On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 12:50:43 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> No mention of human.

Search again, idiot. I said it _many_ times.
You're such an idiot that you think it has to be said _every_ time.

The fact remains:
I knew more about coronaviruses fifty years ago than you'll ever know.
I knew more about genetics fifty years ago than you'll ever know.
I knew more about immunology fifty years ago than you'll ever know.

My goal has never wavered in this thread.
You and Steve were and are and always will be completely ignorant.

I needed to prove that, where you proved it for me, as did Steve.
a. You disputed common immunological words
b. You disputed well known viral genome sizes
c. You disputed well known epidemiological metrics

Every instance proved you (and Steve) to be completely ignorant.
And that's OK.

Most people are as ignorant about Covid as you and Steve are Chris.
Who cares? Not me.

What I care about is this:
*Those most ignorant are the ones forcing others what to do*

You'll never see me force an injection of foreign genetic material.
Never.

If someone wants to get it, that's fine.
But I'll never force it upon them.

I _understand_ why people like you are filled with insane fear.
I _understand_ why people don't like the idea of this injection.

You don't.
That is the difference between us, Chris.

You're ignorant, sure, but you don't even _realize_ you're ignorant.
All I did was prove it for you.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 14:20:31 GMT, David Higton wrote:

> All the studies show it. Proper studies, performed by the people who are
> qualified to do so.

I welcome a scholarly discussion, although let's both admit that Usenet is
best left for debunking morons like Chris & Steve than for conversing in
lettered content.

I don't know who you are David, but I do know that Steve & Chris are
ignorant where my main goal was to prove to everyone that they are ignorant.

BTW, I don't care that they're ignorant about Covid per se, as almost
everyone who doesn't have years of training in the subject is clueless.

But I needed them to prove how ignorant they really are to make my point:
*Those most ignorant are the ones telling others what to do*
> I just read the other day that almost 400 children in the USA have died
> as a result of Covid.

That's almost certainly bullshit based on the CDC figures we've found,
and based on the COVID-19 Update January 27, 2022 PDF we already cited.

However you didn't define "children" nor the time frame (whereas the CDC did
in _both_ those publications), so what you need is a better cite than "I
read today", don't you think?

Your figures are off from the CDC by a tremendous amount, by the way
(66 Covid-19 deaths in children 501 from 10/3/20 to 10/2/21)

The January 27 2022 PDF shows a bar chart of deaths by age.

My point on ignorance is people don't _look_ at the data, where it's
astounding the shape of the fatality curve when plotted by age.

And that's a key point of mine that I make, so people have to understand.

If they don't comprehend and process even the most basic of the simplest
facts, how can they _then_ force others to do what they want them to do?

Do you see what I mean?

> Some proportion of those tragedies would have
> been avoided by vaccinating the children. I don't know about you, but
> I care about that.

I get your use of tragedy, which is exactly how Stalin used it.
What your statement completely lacks is _perspective_ which is critical.

Remember, we're _forcing_ people to get a shot they may not want.
Always keep that in mind.

Notice _more_ kids (5-11) in the CDC paper died of heart disease.
Twice as many, in fact.
Why not force them all to get heart bypass surgery (or whatever)?

Remember, more than three times that died by homicide.
Why not force kids to all wear some kind of protective gear (or whatever)?

Remember, appreciably more kids died of the flu and pneumonia.
Why not _force_ them to get protective measure for those too?

Do you see my point about perspective?

Remember Chris was completely clueless on perspective when I mentioned the
RNA genome being "huge" (which mattered because we were talking about
mutations)?

Chris has zero scientific education.
None.

He has no perspective.

So what he did was he googled the size and found it small compared to the
human genome, and then Chris claimed he found a fault in my argument.

WHO is _that_ stupid?
Well, the answer is a _lot_ of people are that stupid.

They have zero knowledge.
SO they have zero perspective.

The number of deaths for children is _dwarfed_ by other things too.
Aren't they tragedies too?

My pertinent question to you is all about having proper perspective:
*Aren't all those other deaths tragedies too?*
*If so, what are you going to _force_ people to do about them?*
> All the studies show that the side effects of the vaccine are less
> frequent than those of the virus.

Nobody disputes that in this thread.
Nobody.

