Lurker > darkzero297

I've actually had this concern as well recently with all the news about the effectiveness of the vaccine against new strains and I think there may be merit to the idea that the vaccine (in its current state) is dangerous in the following context:

The main purpose of vaccines is to prevent the spread of illness at some reliable rate so that the reproduction rate of viruses falls below 1 in order to create herd immunity. However, the current Covid vaccines do not seem to stop spread very well and people who are vaccinated and infected will get more asymptomatic infections. This is a recipe for disaster in my estimation.

Viruses, like any organism that follows evolutionary principles, reproduces with variation. In a given context, the virus that can survive an environment will reproduce, and the weaker virus that cannot, will die off.

If people who are resistant to Covid due to vaccination can still be infected, then won't the fitness of the virus increase when it is cultivated in the more resistant bodies of vaccinated people (be more likely to pass on traits that evade vaccine effectiveness)?

And to make it worse, won't asymptomatic infections increase the likelihood of infected people spreading the virus to others since they won't even know they are infected (speed up the rate at which mutations can occur)?

It seems like the worst case scenario. I will admit, I am just a layperson though. Maybe the mRNA vaccines operate on different principles that prevent this from happening.

Found an article from 2015 about this actually:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/07/27/leaky-vaccines-could-make-viruses-more-deadly-new-study-suggests/

and here is another one from this year regarding this subject about Covid specifically. Haven't read through it yet though:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30851-3/fulltext

---

Kirbyhameha!!!
(>")>(())>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>))

GeraldDarko posted...

Why wouldn't minimizing circumstances in which a virus is able to spread reduce it's spread?

Minimizing circumstances where spread can occur can slow down the spread of the virus, but does not eliminate it. In a perfect world, where everyone does exactly what they need to do to avoid infection perfectly, the virus would disappear in less than a month.

But, people aren't perfect. Remaining flawlessly vigilant for any extensive period of time is just too difficult. People have lives, relationships, tasks, and work that needs to be done. Any extent to which these sorts of things require people to come in contact with other people creates risk and a simple careless mistake like standing too close, taking off a mask to speak more clearly, having to wait in a line is all that it takes.

The short answer is that depending on how infectious a virus is, there may not be anything you can do about it. Slowing it down may be the only thing you can do. That may be useful for keeping concurrent cases low and reduce strain on medical infrastructure, but it won't stop the virus from progressing through a society.

---

Kirbyhameha!!!
(>")>(())>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>))

I didn't feel ill at all. It does happen though. The second dose is supposedly much worse. Ultimately, it means that you have a strong immune system. People with weaker immune systems have fewer side effects. At least, that's what I have heard.

---

Kirbyhameha!!!
(>")>(())>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>))

Excuse me, are really trying to tell me that the protein DOESN'T have metal attached to it TC?

---

Kirbyhameha!!!
(>")>(())>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>))

Indeed, can confirm. Might be a BC thing.

---

Kirbyhameha!!!
(>")>(())>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>))

I see you too, are a man of good taste. Love his videos.

---

Kirbyhameha!!!
(>")>(())>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>))

brestugo posted...

Nothing either time.

That's interesting. I didn't have any side effect at all from my first dose. Hopefully my second goes as well. I have about 3 months before I get it though.

---

Kirbyhameha!!!
(>")>(())>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>))

For those who have gotten the second dose, have you had any side effects afterwards?

---

Kirbyhameha!!!
(>")>(())>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>))

I mean, yeah, he's obviously right. If there is going to be a farm subsidy and you are a farmer in need of assistance, you should qualify regardless of other factors.

---

Kirbyhameha!!!
(>")>(())>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>))

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBZmQdFbVcY

He finally made a new one! Haven't even watched it yet.

---

Kirbyhameha!!!
(>")>(())>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>))

What a disgusting and stupid thing to say.

---

Kirbyhameha!!!
(>")>(())>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>))

So from what I have read, what happened here is that there was a live stream charity for suicide prevention organized by G&G and some other people, and some big guests like Zack Snyder were lined up for it. Since G&G have a more controversial form of commentary, some of which targeting hollywood and Warner Bros themselves, Warner Bros wanted these event organizers to remove the G&G logo from the website advertising the event in order to avoid possible controversy. For some reason, this was not done, and so the going theory is that Zack Snyder was told by Warner Bros to publicly disassociate from G&G on the stream. The implication being that had the G&G logo been removed from advertising for the event, then this probably would not have happened at all.

---

Kirbyhameha!!!
(>")>(())>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>))

Yeah, the sequels sucked and had a load of plot problems and unrealized potential. It is pretty clear that Ryan Johnson basically fucked it all up. Attributing politics to this is dumb, they were just bad movies. It's more of a self-inflicted wound. If you push the angle that you are making a movie with a diverse cast, then you better damn well do a good job.

---

Kirbyhameha!!!
(>")>(())>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>))