Can a store owner ask me if I am vaxxed?

[colfax_m]

Wrong.
You do not have to deliberately infect anyone who is already immune, and that include the half the population who are already proven asymptomatic with inherent immunity, those under 18, those with recovery immunity, etc.

Again, children have inherent immunity or at least a very high resistance.
No children have to be infected.

Everyone will sign up because they will then not lose their business, jobs, homes, etc.

The vaccines are vastly worse than variolation risks.
The extra half million alone who have already died waiting for the vaccines, proves that.

The vaccines likely will not work. You can't just inject spike proteins and expect that to work. It is not lasting. A year from now, no mRNA immunity will exist most likely.

And the mRNA risks are also far higher for future autoimmune responses.
You have not addressed what happens if the mRNA immunity causes our own exosome spike proteins to be attacked by our own immune system.
Remember that covid itself killed no one, and it is only the deadly over response from the immune system that is killing anyone.
Look up "cytokine storm".
Hyping up an already deadly immune response, is highly dangerous and unethical.

So much is wrong here. Just so much.

Half the population doesn't have inherent immunity. Those under 18 aren't inherently immune.

The risk to the INDIVIDAUL who is getting deliberately injected is higher than if they're vaccinated. Therefore, it's unethical to deliberately inject them with COVID.

Why don't you go ahead and tell me the name of our "own exosome spike protein" that is going to be attacked by our immune system. I've asked you this before, I don't believe you've ever answered. The truth is that we don't have a human analogue for the COVID spike protein. It doesn't exist. ACE2, which COVID binds to, doesn't bind a human "exosome spike protein", it binds angiotensin, a peptide hormone.

On one hand, you say that our immune system isn't reacting strongly enough to the mRNA vaccine. On the other hand, you're complaining that it's going to hype it up too much. Need to make up your mind.

 

[Rigby5]

So much is wrong here. Just so much.

Half the population doesn't have inherent immunity. Those under 18 aren't inherently immune.

The risk to the INDIVIDAUL who is getting deliberately injected is higher than if they're vaccinated. Therefore, it's unethical to deliberately inject them with COVID.

Why don't you go ahead and tell me the name of our "own exosome spike protein" that is going to be attacked by our immune system. I've asked you this before, I don't believe you've ever answered. The truth is that we don't have a human analogue for the COVID spike protein. It doesn't exist. ACE2, which COVID binds to, doesn't bind a human "exosome spike protein", it binds angiotensin, a peptide hormone.

On one hand, you say that our immune system isn't reacting strongly enough to the mRNA vaccine. On the other hand, you're complaining that it's going to hype it up too much. Need to make up your mind.

Wrong.
All the places where they did universal testing, like barrack, cloisters, prisons, institutions, etc., showed far more had been infected than we realized, but they were asymptomatic do did not report.
That does several things.
First it means that as expected, coronaviruses are not totally new to humans, so many do have inherent immunity, and second if that the original lethality calculations were over twice reality because about half those infected were not being counted.

And it clearly is wrong to claim those under 18 are not inherently immune.
Of the 660,000 covid deaths in the US, only 300 are under 18.
That means without any doubt, those under 18 are inherently immune.

Again, waiting for the vaccine was deliberate murder of over half a million people, so that was totally unethical.

And we clearly do not know what the future risks are from these mRNA vaccines.
And yes, I am aware the ACE2 receptors bind to "angiotensin, a peptide hormone."
But our own exosomes have to also have and produce the same spike protein as covid, or else it could not mimic our exosomes and gain entry.
The actual chemistry of angiotensin is complex, and it changes name after attachment.
But from what I read, it says these coronaviruses most likely were at one time our own exosomes, that became damaged and changed.
It is almost impossible to imagine that corona viruses happened by accident, through their own evolution.
That would be like someone who did not even know what a lock or key was, to somehow accidentally making a key by trial and error, that opened a particular lock.
That is just impossible.
Covid has to use a very similar spike protein as exosomes, or else covid could not get in to the ACE2 receptors.

