Posted on 06/23/2023 11:16:02 AM PDT by nickcarraway
It sounds like a Marilyn Manson song title.
0.o
/Cupid carries a mung
I think I’ll just not eat for a few days now.
/that post probably gagged some maggots
nitzy wrote: “There is quite a difference between “not 100%” and “no protection after 6 months”.”
Show me where there is zero protection after six months.
Then there is this study:
Interpretation: After 5 months, vaccine effectiveness remained high among individuals younger than 55 years. Booster doses restore vaccine effectiveness. Adverse reactions after booster doses were similar to those after the second dose. Homologous booster schedules had fewer reported systemic side-effects than heterologous boosters.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35405090/
“Effectiveness” in the article you just shared refers to protection against serious symptoms. It doesn’t refer to catching COVID as has been my point from the start of this discussion.
You CANNOT make the argument that myocarditis is less likely from the shot than from COVID. You could only make this argument if they were mutually exclusive and your options were between one OR the other.
That is not the case. You will still get COVID even if you get the shot.
Go ahead and move the goal posts again, shill.
a shocking 13,200 percent higher than it is among the unvaccinated.
That is what 133 times more likely works out to be.
Let’s round it down to only 100 times greater. That would not lessen my anxiety if I was a shot pin cushion.
The occurances per one million are still quite low per the CDC study. However, realize their reported numbers are based on the voluntary VAERS program, which captures only bout 1% of all cases.
In any event, I’m the one with myocarditis, it doesn’t matter to me what the percentages are.
“Effectiveness” in the article you just shared refers to protection against serious symptoms. It doesn’t refer to catching COVID as has been my point from the start of this discussion.
You CANNOT make the argument that myocarditis is less likely from the shot than from COVID. You could only make this argument if they were mutually exclusive and your options were between one OR the other.
That is not the case. You will still get COVID even if you get the shot.
Go ahead and move the goal posts again, shill.
nitzy wrote: “You CANNOT make the argument that myocarditis is less likely from the shot than from COVID. You could only make this argument if they were mutually exclusive and your options were between one OR the other.”
Not me making that argument. Heart org makes that claim.
I don’t care who is making the argument.
If you were a rational, logical person you could see that it is an invalid argument.
It would be like me arguing that the risk of cancer from radiation is worse than the risk of cancer from cigarettes. Therefore, I recommend everyone should smoke if they think they may accidentally be exposed to radiation.
The two things have nothing to do with one another. Smoking cigarettes doesn’t prevent you from getting exposed to radiation and getting the shot doesn’t prevent you from getting Covid.
By smoking or taking the shot you are only INCREASING your risk since you are accepting the risk of both the thing you are doing intentionally AND the thing that is happening unintentionally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.