Poll of the Day > Annual Covid vaccine

(+) Yeah! (+)

Uh no I wouldn't get an annual vaccine and never got the Covid vaccine to begin with. I used to get flu shots every year but then I'd always get sick soon after so I stopped.

Yes.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Kinda hard to be both transphobic and anti-science, should one think about the usual points of discussion there lmao

Yes

..... Maybe?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


The only reading that makes any sense to me is that they're saying transphobes are correct about sex/gender. Hopefully I'm wrong about that.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


yeah, but I could be wrong. Main reason I think i might be wrong is because they called it transphobic.

Nope. Still no plan on getting the vaccine.

PMarth2002 posted...

The only reading that makes any sense to me is that they're saying transphobes are correct about sex/gender. Hopefully I'm wrong about that.

The usual argument against transgenderism is "it's not listening to the science, you are either male (XY) or female (XX)." "The science" as it were, tends to be the backbone of most arguments for there only being two genders. So someone wanting to use "the science" as an argument and then be "anti-science" elsewhere becomes contradictory. I'm not taking up that viewpoint, it's just what I've noticed that usually gets said.

BUMPED2002 posted...

Uh no I wouldn't get an annual vaccine and never got the Covid vaccine to begin with. I used to get flu shots every year but then I'd always get sick soon after so I stopped.

This is satirical, right?

Right?

yup if I could, though I don't think that's happening here, only vulnerable people could get the second booster

I went ahead and got my second booster shot over the holidays when I was in the states

I've gotten the annual flu shot forever pretty much since my mom is immunocompromised

I also don't get any side effects from any of these vaccines so yay for me

I am hermit.

No more vaccine for me. Just will avoid all people forever till I turn into a mossy rock and die.

Last vaccine was horrid, would rather die then get another one.

If covid is as bad or worse, at least I will not have chosen to get covid.

Hell no, i don't want to be a victim of a coincidence.

GanglyKhan posted...

The usual argument against transgenderism is "it's not listening to the science, you are either male (XY) or female (XX)." "The science" as it were, tends to be the backbone of most arguments for there only being two genders. So someone wanting to use "the science" as an argument and then be "anti-science" elsewhere becomes contradictory. I'm not taking up that viewpoint, it's just what I've noticed that usually gets said.

Because "anti-science" doesn't actually mean opposing all science. It means picking and choosing whatever snippets of science one likes with no regard for context and a minimal understanding of the broader concepts and rejecting everything else that one doesn't like. Those clinging to "science" as the basis for transphobia ignore reams upon reams of studies and evidence around gender dysphoria and the various aspects of biological sex in favour of the understanding of genetic sexual dimorphism they got in grade 4. Despite claiming that their position is rooted in science, that's also a fundamentally anti-science position.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Biology and genetics expressively say your sex is determined by chromosomes. And there are odd exceptions like hermaphrodism and Kleinfelter etc; Gender is a term largely coined and developed by John Money, which I will let you read about if you wish to, because it's more nuanced than genetics. Sex =/= gender. Once is rooted in observable characteristics (the gene), the other is more of a construct or idea.

adjl posted...

Because "anti-science" doesn't actually mean opposing all science. It means picking and choosing whatever snippets of science one likes with no regard for context and a minimal understanding of the broader concepts and rejecting everything else that one doesn't like. Those clinging to "science" as the basis for transphobia ignore reams upon reams of studies and evidence around gender dysphoria and the various aspects of biological sex in favour of the understanding of genetic sexual dimorphism they got in grade 4. Despite claiming that their position is rooted in science, that's also a fundamentally anti-science position.

I would simply call it "anti-logic" at that point. If you want to adopt the science for one argument, then you need to for all of your arguments. If you're cherry picking, then you are either saying scientific work is subjective and you deem what is valued or not, or you are saying that you are not following your own set of logic, by only listening to some and not all of it.

GanglyKhan posted...

The science does expressively say your sex is determined by chromosomes.

Which science? Genetics? Sure. Endocrinology? Not so much. Neurology? Not so much. Psychology? Not so much.

Those who understand very little about the subject will treat "biological sex" as this simple, immutable concept, but the fact of the matter is that it's a product of numerous factors: Hormones, primary sexual characteristics, secondary sexual characteristics, neuroanatomy, genes... It's very much not a simple binary: there are countless ways in which something can not line up typically to create an outcome beyond the simple "XX=female XY=male" understanding many people would like to believe is the entirety of it. As easy as it is to simply dismiss those exceptions as rare examples of things going wrong, some estimates suggest that as high as 1.7% of the population has one or more intersex traits, which is not small. For comparison, the incidence of natural red hair is somewhere between 1 and 2% globally. You're roughly as likely to encounter an intersex person as a natural ginger.

Beyond that, even if biological sex were simply a matter of chromosomes, transphobia still wouldn't be based in a valid understanding of science because gender dysphoria is not in any way invalidated by that. As I said, that's a matter of accepting one piece of science that affirms the transphobes' views (that sex is a simple matter of binary chromosomes) and ignoring everything else (namely, that gender is a complex psychological concept that doesn't always line up with apparent biological sex, and overall outcomes tend to improve dramatically when gender identity is given priority over apparent biological sex). Being transphobic is not at all inconsistent with being anti-science, because being transphobic is itself anti-science.