And no, I am not saying our immune system is not reacting enough to these mRNA spike proteins.
I am saying just spike proteins are not varied and specific enough.
I do not know all the ways antibodies work, but I doubt they all work on spike proteins, and if real whole viruses were in the vaccines, I would bet a better and more varies response would be possible.
The point is to not get the immune system to do a kitchen sink response, which is what causes fatalities. A more nuanced and specific response would be much safer.

 

[colfax_m]

Wrong.
All the places where they did universal testing, like barrack, cloisters, prisons, institutions, etc., showed far more had been infected than we realized, but they were asymptomatic do did not report.
That does several things.
First it means that as expected, coronaviruses are not totally new to humans, so many do have inherent immunity, and second if that the original lethality calculations were over twice reality because about half those infected were not being counted.

And it clearly is wrong to claim those under 18 are not inherently immune.
Of the 660,000 covid deaths in the US, only 300 are under 18.
That means without any doubt, those under 18 are inherently immune.

Again, waiting for the vaccine was deliberate murder of over half a million people, so that was totally unethical.

And we clearly do not know what the future risks are from these mRNA vaccines.
And yes, I am aware the ACE2 receptors bind to "angiotensin, a peptide hormone."
But our own exosomes have to also have and produce the same spike protein as covid, or else it could not mimic our exosomes and gain entry.
The actual chemistry of angiotensin is complex, and it changes name after attachment.
But from what I read, it says these coronaviruses most likely were at one time our own exosomes, that became damaged and changed.
It is almost impossible to imagine that corona viruses happened by accident, through their own evolution.
That would be like someone who did not even know what a lock or key was, to somehow accidentally making a key by trial and error, that opened a particular lock.
That is just impossible.
Covid has to use a very similar spike protein as exosomes, or else covid could not get in to the ACE2 receptors.

And no, I am not saying our immune system is not reacting enough to these mRNA spike proteins.
I am saying just spike proteins are not varied and specific enough.
I do not know all the ways antibodies work, but I doubt they all work on spike proteins, and if real whole viruses were in the vaccines, I would bet a better and more varies response would be possible.
The point is to not get the immune system to do a kitchen sink response, which is what causes fatalities. A more nuanced and specific response would be much safer.

God, there's just still so much wrong here.

There's a difference in saying those who are under 18 aren't severely affected by COVID and saying they're immune. In fact, there's a huge difference. Those under 18 can still get COVID. In fact, they're quite capable of doing so. They don't die, true. They largely get better on their own without any big deal. But if the purpose is to achieve herd immunity, they too have to be infected in order to give them acutal immunity.

Immunity from other coronaviruses has not been shown to be effective at limiting people from getting COVID 19. It does a pretty good job at thwarting good antibody tests for COVID 19 but it doesn't demonstrate immunity. This isn't called "inherent" immunity either, it's called acquired immunity, just that you acquired it from a coronavirus that is related but different than COVID 19.

The problem with saying it's unethical to wait is that the people who died "waiting for a vaccine" are largely not those who would be required to be voluntarily injected with COVID. In fact, they damn well better be different since you want to inject "healthy" and low risk individuals. So you see, it's unethical because you're using the deaths of one population to justify the deaths of a different population.

No rational medical system would do such a thing. It's completely unethical.

We don't know the future risks of COVID-19 either, but you want to inject people with it. Pretty weird, man.

Okay, if you think our cells produce their own "exosome spike protein", name it. What is the name of the human analogue to COVID-19's spike protein?

No, it's not necessary that we have a similar one. COVID19 just has to be able to bind to ACE2.

Antibodies work any way that they can.. And I'm not going to argue that getting COVID isn't a good way to get antibodies against COVID. But the great thing about developing antibodies agasinst the spike protein is that the antibodies can target the binding site of that spike protein and therefore neutralize the viral particle from infecting your cells. That's why the vaccine is roughly 60-80 percent effective at preventing infection in the first place. Getting an acquired immunity from COVID by getting infected would produce the "kitchen sink" approach since you get antibodies to many parts of the complete viral particle. Acquired immunity from the vaccine just gives you immunity the spike protein which is a more limited and specific approach.

And that's why the vaccine is safer than getting COVID.

