Crime 214 Democrats and 80 Republicans pass bill creating National Vaccination Database

We're run by corrupt politicians and we're the property of vaccine manufacturers. Just lovely.
Any time we try to tax the fuck outta these people there is typically one party that protests because something something jobs and the economy. The outrage is weird. I understand why because people feel their freedom is important but they fail to realize their freedom isn’t finite.
 
The problem with this statement is you are valuing individual rights and freedom more health and equity.

I dont think most people would or should agree with this. Freedom should not impede over health.

????

So obese people should be forced to diet and exercise or lose their jobs?

Should smokers be fired from their jobs for refusing to quit?

Should people with HIV/AIDS be told they cant go to work because it is a spreadable disease?

Should alcohol be illegalized because it can cause cirrhosis?

Should unhealthy food be banned due to associated health risk?

Freedom and individual rights take precedent over health all the time in almost every facet of human life. Freedom is about individual choice. The vast majority of humanity would rather their individual personal choices be respected rather than the government making those choices for them.
 
Any time we try to tax the fuck outta these people there is typically one party that protests because something something jobs and the economy. The outrage is weird. I understand why because people feel their freedom is important but they fail to realize their freedom isn’t finite.


It’s because these people constantly talk out their ass. They support politicians on the right that would never raise taxes on the rich but will 100% lower their taxes.


Then these people complain as they cast more votes for the people who will slash the taxes on the countries richest citizens. It’s just easier to accept these people are completely full of shit

rinse and repeat
 
????

So obese people should be forced to diet and exercise or lose their jobs?

Should smokers be fired from their jobs for refusing to quit?

Should people with HIV/AIDS be told they cant go to work because it is a spreadable disease?

Should alcohol be illegalized because it can cause cirrhosis?

Should unhealthy food be banned due to associated health risk?

Freedom and individual rights take precedent over health all the time in almost every facet of human life. Freedom is about individual choice. The vast majority of humanity would rather their individual personal choices be respected rather than the government making those choices for them.
Should smokers be fired from their jobs for refusing to quit? No. Should they be forced into small glass boxes in airports, or to go outside at bars, restaurants, or other public locations, especially hospitals? Yes. That's because second hand smoke poses a risk to others, not just the person smoking.

That's the difference. A person isn't only exposing himself. He's a risk to the public. This justifies encroachment of his personal liberties; because his decisions are encroaching on the risk of those around him.
 
Lmao who were the #1 & 2 recipients of big pharma money last election ? Former President Trump ( or grandpa Moderna as i call him) is on a country wide vaccine salesman tour while current president Dumbfuck is working fulltime for shots #3, and mandates for citizens only (because that makes any sense) You've been duped if you think this is a D vs R issue.
 
As though you're not already in too many databases to count.
 
Should smokers be fired from their jobs for refusing to quit? No. Should they be forced into small glass boxes in airports, or to go outside at bars, restaurants, or other public locations, especially hospitals? Yes. That's because second hand smoke poses a risk to others, not just the person smoking.

That's the difference. A person isn't only exposing himself. He's a risk to the public. This justifies encroachment of his personal liberties; because his decisions are encroaching on the risk of those around him.

If someone doesn't like cigarette smoke, they can always just walk away. Nobody is forcing them to stand there and do the forced, virtue-signaling melodramatic cough.

However, this is incomparable because the injected still pose just as much a threat to everyone around them as the uninjected. The viral load carried by both are indistinguishable. The only variant that the injection had a significant effect on was alpha, which is all but extinct now.
 
If someone doesn't like cigarette smoke, they can always just walk away. Nobody is forcing them to stand there and do the forced, virtue-signaling melodramatic cough.
When you say things so profoundly ignorant as this, it really conveys why it's perfectly okay for the rest of us to tell you what to do. No, when you're indoors, someone else can't just walk away, and not suffer any ill effects. That isn't how it works. Mountains of studies have demonstrated this.
However, this is incomparable because the injected still pose just as much a threat to everyone around them as the uninjected. The viral load carried by both are indistinguishable. The only variant that the injection had a significant effect on was alpha, which is all but extinct now.
No, they don't. There are more variants than the Delta variant. Only the Delta variant is as likely to be spread by the vaccinated to family members, but they aren't as likely to spread it, because they aren't as likely to contract it. Somone who doesn't get the disease won't spread the disease, derp.

Once again, you fail to comprehend ideas once they transcend the most rudimentary plane.
 
Another myth. Those same South African doctors have noted that 87% of hospitalizations in the region where the Omicron variant has become dominant are among the unvaccinated.
Nearly 80% of the people who ate food or drank water in the last year were also unvaccinated.

