U.S. Cellular Carriers Stepping Up to Fight Covid-19

The three nationwide mobile carriers are helping the U.S. make forward
progress against Covid-19.

'AT&T cuts ties with fake news site OAN'
<https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2022/01/14/san-diegos-oan-losing-its-biggest-revenue-source-as-directv-cuts-ties/>.
This was a business decision because of the growing boycott of AT&T
owned businesses. Of course now Trump is urging his fans to boycott AT&T
owned businesses!
<https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2022/01/16/trump-targets-att-in-retaliation-for-directv-dropping-san-diegos-oan/>.

"T-Mobile to terminate corporate employees who aren't vaccinated by
April -memo"
<https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/t-mobile-terminate-corporate-employees-who-arent-vaccinated-by-april-memo-2022-01-29/>.

"AT&T to require COVID-19 vaccine for employees represented by IBEW
Mobility, Alascom IBEW Local 1547 and Alascom Teamsters Local 959 labor
contracts"
<https://about.att.com/story/2021/att_covid_19_vaccine.html>.

"Verizon Update on COVID-19 vaccine requirements."
<https://www.verizon.com/about/news/speed-october-14-2021>.

Sadly, none of the companies are requiring vaccination for all
employees, just certain employees. What's especially disappointing is
that they're not requiring employees in their retail stores to be
vaccinated since that's where the public interacts, in person, with
their employees.

What wasn't stated in any of the articles is whether or not companies
with unvaccinated employees are following the lead of Delta Airlines,
and some other large companies, and significantly increasing the
employee contribution to health insurance for unvaccinated employees.
This step is more of a carrot than a stick, and would likely work better.

In article <st8v6s$5ac$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> U.S. Cellular Carriers Stepping Up to Fight Covid-19

they knew it was caused 5g.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 07:28:26 -0800, sms wrote:

> Sadly, none of the companies are requiring vaccination for all
> employees, just certain employees. What's especially disappointing is
> that they're not requiring employees in their retail stores to be
> vaccinated since that's where the public interacts, in person, with
> their employees.

Steve,

This is a (related) opinion piece on your post, bearing in mind I have
higher degrees in this stuff, and nobody else here likely does (which means
you don't know one billionth of what I know about this Covid thing).

And yet you _think_ you know enough to tell _others_ how to think.
That's the problem with this procedure being politicized due to fear.

I get it you're deathly afraid of your own shadow, Steve.
I get it _all_ the Democrats are (apparently) driven purely by fear, Steve.

Me?
I'm driven by facts and logic.

Not fear.
I run the math when I have to calculate whether I should get the shot.
(And, I know what is in that shot which is nothing like a polio vaccine!)

I don't expect you to understand what I'm going to summarize below as you're
a purely-fear-driven Democrat to the core, where it's obvious I'm neither a
Democrat nor a Republican because I think for myself (they don't tell me how
to think, Steve, and neither do you).

Here's how the Democrats think:
Democrats on some medical procedures: It's my body, my choice.
Democrats on other medical procedures: It's not my body nor my choice.

What's the difference?
Answer: Fear.

Democrats don't fear abortions (which is the death of an innocent child).
But Democrats fear a coronavirus (which most people are immune to).

It's OK by the way that you Democrats are driven by fear & not by logic.
As long as you keep your slogans straight Steve.
It's either my body my choice... or it's not, Steve.

Which is it?
Is it my body or not Steve?

You tell me because you are a Democrat who claims it is my body from one
side of your mouth, and then on the other side of your mouth you claim that
it is not my body at all.

This duplicity in the Democrats (who don't even believe their own
propaganda) is a problem because _nothing_ from politicians can be believed
if they can't even keep their slogans from contradicting each other.

FACTS (and logical assessments of those facts):
a. This "shot" does not even strictly meet CDC definitions of a "vaccine".
b. This "shot" is _clearly_ not needed by most people (more than 60%).
c. Certainly for kids (whose immune systems are naive) it's even less!
d. The chance of any one person dying from Covid in the USA is 0.2%
e. That _includes_ the very sick and the very old already in that number.
f. The chance of a kid (5-11) dying from Covid in the USA is 0.002%.
g. That means any one person has a 99.998 (kids) to 99.8% chance of living.
h. However, the chance of getting "infected" is nearly 100% (essentially).
i. And the chance of passing it on during that phase is also nearly 100%.
j. The chance of "feeling sick" is about %40 once you are infected.
k. Back to the shot, the chance of dying from the shot itself is neglibible.
l. And the shot doesn't give you chips or anything crazy that people say.
m. The shot is either mRNA or RNA spliced onto DNA of a zoonotic adenovirus.
n. That causes your cells to explode after making tons of one spike protein.
o. That spike protein itself is toxic to your body but it's in low amounts.
p. Because it's toxic (it damages vascular tissue) your body reacts to it.
q. Your body makes an assemblage of attack vehicles, some of which are Ab.
r. The antibodies don't last all that long with a high titre unfortunately.
s. Nobody knows exactly how long so we are doomed to boosters (forever?).
t. It's no different with the full-blown disease in that respect though.
u. But what _is_ different from full-blown disease are the attack vehicles.
v. The attack vehicles are _vastly_ more complex with a full-blown disease.
w. Which means our response under inevitable senescence will be _different_.
x. I believe when we get older, our immune system will "go to hell" quickly.
y. Then those with a shot (a simpler response) will have _less_ protection.
z. While those with the disease (more complex) will have _more_ protection.

I ran out of one-line observations and assessments so that's all you get.
--
Adults can't disagree with the facts (facts are funny that way); but adults
can logically disagree with my assessments of facts (adults are funny that
way).

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:02:38 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> U.S. Cellular Carriers Stepping Up to Fight Covid-19
>
> they knew it was caused 5g.

I know a lot of kooks feel that the 5G causes diseases and I haven't studied
that but I don't think it does so that's why I didn't bother looking it up.

However, just as I ask people at Costco why they're putting premium fuel in
a Honda Civic and I get a parroting of Chevron slogans from them, and just
as I ask people in the Costco lines who have an iPhone why they bought it
and again, I get a parrot of Apple slogans, I _have_ asked _everyone_ I know
why they get the shot and why they did not get the shot.

All I get from most of them is the parroted slogans from either the
Democrats (they got the shot) or from Republicans (they didn't get it).