 

[ClaireH]

When if comes to mask, it all depends. It you're sweating, coughing, sneezing, or running, the mast filter material will become damp and will not be as near as effective. What you have to remember is that a mask is more a deterrent that preventive similar to covering your mouth when you sneeze. Staying staying away from people or vaccination are a good preventive as they reduce your chance of infections significantly lower than wearing a masks.

I use 7 different mask, one for each day of week washing them all on Sunday, replacing them after a hundred washings. If I am going into a crowd, I wear an N95. Only the N95 mask mask provide very good protection for the wearer. The other mask protect others much more than they protect the wearer.

I do not know the specifics about why a 30 minute time limit has been suggested but its due to moisture/saliva changing in consistency, but this is the reason (from my understanding) that this is why it’s considered appropriate time to change a mask when you’re among others. I’ll search for more about the particulars and if I find out anything worthwhile I’ll post it. Ditto on N95 for crowds- but I’m avoid crowds when I can.

 

[ClaireH]

You not getting vaccinated if you already had the virus doesn’t necessarily affect others either. Yes or no?

When it’s proven that natural immunity offers longer protection than the intermuscular vaccines that create spike proteins to identify the same viral protein, more people will come to understand. I know for a fact that the natural immunity is going to be much longer than these intermuscular mRNA vaccines.

“ The Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) estimates that the spike proteins that were generated by COVID-19 vaccines last up to a few weeks, like other proteins made by the body. The immune system quickly identifies, attacks and destroys the spike proteins because it recognizes them as not part of you. This "learning the enemy" process is how the immune system figures out how to defeat the real coronavirus.”

How long do mRNA and spike proteins last in the body?

Here we break down the data to show where mRNA vaccines (and spike proteins) travel in the body. There is no evidence that any mRNA or protein accumulates in any organ.

www.nebraskamed.com

Lasting immunity found after recovery from COVID-19

The immune systems of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID-19 had durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection.

www.nih.gov

 

[Rigby5]

God, there's just still so much wrong here.

There's a difference in saying those who are under 18 aren't severely affected by COVID and saying they're immune. In fact, there's a huge difference. Those under 18 can still get COVID. In fact, they're quite capable of doing so. They don't die, true. They largely get better on their own without any big deal. But if the purpose is to achieve herd immunity, they too have to be infected in order to give them acutal immunity.

Immunity from other coronaviruses has not been shown to be effective at limiting people from getting COVID 19. It does a pretty good job at thwarting good antibody tests for COVID 19 but it doesn't demonstrate immunity. This isn't called "inherent" immunity either, it's called acquired immunity, just that you acquired it from a coronavirus that is related but different than COVID 19.

The problem with saying it's unethical to wait is that the people who died "waiting for a vaccine" are largely not those who would be required to be voluntarily injected with COVID. In fact, they damn well better be different since you want to inject "healthy" and low risk individuals. So you see, it's unethical because you're using the deaths of one population to justify the deaths of a different population.

No rational medical system would do such a thing. It's completely unethical.

We don't know the future risks of COVID-19 either, but you want to inject people with it. Pretty weird, man.

Okay, if you think our cells produce their own "exosome spike protein", name it. What is the name of the human analogue to COVID-19's spike protein?

No, it's not necessary that we have a similar one. COVID19 just has to be able to bind to ACE2.

Antibodies work any way that they can.. And I'm not going to argue that getting COVID isn't a good way to get antibodies against COVID. But the great thing about developing antibodies agasinst the spike protein is that the antibodies can target the binding site of that spike protein and therefore neutralize the viral particle from infecting your cells. That's why the vaccine is roughly 60-80 percent effective at preventing infection in the first place. Getting an acquired immunity from COVID by getting infected would produce the "kitchen sink" approach since you get antibodies to many parts of the complete viral particle. Acquired immunity from the vaccine just gives you immunity the spike protein which is a more limited and specific approach.

And that's why the vaccine is safer than getting COVID.

Wrong.
Immunity does NOT at all reduce initial infection in any way.
So then YES, those under 18 are inherently immune.
Everyone is equally capable of getting covid.
Immunity just means they are good at getting rid of it after they get it.
So no, you do NOT have to actually infect anyone under 18.
They ARE immune inherently as far as herd immunity goes.
They do not host or spread, in almost all cases.

