should be mandated by law to perform any service he or she does not agree with or wish to support"- somehow that means you're against gay marriage- or worse, one of the people who thinks they all need to be rounded up into camps.

I think everyone should be sent to camps, but they should be actual fun summer camps with fishing and swimming and good times by the lake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, the WHO said it on Jan 14. Then nothing else from the WHO. But the Mayor of New York(Not a Doctor and pretty much a moron) said some stuff? I see, I see, you are really clearing up these half truths that the WHO said this in March and encouraged people to go outside.

...check my statement one more time. I think you need to look again.

Because now you're just coming off a little too desperate.

The only "Half" anything is how you read and comprehend. And I'm being generous. Time for you to hang it up.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


So you are in Support of the Propaganda ministry?/s

There's a difference between putting out information that is ultimately good for the health of the people and thus the public, and propaganda.

I'm not anti vax. I believe in the science behind vaccines. Not blindly... There have been mistakes, as with everything in human history, but mistakes don't invalidate the overall concept.

my issue is at a liberty level. I don't believe in ceding to government control of our bodies.

this is the problem, particularly in the US. People who in any other world would likely only view it as an issue of freedoms, throw their lot in with the anti vax nutcases. I imagine just to feel that natural human urge for support.

wrongly attributed quote is wrongly attributed.
Also, your point hits the issue of the point where my freedom inhibits others.
It's a difficlt issue, not just because there are people that throw their lot in due to liberty issues but also because these rallies, etc have been also used atleast over here by left and rightwing extremists to hide under.

I think it is justifyable to enforce atleast temporarily a vacination in order to wipe out an illness via a punctual effort, in such a way and legitimized propperly via democratic processes, i feel like you coulld justify an absolute enforcement over a temporary period of time.

Not Online!!! wrote:
I think it is justifyable to enforce atleast temporarily a vacination in order to wipe out an illness via a punctual effort, in such a way and legitimized propperly via democratic processes, i feel like you coulld justify an absolute enforcement over a temporary period of time.

Not that I've ever been one to argue with something like a proven vaccine, but hear me out. Play hypothetical with me.

What you gonna do if I refuse to come and get my shot?

I want you to think about that for a second.

Who you sending?

A law requires the authority to enforce it. And authority without the means and willingness to do violence is just a request.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, the WHO said it on Jan 14. Then nothing else from the WHO. But the Mayor of New York(Not a Doctor and pretty much a moron) said some stuff? I see, I see, you are really clearing up these half truths that the WHO said this in March and encouraged people to go outside.

...check my statement one more time. I think you need to look again.

Because now you're just coming off a little too desperate.

The only "Half" anything is how you read and comprehend. And I'm being generous. Time for you to hang it up.

I acknowledge that they said it on Jan 14. But here is your statement:

"WHO was saying this couldn't be transferred from Person to Person back when we were getting leaked video from China of guys in Hazmat suits bagging & gagging suspected infected and welding doors shut. We were also being told to go to festivals, movies, etc. Oh- this was around March, too. I'm all for people being held to task for their words and actions, as long as it's consistent."

This statement makes it seem as if the WHO was telling people to go out to festivals and movies and that they said the Person to Person thing in March. At no point do you mention New York or the Mayor of New York.

I am not sure how I was supposed to know all of this stuff about New York and the Mayor from your original statement. I guess my reading comprehension isn't what it used to be.