What's common about _both_ is all of them are ignorant about _everything_
surrounding Covid, and I must say I have degrees in this stuff so like
Winston Churchill was rumored to say about Democracy is true.

Spend just five minutes with either the Democrats or the Republicans on this
topic and you'll realize they're _all_ speaking out of pure ignorance.

Ask anything if you want, since I know this stuff better than all of you
combined (most likely) where I deal in facts (surprise!) & logic (surprise!)
--
Only fools disagree with facts (that's why they're fools); but logical
people will put different weight on each fact when they assess them.

On 1/31/2022 11:16 AM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> which most people are immune to

There are a number of dead folks, now approaching 1 million in this country
alone, that might disagree with that if they were able. I don't claim any
advanced degrees but I did well in my stat classes and to me the numbers
seem to speak for themselves and no sophisticated analysis is required --
just put the number, either absolute or by percentage, of dead unvaccinated
up against the number of dead vaccinated. Little else really matters when
it is literally a life-and-death situation.

Oh, BTW, assuming that _some_ people are naturally immune as you write, how
do they know in advance that they are, before going into a high-risk
high-exposure situation, so that they don't face a higher risk of adding to
the death toll? Should these _immune_ people be drafted in to work in Covid
ICUs, perhaps assisting in intubations? I hear that the pay could be very
good and think of the money that could be saved on PPE.

--
Bodger's Dictum: Artifical intelligence
can never overcome natural stupidity.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 13:02:57 -0500, John McGaw wrote:

> On 1/31/2022 11:16 AM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> which most people are immune to
>
> There are a number of dead folks, now approaching 1 million in this country
> alone, that might disagree with that if they were able.

Thank you for posting your feelings because I have a good heart and a ton of
knowledge that I would like to bestow upon others not so fortunate as I.

Notice that I said the CDC said the death rate in the USA is 0.2% overall,
which, as you may recall, already includes the already very old & very sick.

Also notice I never tell other people _what_ foreign substances to inject
into their bodies as every person has to make that decision for themselves.

> I don't claim any
> advanced degrees but I did well in my stat classes

I welcome _intelligent_ discourse on this subject, mainly for two reasons:
a. So that I can learn how others think (who don't know what I know), and,
b. So that others can gain at least an inkling of what I know about Covid.

While I probably have more degrees in this field than anyone on this
newsgroup, all you need is avg adult comprehensive skills to comprehend the
26 logical items that I stated in the prior post (I stopped at the end of
the alphabet because I could essentially go on for a long time with facts).

If you ever find even a single fact stated by me to ever be wrong, let me
know. Lord knows, the iKooks have tried for decades (and failed so far).

HINT: A fact is _different_ from an assessment of that fact; so if you're
going to claim a fact is wrong, look at it again because it could be an
assessment of a fact, where assessments depend on weights given to facts.

> and to me the numbers
> seem to speak for themselves and no sophisticated analysis is required

Are you claiming that CDC 0.2% fatality percentage is factually wrong?
Or that the CDC 0.002% fatality percentage for the 5-11 aged kids is wrong?

(Because only a fool disagrees with well established scientific facts.)

> just put the number, either absolute or by percentage, of dead unvaccinated
> up against the number of dead vaccinated. Little else really matters when
> it is literally a life-and-death situation.

Being logical, I'm well aware of what 0.2% is of a very big number; but that
doesn't change the fact the fatality risk to any one individual _is_ that.

I posit that any one person (whether Democrat or Republican or an individual
thinker as I am) _must_ calculate the risk to _themselves_ when making a
decision of what foreign substances to have injected into their bodies.

> Oh, BTW, assuming that _some_ people are naturally immune as you write, how
> do they know in advance that they are, before going into a high-risk
> high-exposure situation, so that they don't face a higher risk of adding to
> the death toll?

I answered that question in this thread already & I welcome more solutions.
*T-Mobile Nazis to terminate corporate employees who aren't vaccinated*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/5j5m7T3DUX4>

Notice that my proposed solution would work, and it would have the benefit
that most people would be _safer_ (if my position on senescence is correct).

> Should these _immune_ people be drafted in to work in Covid
> ICUs, perhaps assisting in intubations? I hear that the pay could be very
> good and think of the money that could be saved on PPE.

I'm glad you made that statement above because I try to learn _why_ people
think the way they do, where that statement illustrates _exactly_ what you
base your decisions upon.

Fear.
Not logic.

But fear.

Now it's fine that _you_ make all your decisions based on being driven crazy
by your own fears... but some of us out there use scientific facts & logic.

On 1/31/2022 10:02 AM, John McGaw wrote:

<snip>

> There are a number of dead folks, now approaching 1 million in this
> country alone, that might disagree with that if they were able. I don't
> claim any advanced degrees but I did well in my stat classes and to me
> the numbers seem to speak for themselves and no sophisticated analysis
> is required -- just put the number, either absolute or by percentage, of
> dead unvaccinated up against the number of dead vaccinated. Little else
> really matters when it is literally a life-and-death situation.
>
> Oh, BTW, assuming that _some_ people are naturally immune as you write,
> how do they know in advance that they are, before going into a high-risk
> high-exposure situation, so that they don't face a higher risk of adding
> to the death toll? Should these _immune_ people be drafted in to work in
> Covid ICUs, perhaps assisting in intubations? I hear that the pay could
> be very good and think of the money that could be saved on PPE.

Companies that take steps, that are both in their own self-interest, as
well as in the public interest, should be applauded.

We'd be done with Covid already if not for so many right-wing lunatics
buying into all the conspiracy theories and promoting fake cures and
opposing masks. Even Trump has been urging people to get vaccinated,
probably realizing that if he wants to run again he needs live people to
vote for him.

No one should be forced to get vaccinated, but there needs to be
consequences for those that decide to "own the libs" by contributing to
the spread of Covid by not getting vaccinated. They can stay in their
own homes and cars, but unvaccinated individuals should not be allowed
to be in publicly accessible indoor locations like stores, offices,
restaurants, hotels, hospitals, airports and airplanes, cruise ships,
public transportation, etc. until the pandemic is completely over. They
also should be paying more for health insurance than regular people.

In article <st9dc1$vmf$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Even Trump has been urging people to get vaccinated,
> probably realizing that if he wants to run again he needs live people to
> vote for him.

he stopped doing that because they don't want to hear it. he was booed
when he mentioned it at his rallies.