I did not say immunity from getting other coronaviruses gave immunity to covid.
What I said is that previous coronavirus immunity gives us a reasonable estimate of how long covid acquired immunity lasts.
And it is likely life long.

And no, it is not at all unethical to substitute one population for another as a deliberate sacrifice to covid because it is a 400 to 1 reduction in number.
The risk is 400 times smaller, so then is so small it would be incredibly irresponsible not to take it.
And those under 40 would jump at the chance because it would have meant not having your life ruined by this foolish lock down mentality.

Again, there is NO human analog to the corona spike protein.
It has to be IDENTICAL.
There is no way a virus could accidentally evolve a spike protein that unlocks ACE2 receptors.
Coronaviruses have to have evolved FROM exosomes gone rogue.
There is no other possible explanation.

These mRNA vaccines can not be safer.
First of all, the spike proteins they contain are so much smaller, they can migrate, not stay in the arm muscle, and cause death if they get to someplace sensitive, like the heart or brain, before the immune system can find and attack them.
Second is that any change in the virus spike protein would render the mRNA immunity useless.
Third is that you have it backwards, in that by just sensitizing the immune system to generic spike proteins, you could get the immune system to attack benign organism in our digestive system, or someplace else.
A more specific targeting system would vastly safer.

If under 40/not compromised, there is essentially no risk to getting covid.
The mRNA risks are totally unknown and incalculable.
But they likely are very high because we do not know nearly enough about our immune system.
For example, clearly coronaviruses had to have evolved from exosomes, and we just do not know it.

 

[colfax_m]

Wrong.
Immunity does NOT at all reduce initial infection in any way.
So then YES, those under 18 are inherently immune.
Everyone is equally capable of getting covid.
Immunity just means they are good at getting rid of it after they get it.
So no, you do NOT have to actually infect anyone under 18.
They ARE immune inherently as far as herd immunity goes.
They do not host or spread, in almost all cases.

I did not say immunity from getting other coronaviruses gave immunity to covid.
What I said is that previous coronavirus immunity gives us a reasonable estimate of how long covid acquired immunity lasts.
And it is likely life long.

And no, it is not at all unethical to substitute one population for another as a deliberate sacrifice to covid because it is a 400 to 1 reduction in number.
The risk is 400 times smaller, so then is so small it would be incredibly irresponsible not to take it.
And those under 40 would jump at the chance because it would have meant not having your life ruined by this foolish lock down mentality.

Again, there is NO human analog to the corona spike protein.
It has to be IDENTICAL.
There is no way a virus could accidentally evolve a spike protein that unlocks ACE2 receptors.
Coronaviruses have to have evolved FROM exosomes gone rogue.
There is no other possible explanation.

These mRNA vaccines can not be safer.
First of all, the spike proteins they contain are so much smaller, they can migrate, not stay in the arm muscle, and cause death if they get to someplace sensitive, like the heart or brain, before the immune system can find and attack them.
Second is that any change in the virus spike protein would render the mRNA immunity useless.
Third is that you have it backwards, in that by just sensitizing the immune system to generic spike proteins, you could get the immune system to attack benign organism in our digestive system, or someplace else.
A more specific targeting system would vastly safer.

If under 40/not compromised, there is essentially no risk to getting covid.
The mRNA risks are totally unknown and incalculable.
But they likely are very high because we do not know nearly enough about our immune system.
For example, clearly coronaviruses had to have evolved from exosomes, and we just do not know it.

If people under 18 are capable of catching and spreading COVID, and although they don't suffer death like others, then the entire purpose of infecting everyone is lost. The purpose of herd immunity is to reduce circulating virus because there's not hosts that can be infected.

If you have a huge chunk of the population, 18 and under, who can still very much get infected, you've just lost the entire point of this program and would be doomed to failure.

There is no way of knowing if previous coronavirus immunity is even immunity, let alone if it is the same level of COVID 19 immunity.

