Someone check my math. 8 billion people in the world. 13 billion shots administered. If I use two shots and a booster that would be about 4 billion people vaccinated. I personally think that number is high and it's probably more like 2 billion people that got initial 2 and multiple boosters. Here's the math part. If 4 billion people are vaccinated and we end up having a 1% adverse event rate leading to death how many people could the vaccine have the potential to kill? Hint: It's 5x greater than the current covid deaths worldwide total of 7 million.
“we end up having a 1% adverse event rate leading to death”
Wait a minute... you're saying that Pfizer's legal disclosures related to their forward looking financial statements is evidence that 1% of vaccine recipients will die? Is that a joke?
Real numbers are 13 billion shots administered. Seeing how it will literally be years before the true adverse events can be tallied to get an accurate percentage AND that number will be skewed by the variables of Covid/Shot/Covid, No Shots/Covid, unreported cases and so on, the first conclusion I can make is that time will only ADD to the total number of adverse events. I am of the opinion that treating the disease should have been priority one and prevention second. There was a mad rush to market with these vaccines and the one thing that would've stopped everyone in their tracks is a viable treatment. If you don't think money played a part in all this check out who wrote this Jan/2021 article https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2021/01/31/remdesivir-covid-coronavirus/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwih4MvBkJCCAxUGjokEHfGeBsMQFnoECAwQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2VOHVioMjQ9n_mV861hGTk
Well I'm glad you think that treating the disease was priority one, because the CDC approved remdesivir for usage in Oct of 2020, months before the first vaccine was available. But of course that was approved too quickly, there are too many adverse effects and deaths, and it will take years for us to really understand how many people were damaged by remdesivir. Oh yeah, and pharma companies made money off of it...because you know... we live in the US.
You seem to be well informed but this has changed again. In 2020, it was approved, but only for hospitalized patients. Then you have conflicting results from multiple studies but they are still only giving it to people with severe covid.
Let's recap. You said we should have worked on treatment before vaccine (since apparently the nation's drug researchers can only do one thing at a time), I gave you a prime example where treatment came first. Now your bar is that they should have had "at home" treatments before vaccines. To boot, there was another treatment that was released as well, Regeneren, for severe cases. There may even have been more, but I'm not going to keep arguing with someone who invents numbers and moves the bar, in order to make some argument that doesn't make any sense.
1. You said imagine there was a 1% death rate for vaccines. You literally made up that number. The real number of adverse reaction (not death) is basis points of your imaginary number. 2. You used their financial disclosure statements as "evidence" which is silliness 3. You said we should have worked on treatment first. We did. 4. You said, well that wasn't approved for home use. That's called moving the goal posts.
Remember when I asked you if your arguments were a joke? I didn't mean like "haha, that's funny".
I've already addressed 1 and 2 but your rebuttals in 3 and 4 are weak at best. If you don't see the correlation between suppression of treatment and getting vaccines in arms than that's on you. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm here to have discussions. I'm open to opposing views and learning as I go. You used remdesivir as an example. I looked into it and showed you how that treatment was suppressed. Home use? Really? You go to the doctor, get a prescription, take it and hopefully you get better. Again, I'll emphasize this for people in the back. If remdesivir was readily available with a prescription in July of 2020 you would have had fewer people getting vaccinated.
Things were different then
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,844
Socks really do make a difference in a number of ways. For example, when I was in middle school I was our track and field team. I needed to get some new gym socks and found some that had racing stripes across the top of the foot. My ability to run faster increased almost immediately!
That's a great story. Along the same line, I keep an extra pair of socks in my golf bag in case I have an emergency #2 pooping situation. I can use my sock and have a backup to wear.
But again, this is where the Big Sock lobbyists try to infiltrate all parts of your life
A wise decision!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,844
Someone check my math. 8 billion people in the world. 13 billion shots administered. If I use two shots and a booster that would be about 4 billion people vaccinated. I personally think that number is high and it's probably more like 2 billion people that got initial 2 and multiple boosters. Here's the math part. If 4 billion people are vaccinated and we end up having a 1% adverse event rate leading to death how many people could the vaccine have the potential to kill? Hint: It's 5x greater than the current covid deaths worldwide total of 7 million.
“we end up having a 1% adverse event rate leading to death”
Wait a minute... you're saying that Pfizer's legal disclosures related to their forward looking financial statements is evidence that 1% of vaccine recipients will die? Is that a joke?
Real numbers are 13 billion shots administered. Seeing how it will literally be years before the true adverse events can be tallied to get an accurate percentage AND that number will be skewed by the variables of Covid/Shot/Covid, No Shots/Covid, unreported cases and so on, the first conclusion I can make is that time will only ADD to the total number of adverse events. I am of the opinion that treating the disease should have been priority one and prevention second. There was a mad rush to market with these vaccines and the one thing that would've stopped everyone in their tracks is a viable treatment. If you don't think money played a part in all this check out who wrote this Jan/2021 article https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2021/01/31/remdesivir-covid-coronavirus/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwih4MvBkJCCAxUGjokEHfGeBsMQFnoECAwQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2VOHVioMjQ9n_mV861hGTk
Well I'm glad you think that treating the disease was priority one, because the CDC approved remdesivir for usage in Oct of 2020, months before the first vaccine was available. But of course that was approved too quickly, there are too many adverse effects and deaths, and it will take years for us to really understand how many people were damaged by remdesivir. Oh yeah, and pharma companies made money off of it...because you know... we live in the US.
You seem to be well informed but this has changed again. In 2020, it was approved, but only for hospitalized patients. Then you have conflicting results from multiple studies but they are still only giving it to people with severe covid.
Let's recap. You said we should have worked on treatment before vaccine (since apparently the nation's drug researchers can only do one thing at a time), I gave you a prime example where treatment came first. Now your bar is that they should have had "at home" treatments before vaccines. To boot, there was another treatment that was released as well, Regeneren, for severe cases. There may even have been more, but I'm not going to keep arguing with someone who invents numbers and moves the bar, in order to make some argument that doesn't make any sense.
1. You said imagine there was a 1% death rate for vaccines. You literally made up that number. The real number of adverse reaction (not death) is basis points of your imaginary number. 2. You used their financial disclosure statements as "evidence" which is silliness 3. You said we should have worked on treatment first. We did. 4. You said, well that wasn't approved for home use. That's called moving the goal posts.
Remember when I asked you if your arguments were a joke? I didn't mean like "haha, that's funny".
I've already addressed 1 and 2 but your rebuttals in 3 and 4 are weak at best. If you don't see the correlation between suppression of treatment and getting vaccines in arms than that's on you. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm here to have discussions. I'm open to opposing views and learning as I go. You used remdesivir as an example. I looked into it and showed you how that treatment was suppressed. Home use? Really? You go to the doctor, get a prescription, take it and hopefully you get better. Again, I'll emphasize this for people in the back. If remdesivir was readily available with a prescription in July of 2020 you would have had fewer people getting vaccinated.
I'm not a doctor so I'm not going to pretend my word is gospel on this, but I have read as well as have friends in the medical profession who have told me that drugs like Remdesivir and Paxlovid are not recommended for everyone who gets COVID and that getting vaccinated is the best way to at least reduce the severity of COVID (evident by the greatly decreased cases of morbid COVID) and reduce the likelihood of getting the disease. But you may think what I'm saying is a bunch of crap and totally disagree. That's a matter of choice. Some of us have chosen to get vaccinated. Why not just let that be? Why the need for this anti-vax crusade in the first place? Are you trying to save us, or do you just need to be "right"? Wouldn't it be much simpler just to accept that we all deal with this in whatever manner we think is best? Personally, I don't care if someone is anti-vax as long as they stay away from me. Problem solved.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Someone check my math. 8 billion people in the world. 13 billion shots administered. If I use two shots and a booster that would be about 4 billion people vaccinated. I personally think that number is high and it's probably more like 2 billion people that got initial 2 and multiple boosters. Here's the math part. If 4 billion people are vaccinated and we end up having a 1% adverse event rate leading to death how many people could the vaccine have the potential to kill? Hint: It's 5x greater than the current covid deaths worldwide total of 7 million.
“we end up having a 1% adverse event rate leading to death”
Wait a minute... you're saying that Pfizer's legal disclosures related to their forward looking financial statements is evidence that 1% of vaccine recipients will die? Is that a joke?
Real numbers are 13 billion shots administered. Seeing how it will literally be years before the true adverse events can be tallied to get an accurate percentage AND that number will be skewed by the variables of Covid/Shot/Covid, No Shots/Covid, unreported cases and so on, the first conclusion I can make is that time will only ADD to the total number of adverse events. I am of the opinion that treating the disease should have been priority one and prevention second. There was a mad rush to market with these vaccines and the one thing that would've stopped everyone in their tracks is a viable treatment. If you don't think money played a part in all this check out who wrote this Jan/2021 article https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2021/01/31/remdesivir-covid-coronavirus/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwih4MvBkJCCAxUGjokEHfGeBsMQFnoECAwQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2VOHVioMjQ9n_mV861hGTk
Well I'm glad you think that treating the disease was priority one, because the CDC approved remdesivir for usage in Oct of 2020, months before the first vaccine was available. But of course that was approved too quickly, there are too many adverse effects and deaths, and it will take years for us to really understand how many people were damaged by remdesivir. Oh yeah, and pharma companies made money off of it...because you know... we live in the US.
You seem to be well informed but this has changed again. In 2020, it was approved, but only for hospitalized patients. Then you have conflicting results from multiple studies but they are still only giving it to people with severe covid.
Let's recap. You said we should have worked on treatment before vaccine (since apparently the nation's drug researchers can only do one thing at a time), I gave you a prime example where treatment came first. Now your bar is that they should have had "at home" treatments before vaccines. To boot, there was another treatment that was released as well, Regeneren, for severe cases. There may even have been more, but I'm not going to keep arguing with someone who invents numbers and moves the bar, in order to make some argument that doesn't make any sense.
1. You said imagine there was a 1% death rate for vaccines. You literally made up that number. The real number of adverse reaction (not death) is basis points of your imaginary number. 2. You used their financial disclosure statements as "evidence" which is silliness 3. You said we should have worked on treatment first. We did. 4. You said, well that wasn't approved for home use. That's called moving the goal posts.
Remember when I asked you if your arguments were a joke? I didn't mean like "haha, that's funny".
I've already addressed 1 and 2 but your rebuttals in 3 and 4 are weak at best. If you don't see the correlation between suppression of treatment and getting vaccines in arms than that's on you. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm here to have discussions. I'm open to opposing views and learning as I go. You used remdesivir as an example. I looked into it and showed you how that treatment was suppressed. Home use? Really? You go to the doctor, get a prescription, take it and hopefully you get better. Again, I'll emphasize this for people in the back. If remdesivir was readily available with a prescription in July of 2020 you would have had fewer people getting vaccinated.
So to recap again, you think that remdesivir should have been created, tested, approved for general use, with enough manufactured for the millions with Covid by July 2020 for a disease that we didn't know existed until late March 2020. Got it. I guess I misunderstood your totally reasonable expectations.
I've already addressed 1 and 2 but your rebuttals in 3 and 4 are weak at best. If you don't see the correlation between suppression of treatment and getting vaccines in arms than that's on you. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm here to have discussions. I'm open to opposing views and learning as I go. You used remdesivir as an example. I looked into it and showed you how that treatment was suppressed. Home use? Really? You go to the doctor, get a prescription, take it and hopefully you get better. Again, I'll emphasize this for people in the back. If remdesivir was readily available with a prescription in July of 2020 you would have had fewer people getting vaccinated.
So to recap again, you think that remdesivir should have been created, tested, approved for general use, with enough manufactured for the millions with Covid by July 2020 for a disease that we didn't know existed until late March 2020. Got it. I guess I misunderstood your totally reasonable expectations.
COVID-19 CO=Corona VI=Virus D=Disease and 19= 2019. Remdesivir was created in 2009. As I said, I'm learning as I go, the reason it was only available in hospitals is because it was IV only at that time. So to recap, you're coming at me with a passive-aggressive ridiculing tone and the most basic facts of your entire post are 100% point blank wrong.
So I've been trying to read more about blood clots and their relation to the vaccine and covid.