GanglyKhan posted...

I would simply call it "anti-logic" at that point.

Nobody's against all science. Even the most anti-vaxxers still believe in gravity and friction. "Anti-science" means that somebody is opposed to thinking scientifically about things, which is to say seeking evidence to answer questions and using that to form and update opinions as appropriate. There's no need to come up with a new term to describe what's happening here.

Definitely.

BUMPED2002 posted...

Uh no I wouldn't get an annual vaccine and never got the Covid vaccine to begin with. I used to get flu shots every year but then I'd always get sick soon after so I stopped.

You probably werent actually sick. When you get a flu shot, you get symptoms But not actually sick

rexcrk posted...

This is satirical, right?

Right?

Im pretty sure he doesnt understand

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


If you died of covid, how many years of your life would you expect to lose?

Now we're just gonna keep shooting up like heroin addicts? When does the madness end?

teddy241 posted...

Now we're just gonna keep shooting up like heroin addicts? When does the madness end?

Do you consider people who get a yearly flu shot the same as a heroin addict?

teddy241 posted...

Now we're just gonna keep shooting up like heroin addicts? When does the madness end?

Probably closer to flu shot addicts

LinkPizza posted...

Probably closer to flu shot addicts

Yeah i dont get the flu shot. I gotta believe in my immune system until it shows signs of diminishing. Maybe once im 40 with cardiovascular disease creeping in il start shooting up. Im not against shots but theres a line in which you need to be able to trust your body and believe in it depending on your age/condition

With that said iv already succumbed to poppin for my anxiety. It sucks and I'm sure down the road il have long term side affects but i come from a family with bad anxiety and i gave in

teddy241 posted...

Yeah i dont get the flu shot. I gotta believe in my immune system until it shows signs of diminishing. Maybe once im 40 with cardiovascular disease creeping in il start shooting up. Im not against shots but theres a line in which you need to be able to trust your body and believe in it depending on your age/condition

With that said iv already succumbed to poppin for my anxiety. It sucks and I'm sure down the road il have long term side affects but i come from a family with bad anxiety and i gave in

Believing in your immune system is cool. But I also believe getting the flu shot helps your immune system to be better That said, not everyone should trust their body. Many people who decided to trust their body died because their body couldnt Hensley something Had they gotten a shot, their body may have been able to handle it better. Stuff like the flu shot and Covid shot are basically there to help your immune system learn how to best deal with those things so when they do invade your body, youre body knows what to do

Being anti-trans is anti-science.

And anyone 'dunking' on the flu shot here. Your immune system is not magically better off without one. It is only going to make your immune system slightly better. I didn't used to get them consistently, but I do now because I understand how they function.

teddy241 posted...

Yeah i dont get the flu shot. I gotta believe in my immune system until it shows signs of diminishing.

Vaccines work with your immune system, not in place of it.

adjl posted...

Vaccines work with your immune system, not in place of it.

Only when they actually help increase immunity...

I wouldn't be opposed to it, but as with the annual flu vaccine I'd probably neglect getting it.

No. Never Got vaccinated. Never will. With all the death due to vaccines news now spreading I feel proud of myself for waiting it out instead of making myself a government lab rat.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/11/health/unvaccinated-covid-deaths-growing/index.html

Go have fun having your annual "booster shots" i.e. "my life is in the government's hands now" shots.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I'll do you one better

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346

Fingerpuppet posted...

I'll do you one better

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346

Descriptive study of reports of myocarditis to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) that occurred after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine administration between December 2020 and August 2021 in 192 405 448 individuals older than 12 years of age in the US

1626 of these reports met the case definition of myocarditis

1626 / 192405448 = 0.00000845 = 0.000845%

As of Feb 23, 2023, the mortality risk of COVID in the US is 1.08% (https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid). You are 1,278 times more likely to die from COVID than to be afflicted by a serious but non-fatal illness.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


It's worth noting that VAERS and OpenVAERS are separate entities. VAERS is still very much just "we observed this apparent correlation and it needs proper study before any actual conclusions can be drawn, but it's at least limited to actual medical reports, as opposed to OpenVAERS being free for anyone to claim that the Covid vaccine turned their penis into a goose. For the purpose of what that study actually claimed (namely, "there's an apparent correlation here"), VAERS is good enough.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Only when they actually help increase immunity...

No, that's always true. How effectively they work with the immune system varies, but fundamentally they all work with the immune system and not in place of it. That's the core concept of vaccination.

I may have misunderstood. Still, myocarditis as a side effect of mRNA vaccines is pretty well-established at this point, so I wouldn't dispute the conclusion of that study (given its age, it's not a great study to reference anyway). It's just a really rare side effect (rarer than developing it as a result of Covid itself) and is still much safer than being infected by Covid.

I dont thing adjl was defending them. But just the site Which seems fine since the site didnt even support the persons claim, anyway, according to what captpackrat showed us

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Well yeah. The bottom line is that even the most exaggerated, non-credible accounts of vaccine side effects show that they account for a tiny fraction of the real harm caused by Covid itself, as mathed out in post #40. VAERS itself shouldn't be completely discounted, it just shouldn't be treated as gospel until more credible studies can be conducted and its usefulness is mostly limited to those that are actually in a position to conduct real research.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Did I say it did?