Uh, yes. Has there been evidence presented that a 3rd jab is necessary for everyone.
Vax efficacy fading fast
- Thread starter Jim in Scranton
- Start date
Guys who talk the most junk should be fine with people talking junk ... but they're not.By strange, I'm reading utterly unsurprising.
“Necessary” has to be defined. For death? No.
For hospitalization? Israel has something out I think but I think we need to verify.
For symptomatic infections? 1-2 out there but again, should be verified.
For infection and therefore more spread? Plenty of evidence.
Please provide an example in my 20+ years where I've lied and taken credit for something that I really didn't say. And I don't brag, and typically don't talk trash unless someone else starts it or is persistent in throwing rocks first.
I challenge you to provide a single example.
There isn't a person on this board who hasn't seen Stomp implying that the vaccines had no flaws, and were "miracles" many times. You well know his position, so it's more of you just Big-Blue'ing I guess.
I've pointed out that tweaks, tuning and working out kinks were to be expected more times than I care to think about. Again, everyone in these threads have seen it, but you can try to defend your boy Stomp if you want to. You've sided with him and his lunacy many times in these debates and ended up with egg on your face.
Last edited:
That is indeed strange. A boatload of these threads were just moved over today, and I don't recall any hot exchanges, (at least, nowhere near the crap that's played out on The Bunker for the past few months).
@Stumpfan.
Can we EXPECT to have kinks, bugs, and flaws in these new vaccines that require them to make tweaks, improvements and changes to the new vaccines?
I know that you recently changed and finally admitted that we don't know for 100% certain that there will be no issues across the full-lifecycle of the vaccines, ("because nothing is 100%"). That was a HUGE change of position, and admission for you. Major kudos to you. So let's close this last loop, and put this thing to sleep for good.
Last edited:
Stump himself can tell you that he isn't my boy. We have tangled numerous times over various issues. But I haven't seen him making any claim about vaccine perfection and to say that he "implied" it is just ASSuming and making something up in your mind. Nothing he has written about the vaccine should even give the impression that he isn't aware that they have limitations. Like stump or not, it is irrational to think that he actually ever believed the vaccines are perfect. He has stated numerous times that the vaccines are a miracle, which is a pretty fair characterization unless one takes that as meaning that he is making some sort of religious claim.
Let me simply put it this way. I've made umpteen gazillion replies to him when he's saying the vaccines are 99.9% this, or that, and that they are 100% safe, (implying that they are known to be 100% safe across the FULL-LIFECYLE).
I've replied gently reminding him that nothing is perfect, and that with NEW technology, we should EXPECT to have a few kinks to work out. Yet he's never relented and only replied with stats, claims and guarantees. Against all odds, I hoped he was right, but since they were indeed new, (which you and he argued that they weren't), I knew that we shouldn't be surprised that they would subsequently discover, and make the kind of tweak that Stump mentioned today. It is very ironic that he would be the one to deliver that news.
And don't worry. There's no need for you to continue this foolishness of looking for ANY and every undotted "i" or uncrossed "t" to impugn me. I have a question in to Stomp so that he can be a big boy without others propping him up, and answer for himself.
Has @Stumpfan said the vaccines are 100% safe? I'm actually pretty sure I have seen him post that nothing is 100% certain. It is unreasonable to ASSume that he has implied "that they are known to be 100% safe across the FULL-LIFECYLE." That is simply something you have made up in your head. It might be foolishness to look for every undotted i or uncrossed t if that wasn't what you already have done so many times in these discussions. Then when you have found what you think are examples of those, you accuse people of lying over them. And then complain about people impugning you. You impugn yourself with your own behavior.
Derp. I said nothing is 100% but I’m not going to get into “absolute” and “perfect” arguments. I said I think there’s a 95% that there are no serious long term side effects. Also, I don’t follow this guy because he fear mongers way too much but here’s a recent tweet:
Why do you continue to answer for Stomp??? He should be able to speak for himself. It took approximately 3 months of very astute and persistent "debate"/arguing before I got him to admit that "nothing is 100%", (as I just said he did in my previous post).
Using logic, it's a natural extension of that admission, that you can NOT guarantee that the new vaccines will be 100% safe and effective, (as all the propaganda and Stump has done repeatedly), if nothing is 100%, (and especially when we don't have ANY DATA for the mid-term and long-term, no matter how one chooses to define those terms).
From that point, it's clear that you are patently making a false statement when you guarantee that the new vaccines will be safe, and imply or state that no kinks will surface that need to be worked out, and no tweaks will be required etc. @Stumpfan do you disagree?
If you notice, Stomp has NOT responded to post #127 above, but yet you're still carrying him, and speaking for him. Stump, you gonna let Big Blue continue to carry you, or will you step up and speak for yourself??? Cat got your tongue all of a sudden.
You don't have to get into it, but please just answer post #127 above. We can wrap this up quickly once you do that.
Well, I guess that's a small departure for her, but you can bet your bottom dollar, she'll always be right on script. She's lied so much, and then she completely lost my respect because when she was proven wrong, she wouldn't just admit it, but instead equivocated to the extreme. Just say admit that she and most others advocated for some REALLY bad science. We ALL make mistakes, but real G's with integrity fess up and admit it when they are wrong.
Back on point. I'm simply asking you to respond to THIS POST that you conveniently ignored. Big Blue has been carrying you, laying out the best escape route, but I'd like to hear you speak for yourself. You dang well know what you've said to me repeatedly over the past 3 months in our debates on this topic.
