LogFAQs > #956927723

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, Database 8 ( 02.18.2021-09-28-2021 ), DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Why are people who are vaccinated the most worried about rising COVID numbers?
ReturnOfFa 08/09/21 4:05:18 PM #231:	honkzilla posted... The chicken pox mortality rate is 0.00035%. If you think that rates as "deadly" you don't know what that word means lol I didn't have to be a medical expert and in fact never once professed to be one despite your attempt to claim I did. I just had to know how to use google. I guess that's beyond your capability or something idk By using the qualifier "has the potential to be deadly" and not "is deadly" you are already halfway admitting that you know it's silly to flatly label influenza "deadly". Mead did the same thing before conveniently ignoring this thread after I called him on it lol I am devastated to lose face in the fictional rating contest that exists only in the head of the living avatar of the Dunning-Kruger effect. How will I go on I get where you're coming from, but at this point, we're just arguing about a disagreement of semantics. Still, I feel strongly enough about it because I hear A METRIC FUCKLOAD of anti-flu vax nonsense that isn't coming from an informed background. "Oh, I'm healthy, I don't need it, I don't get the flu.". Better coverage = less flu. The vax doesn't hurt you, it just makes sense. As far as the semantic argument goes, let's compare it to whether or not 'cars' are deadly. I would say 'yes', but I understand if someone would argue 'no' based upon rates of death. Still, I would call it something potentially deadly that has numerous methods of changing the likelihood of outcome of death. Just like the flu. Don't bother calling out people for 'ignoring a thread'. Who cares, they might just see it as a useless argument. I'm willing to discuss, but you aren't going to convince me otherwise! --- girls like my fa <cite>ReturnOfFa posted [p:956927723] in Why are pe... [t:79588109]...</cite> <quote>honkzilla posted... </cite> <quote>The chicken pox mortality rate is 0.00035%. If you think that rates as "deadly" you don't know what that word means lol I didn't have to be a medical expert and in fact never once professed to be one despite your attempt to claim I did. I just had to know how to use google. I guess that's beyond your capability or something idk By using the qualifier "has the potential to be deadly" and not "is deadly" you are already halfway admitting that you know it's silly to flatly label influenza "deadly". Mead did the same thing before conveniently ignoring this thread after I called him on it lol I am devastated to lose face in the fictional rating contest that exists only in the head of the living avatar of the Dunning-Kruger effect. How will I go on</quote>I get where you're coming from, but at this point, we're just arguing about a disagreement of semantics. Still, I feel strongly enough about it because I hear A METRIC FUCKLOAD of anti-flu vax nonsense that isn't coming from an informed background. "Oh, I'm healthy, I don't need it, I don't get the flu.". Better coverage = less flu. The vax doesn't hurt you, it just makes sense. As far as the semantic argument goes, let's compare it to whether or not 'cars' are deadly. I would say 'yes', but I understand if someone would argue 'no' based upon rates of death. Still, I would call it something potentially deadly that has numerous methods of changing the likelihood of outcome of death. Just like the flu. Don't bother calling out people for 'ignoring a thread'. Who cares, they might just see it as a useless argument. I'm willing to discuss, but you aren't going to convince me otherwise! --- girls like my fa</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1