> Indeed, I found it very interesting
> that we all worried in the early days about blood clots caused by the
> vaccines, only to discover, when proper follow-up studies had been
> performed, that people were less likely to suffer them from the
> vaccine than from the virus - in other words, the vaccine actually
> protected people from blood clots.

OK. So now you know what everyone else already knew long ago.
That's good.
It's all part of having an educated perspective.
But it adds nothing to the equation when the topic is _forcing_ people to
get something they ckearly don't want to get (some of them, anyway).

People have a _right_ to not be forced to get shot up with highly modified
foreign substances (if they don't want them), don't they?

Whatever happened to the Democrats slogan: *My Body*. *My Choice*?
Note: I know _exactly_ what happened. They bullshitted us. They lied.

The facts prove it.
a. For the things ignorant Democrats aren't scared of, it's your body.
b. For the things that scare ignorant Democrats to death, it's not.
> For someone who claims huge knowledge on the subject, your claim that
> long Covid might be clickbait invented by the news media stretches your
> credibility way beyond breaking point.

Listen David, Stop that tack. Just stop it.

If I'm unaware of something, I'll say it.
I'm not afraid of being honest with you.

You know that I have a shit ton of education on this.
And you know that I know that there is plenty that I don't know.
All educated people are that way.

For you to use that honesty as an insult is disconcerting.
Bring up a real fact and we can discuss it.
But stop it with the bullshit.

You brought up the "long Covid", not me.
I surmised it might be clickbait, as a response.
Just as I surmise your "400 deaths" is clickbait.

In neither case did you cite even a single reference to back up your claim.
That's _not_ what educated people do, David.
It's just not.

It's what people do who are bullshitters, David.
Even if they're not trying to bullshit me, it's the approach of idiots.

Remember, most people are completely ignorant of Covid.
All they know is the clickbait, which abounds.

You didn't bring up a cite so I didn't delve deeper.
If you bring up a cite, we can discuss it as adults.

But I'm not going to discuss every single bit of clickbait that you find.
Bring up a fact.
Not clickbait.

A fact.
I'll read it (I've read _every_ cite proposed so far, you know).

> There has surely been enough coverage about it by thoroughly respectable
> and credible media organisations, it has to be accepted as fact.

Bullshit.
The media claimed for a long time there were WMD in Iraq didn't they?
Where were they?

Give me a cite that I can read, David.
Otherwise you sound like my sister who is always sending the family stories
of guys hiding in the back of cars so everyone should check under their
floorboards.

You sound like she does.
Every virus scare she sends me turns out to be a myth.

> Long Covid is a bit of a misnomer in that victims don't continue to
> harbour the virus for a long time.

Ah. Now you're speaking like an educated person, David.
Remember, I have something you don't have.
Perspective.

I _knew_ that "most" studies show people wipe out the virus.
(Of course, studies are always coming up so I was prepared for new data.)

> Rather, the huge damage done to
> various parts of their bodies is the thing that persists far longer
> than the virus itself. For many people it is very debilitating.

Oh ho.
Now we get to the Lyme Disease type hype.
Every single person who has an ache or pain blames it on Lyme Disease.

I'm not saying you blamed Lyme Disease, but it's the same approach.
Find _something_ (anything), like a runny nose, or a cough, or a sneeze, and
then claim that everything causes it.

Stop it with the baseless claims.
You're wasting my valuable time.

I'm here to teach. And to learn.
But I'm not going to learn from clickbait bullshit.

Give me a cite to read.
Otherwise stop claiming uncited potential bullshit.

> Vaccinations have removed many scourges from the developed world. It
> started with Jenner, by whose work smallpox was eradicated. I'm old
> enough to remember kids in "leg irons" because they had caught polio,
> which was eradicated long ago. Measles, mumps, rubella, tuberculosis...

WTF?
Don't you know every person trained in virology knows this?
It's like one of the most basic things.
Do you have _any_ perspective?

Are you just cutting and pasting stuff that you have no idea is about?
> Any side effects from the vaccines (were there ever any?) pale into
> insignificance by comparison with those dreadful diseases.

Wow. You're desperate.
Nobody said anything about side effects.

And yet, you are _desperate_ to find a reason to _force_ people to get it.
They don't want it.

DO you understand that?
They do not want it.