No, she has been spot on. Cdc made fools of themselves with the gay week example.
You’re a fool who takes everything literal. I already told you that I don’t argue in absolutes. When I say they are safe and there won’t be any significant bad long term side-effects, I don’t mean 100%. That’s silly.
And of course the vaccines will change with the virus. They are still a miracle. See the other tweet I posted saying they aren’t perfect but they are miraculous. You must be a joy to live with.
Stump everyone who is even remotely familiar with me know that I speak and deal completely in generalism's 99% of the time. So, it's completely ridic to say I take things literally. It took you MONTHS of debate before I got you to finally admit that you shouldn't be speaking in absolutes, essentially making guarantees that we can't possibly make from a scientific point of view. If you'd admitted that when I first pointed it out to you, we'd have saved the boards VOLUMES of exchanges.
Since you've admitted that, there's no way you can justify making statements that the new vaccines are 100% safe and effective", as all of the "experts" on twitter and the CDC et. al. have done. That's been my point all along. Just tell the truth and qualify your statements, and we can still make an appeal to folks using logic and rationale, instead of trying to trick them with manipulative statements making false guarantees.
The vaccines are indeed great invoking a strong response to the spike protein. While my humble, non-professional two cents of opinion still has a few concerns with this very strong specific response, I certainly hope that I'm wrong, and that the new vaccines indeed are the BEST path forward to get us to the other side of this thing. That said, I am still very much against using deceit, misinformation, propaganda and such. I just feel that approach isn't ethical/right.
I take it that you now agree that we can't make guarantees with the vaccines, (since nothing is 100%/absolute), and that we should qualify our statements properly if we are being honest with the general public.
I agree, we have seen bird flu, Sars1, and Sars2(covid) all come from the same region. It's mostly due to dense population and health standards IMO. It could have escaped from a research lab but I think it's more likely just a natural mutation probably from the original SARS. I'm not a Dr, scientist, nor conspiracy theorist, I just try to use common sense.
Do you feel you have to tell me? Just put me on ignore, (I double-dog dare you, and I bet you won't). Oh, you read it alright, but you are still trying to deflect to avoid answering post #127 above where I asked you a simple question.
Again, you don't have to read any of my posts, but will you just answer the question above?
I’ll read the short ones so maybe 5% of them. Do you understand that you’re a king winded blowhard pulling against our vaccines? Sad.
I'm VERY much pulling FOR ANY and every tool, option and idea that gets us to the other side of this thing. If you and the leading authorities had the same goal, (instead of blindly pushing a single option for the new vaccines due to an agenda), we might already be out of the pandemic.
Please. Answer the question so that we can end this. Everyone is watching. We are about to conclude 3 months of a long-winding debate, if you will simply reply to post #127 above, which is linked right HERE.
Nope. There’s only one tool you preach daily against. I already replied, dumbass.
You copied the post, but didn't respond directly, but thanks a ton for finally admitting that we can EXPECT to have kinks, bugs, and flaws in these new vaccines that require them to make tweaks, improvements and changes to them? And, that nothing is 100% perfect, so you can't make definitive statements that GAURANTEE that no issues or kinks will come up with the new vaccines.
That's all I've been debating with you about for 3 months. If you'd realized this and admitted it in the beginning, we could have saved a LOT of back and forth.
I responded in that post to both of your posts. Lol
Again, it’s idiotic to play the absolute 100% argument game in these discussions. I’m bot surprised you play that game. You’re a long winded blowhard.
I’m only technically wrong when you show me long term side effects in 20 years. Lol Again, playing the absolute argument is for long winded blowhard simpleton conspiracy theorists.
No Stomp. I was telling you from the jump that you couldn't make definitive statements when we had no data across the full lifecycle, (and you laughed, attacked and denigrated repeatedly). I also told you that we should EXPECT kinks and bugs to work through, and that no NEW technology is rolled out without it requiring tweaks and tuning etc.
Just let it go. You were wrong, as you frequently are.
But by your own words, we are thinking about adjusting the dosing periods in order to increase the efficacy significantly. Stop quibbling and equivocating. That's exactly the type of tweaking and tuning I was trying to tell you about. You were simply wrong. Just own it so we can move on.
It’s not going to increase protection against severe disease much at all. Have you even seen the NY numbers. They are amazing. We are only getting more cases and even hospitalizations among the vaccinated because of how contagious delta is. It doesn’t have special vaccine evasiveness. When a vaccinated person comes into contact with 10 infected people instead of 3-4, they are going to get Covid more.
It turns out the periods don’t matter according to the most recent study. It turns out the vaccines are doing great.
Lol. That protection is holding strong. Maybe she’s talking about the immunocompromised or the elderly as she said the earliest vaccinated.
Is it asking too much for the CDC Director to be crystal clear and concise?
She admitted this is preventative and not based on anything specific as far as studies on protection against severe disease and death. There’s a reason she used the word “could”.
See the highlighted area in chart below. Protection against hospitalization didn’t drop even .1%.
Hence why I said clear and concise. It's better not to say anything that could be interpreted as confusing/not enough information and that's precisely what she did.
She did that because this decision was made on a “just in case” mindset. The data says it holds up against severe disease and death at almost the same rate as it always has. The problem is delta hits a lot more people so it looks like it evades the vaccine to an extent. I do believe protection against simple infection has dropped some but who cares?
That's been an issue this entire pandemic. And to some extent has led people to be skeptical. I would rather see them say hey we really don't know at this point but we're working 24/7 to find the answers.
Similar threads