About a month ago I found myself out of breath just walking. Trying to avoid a $5,000 ER bill I didn't going to the ER right away and got in to see my primary doctor. My oxygen was low and he said I could have my wife drive me to the ER or he was calling 911. I never did find out exactly how many blood clots in my lungs they found, I just remember the ER doctor saying they found multiple pulmonary embolisms in each of several different parts of the lung that he proceeded to name off. Has to be at least 6 or 8, maybe more. I was later told I was lucky to be alive, I had no pain or any other symptoms, so the fact it got that bad before I came in, I was very lucky.
Still waiting on some test results, but so far they can't find a cause. Had my most recent check up Friday, and I asked about a covid link. He confirmed there is a link with post covid and getting a blood clot. But usually a few weeks or couple months later, not a full year like I had. He also said the vaccine clots are blown way out of proportion, they are one in a million, but unexplained clots after covid are much more common.
My coworker told me her doctor told her the link was getting covid after the vaccine, but I haven't read anything that supports that.
They ran some tests for blood disorders and certain times a cancer. If all those come back negative (like I hope), a post covid symptom seems like the most likely scenario. Haven't traveled far, haven't had surgery, no big injuries lately.
Anyone else know of people getting clots?
Glad you are okay! My brother (mid 40's) had issues with blood clots about 3 months ago or so. He was unvaccinated and doesn't know that he ever got Covid. The docs believe it was triggered due to sitting on a plane for 7 hours the day before and not standing up and walking around.
He went to urgent care and they basically to him if he was in his 20's it made sense to go to urgent care, but at his age he should have gone straight to the hospital with heart issues. I think 40's is still young(ish) for heart issues. They basically said we think you have blood clots, and there is no time to explain and you should get an ambulance to the hospital.
Holy crap...hope he's doing well.
Sitting for seven hours can lead to blood clots that would necessitate an emergency room trip for a middle-aged person? That's wild.
I've always read that on long flights you should get up and move around to avoid clots. I'm sure it's worse as you age,, but anyone can clot.
Yes. Moving around on long flights is a necessity. They say you should get up and walk every hour or two. I have never tried compression socks on a flight but they say that works as well to help prevent blood clots.
I just drink enough to make sure my blood is good and thin.
I've already addressed 1 and 2 but your rebuttals in 3 and 4 are weak at best. If you don't see the correlation between suppression of treatment and getting vaccines in arms than that's on you. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm here to have discussions. I'm open to opposing views and learning as I go. You used remdesivir as an example. I looked into it and showed you how that treatment was suppressed. Home use? Really? You go to the doctor, get a prescription, take it and hopefully you get better. Again, I'll emphasize this for people in the back. If remdesivir was readily available with a prescription in July of 2020 you would have had fewer people getting vaccinated.
So to recap again, you think that remdesivir should have been created, tested, approved for general use, with enough manufactured for the millions with Covid by July 2020 for a disease that we didn't know existed until late March 2020. Got it. I guess I misunderstood your totally reasonable expectations.
COVID-19 CO=Corona VI=Virus D=Disease and 19= 2019. Remdesivir was created in 2009. As I said, I'm learning as I go, the reason it was only available in hospitals is because it was IV only at that time. So to recap, you're coming at me with a passive-aggressive ridiculing tone and the most basic facts of your entire post are 100% point blank wrong.
Nice cherry pick. Why not post a link to the actual articles that state much more than your screen grab?
Someone check my math. 8 billion people in the world. 13 billion shots administered. If I use two shots and a booster that would be about 4 billion people vaccinated. I personally think that number is high and it's probably more like 2 billion people that got initial 2 and multiple boosters. Here's the math part. If 4 billion people are vaccinated and we end up having a 1% adverse event rate leading to death how many people could the vaccine have the potential to kill? Hint: It's 5x greater than the current covid deaths worldwide total of 7 million.
“we end up having a 1% adverse event rate leading to death”
Wait a minute... you're saying that Pfizer's legal disclosures related to their forward looking financial statements is evidence that 1% of vaccine recipients will die? Is that a joke?