Side effects aren't the reason.
If you don't even understand _why_ people don't want it, you are ignorant.
And that's fine.

Plenty of people like you are ignorant.
You actually _believe_ this bullshit about side effects.

People don't want it.
Most of them don't care about side effects.
That's not _why_ they don't want it.

On 2/12/2022 6:20 AM, David Higton wrote:

<snip>

> And of course, diseases continue to afflict people who are stupid
> enough to believe ant-vax clickbait instead of science.

Which is sad, but the problem is that the anti-vaxers and anti-maskers
are insistent upon going to places and interacting with regular people.

No one is forcing them to wear a mask or to get vaccinated as long as
they isolate themselves and don't go to restaurants, hotels, public
buildings, or go on airplanes, ships, trains, buses, etc..

A lot of them get invested in junk science because they think they can
"own the libs" by rejecting science. Sadly, many of them end up in
intensive care and end up not making it.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 11:39:03 -0800, sms wrote:

> Which is sad, but the problem is that the anti-vaxers and anti-maskers
> are insistent upon going to places and interacting with regular people.

Steve is completely ignorant about covid (which is why he's so scared);
and now *Steve wants to limit the ability of free speech & assembly?*

These ignorant people like Steve will _never_ stop taking away your rights.

The far-to-the-left Democrats like Steve will never stop until they've taken
away all your remaining rights... just so that _they_ can "feel" safe?

In message <su93bn$kdh$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 11:39:03 -0800, sms wrote:
>
> > Which is sad, but the problem is that the anti-vaxers and anti-maskers
> > are insistent upon going to places and interacting with regular people.
>
> Steve is completely ignorant about covid (which is why he's so scared);
> and now *Steve wants to limit the ability of free speech & assembly?*

Steve wants to limit the freedom to go round potentially infecting
innocent people.

We all have to accept the consequences of our actions and of our inactions.

David

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 22:33:05 GMT, David Higton wrote:

> Steve wants to limit the freedom to go round potentially infecting
> innocent people.

Rest assured I said many times that Steve is always taking away rights.
The far-left Democrats like Steve are _always_ taking away our rights.

The reason are always the same.
a. They are ignorant. (ignorant beyond belief)
b. They are scared. (scared out of their minds)
c. They want a simple kindergarten solution.

> We all have to accept the consequences of our actions and of our inactions.

To forcibly take away the sacred democratic rights of free speech and
assembly, which Steve advocates, will have huge consequences, indeed.

On 2/12/2022 2:33 PM, David Higton wrote:

<snip>

> Steve wants to limit the freedom to go round potentially infecting
> innocent people.
>
> We all have to accept the consequences of our actions and of our inactions.
>
> David

Precisely. It people want to be stupid, ignore science, and reject the
knowledge of the medical and scientific community, they are free to do
so. But they should not be allowed to endanger the general population by
their actions. They also are hurting businesses that can't return to
full operation when regular people are reluctant to be in a business
with unvaccinated and unmasked individuals. Restaurants in my area have
adjusted pretty well with outdoor dining but that's not practical in
many parts of the country.

"Andy Burnelli" is heavily invested in conspiracy theories and junk
science, and doesn't understand statistics, and that's fine, he can
believe whatever ridiculous things he wants to believe, for whatever
bizarre reasons he can come up with. But he should accept the
consequences of his actions and inactions by isolating, and by
encouraging others that eschew science and statistics to do the same
until the pandemic is over.

We'd likely be done with the pandemic by now if there weren't so many
people like "Andy Burnelli" that don't understand statistics and science
and are actually proud of their ignorance.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 15:07:44 -0800, sms wrote:

> Precisely. It people want to be stupid, ignore science, and reject the
> knowledge of the medical and scientific community, they are free to do
> so. But they should not be allowed to endanger the general population by
> their actions. They also are hurting businesses that can't return to
> full operation when regular people are reluctant to be in a business
> with unvaccinated and unmasked individuals. Restaurants in my area have
> adjusted pretty well with outdoor dining but that's not practical in
> many parts of the country.

Notice Steve is preaching exactly what I said he does all the time.

a. Steve is ignorant (beyond belief) about Covid.
b. Hence, Steve is scared shitless (out of his mind) of Covid

As a result:
A. Steve wants to revoke any rights you have for your own medical decisions
B. Worse, Steve want to revoke your right of free assembly & free speech

The funny thing is the Democrats come up with these kindergarten solutions
all the time, where Steve is a classic case of the far-to-the left wackos.