> No one should be forced to get vaccinated,

kids are required to be vaccinated to go to school and the military
will vaccinate cadets, for many diseases, not just covid.

On 01/31/2022 11:30 AM, sms wrote:
> On 1/31/2022 10:02 AM, John McGaw wrote:
>
> <snip>

Firing people is stupid.

>> There are a number of dead folks, now approaching 1 million in this
>> country alone, that might disagree with that if they were able. I don't
>> claim any advanced degrees but I did well in my stat classes and to me
>> the numbers seem to speak for themselves and no sophisticated analysis
>> is required -- just put the number, either absolute or by percentage, of
>> dead unvaccinated up against the number of dead vaccinated. Little else
>> really matters when it is literally a life-and-death situation.

Most of the dead are old sick people according to everything I've read.
Not surprising -- perhaps COVID has just replaced pheumonia.

>> Oh, BTW, assuming that _some_ people are naturally immune as you write,
>> how do they know in advance that they are, before going into a high-risk
>> high-exposure situation, so that they don't face a higher risk of adding
>> to the death toll? Should these _immune_ people be drafted in to work in
>> Covid ICUs, perhaps assisting in intubations? I hear that the pay could
>> be very good and think of the money that could be saved on PPE.
>
> Companies that take steps, that are both in their own self-interest, as
> well as in the public interest, should be applauded.
>
> We'd be done with Covid already if not for so many right-wing lunatics
> buying into all the conspiracy theories and promoting fake cures and
> opposing masks. Even Trump has been urging people to get vaccinated,
> probably realizing that if he wants to run again he needs live people to
> vote for him.

I'm a Conservative, but I figure that the shots would probably help and
probably wouldn't hurt and were free so I got them. It really bothers
me that The Government first said cloth masks were good enough, but
later admitted they were worthless and everybody should now use N95
masks, which were forbidden originally. The stats are all suspicious
because they can't be anything else -- they depend on the accuracy of
the opinions of the people who are checking the boxes. Trust in The
Authorities is probably at an all-time low -- with justification.

> No one should be forced to get vaccinated, but there needs to be
> consequences for those that decide to "own the libs" by contributing to
> the spread of Covid by not getting vaccinated. They can stay in their
> own homes and cars, but unvaccinated individuals should not be allowed
> to be in publicly accessible indoor locations like stores, offices,
> restaurants, hotels, hospitals, airports and airplanes, cruise ships,
> public transportation, etc. until the pandemic is completely over. They
> also should be paying more for health insurance than regular people.

I don't think the "facts" are sufficiently firm that regs like that are
justified. It's probably better to be vaccinated, and masks keep us
from spitting on strangers. The rest is uncertain.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to
spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and
begin slitting throats." -- H.L. Mencken

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:30:07 -0800, sms wrote:

> Companies that take steps, that are both in their own self-interest, as
> well as in the public interest, should be applauded.

Steve,

What you just said is utterly ridiculous and completely illogical.

What if the company decides on "something" that is in their self interest,
and which is also in the public interest, like, oh, say fire sex workers.

I realize you base _all_ your decisions purely on illogical abject fear.
But c'mon.

What you just said companies should do is logically indefensible.

> We'd be done with Covid already if not for so many right-wing lunatics
> buying into all the conspiracy theories and promoting fake cures and
> opposing masks.

It's interesting that you are so far off the deep end, Steve, on the left,
that you can't comprehend anyone who speaks scientific facts and logic.

You have to throw them to the far right just to _comprehend_ anyone who
would speak facts that you _hate_ but which you have no defense to.

What your attempt to throw everyone logical to the right means, Steve...
is that you have no _adult_ response to the facts that were presented.

> Even Trump has been urging people to get vaccinated,
> probably realizing that if he wants to run again he needs live people to
> vote for him.

Again, you can't comprehend an _adult_ argument without bringing up Trump.
Nobody brought up Trump but you Steve.

This isn't about Trump.
It's about cold scientific facts which you _hate_ because they're logical.

You bring up Trump because you have no adult defense to scientific facts.
> No one should be forced to get vaccinated, but there needs to be
> consequences for those that decide to "own the libs" by contributing to
> the spread of Covid by not getting vaccinated.

I'm not like you in that I know so much more than you ever will about Covid,
that I will _not_ tell anyone else what they should do with their body.

It's my educated opinion that the immune system of most people is _weakened_
by the shot (it's _not_ a vaccine, Steve, no matter how many times you call
it that - as it doesn't the basic CDC definition of what a vaccine does).

I can discuss _how_ most people are _weakened_ by the shot Steve, as it has
to do with responding to just one protein versus responding to the entire
genome of the virus (and all the by products of the disease progression);
but I doubt you have the adult capacity to comprehend scientific facts.

I can also discuss what happens ten, twenty & thirty years from now where
the first response to a virus (which often is the strongest) wanes, such
that most people, during senescence, will find their immune system goes
haywire (I doubt you comprehend what the "cytokine storm is, Steve).

My point is that people who don't need the shot who get it (like most kids,
for example), are actually already _suffering_ the consequences of the shot.

Their immune system is not only weakened (because it's laser focused on just
one thing instead of many) but it's also prone to senescence decades from
now.

I realize that's way above your intelligence level to even _begin_ to
comprehend, Steve, but it's some of the reasons why I don't tell other
people what foreign substances to inject into their bodies.

> They can stay in their
> own homes and cars, but unvaccinated individuals should not be allowed
> to be in publicly accessible indoor locations like stores, offices,
> restaurants, hotels, hospitals, airports and airplanes, cruise ships,
> public transportation, etc. until the pandemic is completely over. They
> also should be paying more for health insurance than regular people.

Spoken like a true Democrat.
You're _always_ trying to take away people's rights, Steve.

Whether you like it or not, people have a _right_ to choose the substances
that are injected into their bodies, just as, today, they have the right to
kill an unborn baby (and that's OK because that's the law as it stands).

I'm not saying the Republicans are saints; but you, as a die hard well off
the charts kooky Democrat Steve, you are always trying to remove our rights.
--
I'm neither Democrat nor Republican becuase I can think for myself.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 14:51:29 -0500, nospam wrote:

> he stopped doing that because they don't want to hear it. he was booed
> when he mentioned it at his rallies.