Real numbers are 13 billion shots administered. Seeing how it will literally be years before the true adverse events can be tallied to get an accurate percentage AND that number will be skewed by the variables of Covid/Shot/Covid, No Shots/Covid, unreported cases and so on, the first conclusion I can make is that time will only ADD to the total number of adverse events. I am of the opinion that treating the disease should have been priority one and prevention second. There was a mad rush to market with these vaccines and the one thing that would've stopped everyone in their tracks is a viable treatment. If you don't think money played a part in all this check out who wrote this Jan/2021 article https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2021/01/31/remdesivir-covid-coronavirus/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwih4MvBkJCCAxUGjokEHfGeBsMQFnoECAwQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2VOHVioMjQ9n_mV861hGTk
Well I'm glad you think that treating the disease was priority one, because the CDC approved remdesivir for usage in Oct of 2020, months before the first vaccine was available. But of course that was approved too quickly, there are too many adverse effects and deaths, and it will take years for us to really understand how many people were damaged by remdesivir. Oh yeah, and pharma companies made money off of it...because you know... we live in the US.
You seem to be well informed but this has changed again. In 2020, it was approved, but only for hospitalized patients. Then you have conflicting results from multiple studies but they are still only giving it to people with severe covid.
Let's recap. You said we should have worked on treatment before vaccine (since apparently the nation's drug researchers can only do one thing at a time), I gave you a prime example where treatment came first. Now your bar is that they should have had "at home" treatments before vaccines. To boot, there was another treatment that was released as well, Regeneren, for severe cases. There may even have been more, but I'm not going to keep arguing with someone who invents numbers and moves the bar, in order to make some argument that doesn't make any sense.
1. You said imagine there was a 1% death rate for vaccines. You literally made up that number. The real number of adverse reaction (not death) is basis points of your imaginary number. 2. You used their financial disclosure statements as "evidence" which is silliness 3. You said we should have worked on treatment first. We did. 4. You said, well that wasn't approved for home use. That's called moving the goal posts.
Remember when I asked you if your arguments were a joke? I didn't mean like "haha, that's funny".
I've already addressed 1 and 2 but your rebuttals in 3 and 4 are weak at best. If you don't see the correlation between suppression of treatment and getting vaccines in arms than that's on you. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm here to have discussions. I'm open to opposing views and learning as I go. You used remdesivir as an example. I looked into it and showed you how that treatment was suppressed. Home use? Really? You go to the doctor, get a prescription, take it and hopefully you get better. Again, I'll emphasize this for people in the back. If remdesivir was readily available with a prescription in July of 2020 you would have had fewer people getting vaccinated.
I'm not a doctor so I'm not going to pretend my word is gospel on this, but I have read as well as have friends in the medical profession who have told me that drugs like Remdesivir and Paxlovid are not recommended for everyone who gets COVID and that getting vaccinated is the best way to at least reduce the severity of COVID (evident by the greatly decreased cases of morbid COVID) and reduce the likelihood of getting the disease. But you may think what I'm saying is a bunch of crap and totally disagree. That's a matter of choice. Some of us have chosen to get vaccinated. Why not just let that be? Why the need for this anti-vax crusade in the first place? Are you trying to save us, or do you just need to be "right"? Wouldn't it be much simpler just to accept that we all deal with this in whatever manner we think is best? Personally, I don't care if someone is anti-vax as long as they stay away from me. Problem solved.
Two shots no boosters. Am I considered vaccinated? Probably not. It's not a crusade or a need to be right, I just think about it quite a bit and that's my reason for joining the discussion. I see how the 1% hypothetical comes off as fear mongering and anti-vax but that's what was weighing on my mind. I also have a 15 year old son who had two shots and when I read about the rare instances of myocarditis it scared the hell out of me.
Someone check my math. 8 billion people in the world. 13 billion shots administered. If I use two shots and a booster that would be about 4 billion people vaccinated. I personally think that number is high and it's probably more like 2 billion people that got initial 2 and multiple boosters. Here's the math part. If 4 billion people are vaccinated and we end up having a 1% adverse event rate leading to death how many people could the vaccine have the potential to kill? Hint: It's 5x greater than the current covid deaths worldwide total of 7 million.
“we end up having a 1% adverse event rate leading to death”
Wait a minute... you're saying that Pfizer's legal disclosures related to their forward looking financial statements is evidence that 1% of vaccine recipients will die? Is that a joke?