Medically, it's unethical to give people COVID intentionally regardless of their risks. The risks of getting COVID are too high, even if it's low overall, to justify it based on some "lockdown mentality" which isn't even a factor anymore. Yes, it's completely unethical to sacrifice one population for another. It's not even close. The intervention HAS to be beneficial to the individual. It's not.

The mRNA vaccines are safer than getting COVID, that's for sure. The vaccines contain the same spike protein so if you're worried about an autoimmune response, you should really be worried about an infection. The spike proteins they contain are intracellular, degraded and expressed in MHC to be identified by T-cells to generate the immune response.

Any change in the spike protein would also potentially render immunity from previous infection useless too. You aren't training the immune system to a "generic" spike protein, you're targeting it against the COVID spike protein.

If you're worried about the long term risk of mRNA vaccines, but not worried about the long term risk of COVID19, you're not thinking clearly. Both have been around for too short of time to say what the long term risks are. But knowing the biology of mRNA, I can say that the exposure is FAR more limited in the vaccine.

 

[Rigby5]

If people under 18 are capable of catching and spreading COVID, and although they don't suffer death like others, then the entire purpose of infecting everyone is lost. The purpose of herd immunity is to reduce circulating virus because there's not hosts that can be infected.

If you have a huge chunk of the population, 18 and under, who can still very much get infected, you've just lost the entire point of this program and would be doomed to failure.

There is no way of knowing if previous coronavirus immunity is even immunity, let alone if it is the same level of COVID 19 immunity.

Medically, it's unethical to give people COVID intentionally regardless of their risks. The risks of getting COVID are too high, even if it's low overall, to justify it based on some "lockdown mentality" which isn't even a factor anymore. Yes, it's completely unethical to sacrifice one population for another. It's not even close. The intervention HAS to be beneficial to the individual. It's not.

The mRNA vaccines are safer than getting COVID, that's for sure. The vaccines contain the same spike protein so if you're worried about an autoimmune response, you should really be worried about an infection. The spike proteins they contain are intracellular, degraded and expressed in MHC to be identified by T-cells to generate the immune response.

Any change in the spike protein would also potentially render immunity from previous infection useless too. You aren't training the immune system to a "generic" spike protein, you're targeting it against the COVID spike protein.

If you're worried about the long term risk of mRNA vaccines, but not worried about the long term risk of COVID19, you're not thinking clearly. Both have been around for too short of time to say what the long term risks are. But knowing the biology of mRNA, I can say that the exposure is FAR more limited in the vaccine.

Simply WRONG!
Those under 18 do NOT significantly spread covid.
They NEVER have been capable of significant spread.
Which is why most of the world never closed their schools.
The only way those under 18 spread is by their hands, which is much slower than air born.

I have no way of knowing why you think well tested immunity to SARS, MERS, etc. is not immunity or does not last?
It certainly has been carefully tested and proven.

And your ethical argument is obviously totally wrong.
All vaccines kill some and only benefit others.
If not for accepting the risks from any vaccine, then the safest possible strategy would be to let everyone else get vaccinated to kill off the epidemic, but not get vaccinated yourself.
You could just artificially quarantine until the risk was gone, due to others taking all the risk.

The benefit to all for deliberate infection is speed.
We could very quickly end not just covid, but any new epidemic.
We can not wait for vaccines, and we should not be experimenting with rushed and fake vaccines.

And it is wrong to claim the mRNA vaccines are safer, since we won't likely know the real harm they cause for a long time.
For example, what is causing the increase of autoimmune problems, like Lupus, HIV, diabetes, arthritis, autism, etc.
You do NOT want the immune system to just target only spike proteins. That is far too risky and susceptible to misindentification.
You want a stronger targeting assurance.

There are no long term risks to covid. It is relatively benign. Nor is it endemic, so it is going away and we do not even need immunity or a vaccine for it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When it’s proven that natural immunity offers longer protection than the intermuscular vaccines that create spike proteins to identify the same viral protein, more people will come to understand.

So somehow you know something that has not been proven. Tea leaves, or Ouija Board?

 

[colfax_m]

Those under 18 do NOT significantly spread covid.
They NEVER have been capable of significant spread.
Which is why most of the world never closed their schools.
The only way those under 18 spread is by their hands, which is much slower than air born.

