So they now admit the "vaccine" .....

[Loco Vette]

Originally Posted by VITE1

Life is hard, then you die. When you get the chance party like a rock star!!!

Hitting it hard with you on the golf course, I hope!

[dvarapala]

Originally Posted by NEED-A-VETTE

What was posted in that article is literally how vaccines work. It’s how vaccines have always worked.

If anyone here was told something different and they believed it… Then you need to be mad at yourself for not paying better attention in your middle school biology class.

@UniqueDoug

[UniqueDoug]

Originally Posted by Loco Vette

If I had sex once, with a prophylactic, and caught an STD, then no, in that instance the prophylactic failed.

If I went to Amsterdam and got it on with 100 hookers and didn't get an STD, then yes the prophylactics worked.

You have to be ridiculously naïve to think that any form of prophylaxis against anything is 100% effective in all circumstances. That doesn't mean they are not prophylactic measures, or not best practices.

Your answers suggest there is a binary element to something being a prophylactic

Once again you’re trying to make my argument about efficacy

[dvarapala]

Originally Posted by NEED-A-VETTE

Maybe you were taught something different. We were taught that vaccines were rarely 100% and had various failure rates.

At the time, we discussed measles vaccines and their failure rates. Some kids still got measles but it was known that they rarely got severely ill due to their vaccine. I’m sure you could Google it and find more examples.

The vaccine fights the virus if your are infected. The effectiveness is based on many factors.

It’s a fact that the covid vaccines are not as effective as they thought. But the way vaccines work (or fail) is the same.

Several otherwise reasonable people have adopted the stance that if a vaccine does not prevent 100% of infections then a) it's not a vaccine, and b) it's completely worthless. Many have tried to get them to admit that your point is valid, but so far none have succeeded. Maybe you'll be the first.

[UniqueDoug]

Originally Posted by dvarapala

@UniqueDoug

Hey look at the other guy, he actually answered the question honestly the first time, not dodging it the five or six times I’ve asked you

I’ll try once again, you can take either one

Fred, if you wore the prophylactic designed to prevent disease and caught a disease, did it work?

Fred, if you wore the prophylactic designed to prevent disease and caught half the amount of crabs, would you say it worked?

[UniqueDoug]

Originally Posted by dvarapala

Several otherwise reasonable people have adopted the stance that if a vaccine does not prevent 100% of infections then a) it's not a vaccine, and b) it's completely worthless. Many have tried to get them to admit that your point is valid, but so far none have succeeded. Maybe you'll be the first.

Are you gonna name names or pull a nitro?

[Loco Vette]

Originally Posted by UniqueDoug

Your answers suggest there is a binary element to something being a prophylactic

Once again you’re trying to make my argument about efficacy

That's my whole point about this ridiculous argument that something has to be 100% effective to be a prophylactic or prevent something.

The only absolutes in life are death, taxes, and gravity.

[dvarapala]

Originally Posted by UniqueDoug

Fred, if you wore the prophylactic designed to prevent disease and caught a disease, did it work?

https://www.thevettebarn.com/forums/...9&postcount=77

I suppose you'll be going back to your binary narrative now.

[Aerovette]

Originally Posted by dvarapala

Several otherwise reasonable people have adopted the stance that if a vaccine does not prevent 100% of infections then a) it's not a vaccine, and b) it's completely worthless. Many have tried to get them to admit that your point is valid, but so far none have succeeded. Maybe you'll be the first.

Don't include me in that group. I don't expect 100% without exception. I expect there will be no illness, and no infection and no transmission EXCEPT for a smattering of breakthrough cases. We have overshot "smattering" by a country mile.

[Aerovette]

Originally Posted by Loco Vette

@aerovette taptaptap This thing on?

Smokey didn't say "Only you can prevent some forest fires".

[Bill]

Originally Posted by NEED-A-VETTE

I won’t be getting a toaster. It’s not even the fancy one.

My toaster oven, that I've had for over 20 years, finally started acting up and I finally opened up a new one a friend of mine gave me a couple of years ago. The old toaster oven was a cheapo, no frills, small unit that worked great for toasting bagels and garlic bread, and for cooking the square Totino's pizzas. I really liked that toaster oven.

The new one is stainless, fancy and.....take over twice as long to toast a bagel. So much for progress. Might be time to dig out my grandma's old Sunbeam and start using that.

[Loco Vette]

Originally Posted by aerovette

Smokey didn't say "Only you can prevent some forest fires".

You still have not addressed the question of whether the first two fires were prevented.

[Mick]

Originally Posted by Rodnok1

It's been known since the get go it would not prevent you from getting it just not getting as sick.
The sheeple busting balls screaming at everyone to get shots so they don't get it just shows their ignorance. Frankly they're the ones spreading it also...

https://theconversation.com/coronavi...problem-152204



Any real hope of eliminating kung flu will be a variant with a very low transmission rate.

Please stop this. In November of 2020, it was announced that the Pfizer vaccine (as an example) was 95% effective at preventing infection. Go to your favorite search engine and type in "Pfizer COVID vaccine 95% effective" and literally dozens of articles will come up. Here is one from WebMD:

https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid...s-95-effective

[MadInNc]

Originally Posted by Mick

Please stop this. In November of 2020, it was announced that the Pfizer vaccine (as an example) was 95% effective at preventing infection. Go to your favorite search engine and type in "Pfizer COVID vaccine 95% effective" and literally dozens of articles will come up. Here is one from WebMD:

https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid...s-95-effective

We all seen your side affects when ya got the shot….

[Mick]

Originally Posted by NEED-A-VETTE

Maybe you were taught something different. We were taught that vaccines were rarely 100% and had various failure rates.

At the time, we discussed measles vaccines and their failure rates. Some kids still got measles but it was known that they rarely got severely ill due to their vaccine. I’m sure you could Google it and find more examples.

The vaccine fights the virus if your are infected. The effectiveness is based on many factors.

It’s a fact that the covid vaccines are not as effective as they thought. But the way vaccines work (or fail) is the same.

I disagree. What I was taught in school was that all the then-existent vaccines worked on the same idea: By one method or another, they "trick" your immune system into producing anti-bodies for a disease it never had. None of them are 100% effective, because sometimes the body doesn't fall for the trick (fails to react to a killed virus, for example), or doesn't produce a sufficient level of anti-bodies to prevent infection if the person comes in contact with that virus. The modern day Polio vaccine is 95+% effective, meaning, if you give the virus to 100 people, and send them to an area heavily infected with Polio, at least 95 of them will NOT get Polio.

This whole "attenuated case" idea has been around for decades pushed primarily by big pharma to try to increase the popularity of flu shots.

See the article I linked above, and I can literally find you dozens more (at least until the liberals start scrubbing them off the internet). When the COVID shots were introduced, they were claiming they were 90+% effective at PREVENTING INFECTION. When it became obvious the shots didn't work at preventing infection, they jumped to the attenuated case thing, and shit loads of people bought off on that. Accepting that goal post move is nothing more than giving big pharma what they have wanted for decades, which is selling millions of doses of a vaccine that they know doesn't work.

[Mick]

Originally Posted by dvarapala

Several otherwise reasonable people have adopted the stance that if a vaccine does not prevent 100% of infections then

I'm gonna stop you right there. This is where EVERY "attenuated case" person runs when faced with facts. No one who has even the most basic understanding of vaccines, what they do, and how they work believes that ANY vaccine is 100% effective. This is clearly an attempt at "reductio ad absurdum".

Honestly, I expected better from you.

Now, back to the rest of your post:

a) it's not a vaccine,

By the definition in place on 1/1/2019, this is absolutely correct. if you don't believe it, I refer you to UD as he has made a real study of this and has all the proof you might need at his fingertips, most of it already posted in this thread.

b) it's completely worthless.

Maybe, and maybe not. My wife has tried to make the argument that:

1. The "vaccine" didn't work as originally designed because of the, primarily delta, variants.

2. The "vaccine" still has great value because fewer infected people are being hospitalized, ventilated, and killed now as compared to pre-vaccine days.

And I say, you can't have it both ways. When viruses mutate, they generally get less lethal, because if they got more lethal, they would soon kill all their hosts, and natural selection has made sure that those types of viruses died out completely or we wouldn't be here. So if the delta variant is less severe than the alpha, how do we know it was the shot, and not the variation's natural reduction in severity causing the lower incidence of severe infection? Answer: We don't.

What we also still know NOTHING about is the long-term downsides, if any, of the "vaccine". If there are serious long-term side effects, it is possible that the harm could exceed any benefit we eventually might demonstrate, in which case, this "vaccine" would be worse than useless.

Many have tried to get them to admit that your point is valid, but so far none have succeeded. Maybe you'll be the first.

I'll admit that the point "might" be valid, but we just don't know. Maybe in 5 years we will, but we sure don't right now.

[Mick]

Originally Posted by MadInNc

We all seen your side affects when ya got the shot….

Well, I haven't got the shot. But if that is what I will look like after getting it, I would reconsider. I'm a lot uglier than that dude.

[UniqueDoug]

Originally Posted by dvarapala

https://www.thevettebarn.com/forums/...9&postcount=77

I suppose you'll be going back to your binary narrative now.

See you just can’t answer the question honestly like Loco, you’ve been going around in circles on this and still won’t answer the damn question

simple question, if you used the prophylactic (designed to prevent disease) and you caught crabs, would you say it worked?

[Aerovette]

Psssst..."crabs" isn't a disease.

[UniqueDoug]

Originally Posted by Mick

Please stop this. In November of 2020, it was announced that the Pfizer vaccine (as an example) was 95% effective at preventing infection. Go to your favorite search engine and type in "Pfizer COVID vaccine 95% effective" and literally dozens of articles will come up. Here is one from WebMD:

https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid...s-95-effective

Yep, this pic is one of the first reports on MSM when there was an oh shit moment about efficacy

Says it right there

PREVENTING ANY INFECTION