Steve brought up Trump because Steve wanted to deflect the conversation from
the facts, which Steve had no _adult_ response to (so he brought up Trump).
>
>> No one should be forced to get vaccinated,
>
> kids are required to be vaccinated to go to school and the military
> will vaccinate cadets, for many diseases, not just covid.

Steve was talking about this shot (which doesn't even meet the CDC's own
definition of what a vaccine is) which is not needed by most people.

The facts remain that in this country, people have a right today to decide
whether or not they will get this shot, whether or not Steve likes the fact
that people have that right.

I, for one, know _both_ sides of the argument, and even a third, which are:
a. The Democrats are driven by fear (of the disease);
b. The Republicans, are also driven by fear (of the shot);
c. And neither knows a damn thing about the actual scientific facts.

These are facts that I _welcome_ someone trying to disprove.
1. Most people are completely immune to Covid
2. Which simply means they're completely asymptomatic
3. And that's no surprise given coronaviruses cause about 1/3rd of all colds
4. The fatality rate is about 0.2% (which includes the very sick & old)
5. For kids, the fatality rate is 100 times _lower_ than even that
6. However, nearly 100% of people will be _infected_ by the virion
7. And, at the acute stage, they will be able to infect others quite easily
8. And, whether or not they get the shot, the immunity will be short lived
9. If they get the shot, their primary response is to a _single_ protein
10. But if they get infected, their primary response is vastly more complex

I'll stop there with the fact, but rest assured I can also explain how most
people will have a _reduced_ immune response if they get the shot and if
they're in the group who doesn't need it; and I can discuss how senescence
will exacerbate that problem, but I think that's too high above most people
here to even begin to comprehend.

ASSESSMENT:
We need to learn how to deal with this since it's with us forever.
My assessment is we have to maintain fundamental basic human rights.
My assessment is people like Steve want to destroy our basic rights.

I believe there _is_ a solution, and I've already hinted at that solution.
But, sadly, it's too far above the ability of most people to comprehend.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 12:19:39 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:

> Firing people is stupid.

I agree with The Real Bev, where the problem, as I see it, is Covid scares
the shit out of both Democrats & Republicans, but in different ways.
1. People who are die-hard Democrats are scared to death of the disease;
2. People who are die-hard Republicans are scared to death of the shot;
3. Both seem to be so afraid they want to _force_ others to do what they do.

I, for one, will _never_ tell anyone to either get the shot or not get it.
I will simply explain the facts and let _them_ decide what they should do.

>>> There are a number of dead folks, now approaching 1 million in this
>>> country alone, that might disagree with that if they were able. I don't
>>> claim any advanced degrees but I did well in my stat classes and to me
>>> the numbers seem to speak for themselves and no sophisticated analysis
>>> is required -- just put the number, either absolute or by percentage, of
>>> dead unvaccinated up against the number of dead vaccinated. Little else
>>> really matters when it is literally a life-and-death situation.
>
> Most of the dead are old sick people according to everything I've read.
> Not surprising -- perhaps COVID has just replaced pheumonia.

While that sounds cold hearted, it is, in all likelihood, logically sound,
which is that a wave of any "new disease" takes those most susceptible.

Who is most susceptible to Covid?
a. The very old
a. Those who are immunocompromised
d. Those who have lung, kidney, heart, and liver disease

Why?
Because {ACE2,Furin,TMPRSS,HeparinSulfate} receptors are on those tissues.
Also because the timing of pneumonia & the cytokine storm is deadly to them.

>>> Oh, BTW, assuming that _some_ people are naturally immune as you write,
>>> how do they know in advance that they are, before going into a high-risk
>>> high-exposure situation, so that they don't face a higher risk of adding
>>> to the death toll? Should these _immune_ people be drafted in to work in
>>> Covid ICUs, perhaps assisting in intubations? I hear that the pay could
>>> be very good and think of the money that could be saved on PPE.
>>
>> Companies that take steps, that are both in their own self-interest, as
>> well as in the public interest, should be applauded.
>>
>> We'd be done with Covid already if not for so many right-wing lunatics
>> buying into all the conspiracy theories and promoting fake cures and
>> opposing masks. Even Trump has been urging people to get vaccinated,
>> probably realizing that if he wants to run again he needs live people to
>> vote for him.
>
> I'm a Conservative, but I figure that the shots would probably help and
> probably wouldn't hurt and were free so I got them.

The problem with making an assessment of whether or not to get the shot is
_nobody_ knows if they're in the "most people who are immune" category, or
if they're in the "40% or so who will feel the disease" category (and worse,
if they're in the 0.02% fatal category).

Given most people are immune, my position is the government should fund a
_test_ to tell us which category we are in; but I know of nobody doing that
research (if you do, please tell me as _that_ I believe is a solution!).

> It really bothers
> me that The Government first said cloth masks were good enough, but
> later admitted they were worthless and everybody should now use N95
> masks, which were forbidden originally. The stats are all suspicious
> because they can't be anything else -- they depend on the accuracy of
> the opinions of the people who are checking the boxes. Trust in The
> Authorities is probably at an all-time low -- with justification.

The problem with "trust" in the government is the same as trusting Apple to
do what is good for you. Take the Democrats, for example, who say with one
side of their mouths that you have the right to choose what medical
procedures you undergo because it's your body and your choice, but, when the
Democrats get an inkling of fear in them, they _instantly_ revoke that
right.

I'm not saying the Republicans are any different, mind you, in that they're
duplicitous also; which is why Democracy requires an educated populace.

Democrats fear monger; Republicans fear monger too.
People need to _educate_ themselves.

My position is *Don't let the Democrats take away more of your rights*
My position also is *Don't let the Republicans take away your rights either*

If people listed only to ignorant Democrats like Steve clearly is, they'll
be led astray just as much if they had listened to the ignorant Republicans.

>> No one should be forced to get vaccinated, but there needs to be
>> consequences for those that decide to "own the libs" by contributing to
>> the spread of Covid by not getting vaccinated. They can stay in their
>> own homes and cars, but unvaccinated individuals should not be allowed
>> to be in publicly accessible indoor locations like stores, offices,
>> restaurants, hotels, hospitals, airports and airplanes, cruise ships,
>> public transportation, etc. until the pandemic is completely over. They
>> also should be paying more for health insurance than regular people.
>
> I don't think the "facts" are sufficiently firm that regs like that are
> justified. It's probably better to be vaccinated, and masks keep us
> from spitting on strangers. The rest is uncertain.