Of course not. Young people are QUITE capable of spreading it. There have been large scale outbreaks in schools proving this is the case.

And your ethical argument is obviously totally wrong.
All vaccines kill some and only benefit others.
If not for accepting the risks from any vaccine, then the safest possible strategy would be to let everyone else get vaccinated to kill off the epidemic, but not get vaccinated yourself.
You could just artificially quarantine until the risk was gone, due to others taking all the risk.

All vaccines have a chance to harm someone, which is LOWER than the effects from the infection itself. An intervention which reduces the risk to a person is ethical. There is no ethical case for purposely infecting someone with a disease since they're assuming all the risk for someone else's benefit.

The benefit to all for deliberate infection is speed.
We could very quickly end not just covid, but any new epidemic.
We can not wait for vaccines, and we should not be experimenting with rushed and fake vaccines.

What good is ending the pandemic if you're going to be infected by it?

And it is wrong to claim the mRNA vaccines are safer, since we won't likely know the real harm they cause for a long time.
For example, what is causing the increase of autoimmune problems, like Lupus, HIV, diabetes, arthritis, autism, etc.
You do NOT want the immune system to just target only spike proteins. That is far too risky and susceptible to misindentification.
You want a stronger targeting assurance.

There are no long term risks to covid. It is relatively benign. Nor is it endemic, so it is going away and we do not even need immunity or a vaccine for it.

What gives you the ability to say there's no long term risks to COVID? It hasn't been studied for that long.

 

[ClaireH]

So somehow you know something that has not been proven. Tea leaves, or Ouija Board?

Now come on FFI- you’re not doing your poster name any justice whatsoever, giving IN a bad rep with your frequent outbursts! Lol You need to get out a bit more- I’d suggest a weekend camping trip to Lake Rudolf perhaps… skip the park and enjoy a cabin. Great weather for it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Now come on FFI- you’re not doing your poster name any justice whatsoever, giving IN a bad rep with your frequent outbursts! Lol You need to get out a bit more- I’d suggest a weekend camping trip to Lake Rudolf perhaps… skip the park and enjoy a cabin. Great weather for it.

Cute vapid whining.

But still I think we would like to hear how you know something is a fact, when it has not yet been shown to be a fact. In fact, data from studies seems to be all over the map.

But you are going to put all that to bed right now. And.... go

 

[WEATHER53]

You lib loons still offering your Lil Hitler myths?
If asked respond “my personal medical actions are not open for discussion” . If they harass you then defend yourself with force if necessary. If they won’t ring you up, say that you tried to pay and take the items with you

 

[WEATHER53]

I wasn't stating a fact but a comparison. Jesus you guys.

You asked what was not factual dimbulb.

 

[HappyJoy]

You asked what was not factual dimbulb.

I asked what was false. I'm pretty sure we're going to find out that you don't know the difference.

 

[Concerned American]

vaccination are a good preventive as they reduce your chance of infections

Fully vaccinated people are contracting and spreading the virus as often as the unvaccinated. The jab just reduces the severity of the infection.

 

[Concerned American]

Huh? A seatbelt is not 100% effective. Stop it. Let who make which choices?

Seat belt laws for what is considered a privelege (driving) can hardly be compared to restricting RIGHTS that are guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

[Flopper]

Wrong.
Those are only reported cases, and over half are not reported.
Often those with natural immunity are asymptomatic,, but often those with symptoms do not want to get on any lists, so self quarantine.

And the body count stands at about 665,000 which will soon past the Spanish Flu epidemic in the US.

 

[Flopper]

Fully vaccinated people are contracting and spreading the virus as often as the unvaccinated. The jab just reduces the severity of the infection.

According to the CDC, the vaccinated are 5 times less likely to contract the disease and if you do not contract it you will not spread it.

 

[Flopper]

Fully vaccinated people are contracting and spreading the virus as often as the unvaccinated. The jab just reduces the severity of the infection.

No, according to the CDC, the vaccinated are 5 times less likely to contract the disease than the unvaccinated. Thus they are 5 times less like to spread it. You can't spread if you don't have it.