Yes, but when there is very little reporting (not none, Tooth saw that cat for example), its remarkable, when considering that tens if not hundreds of millions of pets world wide will have been getting an illness that is being blasted all over the media.

Posting mostly for the triggering.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ab-leak-theory

Most of the people i know in Canada have pet insurance. It seems more common than not, at least amongst the upper middle class.

The idea you guys are suggesting that perhaps there has been a massive sleight of pet deaths that can explain the covid transmission in humans more than human to human transmission is just absurd.

That such pet deaths would not raise suspicions in Vet's offices as they notice the norm being broken, in the midst of a pandemic would be pure malpractice. The Vet's would be crying out for investigation and tools to test if they were seeing that in the midst of a pandemic.

You guys are clinging to the absurd as you simply cannot concede a wrong point. And it's laughable. It proves everything I say about this forum is correct.

some interesting discussion on treatment vs vacs etc

In actual Covid in humans news.

R in London is estimated to be 1.8.

Have I lost my mind and gone full flat earther?

I'm 27 years old with no pre-existing conditions. The chance of me contracting COVID and dying from it in Canada are literally less than 1/100,000.

Significantly less than 10% of the Canadian population has gotten COVID and only 1/10,000 people in my age category have died from it after contracting it.

Why should I get a vaccine that has only received "Emergency Use Authorization?" There's simply no emergency for someone like me.

Oh and I'm currently on Prince Edward Island which has a total case count of 204 since the start of the pandemic.

Now, please commence the verbal flogging.

Nobody cares if you don't get it. Lolpei

So you will take it once it receives non-emergency authorization? Or was that bit a red herring?

Potentially, if it has gone through "standard testing protocols" similar to any other vaccine then I probably would get it.

I've received and support children getting all the standard vaccines that prevent illnesses such as diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), polio, Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib), rotavirus, hepatitis B, measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, pneumococcal and meningococcal diseases, and human papillomavirus virus (HPV).

Edit: I didn't get the chickenpox vaccine. I had the infection prior to a vaccine being released.

Edit2: For some reason I feel like Canada only did the HPV vaccine for girls when I was in middle school, so I haven't received that one either.

Fair enough. I dont think the emergency authorisation changes as much as you do but I do get the point of people resisting pressure to take something that isn't even fully authorised.

.

No

All very fair questions imo.

I think the answer to this question divides mostly more along what I would loosely call more 'libertarian' views of the world and interdependency and responsibility within a society and more 'liberal' views of those things.

We see clearly how robust and adaptable this virus is in mutating into more virulent and dangerous forms, including ones that are increasingly more effective in getting around the vaccines.

If a significant percent of the populace chooses not to get vaccinated believing 'I don't really care if i catch it as I am unlikely to die' they will then prove to be the best vectors for two new mutations. The virus will continue to try and find ways to be more effective against these prior 'low threat groups'. Second the virus will use that group to try and evolve ways past the vaccines.

So you put not just yourself at greater future risk but also society at large.

Many who take the more libertarian view are more apt to just give the middle finger to society and those consequences in a more selfish world view.

ON another but related note and one that should appeal to the more selfish, if you hate rotating lockdowns and other measures (masks, etc) than having a significant part of society not vaccinated is EXACTLY the thing that is most likely to trigger ongoing, FOREVER, rotating lockdowns and other measures if indeed vaccine evading, or more virulent strains evolve.

So getting most vaccinated can END spread and end the threat of that. Sadly though, the selfish, will argue, I don't care if it mutates, i don't care about these issues, I demand you just not impose those measures and let those who die, die, instead. A call society will rightly ignore as they rightly impose new measures.

And lastly, you may still have people in your friend and family sphere who are vulnerable despite being vaccinated. Understand that being vaccinated does not mean you won't catch covid, but it does lessen the severity. A percent of the populace with serious pre-existing conditions will still remain vulnerable to death if they catch even if vaccinated.

So again if society over all is vaccinated and the spread is pretty much eliminated that 'vulnerable group' is now fully protected. The more selfish view is 'don't make me do anything, even if it does no harm to me, even if it could save many others'.


So I think those are the considerations you have to consider to answer your question.

Resigning over one drug equals all drugs bogus- that checks out

lol. the hits keep coming.