Real numbers are 13 billion shots administered. Seeing how it will literally be years before the true adverse events can be tallied to get an accurate percentage AND that number will be skewed by the variables of Covid/Shot/Covid, No Shots/Covid, unreported cases and so on, the first conclusion I can make is that time will only ADD to the total number of adverse events. I am of the opinion that treating the disease should have been priority one and prevention second. There was a mad rush to market with these vaccines and the one thing that would've stopped everyone in their tracks is a viable treatment. If you don't think money played a part in all this check out who wrote this Jan/2021 article https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2021/01/31/remdesivir-covid-coronavirus/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwih4MvBkJCCAxUGjokEHfGeBsMQFnoECAwQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2VOHVioMjQ9n_mV861hGTk
Well I'm glad you think that treating the disease was priority one, because the CDC approved remdesivir for usage in Oct of 2020, months before the first vaccine was available. But of course that was approved too quickly, there are too many adverse effects and deaths, and it will take years for us to really understand how many people were damaged by remdesivir. Oh yeah, and pharma companies made money off of it...because you know... we live in the US.
You seem to be well informed but this has changed again. In 2020, it was approved, but only for hospitalized patients. Then you have conflicting results from multiple studies but they are still only giving it to people with severe covid.
Let's recap. You said we should have worked on treatment before vaccine (since apparently the nation's drug researchers can only do one thing at a time), I gave you a prime example where treatment came first. Now your bar is that they should have had "at home" treatments before vaccines. To boot, there was another treatment that was released as well, Regeneren, for severe cases. There may even have been more, but I'm not going to keep arguing with someone who invents numbers and moves the bar, in order to make some argument that doesn't make any sense.
1. You said imagine there was a 1% death rate for vaccines. You literally made up that number. The real number of adverse reaction (not death) is basis points of your imaginary number. 2. You used their financial disclosure statements as "evidence" which is silliness 3. You said we should have worked on treatment first. We did. 4. You said, well that wasn't approved for home use. That's called moving the goal posts.
Remember when I asked you if your arguments were a joke? I didn't mean like "haha, that's funny".
I've already addressed 1 and 2 but your rebuttals in 3 and 4 are weak at best. If you don't see the correlation between suppression of treatment and getting vaccines in arms than that's on you. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm here to have discussions. I'm open to opposing views and learning as I go. You used remdesivir as an example. I looked into it and showed you how that treatment was suppressed. Home use? Really? You go to the doctor, get a prescription, take it and hopefully you get better. Again, I'll emphasize this for people in the back. If remdesivir was readily available with a prescription in July of 2020 you would have had fewer people getting vaccinated.
I'm not a doctor so I'm not going to pretend my word is gospel on this, but I have read as well as have friends in the medical profession who have told me that drugs like Remdesivir and Paxlovid are not recommended for everyone who gets COVID and that getting vaccinated is the best way to at least reduce the severity of COVID (evident by the greatly decreased cases of morbid COVID) and reduce the likelihood of getting the disease. But you may think what I'm saying is a bunch of crap and totally disagree. That's a matter of choice. Some of us have chosen to get vaccinated. Why not just let that be? Why the need for this anti-vax crusade in the first place? Are you trying to save us, or do you just need to be "right"? Wouldn't it be much simpler just to accept that we all deal with this in whatever manner we think is best? Personally, I don't care if someone is anti-vax as long as they stay away from me. Problem solved.
Two shots no boosters. Am I considered vaccinated? Probably not. It's not a crusade or a need to be right, I just think about it quite a bit and that's my reason for joining the discussion. I see how the 1% hypothetical comes off as fear mongering and anti-vax but that's what was weighing on my mind. I also have a 15 year old son who had two shots and when I read about the rare instances of myocarditis it scared the hell out of me.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Socks really do make a difference in a number of ways. For example, when I was in middle school I was our track and field team. I needed to get some new gym socks and found some that had racing stripes across the top of the foot. My ability to run faster increased almost immediately!
That's a great story. Along the same line, I keep an extra pair of socks in my golf bag in case I have an emergency #2 pooping situation. I can use my sock and have a backup to wear.
But again, this is where the Big Sock lobbyists try to infiltrate all parts of your life
Wait, you have the backup to wear? Seems like it would be easier to just keep wearing the original, and use the backup for the emergency.