You know me and you know that I can back up every factual claim I make.
Here are just 10 facts that I welcome anyone being able to disprove.
These are facts that I _welcome_ someone trying to disprove.
1. Most people are completely immune to Covid
2. Which simply means they're completely asymptomatic
3. And that's no surprise given coronaviruses cause about 1/3rd of all colds
4. The fatality rate is about 0.2% (which includes the very sick & old)
5. For kids, the fatality rate is 100 times _lower_ than even that
6. However, nearly 100% of people will be _infected_ by the virion
7. And, at the acute stage, they will be able to infect others quite easily
8. And, whether or not they get the shot, the immunity will be short lived
9. If they get the shot, their primary response is to a _single_ protein
10. But if they get infected, their primary response is vastly more complex

Here's the problem as I see it.
Q: How many people _know_ those facts?

Almost none, right?
And those are extremely basic facts, right?

That. That. That, is what is so sad about this conversation.

Two typos...
1. Add diabetes to the susceptible (basically it's a circulatory issue)
2. It's 0.2% fatal (not 0.02%).

These are facts that _everyone_ should know who is an intelligent adult.
1. Most people are inherently immune to Covid
2. Which simply means they're completely asymptomatic
3. And that's no surprise given coronaviruses cause about 1/3rd of all colds
4. The fatality rate is about 0.2% (which includes the very sick & old)
5. For kids, the fatality rate is 100 times _lower_ than even that
6. However, nearly 100% of people will be _infected_ by the virion
7. And, at the acute stage, they will be able to infect others quite easily
8. And, whether or not they get the shot, the immunity will be short lived
9. If they get the shot, their primary response is to a _single_ protein
10. But if they get infected, their primary response is vastly more complex

If people aren't aware of those 10 basic facts, they have no right to make
_any_ decision about what _other people_ should do with respect to the shot.

Trust me, there's more (lots more), such as what's _in_ those shots, and how
they work (and what they do to dumb down the immune system); but there
likely isn't anyone on this newsgroup knowledgeable enough to discuss that.
A. If you get the shot 1st, your primary response is to a _single_ protein;
B. If you get the disease first, your primary response is far more complex;
C. But worse is what happens over time (years and decades from now).

I can't even _begin_ to explain to people here the immunological
consequences of senescence over time given either a primary insult being a
single protein versus the primary insult being a rather complex disease
progression - because most people - I assess - are too ignorant to be making
the claims that they're making.

In summary, if a person doesn't even know those 10 facts, they are ignorant.
--
(Ignorance can be cured - but if they remain ignorant, then they're stupid.)

On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 06:30:07 +1100, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> On 1/31/2022 10:02 AM, John McGaw wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> There are a number of dead folks, now approaching 1 million in this
>> country alone, that might disagree with that if they were able. I don't
>> claim any advanced degrees but I did well in my stat classes and to me
>> the numbers seem to speak for themselves and no sophisticated analysis
>> is required -- just put the number, either absolute or by percentage,
>> of dead unvaccinated up against the number of dead vaccinated. Little
>> else really matters when it is literally a life-and-death situation.
>> Oh, BTW, assuming that _some_ people are naturally immune as you
>> write, how do they know in advance that they are, before going into a
>> high-risk high-exposure situation, so that they don't face a higher
>> risk of adding to the death toll? Should these _immune_ people be
>> drafted in to work in Covid ICUs, perhaps assisting in intubations? I
>> hear that the pay could be very good and think of the money that could
>> be saved on PPE.
>
> Companies that take steps, that are both in their own self-interest, as
> well as in the public interest, should be applauded.
>
> We'd be done with Covid already if not for so many right-wing lunatics
> buying into all the conspiracy theories and promoting fake cures and
> opposing masks.

No country that didn't have that is done with covid already.

> Even Trump has been urging people to get vaccinated, probably realizing
> that if he wants to run again he needs live people to vote for him.

Yes, but even in countries which have 95% vaccinated arent done
with covid yet, essentially because the vaccines arent that great
at preventing infection, particularly with omicrom. Still great at
avoiding severe disease and being killed by covid.

> No one should be forced to get vaccinated, but there needs to be
> consequences for those that decide to "own the libs" by contributing to
> the spread of Covid by not getting vaccinated. They can stay in their
> own homes and cars, but unvaccinated individuals should not be allowed
> to be in publicly accessible indoor locations like stores, offices,
> restaurants, hotels, hospitals, airports and airplanes, cruise ships,
> public transportation, etc. until the pandemic is completely over.

That isnt feasible how common it is for the vaccinated to get infected.

They
> also should be paying more for health insurance than regular people.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 07:28:26 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>> Sadly, none of the companies are requiring vaccination for all
>> employees, just certain employees. What's especially disappointing is
>> that they're not requiring employees in their retail stores to be
>> vaccinated since that's where the public interacts, in person, with
>> their employees.
>
> Steve,
>
> This is a (related) opinion piece on your post, bearing in mind I have
> higher degrees in this stuff, and nobody else here likely does (which means
> you don't know one billionth of what I know about this Covid thing).
>
> And yet you _think_ you know enough to tell _others_ how to think.
> That's the problem with this procedure being politicized due to fear.
>
> I get it you're deathly afraid of your own shadow, Steve.
> I get it _all_ the Democrats are (apparently) driven purely by fear, Steve.
>
> Me?
> I'm driven by facts and logic.
>
> Not fear.
> I run the math when I have to calculate whether I should get the shot.
> (And, I know what is in that shot which is nothing like a polio vaccine!)
>
> I don't expect you to understand what I'm going to summarize below as you're
> a purely-fear-driven Democrat to the core, where it's obvious I'm neither a
> Democrat nor a Republican because I think for myself (they don't tell me how
> to think, Steve, and neither do you).
>
> Here's how the Democrats think:
> Democrats on some medical procedures: It's my body, my choice.
> Democrats on other medical procedures: It's not my body nor my choice.
>
> What's the difference?
> Answer: Fear.
>
> Democrats don't fear abortions (which is the death of an innocent child).
> But Democrats fear a coronavirus (which most people are immune to).
>
> It's OK by the way that you Democrats are driven by fear & not by logic.
> As long as you keep your slogans straight Steve.
> It's either my body my choice... or it's not, Steve.
>
> Which is it?
> Is it my body or not Steve?
>
> You tell me because you are a Democrat who claims it is my body from one
> side of your mouth, and then on the other side of your mouth you claim that
> it is not my body at all.
>
> This duplicity in the Democrats (who don't even believe their own
> propaganda) is a problem because _nothing_ from politicians can be believed
> if they can't even keep their slogans from contradicting each other.
>
> FACTS (and logical assessments of those facts):

Facts are usually backed up with evidence which you've not done.

> a. This "shot" does not even strictly meet CDC definitions of a "vaccine".

False.

> b. This "shot" is _clearly_ not needed by most people (more than 60%).

No different to any other vaccine.

> c. Certainly for kids (whose immune systems are naive) it's even less!
> d. The chance of any one person dying from Covid in the USA is 0.2%

Which is why a treatment is required. That's a dangerous disease.

> e. That _includes_ the very sick and the very old already in that number.
> f. The chance of a kid (5-11) dying from Covid in the USA is 0.002%.
> g. That means any one person has a 99.998 (kids) to 99.8% chance of living.

You've avoided separating out the old and sick. Their risk of death can be
over 10%.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mortality-risk-estimator

> h. However, the chance of getting "infected" is nearly 100% (essentially).

No it isn't.

> i. And the chance of passing it on during that phase is also nearly 100%.

No it isn't. Even measles which is the most infectious disease doesn't
infect everyone who comes into contact with am infectious person.

COVID in this study has a 2% infectivity rate.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32651-9/fulltext

> j. The chance of "feeling sick" is about %40 once you are infected.
> k. Back to the shot, the chance of dying from the shot itself is negligible.

Correct. In the UK following over 100 million vaccinations there have been
~15 deaths directly attributed to the vaccine.

> l. And the shot doesn't give you chips or anything crazy that people say.
> m. The shot is either mRNA or RNA spliced onto DNA of a zoonotic adenovirus.

As well as the other types.

> n. That causes your cells to explode after making tons of one spike protein.

Nope. That's what the virus does.

> o. That spike protein itself is toxic to your body but it's in low amounts.

Not on its own it isn't.

> p. Because it's toxic (it damages vascular tissue) your body reacts to it.

It's a foreign antigen - not a toxin - which is why it raises an immune
response.

> q. Your body makes an assemblage of attack vehicles, some of which are Ab.

Vehicles? What kind of vehicles? Cars?

> r. The antibodies don't last all that long with a high titre unfortunately.

True.

> s. Nobody knows exactly how long so we are doomed to boosters (forever?).

Why is it dooming? We already do this with flu.

> t. It's no different with the full-blown disease in that respect though.
> u. But what _is_ different from full-blown disease are the attack vehicles.

Trucks?

> v. The attack vehicles are _vastly_ more complex with a full-blown disease.

Helicopters!

> w. Which means our response under inevitable senescence will be _different_.

That makes no sense.

> x. I believe when we get older, our immune system will "go to hell" quickly.

It's gradual and inevitable. The older you are the weaker your immune
system.

> y. Then those with a shot (a simpler response) will have _less_ protection.

The point of the vaccine is to confer MORE protection not less.

> z. While those with the disease (more complex) will have _more_ protection.

Or, more likely, end up in hospital.

> I ran out of one-line observations and assessments so that's all you get.

Shame... your "facts" are entertaining.

In article <st9jqh$82h$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Steve was talking about this shot (which doesn't even meet the CDC's own
> definition of what a vaccine is)

yes it does.

> which is not needed by most people.

yes it is.

On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 09:06:35 +1100, 5tft wrote:

>> We'd be done with Covid already if not for so many right-wing lunatics
>> buying into all the conspiracy theories and promoting fake cures and
>> opposing masks.
>
> No country that didn't have that is done with covid already.

It's illogical to think that this disease isn't gonna be with us forever.

Nobody knows for sure, but someone will have to tell me _why_ (and how) the
virus will _ever_ disappear from the population now that it's endemic.

My educated assessment is that it's with us forever, just as the three of
seven human coronaviruses are (which cause ~1/3rd of all common colds).

If we didn't wipe _those_ three out, how could anyone opine that we will
wipe _this_ one out, especially since people with the shot still get
infected (as do people who have recovered from the disease).

It's illogical to think that this disease isn't gonna be with us forever.
>> Even Trump has been urging people to get vaccinated, probably realizing
>> that if he wants to run again he needs live people to vote for him.
>
> Yes, but even in countries which have 95% vaccinated arent done
> with covid yet, essentially because the vaccines arent that great
> at preventing infection, particularly with omicrom. Still great at
> avoiding severe disease and being killed by covid.

The fact is the percentage of people killed is about 0.2% overall (which
includes the very sick and the very old in addition to the very young).

I wouldn't blame the shot for not being "all that great" at preventing
infection since even the full blown disease isn't all that great at
preventing re-infection.

Given what we know from studying human coronaviruses since the 1960s,
it's illogical to think that this disease isn't gonna be with us forever.
>> No one should be forced to get vaccinated, but there needs to be
>> consequences for those that decide to "own the libs" by contributing to
>> the spread of Covid by not getting vaccinated. They can stay in their
>> own homes and cars, but unvaccinated individuals should not be allowed
>> to be in publicly accessible indoor locations like stores, offices,
>> restaurants, hotels, hospitals, airports and airplanes, cruise ships,
>> public transportation, etc. until the pandemic is completely over.
>
> That isnt feasible how common it is for the vaccinated to get infected.

This virus is incredibly good at attaching to furin, ace2, tmprss, and
heparin sulfate receptor sites which abound in ciliated mucosal cells.

When Steve claims "unvaccinated people" should stay at home, he's spouting
what only an ignorant person would spout given _everone_ is in the same
boat, immunologically speaking, in some form or another, whether or not they
have the shot given the almost complete certainty that _everyone_ will _be_
infected _many times_ in their lifetime.

It's that way with the 3 endemic human coronaviruses and since this fourth
human coronavirus is now endemic, it will likely be that way with this too.

There are only 7 human coronaviruses known, and we wiped out 3 of them by
nipping them in the bud, but SARS-Cov2 isn't going to ever be wiped out.

It's illogical to think that this disease isn't gonna be with us forever.
--
Ignorance can be cured; it's stupidity that is impossible to cure.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 22:27:00 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Facts are usually backed up with evidence which you've not done.

Hi Chris,
I welcome any _adult_ discussion, given this is one of my fields of study.