In message <su9ek2$1qb$1@dont-email.me>
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> On 2/12/2022 2:33 PM, David Higton wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Steve wants to limit the freedom to go round potentially infecting
> > innocent people.
> >
> > We all have to accept the consequences of our actions and of our
> > inactions.
> >
> > David
>
> Precisely. It people want to be stupid, ignore science, and reject the
> knowledge of the medical and scientific community, they are free to do so.
> But they should not be allowed to endanger the general population by their
> actions. They also are hurting businesses that can't return to full
> operation when regular people are reluctant to be in a business with
> unvaccinated and unmasked individuals. Restaurants in my area have
> adjusted pretty well with outdoor dining but that's not practical in many
> parts of the country.
>
> "Andy Burnelli" is heavily invested in conspiracy theories and junk
> science, and doesn't understand statistics, and that's fine, he can
> believe whatever ridiculous things he wants to believe, for whatever
> bizarre reasons he can come up with. But he should accept the consequences
> of his actions and inactions by isolating, and by encouraging others that
> eschew science and statistics to do the same until the pandemic is over.
>
> We'd likely be done with the pandemic by now if there weren't so many
> people like "Andy Burnelli" that don't understand statistics and science
> and are actually proud of their ignorance.

Thank you. I couldn't have expressed that more clearly than you have.

I think it was Anthony Fauci who, a few weeks back, said that Covid has
become a pandemic of the unvaccinated.

David

In message <su9dag$ut8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 22:33:05 GMT, David Higton wrote:
>
> > Steve wants to limit the freedom to go round potentially infecting
> > innocent people.
>
> Rest assured I said many times that Steve is always taking away rights. The
> far-left Democrats like Steve are _always_ taking away our rights.
>
> The reason are always the same. a. They are ignorant. (ignorant beyond
> belief) b. They are scared. (scared out of their minds) c. They want a
> simple kindergarten solution.
>
> > We all have to accept the consequences of our actions and of our
> > inactions.
>
> To forcibly take away the sacred democratic rights of free speech and
> assembly, which Steve advocates, will have huge consequences, indeed.

Freedom is not absolute, and it is disingenuous of you to pretend
otherwise.

When people commit sufficiently serious crimes, we imprison them; we take
away their freedom.

We don't give people the freedom to drive unless and until they prove
that they are capable of driving safely (and they're old enough). If
they subsequently prove otherwise, we remove their freedom to drive.

There was a period in history, not all that long ago really, where there
were no laws. In the UK we refer to any such free-for-all situation as
the "Wild West".

The bottom line is that society chooses to have laws that somewhat
reduce the freedom of individuals, for the overall benefit of society
as a whole.

David

On Feb 13, 2022, David Higton wrote
(in article<news:f48327ba59.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM>):

>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 22:33:05 GMT, David Higton wrote:
>>
>>> Steve wants to limit the freedom to go round potentially infecting
>>> innocent people.
>>
>> Rest assured I said many times that Steve is always taking away rights. The
>> far-left Democrats like Steve are _always_ taking away our rights.
>>
>> The reason are always the same. a. They are ignorant. (ignorant beyond
>> belief) b. They are scared. (scared out of their minds) c. They want a
>> simple kindergarten solution.
>>
>>> We all have to accept the consequences of our actions and of our
>>> inactions.
>>
>> To forcibly take away the sacred democratic rights of free speech and
>> assembly, which Steve advocates, will have huge consequences, indeed.
>
> Freedom is not absolute, and it is disingenuous of you to pretend
> otherwise.
>
> When people commit sufficiently serious crimes, we imprison them; we take
> away their freedom.
>
> We don't give people the freedom to drive unless and until they prove
> that they are capable of driving safely (and they're old enough). If
> they subsequently prove otherwise, we remove their freedom to drive.
>
> There was a period in history, not all that long ago really, where there
> were no laws. In the UK we refer to any such free-for-all situation as
> the "Wild West".
>
> The bottom line is that society chooses to have laws that somewhat
> reduce the freedom of individuals, for the overall benefit of society
> as a whole.
>
> David

The vaxtards who don't get the vaccine & boosters should be put in jail.
Let them infect the criminals and that will kill two birds with one lockup.
At least the rest of us on the outside will be safer that way.

