Guns International

Vaccine Poll

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Will you take the corona virus vaccine?

    • Yes

    • No


    Results are only viewable after voting.

    jrbfishn

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Aug 9, 2013
    28,316
    96
    south of killeen
    Damn, i hadn't looked at it from that perspective. Next time i need information on infectious disease I'll ask the barrisdta at Starbucks.

    Not all researchers work for Big Pharma.
    No, they don't.
    But apparently a lot of them get their research information from them.....

    Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
     

    baboon

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    May 6, 2008
    22,453
    96
    Out here by the lake!
    Just got a call from a local hospital for the wife who contacted them about a covid shot. The wife had since gotten a shot. The lady asked about anyone in the house needs one & my wife said me. When I heard myself mention I said "I don't need a shot I'm not taking one!" I head the nurse laughing.
     

    SURVIVOR619

    Well-Known
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Dec 31, 2017
    2,349
    96
    US
    My employer just announced they will give people paid time off to get vaccinated because they "support the views of public health authorities who recommend a vaccination as one of the most effective ways to protect our families and communities against COVID-19."

    Passive-aggressive approach to compelling we obtain the vaccine.
     
    • Sad
    Reactions: gll

    oldag

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,428
    96
    You consider 0.5% decrease effective??? Really??? Even 1.9% effective??? I don't know of anyone who would call that effective.

    If you were using body armor that only decreased your changes of dying by 0.5%, would you be pleased with it? Or would you prefer something that decreased your chance of dying by a much higher percentage? Nobody in their right mind would call 0.5% effective.

    Given the data quality, these magnitudes are not statistically significant and are in the noise level. Thus they are not effective.

    Show me 30% reduction and then maybe we can talk about effective.

    No use having a conversation with someone who is not being rational. Nothing productive can result. Have a good day.
     

    DubiousDan

    Trump 2024
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    May 22, 2010
    21,498
    96
    San Antonio
    You consider 0.5% decrease effective??? Really??? Even 1.9% effective??? I don't know of anyone who would call that effective.

    If you were using body armor that only decreased your changes of dying by 0.5%, would you be pleased with it? Or would you prefer something that decreased your chance of dying by a much higher percentage? Nobody in their right mind would call 0.5% effective.

    Given the data quality, these magnitudes are not statistically significant and are in the noise level. Thus they are not effective.

    Show me 30% reduction and then maybe we can talk about effective.

    No use having a conversation with someone who is not being rational. Nothing productive can result. Have a good day.
    According to the study, one hundred days after the implementation of the mandate there was a 1.9% decrease in the death rate. While that seems like a small amount it equates to 1,900 /million lives saved. It seems callous to me to consider that many live to be inconsequential. That's a whole lot of lives saved if the study is correct. The study does not take into account the type of face covering used, it does not take into account if they were worn correctly, and it does not take into account whether or not people always wore them when the should have.

    Disclaimer: I'm not arguing the validity of the study, just that saying that claiming CDC proved masks are ineffective is false.

    At the beginning of this discussion you claimed that masks were unless in helping to prevent the spread of disease and you posted that paragraph claiming that it proved masks are useless. The study does not prove it.

    My contention is that a good mask worn correctly can help prevent the transmission of disease and this has been proven in hospitals daily for decades.

    Ad hominem attacks (inferring that I'm not rational) is but one step above name calling and does nothing to buttress your opinion or make you right.
     

    oldag

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,428
    96
    According to the study, one hundred days after the implementation of the mandate there was a 1.9% decrease in the death rate. While that seems like a small amount it equates to 1,900 /million lives saved. It seems callous to me to consider that many live to be inconsequential. That's a whole lot of lives saved if the study is correct. The study does not take into account the type of face covering used, it does not take into account if they were worn correctly, and it does not take into account whether or not people always wore them when the should have.

    Disclaimer: I'm not arguing the validity of the study, just that saying that claiming CDC proved masks are ineffective is false.

    At the beginning of this discussion you claimed that masks were unless in helping to prevent the spread of disease and you posted that paragraph claiming that it proved masks are useless. The study does not prove it.

    My contention is that a good mask worn correctly can help prevent the transmission of disease and this has been proven in hospitals daily for decades.

    Ad hominem attacks (inferring that I'm not rational) is but one step above name calling and does nothing to buttress your opinion or make you right.
    Re: lack of rationality
    You have proved the point in this response. No further discussion would be productive.

    I am not saying you are not capable of being rational, but in this case the narrative and fear are so strong that the responses are not rational.
     

    DubiousDan

    Trump 2024
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    May 22, 2010
    21,498
    96
    San Antonio
    Re: lack of rationality
    You have proved the point in this response. No further discussion would be productive.

    I am not saying you are not capable of being rational, but in this case the narrative and fear are so strong that the responses are not rational.
    OK, that's fine and it was getting repetitious anyway. Thanks for your time. You were a challenge and I enjoyed the hell out of the debate and the mental exercise and I learned some things along the way. That's always rewarding.

    Take care and be safe.
     

    cvgunman

    Not a Leftist douchebag!
    Rating - 100%
    16   0   0
    Oct 9, 2017
    2,469
    96
    Mckinney TX

    SURVIVOR619

    Well-Known
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Dec 31, 2017
    2,349
    96
    US
    I he

    I heard on the radio that someone had die after experiencing reaction to the vaccine shot (not sure which one) and their life insurance company will not pay off the benefit due to the vaccine being an "experimental drug". Y'all check with your life ins. co so this doesn't happen to you.
    Thanks for this hat tip... hadn't thought of that and I'm inching closer each day to being 'forced' to decide between keeping my job or getting vaccinated.

    This potential point of contention could favor my dispute against my employer.
     

    DubiousDan

    Trump 2024
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    May 22, 2010
    21,498
    96
    San Antonio
    I he

    I heard on the radio that someone had die after experiencing reaction to the vaccine shot (not sure which one) and their life insurance company will not pay off the benefit due to the vaccine being an "experimental drug". Y'all check with your life ins. co so this doesn't happen to you.





     

    Armybrat

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 27, 2009
    1,414
    96
    Don’t push the panic button...
    371C5706-3156-4658-B71E-6B976117E333.jpeg
     

    Mowingmaniac 24/7

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 7, 2015
    9,388
    96
    Believe those numbers?

    Nope.

    If only 6 had severe problems with the j & j vaccine, it'd be considered much safer than a lot of other medicines/vaccines, but 'the powers that be' yanked it off the market because there's a boatload more than 6 negatively affected.
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom