Younger people with more robust immune systems will have a stronger inflammatory reaction to the vaccine. They're also more likely to be physically active and putting stress on their heart following vaccination. That's the leading theory for the cause. It's the same reason why the same age group is more prone to myocarditis following infections.

NBC says to keep your kids away from the unvaxxed.

Looks like they were all washoe gunna washoe posts where he rattled off 6 posts in rapid succession about how there was no other book on Amazon with a 4.5 star average over that number of reviews, even though I hadn't claimed there were. So I don't think it'll be all that instructive in where a line is drawn, other than - never go full washoe.

FYP.

That should be pulled as its total disinformation

Not really much of a distinction there.

Well, you openly boasted about not getting the vaxx and having no concern infecting others, so it seems in some cases the advice is not too bad. At least you posted something from NBC, albeit without context of the story. That is way more than some here who claim to watch that network regularly and make claims about what they are saying.

All the best.

Isn't it now the case that the vaccinated are spreading covid more than the unvaccinated?

Oh. So which of those ideas wouldn't protect kids? I'm fairly sure all of them would, and the only disinformation in your post was what you wrote.

LOL, OK.

Uncle Dave is coming over tomorrow, and he refuses to get vaccinated. Little Jimmy's parents could:

1) "keep [their] kids away from the unvaxxed", which would mean Jimmy needs to go to a friend's house, or at the very least stay in his bedroom until Uncle Dave leaves; OR
2) "Avoid physical interaction with unvaccinated individuals", which means Jimmy can enjoy the visit too, he just won't be hugging or shaking hands with Uncle Dave.

Now if I were little Jimmy's dad, I'd probably be fine with little Jimmy giving Uncle Dave a hug, so it's not like I'm advocating for either of these options. But if you're going to completely rephrase their advice to make it sound more extreme, at least own it rather than suggesting that there's "Not really much of a distinction there." Of course there is; a pretty big one IMO.

Not sure on that. If so it is likely due to the large number of people that are vaccinated and the new strains spreading regardless of vaccination status, so it is not quite the gotcha stat you hope it would be.

The reason they likely are suggesting to avoid contact with unvaccinated is not because the unvaccinated smell more. Well, they probably do, but that is not why - it is likely because the unvaxxed get sicker and croak more due to their derpy choice, so while you want the screenshot (without the context of the story) to suggest it is to punish the unvaxxed, it probably is to protect them, which is ironic given how most unvaxxed treat the topic at this time (not counting those that cannot get vaxxed due to medical reasons). Anyway, you are not anti-vaxx because you got a rando shot you had to get when traveling decades ago, remember? Heh.

All the best.

It was 2018. Just one year before covid.

Your points are valid enough although it's never been the line that covid is spread through physical contact and we've always been told that it's spread by being in the vicinity of those shedding the virus (which would necessitate keeping away from them and not merely avoiding touching them).

That makes you super not anti-vaxx then!

In the end you posted a screenshot without the full story and presented it with an agenda based message that misrepresented it in order to create a message that served your purpose. Note, Lozen ate it up - because all things bad for NBC to him so once he saw something he wanted to see he then passively absorbed any message that was attached to it, whether that message was accurate or not. Basically the two of you unintentionally offered a quick example of how altered content can be created for derps and how they eagerly consume it and share it. Your next step would be monetizing them when you do your manifestos, much like others who do that as a full time job, and you actually believe the nonsense you post. Not all the ones who create content to monetize the passive alt right crowd believe what they say, they just want the money.

All the best.

What more context do you think is needed for that screenshot exactly? I don't expect an answer but I'm pretty sure it speaks for itself.

It is good to know though that covid is spread through physical contact. People can take their masks off.

It does not speak for itself. You spoke for it (just as you did with your whatever mask snark there). I do not know the story of which it was associated to know the context of how that list is presented. The BFI derps did this all the time - they would show a screenshot or a clipped segment of a statement and say "it speaks for itself" when often times the derpy message being attached to it was not accurate once one watched the entire clip. You know this routine - you do it all the time to peddle your nonsense conspiracy junk. I merely pointed out that Lozen's reaction demonstrated a simple example of how the process you use works on its target market once you tell them what they want to hear, in this case - "NBC bad." I suspect you just did that because everything to you is a derpy conspiracy, so you are just being you, but others do it with their only intent being to extract money from their targeted derps.

All the best.

I posted that because I think it's interesting that media outlets are still trying to demonize on the unvaccinated-- I had (naively for sure) thought they were past that.

Again, that is the message you are attaching to it, because that is one of your agendas being quite anti-vaxx yourself. If you post a link to the whole segment then that will give the full story of how that list was presented and a discussion can be made about how "demonizing" it is. As presented it is just you potentially misrepresenting something to use for a personal agenda, and in this case you by happenstance hooked someone because of the "NBC bad" element that was part of it (even though I do not think you did that on purpose).

Why is this such a mystery to you? Covid-19 is transmitted through respiratory droplets and aerosols. Do you think the chance of such transmission would get higher as people get closer together, and that physical contact is the very closest you can get to someone else? This isn't rocket surgery.

LOL @ advising against physical contact with an unvaccinated person being considered to "demoninze on" them. Seems like you're a little sensitive; I read zero judgement in that advice.

Of course it should. NBC makes oodles and scads of $$$ from Big Pharma, so they don't care.

For the safety of children, only vaccinated individuals should be allowed to come into close contact with them. This is not demonizing the unvaccinated because it is a fact that they are more dangerous, right?

Vaxxing kids for Covid was always ridiculous*. It's all about the $$$.

*Unless the child has pre-existing conditions that make him or her especially susceptible to Covid.

FYP, again. And yes, that appears to be one of their tips.

It's not demonizing them because it's not demonizing them. Words have meaning; perhaps that's what's confusing you.

Which isn't what's happening there. If you feel demonized by something that innocuous, perhaps you need to work through those feelings.

You are making that comment based on how Lucky presented the scenario. Since he would not provide the actual clip itself I googled it and found that Fox News had a title of a story that summarized what Lucky was saying here, so I was wrong in thinking that Lucky had created content - rather he was simply passing along content he passively consumed from an alt-right source.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/nbc-ne...holiday-season

So you know shortstacker - the story itself was not about vaxxing kids but rather protecting infants who are experiencing a surge in RSV so the doctor in the segment said best not to "pass them around" at gatherings to people you "really do not know well." The Fox story includes this information but that is far below the clickbait derp enticing title in a bold font that is many times larger created to generate the reaction we saw with Lucky, who probably did not bother watching the clip nor finding out what it was even about.

strange concept kids shouldnt be vaccinated imo.
all my vaccines i had them when i was near a baby or like 2-4 years old in my youth.

what is the big deal with this one covid19 vaccine in particular from the antivaxx i have no idea, beside its obv. about a vaccine they would be against immediately from the start anyway ...

The difference is that many children died from rubella, measles, smallpox, etc. Very few children died from Covid-19. And almost zero without pre-existing conditions died from Covid-19. It was never clear that vaxxing all kids was +EV.

Does it matter that the thing Lucky posted that you reacted to was not about vaxxing infants/kids for Covid? Obviously yours is the type of reaction that places like Fox News (and the their passive consumers like Lucky who repost for their own purposes) hope to get from those like you, so that you click more of their stuff. Thing is once you look past their huge bold confrontational titles -- the actual clip is a lot more boring than that and is not about whether babies or kids themselves should be vaxxed for Covid, which seems to be your issue. So, does that change your reaction at all to how you were presented this out of context data that in reality had nothing to do with your issue of concern?