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On 2/13/2022 6:46 AM, David Higton wrote:

<snip>

> Freedom is not absolute, and it is disingenuous of you to pretend
> otherwise.
>
> When people commit sufficiently serious crimes, we imprison them; we take
> away their freedom.
>
> We don't give people the freedom to drive unless and until they prove
> that they are capable of driving safely (and they're old enough). If
> they subsequently prove otherwise, we remove their freedom to drive.
>
> There was a period in history, not all that long ago really, where there
> were no laws. In the UK we refer to any such free-for-all situation as
> the "Wild West".
>
> The bottom line is that society chooses to have laws that somewhat
> reduce the freedom of individuals, for the overall benefit of society
> as a whole.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, more than 100 years ago, on this.

“There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily
subject for the common good,” read the majority opinion. “On any other
basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members.
Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon
be confronted with disorder and anarchy.”

This case was because someone refused to be vaccinated against Smallpox,
which was mandatory in his jurisdiction.

Note that there is no mandate, in any jurisdiction in the U.S., that
anyone receive a Covid vaccine, nor is there a mandate that anyone wear
a mask in their home. There are consequences, in terms of freedom, for
not getting vaccinated or not wearing a mask, such as being barred from
certain places, or losing a job if the employer requires vaccinations,
but those are choices that an individual can freely make.

Sadly, we have people in this country, like our favorite nym-shifting
troll, that don't understand science or statistics, and feel compelled
to try to spread their ignorance. As Isaac Asimov stated: “There is a
cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The
strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its
way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false
notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your
knowledge.”

Asimov died in 1992 and could not have known how much social media would
further spread the "cult of ignorance. Italian philosopher, and
political and social commentator Umberto Eco wrote: “Social media gives
legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar
after a glass of wine, without harming the community. Then they were
quickly silenced, but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel
Prize winner.”

On 2/13/2022 6:49 AM, David Higton wrote:

<snip>

> I think it was Anthony Fauci who, a few weeks back, said that Covid has
> become a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
>
> David

The saddest, but hopeful thing is when someone is about to die of Covid
and begs their anti-vax relatives to not be stupid, and to get
vaccinated
<https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/09/09/1035489298/tiktok-covid-vaccination-megan-blankenbiller-hospital>.

On 2/13/2022 7:00 AM, RonTheGuy wrote:

<snip>

> The vaxtards who don't get the vaccine & boosters should be put in jail.
> Let them infect the criminals and that will kill two birds with one lockup.
> At least the rest of us on the outside will be safer that way.
>
> Ron, the humblest guy in town.

That is harsh and cruel. Incarcerated individuals are serving their time
and should not be intentionally infected with any disease. Prior to
vaccinations becoming available, Covid-19 was spreading like crazy in
prisons, being brought in by employees.

As long as people that choose to not be vaccinated isolate themselves,
that is sufficient. Education, not coercion, is the key to convincing
people to get vaccinated.

In article <subb4s$il9$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> The saddest, but hopeful thing is when someone is about to die of Covid
> and begs their anti-vax relatives to not be stupid, and to get
> vaccinated

no, what's saddest is when they say they have no regrets about not
being vaccinated, sometimes denying they even have covid.

On Feb 13, 2022, sms wrote
(in article<news:subbj0$lsj$1@dont-email.me>):

> On 2/13/2022 7:00 AM, RonTheGuy wrote:
>
>> The vaxtards who don't get the vaccine & boosters should be put in jail.
>> Let them infect the criminals and that will kill two birds with one lockup.
>> At least the rest of us on the outside will be safer that way.
>>
>> Ron, the humblest guy in town.
>
> That is harsh and cruel. Incarcerated individuals are serving their time
> and should not be intentionally infected with any disease. Prior to
> vaccinations becoming available, Covid-19 was spreading like crazy in
> prisons, being brought in by employees.
>
> As long as people that choose to not be vaccinated isolate themselves,
> that is sufficient. Education, not coercion, is the key to convincing
> people to get vaccinated.

If they are going to be on the streets and not vaccinated they can kill me.
Then I'm just as dead as if they robbed me and shot me to death aren't I?

