Immunity is a primary word they don't seem to understand. I know words are hard. Covidiots and MAGAT's have trouble with the concept that one word may have multiple meanings. This ignorance has gotten many killed.
I always thought there should be a primer page here at EVC that links to or discusses logical fallacies. Equivocation is this logical fallacy.
quote:(also known as: doublespeak)
Description: Using an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an argument misleading.
Term X is used to mean Y in the premise. Term X is used to mean Z in the conclusion.
I want to have myself a merry little Christmas, but I refuse to do as the song suggests and make the yuletide gay. I don't think sexual preference should have anything to do with enjoying the holiday.
Explanation: The word, “gay” is meant to be in light spirits, joyful, and merry, not in the homosexual sense.
The priest told me I should have faith. I have faith that my son will do well in school this year. Therefore, the priest should be happy with me.
Explanation: The term “faith” used by the priest, was in the religious sense of believing in God without sufficient evidence, which is different from having “faith” in your son in which years of good past performance leads to the “faith” you might have in your son.
Exception: Equivocation works great when deliberate attempts at humor are being made.
Tip: When you suspect equivocation, substitute the word with the same definition for all uses and see if it makes sense.
Here is a link to a post I made long ago about logical fallacies. I suggest you print this poster and look at it before you post. There is also a good description of what is a scientific theory. am sure you need to learn about that too. If you have any desire to be taken seriously(which I doubt you do) then you should consider eliminating fallacies and gaining a basic understanding of science and the scientific method. The site now also has a cognitive bias poster. You need that too.
I'm a couple days behind, but I like to respond to messages about covid if I think I can add helpful information.
Jobs lost, livelihoods lost, massive debt, sanity lost, homes lost, lives lost. It makes me cry thinking about the main so many of my friends are going through. Anecdotally I know no one who has been harmed by covid yet everyone I know has been harmed by the government response.
It might help to think of it as a tradeoff where it's asked how much we're willing to pay in terms of jobs, debt, mental health, financial stability, etc., for each life saved, for each person who doesn't lose the sense of taste and smell forever, for each person who doesn't suffer lifelong kidney or liver or heart or brain damage or chronic fatigue syndrome, etc.
There are two good examples out there of opposite approaches to dealing with covid. One is the United States, which has so far experienced about 550 deaths per 100,000 population, and the other is Australia, at about 9 deaths per 100,000. Which country made the right choices?
The jab does give you antibodies according to studies but their gone in 12 weeks so u need boosters. And you can still catch and spread it. Natural immunity is better.
Talking about the body's immune system can get complicated real fast, and I'm going to try to avoid doing that, but here are two links that contain a great deal of very useful information for those interested:
Depending upon which virus/vaccine combination you're talking about, natural immunity can be better or worse than vaccine-provided immunity. In the case of the covid vaccines, they all provide better immunity than natural immunity, and at far less risk to your health. I said I'd try to avoid detail, and I hope what I'm about to say isn't too much, but the reason the vaccines provide better immunity is because they result in the production of antibodies targeted at a specific part of covid's spike protein, while the body provides a more scattershot approach to the production of antibodies, many of which are, in essence, failed experiments.
Do you think it's right that people are being forced to take the needle and being discriminated against?
Do you think people living in a society have a responsibility toward their fellow man to not spread disease among the population? If you believe that, then what measures should a society take to protect its members from the spread of disease? In particular, how should a society go about protecting itself from members who disagree with the measures agreed upon by the majority?
And this desperate push to vax everyone. Shouldn't there be a control group?
I'd have to look up the test protocols for the Pfizer, Moderna, J&J and AstraZeneca (and there are others), but generally yes, in clinical studies there's a control group. And we also have a control group out here in the wild where we already know statistically that the unvaccinated are far more likely to become sick, be hospitalized, be intubated, and die.
Shouldn't there be informed consent?
Yes, there should, because we definitely don't want anyone taking a vaccine that could cause adverse effects, such as an allergic reaction that results in anaphylaxis shock.
Some reject the vaccine because of the possibility of adverse long term effects that we don't know about yet, but while not impossible it's highly speculative.
But anyone who decides against vaccination because they fear microchips or because it kills more people than it saves or anything like that, is engaged in misinformed refusal and is fairly determined at maintaining their misinformation, because that these kinds of conspiracy theories are untrue is pretty easy to figure out.