South Africa's fully vaxxed is in the low 20% range, so saying 87% of anything being among the unvaccinated isn't really noteworthy.

It's actually more noteworthy that 13% of hospitalizations are vaccinated, considering that's only 24% of the population. Seems the vaccine is less than 50/50 in preventing hospitalization.
 
Last edited:
Nearly 80% of the people who ate food or drank water in the last year were also unvaccinated.

South Africa's fully vaxxed is in the low 20% range, so saying 87% of anything being among the unvaccinated isn't really noteworthy.
The doctor didn't specify "fully vaxed". Someone who has received a single dose isn't unvaccinated.

41% of those 18 and older (whom made up the entirety of cases from that region) are vaccinated. So when ~60% of the population makes up 87% of hospitalizations, yes, that's a statistically significant overrepresentation.
 
Sad to see. With that many GOP had not voted for the vaccine data base.
 
Lol this is the business venture of a lifetime. Just staggering how much of a money making scheme this is with 0 liability and a set of rules that can be arbitrarily changed any time.


Pfizer alone have now got a global, lifetime customer base for this vaccine at least 2 times a year, forever. Imagine that level of income, from one country alone? Then multiply it by most of the world (not the poor countries, they won't give them a liability exemption so they will have to make do with dregs and shittier vaccines that don't work as well).

Governments no longer run this planet, this planet is run by big pharma and big tech and individual governments are their enforcers. The latter will get a nice pocket-liner each year to keep following the script.
 
Pfizer alone have now got a global, lifetime customer base for this vaccine at least 2 times a year, forever. Imagine that level of income, from one country alone? Then multiply it by most of the world (not the poor countries, they won't give them a liability exemption so they will have to make do with dregs and shittier vaccines that don't work as well).

Governments no longer run this planet, this planet is run by big pharma and big tech and individual governments are their enforcers. The latter will get a nice pocket-liner each year to keep following the script.
The government has no money. The people give the government money, then the government gives it to big pharma , who in turn gives a portion back to the government in terms of lobbying, with another top up from the people. Rinse , repeat . The sad thing about this money making scheme is the product doesn't even have to work. In trying to eliminate the control group ( like Pfizer did in their trials), they can attribute any positive outcome to the product. " oh you got Covid and shook it off , it was definatly the vax, this justifies rules xyz". And it's like wait a minute , I was incredibly likely to have the exact same outcome with or without it, and now the rules are beholden to having to intervene with the vax. It's all so plain and obvious.
 
When you say things so profoundly ignorant as this, it really conveys why it's perfectly okay for the rest of us to tell you what to do. No, when you're indoors, someone else can't just walk away, and not suffer any ill effects. That isn't how it works. Mountains of studies have demonstrated this.

You just added the caveat of indoor smoking, but ill bite. If someone is smoking somewhere indoors and you're afraid that its going to kill you, just leave. Unless you are trapped there in some life and death situation, (in which case you'd probably have more pressing concerns) just exit the area and you will no longer be exposed. As for outdoor smoking, once again, no one is forcing you to stand there if you believe the smoke is going to kill you. You can move away; then both you and the smoker are exercising both your freedoms: one to enjoy a cigarette and the other to protect themselves from certain death.

No, they don't. There are more variants than the Delta variant. Only the Delta variant is as likely to be spread by the vaccinated to family members, but they aren't as likely to spread it, because they aren't as likely to contract it. Somone who doesn't get the disease won't spread the disease, derp.

Once again, you fail to comprehend ideas once they transcend the most rudimentary plane.

The difference is negligible. Also, the fact that injected persons are allowed to travel and aren't affected by medical discrimination practices contributes to their asymptomatic spread of the virus. That said, in many places in the world right now, the injected far outnumber the uninjected in ICUs.

Covid 19 is endemic. There is no getting rid of it anymore. Many highly vaccinated countries have already given up, meaning its here to stay. Home incarceration and forced vaccinations are not going to eliminate the virus or prevent its spread. There is no longer any justification for these draconian policies.

Viruses evolve toward survival and replication, and they cant survive and replicate if they kill their hosts. Like with the flu, Covid 19 is going to become more contagious but less lethal as time goes on. For a virus that was only really lethal to the extremely elderly with comorbidities in the first place, the scale of the response is overkill compared to the actual threat.

Its time for society to return to normal and quit all of the media-driven hysteria.
 
