Posts by northernmason10

Carol Kelly3 said:Well, obviously you didn't, mostly because you don't want to. Honestly, this kind of trolling when people are actually trying to answer you... it might lead to some pretty serious consequences beyond just being banned from this forum.

I really think it's about time we brought back Manhattan Island

Nicole James said:It feels like they’ve managed to slash the odds by about 40 percent just by changing the wording to "not to protect"—it's a subtle shift, but it changes the whole equation. 😢
There are several potential outcomes to consider here.

Their bodies are still developing—it’s a delicate stage of growth—and honestly, we just don't know yet if there will be any lasting, long-term consequences from this viral infection.

Of course, The vaccine will save them from the deadly threat...

Carol Kelly3 said:Well, you aren't going to hear him if you don't want to. But I guess eventually everyone will wake up once they realize what they've actually done to this world.

The reason is pretty simple, really—it’s just about stopping one infectious disease. It isn't exactly the first or even the last thing experts recommend getting vaccinated for, either. I guess if you start questioning this one, you could end up questioning why other vaccines exist or why doctors prescribe certain medications and things like that. That seems fine, I suppose, as long as the person asking actually knows what they're talking about. But looking at the way people talk on this forum, it's pretty clear most folks don't even grasp how a vaccine works. So, insisting on these reasons feels kind of pointless to me. When someone actually gives you an answer, you just brush it off, probably because you feel like you know more about immunology than world-renowned scientists.

There you go. The Economist says so, and that’s enough reason for you... because clearly, The Economist knows everything...

mellownomad7 said:Did the pros actually give a decent reason, or are we just blindly following dogma at this point?

Cheers

It doesn't really matter... you just listen to the experts because they supposedly know best. I mean, if it's "irrelevant" whether vaccinated people can still spread the virus or carry the same viral load as the unvaccinated (that’s what the crown says, anyway), then why should anyone care if the vaccine provides any actual benefit to someone who doesn't need it? Just take it and pad the stats, according to the experts...

mellownomad7 said:Looks like the connection finally held up, so let's give this another shot. 😁

Basically, we’re looking for justone legit reason to vaccinate minors.

Their bodies are still developing, and since this vaccine is too, we have no clue what the long-term fallout might be.

What they’re giving adults doesn't mean squat when it comes to kids.
If there’s actually something nasty in there, it’ll take seconds for them to crash. 😛

The folks over in Sweden are pretty upfront and precise with their data.

https://experience.arcgis.com/experi...6f9f87457ed9aa

I don't see a single valid reason to jab anyone under 19.

Plus, from what I can tell, the shot isn't even stopping transmission, infection, or people getting sick.

Supposedly it keeps you out of the hospital, but they aren't even seeing those severe cases anyway.

Give me a throwaway, not three, not seven, not fifteen—just one single reason.

later

The "experts" say it's all fine, and heaven forbid we question the experts...

No