It is true that I've claimed quite a few facts w/o providing the cites.
I'm glad you asked for a cite for the facts that you openly dispute, Chris.

Which of the facts that I've claimed are facts do you openly dispute Chris?
>> a. This "shot" does not even strictly meet CDC definitions of a "vaccine".
>
> False.

It's interesting that you provide zero cites to your bold claim.

I'm not ever afraid of facts, Chris.
Are you?

Here's the definition. <https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/terms/glossary.html>
"A suspension of live (usually attenuated) or inactivated microorganisms
(e.g. bacteria or viruses) or fractions thereof administered to induce
immunity and prevent infectious diseases and their sequelae.
Some vaccines contain highly defined antigens (e.g., the polysaccharide
of Haemophilus influenzae type b or the surface antigen of hepatitis B);
others have antigens that are complex or incompletely defined
(e.g. Bordetella pertussis antigens or live attenuated viruses)."

Do you even have the comprehensive skills to notice what is missing, Chris?
HINT: You have absolutely no clue _how_ this shot works inside the body!

>> b. This "shot" is _clearly_ not needed by most people (more than 60%).
>
> No different to any other vaccine.

Chris... the fact you can claim that means you have absolutely zero
comprehension whatsoever of _how_ this shot works once inside your body.

What "other vaccine", for example, causes your cells to explode making the
antigen after being injected either with pureified mRNA or with a
genetically engineered zoonotic virus that has RNA spliced onto its DNA?
The fact you can't name a _single_ existing vaccine of that type is obvious,
but since you claim you can, I simply call you out on it with three words.
*Name Just One*

>> c. Certainly for kids (whose immune systems are naive) it's even less!
>> d. The chance of any one person dying from Covid in the USA is 0.2%
>
> Which is why a treatment is required. That's a dangerous disease.

The danger to children is 0.002% fatality, with a 100% infection rate.
The danger to adults is 0.2% fatality, with a 100% infection rate.
Most people are completely immune to the disease with respect to symptoms.

You assess that as a "dangerous disease" and that's your God-given right.

But at least acknowledge those are the facts whether or not you used any
facts to make your assessment that it's a "dangerous disease" to you.

HINT: I know you make all your decisions based on fear, and not logic.
>
>> e. That _includes_ the very sick and the very old already in that number.
>> f. The chance of a kid (5-11) dying from Covid in the USA is 0.002%.
>> g. That means any one person has a 99.998 (kids) to 99.8% chance of living.
>
> You've avoided separating out the old and sick.
> Their risk of death can be over 10%.
> https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mortality-risk-estimator

I never once "avoided" the old and sick as in another post I gave the
percentages for those over 60, and that it essentially doubled for each
decade thereafter.

Did you miss that statement?
>> h. However, the chance of getting "infected" is nearly 100% (essentially).
>
> No it isn't.

Given we know there are human coronaviruses which are endemic throughout the
world, and we know that it's not unusual for people to get the same virus
multiple times in a single year, let alone many times in their lifetimes,
what makes you think _this_ human coronavirus isn't at least as infectious?

What do you think the risk is of getting infected then, Chris?
>> i. And the chance of passing it on during that phase is also nearly 100%.
>
> No it isn't. Even measles which is the most infectious disease doesn't
> infect everyone who comes into contact with am infectious person.

Wow. I'm impressed. You know the R0 (aka "R naught") for measles ranges from
about 12 to about 18 (it depends _greatly_ on the situation), which is much
_higher_ than that of the SARS-Cov2 virus (which is about 1.5 to about 3.5)
and which is greatly adversely affected by the prevalence of "super
spreaders" in the population.

Kudos to you for knowing something Chris.

The well known problem with such a low R0 is that most people are immune to
covid symptoms, so we have to account for that in our calculations (which
aren't in the 1.5 to 3.5 R0 as far as I know - simply because that data is
unknown until _everyone_ (or most everyone) is tested - and they're not.

> COVID in this study has a 2% infectivity rate.
> https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32651-9/fulltext

December 18, 2020
Infectivity of asymptomatic versus symptomatic COVID-19
<https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32651-9/fulltext>
a. Little is known about asymptomatic infectivity
b. Singapore tests cases and close contacts (2m for at least 30 min)
c. Seronegative cases are thought to be more infectious than seropositive
d. Studied people between August 1 2020 and October 11 2020
e. They threw out those who didn't have the complete battery of tests
f. They threw out migrant workers who lived in close proximity to people
g. That left them with 628 test subjects & 3790 "close contacts"
h. Each index case averaged 6 people quarrantined
i. Overall 89 (2% of the 3790 close contacts) developed symptoms
j. Of those 89 people that developed covid symptoms
56% were put in quarrantine due to an asymptomatic index case
44% were put in quarrantine due to a seronegative index case
46% were put in quarrantine due to a seropositive index case
k. They calculated 3.85 times more transmission from symptomatic cases
l. They therefore concluded asymptomatic people were "less infectious"

The article concluded with the normal list of inaccuracies and further
studies where their goal was to bolster support for contact tracing.

>> j. The chance of "feeling sick" is about %40 once you are infected.
>> k. Back to the shot, the chance of dying from the shot itself is negligible.
>
> Correct. In the UK following over 100 million vaccinations there have been
> ~15 deaths directly attributed to the vaccine.

It's good that you recognize that fact which, for some strange reason, many
of the "Republicans" don't acknowledge, which is that the shot itself isn't
killing people in any great manner.

To be sure, the shot causes our cells to explode creating one protein, which
itself has been shown in studies to cause appreciable vascular damage in and
of itself, but most people seem to weather that vascular damage quite well.
>> l. And the shot doesn't give you chips or anything crazy that people say.
>> m. The shot is either mRNA or RNA spliced onto DNA of a zoonotic adenovirus.
>
> As well as the other types.

What "other types" are there that are approved for use in the USA Chris?
a. mRNA
b. RNA spliced onto chimpanzee adenovirus DNA
c. ?
>> n. That causes your cells to explode after making tons of one spike protein.
>
> Nope. That's what the virus does.

Chris,
What do you _think_ happens when you take over the nucleus of your body's
cells (in the case of the RNA spliced onto DNA shots) and what do you think
happens when your ribosomes are taken over making spike protein in the case
of the mRNA shots?

To put it in layman's terms, it's like working a POW to death, Chris.