You just added the caveat of indoor smoking, but ill bite. If someone is smoking somewhere indoors and you're afraid that its going to kill you, just leave. Unless you are trapped there in some life and death situation, (in which case you'd probably have more pressing concerns) just exit the area and you will no longer be exposed. As for outdoor smoking, once again, no one is forcing you to stand there if you believe the smoke is going to kill you. You can move away; then both you and the smoker are exercising both your freedoms: one to enjoy a cigarette and the other to protect themselves from certain death.
Absurd argument. You've just put the non-smoker at the mercy of every smoker. Now if there is a single non-smoker indoors, every non-smoker must leave (and not just to smoke a single cigarette) in order to preserve his health. The smoker is the one choosing to jeopardize his own health. Therefore, it's far more sensible to force him to choose between staying, or going outside. Yet further, and I'm not surprised your ignorant to this, but the carcinogen load remains in the establishment. So, in fact, every non-smoker is exposed to that whether or not the smoker(s) are present.

Meanwhile, the smokers are the ones presenting an enormous financial impact to our health system, which is unfairly pooled, thereby burdening those who don't smoke already, in the first place. So you've just afforded the bad guy a special status twice over.

So thanks for that idiotic hot take.
 
Absurd argument. You've just put the non-smoker at the mercy of every smoker. Now if there is a single non-smoker indoors, every non-smoker must leave (and not just to smoke a single cigarette) in order to preserve his health. The smoker is the one choosing to jeopardize his own health. Therefore, it's far more sensible to force him to choose between staying, or going outside. Yet further, and I'm not surprised your ignorant to this, but the carcinogen load remains in the establishment. So, in fact, every non-smoker is exposed to that whether or not the smoker(s) are present.

Meanwhile, the smokers are the ones presenting an enormous financial impact to our health system, which is unfairly pooled, thereby burdening those who don't smoke already, in the first place. So you've just afforded the bad guy a special status twice over.

So thanks for that idiotic hot take.

I'm trying to get a fix on where your logic is and where you draw lines. Should fat people have their rights restricted due to a health system with pooled resources?

There is risk everywhere in life. Society as a whole shouldn't be at the mercy of the most cowardly.

If you're afraid of Covid 19, just keep taking your injections and barricade yourself in the house; but for the cowardice of the minority to dictate to others their liberty is outlandish and authoritarian.

Many people understand the statistical risks from covid and arent that afraid. The fact that the government has resorted to extorting the populace into submission to experimental medical procedures makes it evidently so.

Why threaten austerity and segregation if people were going to take the injections anyway?
 
I'm trying to get a fix on where your logic is and where you draw lines. Should fat people have their rights restricted due to a health system with pooled resources?

There is risk everywhere in life. Society as a whole shouldn't be at the mercy of the most cowardly.

If you're afraid of Covid 19, just keep taking your injections and barricade yourself in the house; but for the cowardice of the minority to dictate to others their liberty is outlandish and authoritarian.

Many people understand the statistical risks from covid and arent that afraid. The fact that the government has resorted to extorting the populace into submission to experimental medical procedures makes it evidently so.

Why threaten austerity and segregation if people were going to take the injections anyway?
"The cowardice of the minority".

First, you're the minority. Second, no, it isn't authoritarian, it's rational. When someone presents a threat to the public-- to others-- for which we have tools to address, there is no excuse for that person to allow the risk he presents to others to remain elevated. If he chooses to remain so, then it's perfectly reasonable to abridge his rights. He was afforded a choice.
 
"The cowardice of the minority".

First, you're the minority. Second, no, it isn't authoritarian, it's rational.

Rational and Authoritarian are not mutually exclusive. I am sure we can think of many examples of situations where an authoritarian decision can be rationally justified.

Hell, if covid had a way higher death rate than 0.03%; say something closer to 30%, there may be a valid case for home incarcerations and forced medication. However, if that fatality rate was the case, individuals would choose to line up around the block to take the injections. They would also likely choose to not leave the house under just about any circumstance. The only reason the government had to impose these measures on the public is because the public wouldn't voluntarily adhere to these measures with such a low fatality rate for such a small, expectant minority of the population.

When someone presents a threat to the public-- to others-- for which we have tools to address, there is no excuse for that person to allow the risk he presents to others to remain elevated. If he chooses to remain so, then it's perfectly reasonable to abridge his rights. He was afforded a choice.

We don't have tools to address it. Remember the beginning of the pandemic, when the worst fear was 'asymptomatic spread'....guess what, thats still a thing. The injected have become the asymptomatic super-spreaders of this pandemic. They just dont know that they have the virus and are being let loose on the rest of humanity.

If the injections actually work, why all the vitriol toward those who refuse; they have a right to choose not to be experimented on by big pharma with emergency use authorized drugs for which the pharmaceutical companies enjoy blanket legal immunity.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top