These vaxtards should be locked up with the key thrown away.
Let them die with the rest of the criminals who don't follow the law.

Or if you don't want to lock them up & kill them, at least deport them.

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 08:16:31 -0800, sms wrote:

> Sadly, we have people in this country, like our favorite nym-shifting
> troll, that don't understand science or statistics, and feel compelled
> to try to spread their ignorance.

The wacko Steve is wrong about what I said since I (many times) said:
a. Because I _understand_ why people are desperate to get the shot, and,
b. Because I also _understand_ why people are desperate NOT to get the shot

*I don't tell anyone _what_ they "should" be doing.*
I just give them the facts.

The fact is, this far-to-the-left nutjob Steve _hates_ all the CDC facts.
*That's why Steve denies any CDC fact about Covid he simply doesn't like*

And yet, they're still the CDC's published facts.

Why?
Steve is _desperate_ to make a case based purely on fear.
Not on facts.
--
Which proves my point those most ignorant are telling others what to do.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:49:42 GMT, David Higton wrote:

> I think it was Anthony Fauci who, a few weeks back, said that Covid has
> become a pandemic of the unvaccinated.

It's interesting you haven't provided even a single _cite_ for context.
All you've done is clickbait sound bites - but not a single scientific fact.

Unlike you nutjobs, *I don't tell anyone _what_ they "should" be doing.*
a. Because I _understand_ why people are desperate to get the shot, and,
b. because I _also_ understand why people are desperate NOT to get the shot
I just give them the CDC's own facts.

Why are you so extremely _desperate_ to make a case based purely on fear.
*Is the reason, perhaps, that your belief system isn't based on facts?*

But purely on fear.
--
Which proves my point those most ignorant are telling others what to do.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 08:20:41 -0800, sms wrote:

> The saddest, but hopeful thing is when someone is about to die of Covid
> and begs their anti-vax relatives to not be stupid, and to get
> vaccinated
> <https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/09/09/1035489298/tiktok-covid-vaccination-megan-blankenbiller-hospital>.

Given both Steve and this brand new fellow wacko, "David" are always basing
their entire argument on emotional fear alone, and not on facts, I suspect
there's far more similarly to them than their headers alone might reveal.

I know the facts.
I have a degree in this stuff (which these wackos do NOT have).

And I got the shot.
And the booster.

But not out of the pure irrational fears these nutjobs always display.

I believe in human rights.
These nutjobs clearly do not.

Unlike the nutjobs, *I don't tell anyone _what_ they "should" be doing.*
a. Because I _understand_ why people are desperate to get the shot, and,
b. because I _also_ understand why people are desperate NOT to get the shot
I just give them the CDC's own facts.

Why are the wackos so extremely _desperate_ to make a case based on fear.
*Is the reason, perhaps, their entire belief system isn't based on facts?*

But purely on fear?
Why else do they promote fear, and yet, never any cited CDC facts?
--
My point is clearly those most ignorant are telling others what to do.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 11:30:08 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> The saddest, but hopeful thing is when someone is about to die of Covid
>> and begs their anti-vax relatives to not be stupid, and to get
>> vaccinated
>
> no, what's saddest is when they say they have no regrets about not
> being vaccinated, sometimes denying they even have covid.

Anecdotal and uncited "evidence" is being used by you to promote fear.

People take risks all the time, nospam.
It's called making decisions about life.

People buy a gun, a fast car, a motorcycle, insurance levels, etc.
They're all decisions about risk.

It's _hard_ to evaluate risk, nospam.
Nobody knows that better than I do.

I got the shots, and the booster, nospam.
30 micrograms of pure adulterated mRNA, nospam.

And yet, I don't tell anyone else what to do.
To me, it's "My Body; My Choice" & for you it's "*Your Body; Your Choice*".

To these far-to-the-left wackos, it's "Your body; their choice!"

I'm sure you'll understand that I believe in basic human rights.
And yet, these wackos like Steve clearly do not.

I've noticed wackos like Steve _always_ are taking away your rights.
It's how their kindergarten too-simple fear-based solutions work, nospam.

My _adult_ point is not that they're ignorant (they clearly are).
It's not even that they promote only fear (and not facts).