Socks really do make a difference in a number of ways. For example, when I was in middle school I was our track and field team. I needed to get some new gym socks and found some that had racing stripes across the top of the foot. My ability to run faster increased almost immediately!
That's a great story. Along the same line, I keep an extra pair of socks in my golf bag in case I have an emergency #2 pooping situation. I can use my sock and have a backup to wear.
But again, this is where the Big Sock lobbyists try to infiltrate all parts of your life
Wait, you have the backup to wear? Seems like it would be easier to just keep wearing the original, and use the backup for the emergency.
I’m getting the lysol drip. Should be tip top by Saturday.
Real men mainline it in one shot.
I always go full suppository...fastest gateway to my brain
LMAO
Flight Risk out NOW!
www.headstonesband.com
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,844
edited November 2023
I finally got the latest vaccine today. Would have done it sooner but I've had a plethora of joyous drilling and scraping, etc., going on in the dental zone lately.
So I don't know what the big deal is here. It's been 12 hours and so far, the only side affects are:
1. Very mild tenderness in my left arm.
2. Mildly achy muscles and minor fatigue.
3. Brief but clear commie indoctrination messages from the DNC in my left ear.
4. Faint sound of warning sirens in my right ear.
5. Occasional ripples in the veins in my arms caused by harmless nanobots coursing through my bloodstream- nothing to worry about.
6. Re re re re repetitious cycling of happy thoughts in mm mm mm mm my brain. J... Joy joy joy joy joy...
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Socks really do make a difference in a number of ways. For example, when I was in middle school I was our track and field team. I needed to get some new gym socks and found some that had racing stripes across the top of the foot. My ability to run faster increased almost immediately!
That's a great story. Along the same line, I keep an extra pair of socks in my golf bag in case I have an emergency #2 pooping situation. I can use my sock and have a backup to wear.
But again, this is where the Big Sock lobbyists try to infiltrate all parts of your life
Wait, you have the backup to wear? Seems like it would be easier to just keep wearing the original, and use the backup for the emergency.
Exactly my thought. Pretty dumb idea to remove his sock. Also, why not leave a roll of toilet paper in your bag if you can’t make it through a round of golf anymore without shitting yourself?
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,844
Man, this latest COVID vax knocked me on my ass. Thursday night I got the shivers from head to toe like crazy. It was like having sheets of ice layered all up and down my body. After that, I had an unrelenting head-in-vise, skull crushing migraine level headache set in all through Friday and into early AM today. Also, throughout, intense lower back and stomach pain.
I know some will take all this to mean I am dissing the vaccination. No way! To my way of thinking, it means that it's doing it's job and without the vaccination, if I were to get COVID I would probably die. My wife agrees. I think I just traded two days of hell for an eternity dead and in... well, wherever, but not here on earth.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Socks really do make a difference in a number of ways. For example, when I was in middle school I was our track and field team. I needed to get some new gym socks and found some that had racing stripes across the top of the foot. My ability to run faster increased almost immediately!
That's a great story. Along the same line, I keep an extra pair of socks in my golf bag in case I have an emergency #2 pooping situation. I can use my sock and have a backup to wear.
But again, this is where the Big Sock lobbyists try to infiltrate all parts of your life
Wait, you have the backup to wear? Seems like it would be easier to just keep wearing the original, and use the backup for the emergency.
Exactly my thought. Pretty dumb idea to remove his sock. Also, why not leave a roll of toilet paper in your bag if you can’t make it through a round of golf anymore without shitting yourself?
Socks really do make a difference in a number of ways. For example, when I was in middle school I was our track and field team. I needed to get some new gym socks and found some that had racing stripes across the top of the foot. My ability to run faster increased almost immediately!
That's a great story. Along the same line, I keep an extra pair of socks in my golf bag in case I have an emergency #2 pooping situation. I can use my sock and have a backup to wear.
But again, this is where the Big Sock lobbyists try to infiltrate all parts of your life
Wait, you have the backup to wear? Seems like it would be easier to just keep wearing the original, and use the backup for the emergency.
Exactly my thought. Pretty dumb idea to remove his sock. Also, why not leave a roll of toilet paper in your bag if you can’t make it through a round of golf anymore without shitting yourself?
