Quote Originally Posted by Liverpooldawg View Post
OH BS. That is EXACTLY what you were doing with your "question"? What makes it reputable is that is attached to a respected health care or research outfit. Go look at Mayo, look at Johns Hopkins, UCLA, UAB, Vanderbilt, heck go look at UMMC. See if they publish their results in academic journals or YOUTUBE. See if they belong to an organization or FOUNDED their own. You are just making things up or parroting a few things you have seen that you agree with. Good lord.
Took me two seconds to find a professor at Johns Hopkins that disagrees with you. My point isn't that your sources are wrong simply that we can all find facts to fit a narrative.
https://www.usnews.com/news/national...-all-americans

I could probably find doctors at all of the institutions that you listed that would disagree with your assertion. So I guess my question is are all of these people stating natural immunity is as good or better than the vaccine complete dumb a**es? If so shouldn't they lose their license etc? I mean can we really have this many doctors from reputable schools working at reputable institutions putting out so much false information? That is a serious question for you.

Again, I am pro vax 100%, I just believe we should at least be able to have discussions about the efficacy of something that was created in what? 11 months. Why can't we just have a conversation about it.

I don't see people arguing over if we should ban big macs or not because heart disease kills almost 400 people a day. Eh I guess it is just their choice to be fat and out of shape to the point that their heart stops, that is on them right? If we are truly worried about saving lives why isn't the government pushing better health IE eating better, vitamin intake etc. along with getting the vaccine? Hell cigarettes kill 1300 people a day, we have warnings that tobacco is bad for you but we don't mandate that you don't use it. Why is that?

alcohol related accidents kill close to 270 people a day, are those lives lost not important enough to mandate a ban on alcohol? That doesn't include all of the irreparable damage done to families that don't involve a death.

I would just like to see some consistency in policy. We are either worried about saving lives or we aren't.

You can say your comment about what aboutisms bs or whatever but if your argument is we need to do this because it will save lives then I would simply like an explanation from you as to why these other lives aren't important enough to insert mandates etc. Surely it isn't because we just have to live with the fact that some people make stupid decisions and it costs them their lives and others.

For alcohol, why not mandate that a 150$ breathalizer needs to be attached to every vehicle sold in order for it to start. I am sure that would save some lives and provide little inconvenience to those that don't drink and drive.