My adult point is, was, and always has been on this thread that:
*Those most ignorant are the ones telling everyone else what to do*

Why are the wackos so extremely _desperate_ to make a case based on fear.
*Is the reason, perhaps, their entire belief system isn't based on facts?*

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 11:30:08 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> The saddest, but hopeful thing is when someone is about to die of Covid
>> and begs their anti-vax relatives to not be stupid, and to get
>> vaccinated
>
> no, what's saddest is when they say they have no regrets about not
> being vaccinated, sometimes denying they even have covid.

Anecdotal and uncited "evidence" is being used by you to promote fear.

People take risks all the time, nospam.
It's called making decisions about life.

People buy a gun, a fast car, a motorcycle, insurance levels, etc.
They're all decisions about risk.

It's _hard_ to evaluate risk, nospam.
Nobody knows that better than I do.

I have a degree in this stuff, nospam.
None of you do.

Most of you don't even have a basic college education, nospam.
SO it's no wonder you base your entire belief system on fear anecdotes.

I got the shots, and the booster, nospam.
30 micrograms each (three times!) of pure adulterated mRNA, nospam.

And yet, I don't tell anyone else what to do.
To me, it's "My Body; My Choice" & for you it's "*Your Body; Your Choice*".

To these far-to-the-left wackos, it's "Your body; their choice!"

I'm sure you'll understand that I believe in basic human rights.
And yet, these wackos like Steve clearly do not.

I've noticed wackos like Steve _always_ are taking away your rights.
It's how their kindergarten too-simple fear-based solutions work, nospam.

My _adult_ point is not that they're ignorant (they clearly are).
It's not even that they promote only fear (and not facts).

My adult point is, was, and always has been on this thread that:
*Those most ignorant are the ones telling everyone else what to do*

On 2/13/2022 8:16 AM, sms wrote:

<snip>

> The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, more than 100 years ago, on this.
>
> “There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily
> subject for the common good,” read the majority opinion. “On any other
> basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members.
> Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon
> be confronted with disorder and anarchy.”
>
> This case was because someone refused to be vaccinated against Smallpox,
> which was mandatory in his jurisdiction.
Sorry, I forgot to include the link, see
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/197/11#>.

There is also an excellent op-ed that quotes this case, see:
<https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-04-20/government-can-restrict-your-liberty-to-protect-public-health-courts-have-made-that-clear>

Another good article is at:
<https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-18/protesters-california-stay-at-home-orders>

And remember, the Supreme Court case was regarding compulsory
vaccinations. There are no compulsory Covid-19 vaccinations in the
United States. Anyone can choose not to be vaccinated as long as they
are willing to face the consequences.

On 2022-02-13 12:02 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 11:30:08 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>>> The saddest, but hopeful thing is when someone is about to die of Covid
>>> and begs their anti-vax relatives to not be stupid, and to get
>>> vaccinated
>>
>> no, what's saddest is when they say they have no regrets about not
>> being vaccinated, sometimes denying they even have covid.
>
> Anecdotal and uncited "evidence" is being used by you to promote fear.
>
> People take risks all the time, nospam.
> It's called making decisions about life.
>
> People buy a gun, a fast car, a motorcycle, insurance levels, etc.
> They're all decisions about risk.
>
> It's _hard_ to evaluate risk, nospam.
> Nobody knows that better than I do.
>
> I have a degree in this stuff, nospam.

It seems you have "a degree" in every topic under discussion...

That also seems... ...unlikely.

On 2/14/2022 7:21 AM, Not nospam wrote:

<snip>

> It seems you have "a degree" in every topic under discussion...
>
> That also seems... ...unlikely.

LOL. He also doesn't understand the difference between engaging in risky
behavior where the only danger is to yourself, versus risky behavior
affects the general population. The latter is the behavior that the
government is obligated to regulate.

Note that the government could have mandated Covid-19 vaccinations for
all, there is precedent for this being constitutional. But no
governments did that, at least in the U.S.. Instead they said "you can
choose not to be vaccinated and these are the consequences...." Freedom
of choice doesn't get much better than that.

As to degrees, for $599 you can order a bachelors or masters degree
here: <https://www.ashwooduniversity.net>: "No Need to Take Admission
Exams, No Need To Study, Get Life Experience College Degree for What You
Already Know!" (or in the case of our favorite troll, "for What You
Think You Already Know!").