And that's _before_ we talk about the B-cells and T-cells which begin to
recognize the "infected" cells as "no longer self" and attack them too.
>> o. That spike protein itself is toxic to your body but it's in low amounts.
>
> Not on its own it isn't.

Now it's _your_ turn to read a paper, Chris.
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=spike+protein+causes+vascular+damage>
Pick one.

>> p. Because it's toxic (it damages vascular tissue) your body reacts to it.
>
> It's a foreign antigen - not a toxin - which is why it raises an immune
> response.

Did you _read_ any of the papers that you found in the above search, Chris?
>> q. Your body makes an assemblage of attack vehicles, some of which are Ab.
>
> Vehicles? What kind of vehicles? Cars?

Idiot.

If you knew immunology, you'd know "vehicle" is a common term.
*Novel adjuvants & delivery vehicles for vaccines development*
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3928709/>
"The pure recombinant and synthetic antigens used in modern day
vaccines are generally less immunogenic than older style live/attenuated
and killed whole organism vaccines. One can improve the quality of
vaccine production by incorporating immunomodulators or adjuvants
with *modified delivery _vehicles_ viz. liposomes*, immune stimulating
complexes (ISCOMs), micro/nanospheres apart from alum, being used
as gold standard."

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:44:13 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> Steve was talking about this shot (which doesn't even meet the CDC's own
>> definition of what a vaccine is)
>
> yes it does.

Here's the definition from the CDC for what they consider a "vaccine".

"A suspension of live (usually attenuated) or inactivated microorganisms
(e.g. bacteria or viruses) or fractions thereof administered to induce
immunity and prevent infectious diseases and their sequelae.
Some vaccines contain highly defined antigens (e.g., the polysaccharide
of Haemophilus influenzae type b or the surface antigen of hepatitis B);
others have antigens that are complex or incompletely defined
(e.g. Bordetella pertussis antigens or live attenuated viruses)."
<https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/terms/glossary.html>

Do you have even the _slightest_ idea of how this shot works, nospam?
>> which is not needed by most people.
>
> yes it is.

I always wonder if people like you are just pulling our leg, or if you
actually own a belief system which is based on exactly zero actual facts.

On 1/31/2022 2:27 PM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> Shame... your "facts" are entertaining.

Sadly, that's become the norm for the anti-vaxers that don't have the
scientific knowledge or critical thinking skills to understand the
reality of infectious diseases and statistics.

But again, no one is demanding that anyone get vaccinated against their
will, just that they accept the consequences of their actions.

Already we see entities like cruise lines not allowing unvaccinated
passengers.

Noncitizens who are nonimmigrants and seeking to enter the United States
by air are required to show proof of being fully vaccinated against
COVID-19 before boarding a flight to the United States from a foreign
country. Some airlines are no longer carrying unvaccinated passengers
<https://www.frommers.com/tips/airfare/these-airlines-require-all-passengers-to-be-vaccinated-for-covid-19>.

Some employers that are not requiring vaccinations are raising health
insurance premiums for employees that choose to not be vaccinated
<https://www.freep.com/story/money/business/2021/10/29/delta-ceo-surcharge-unvaxed-working/6191401001/>.

The infuriating thing is that it's those like Andy, that believe "my
ignorance is just as good as your knowledge," have negatively affected a
lot more than just themselves. They've become "side-issue-specialists"
complaining that the government's changing mask type suggestions are
proof of something, but they're not sure what. Yes, early in the
pandemic there was an effort to reserve the more effective masks for
health care workers, but now that there is no longer a shortage of more
effective masks the guidance changed.

The Super Bowl will be interesting. Masks are required, as is either a)
proof of vaccination or b) a negative PCR test that was taken within 48
hours, or a negative antigen test that was taken within 24 hours.
Supposedly the NFL had contingency plans to move the game to a state
with a 50-70% higher death rate than California.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
“A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need
for illusion is deep.” ― Saul Bellow
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:02:48 -0800, sms wrote:

> Sadly, that's become the norm for the anti-vaxers that don't have the
> scientific knowledge or critical thinking skills to understand the
> reality of infectious diseases and statistics.

Steve,

I get it that you're an off-the-wall pegged-far-to-the left Democrat.
But you need to comprehend not everyone lives in abject fear like you do.

Like you, I have an electrical engineering degree (and like you I worked at
National Semiconductor in Building D alongside Bob Peas, but unlike you I
also have _multiple_ higher degrees in the biological sciences, Steve.

And like those in your family, I have people in nursing in my family too.
But each person _still_ needs to comprehend these basic but simple facts:
a. The chance of dying from Covid is about 0.2% (includes everyone).
b. The chance of not even _feeling_ it is around 60% when you do get it.

Just because you do not appear to comprehend facts, doesn't make them wrong.

> But again, no one is demanding that anyone get vaccinated against their
> will, just that they accept the consequences of their actions.

Well, there's the constitutionality of making their job dependent on a shot
that is not even close to what is the _definition_ of a vaccine, Steve.

> The infuriating thing is that it's those like Andy, that believe "my
> ignorance is just as good as your knowledge," have negatively affected a
> lot more than just themselves.

If you're claiming that I'm ignorant, and that you're knowledgeable, then
how do you claim that with merely an undergraduate EE degree and nothing
else?

Worse than your lack of education, on what _facts_ do you make your claim?

In article <sta4b9$23f$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Like you, I have an electrical engineering degree

if that were even remotely true, you would have a basic understanding
of batteries, loads and in particular, internal resistance. you do not,
thus it must be false.

sms wrote:

> But again, no one is demanding that anyone get vaccinated against their will

Stop lying.

On 1/31/2022 2:44 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <st9jqh$82h$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
> <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve was talking about this shot (which doesn't even meet the CDC's own
>> definition of what a vaccine is)
>
> yes it does.
>
>> which is not needed by most people.
>
> yes it is.

On 1/31/2022 2:44 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <st9jqh$82h$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
> <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve was talking about this shot (which doesn't even meet the CDC's own
>> definition of what a vaccine is)
>
> yes it does.
>
>> which is not needed by most people.
>
> yes it is.

Covid has only killed 1/375 of all Americans. In 11 days, it killed more
people than all the murders in ANY year. It has been the largest single
cause of death of police officers in the USA.

No problem at all.

That WA state cop that FOX made a hero of for getting fired because he
refused to get vaccinated - died of covid last Friday.

What a hero.