Wtf is wrong with you? It's not serious.
It’s not? Damn. That’s exactly why I wear two pairs of socks when I golf with my mom and despite having to take off a golf shoe, two if it’s messy, it’s worth the added bonus of having a warm wipe, like those new fangled baby wipe warmers minus the cord. For an added splash of amusement, I take a brand new golf ball and place it right next to my gift and the next time I play, I check to see if anyone took it. Then there’s the entertainment of seeing who in the clubhouse had the gumption or need for that ball. Life is great, particularly on the golf course with mom.
Socks really do make a difference in a number of ways. For example, when I was in middle school I was our track and field team. I needed to get some new gym socks and found some that had racing stripes across the top of the foot. My ability to run faster increased almost immediately!
That's a great story. Along the same line, I keep an extra pair of socks in my golf bag in case I have an emergency #2 pooping situation. I can use my sock and have a backup to wear.
But again, this is where the Big Sock lobbyists try to infiltrate all parts of your life
Wait, you have the backup to wear? Seems like it would be easier to just keep wearing the original, and use the backup for the emergency.
Exactly my thought. Pretty dumb idea to remove his sock. Also, why not leave a roll of toilet paper in your bag if you can’t make it through a round of golf anymore without shitting yourself?
Wtf is wrong with you? It's not serious.
It’s not? Damn. That’s exactly why I wear two pairs of socks when I golf with my mom and despite having to take off a golf shoe, two if it’s messy, it’s worth the added bonus of having a warm wipe, like those new fangled baby wipe warmers minus the cord. For an added splash of amusement, I take a brand new golf ball and place it right next to my gift and the next time I play, I check to see if anyone took it. Then there’s the entertainment of seeing who in the clubhouse had the gumption or need for that ball. Life is great, particularly on the golf course with mom.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Socks really do make a difference in a number of ways. For example, when I was in middle school I was our track and field team. I needed to get some new gym socks and found some that had racing stripes across the top of the foot. My ability to run faster increased almost immediately!
That's a great story. Along the same line, I keep an extra pair of socks in my golf bag in case I have an emergency #2 pooping situation. I can use my sock and have a backup to wear.
But again, this is where the Big Sock lobbyists try to infiltrate all parts of your life
Wait, you have the backup to wear? Seems like it would be easier to just keep wearing the original, and use the backup for the emergency.
Exactly my thought. Pretty dumb idea to remove his sock. Also, why not leave a roll of toilet paper in your bag if you can’t make it through a round of golf anymore without shitting yourself?
Wtf is wrong with you? It's not serious.
It’s not? Damn. That’s exactly why I wear two pairs of socks when I golf with my mom and despite having to take off a golf shoe, two if it’s messy, it’s worth the added bonus of having a warm wipe, like those new fangled baby wipe warmers minus the cord. For an added splash of amusement, I take a brand new golf ball and place it right next to my gift and the next time I play, I check to see if anyone took it. Then there’s the entertainment of seeing who in the clubhouse had the gumption or need for that ball. Life is great, particularly on the golf course with mom.
Comments
A wise decision!
I'm not a doctor so I'm not going to pretend my word is gospel on this, but I have read as well as have friends in the medical profession who have told me that drugs like Remdesivir and Paxlovid are not recommended for everyone who gets COVID and that getting vaccinated is the best way to at least reduce the severity of COVID (evident by the greatly decreased cases of morbid COVID) and reduce the likelihood of getting the disease.
But you may think what I'm saying is a bunch of crap and totally disagree. That's a matter of choice. Some of us have chosen to get vaccinated. Why not just let that be? Why the need for this anti-vax crusade in the first place? Are you trying to save us, or do you just need to be "right"? Wouldn't it be much simpler just to accept that we all deal with this in whatever manner we think is best? Personally, I don't care if someone is anti-vax as long as they stay away from me. Problem solved.
I just drink enough to make sure my blood is good and thin.
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
I hope you're masked up while here.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
www.headstonesband.com
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
All right you three, knock it off. You made me spit up my beverage, fart, and ... oh, use your freakin' imagination on that last one!
Seems like it would be easier to just keep wearing the original, and use the backup for the emergency.
www.headstonesband.com
Joy joy joy joy joy...
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©