Trust the science. lol

Uh,oh.


https://nationalfile.com/breaking-cd...ne-recipients/

bobbyJ,

who do you trust?

GlassGlazer,
We trust the scientific method properly applied with good reasoning on solid data. That's what any sane person does.

Scientists are not the scientific method and they rarely apply it (most research has never been replicated for example which is the core of the scientific method), and are often confirmation biased, ass coverers, wagon circlers, frauds and poor reasoners (compared to someone who's a good data analyst) on issues of low certainty or political interest, and comically wrong on most else at the cutting edge (most published science is wrong as the replication crisis shows).

Look at the massive fraud just perpetuated on the world by science's most prestigious journals and the entire left wing media claiming that covid was natural (now backtracked on) and a conspiracy to believe otherwise. A completely wrong/fraudulent take on the biggest issue of the century so far became mainstream consensus science that silly people like you and El Razor "trust". It was 100% wrong, a pure deliberate fraud by the guy deeply involved in the gain of function research in China, that passed peer review, passed editorial standards at the most prestigious journals in the world, and became mainstream opinion despite it having shocking logical flaws which I ripped apart at the time (correctly) despite not knowing virology. Yet something with such gaping flaws that a middle IQ layman like me can correctly critique became mainstream consensus expert opinion for a year. How can you possibly trust expert opinion after such a shocking display of pure incompetence on every level (quality control, robust debate, philosphical sophistication, avoidance and disclosure of conflict)? Saturated fat is another example. Covid is another example of shocking incompetence and slowness of "the science", on every level, an incompetence that cost the world 10 trillion dollars and millions of lives and ~5 billion life-years lived abnormally. Yet you "trust the science" when a redneck could have done better. You're not very bright, are you?

So yes. We deeply trust the scientific method which is the very reason why we don't trust "the science". This is all very obvious if you're not a drooler.

Wrong again:

Trusting science does not mean trusting it uncritically. There are many areas where there are competing hypotheses I find equally plausible, for example convergent and contingent evolution.

When I argue for trusting science, I am arguing that I trust a process that, at least for the hard sciences, is concerned with finding the truth.

some interesting data

https://www.dropbox.com/s/28oa0byp3k...2KVKbNF-DbGGLE

Amen.

Covid Science™ is a total meme

"FLOL" the **** it does not. What world have you been living in? Covid Science™ is pure dogma

Umm, I trust people that don't lie to me for a start. Fauci fails that test badly. When people say "trust the science" they usually mean someone's interpretation of the science. Take climate change for example. These days we are told by "the experts" that climate change is settled science, that global warming is a man made catastrophe and to argue against it is denying science. In actual fact it is far from settled science. What they neglect to tell you is that climate change (warming and cooling) is a natural phenomenon that has been occurring ever since the earth came into being. The idea that it can be stopped somehow is absurd.

These are the same people who are telling us that the MRna vaccines are perfectly safe, by the way. "Trust the science". Hmmm...

You're as much as a flat earther as the person who pointed out the emperor has no clothes. There are a tremendous amount of unknowns with these vaccines. The vaccines were only tested on healthy individuals where only a single individual in the Moderna and Pfizer trials died of covid out of 70k participants.

In your age bracket, there were no (or at most 1 or 2) severe cases of covid in the placebo group. All other cases were mild/moderate. There were, however, hundreds more moderate and severe adverse reactions in the vaccine group.

If you added up the area of the curve of "total pain endured" for your age in the trials, it would be around an order of magnitude more in the vaccine group.

As I always say the best way to show Tooth wrong is to quote a prior post of his where he took the opposite view.

There is an exchange between he and I in this thread where I quote him saying one thing and then later stating something in direct conflict later.

He claimed he was right then and is right now as his position 'evolved' as new data and information came out and that is 'the way the scientific works'.

So he and others no that is how the scientific method works and yet 90% of their critiques of the science here are taking comments as if static and then celebrating having caught them in a 'lie' or being 'stupid', 'useless' because a position later is counter to the one prior.

They ignore the very foundation of science (positions evolve) to get political gotcha's which Tooth then uses to say 'the experts are useless', while also saying he is right to do because science evolves.


Maybe I'll search for the quote later as it is fun exposing Tooths hypocrisy at every level.