half of GOP men won't get vaccinated- why the stupidity?

Why don't you think billionaires in charge of your news information care about you anymore?

In all honesty.....That question was grammatically unintelligible.

I've no idea what you were asking.

That's okay, I will report to your stupid concentration kamp Fuher.

Like this authoritarian bullshit Kamp for "stupid" people.

Maybe in the UK where there is no constitution to protect against Habeas Corpus violations, it's acceptable to do this, but not in America.

all i see are irrational responses for why folks dont want to get vaccinated. completely incoherent thoughts

That's because you have zero tolerance for anyone different from yourself. Typical radical leftist.

i'm responding to public health science. all ya'll are the ones making it political. when i point out that a disproportionate amount of conservatives dont want the shot, idiotically, i'm only pointing out that they are making something political that isn't really political. 

You absolutely are not. You are responding to political scientists. You have not cited a single scientist besides Fauci in this entire thread. Yet you can't seem to get enough virtue signalling by pointing an intolerant finger at every single person that thinks differently than you.

Typical radical leftist.

i'm citing the consensus of science. there are news and science articles all over the place that say what i say is true. i cited some of the articles. it's out there, whatever the case. 

Consensus isn't science. That's a popularity contest.

You should really go back and read post #12.

Your comments, while making you appear to be a loyal radical leftist, also demonstrates your ignorance about what science is.

Yep.

That's one side of the political argument.

Though I'm not certain that viruses respond to politics.

Don't you have some habeas corpus to violate somewhere due to "stupid" people existing?

Why would I waste my time?....I have far too much to be getting on with.

I will get myself vaccinated, continue to take necessary safety precautions, and as ever, avoid stupid people.

I always find it interesting that we as citizens elect political and administrative representatives....And then spend the next 4 or 5 years assuming a great conspiracy and vilifying our elected representatives.

Checks and balances I suppose.

Though if social governance doesn't suit you, then go convene with nature in the backwoods somewhere.

I guessing though, that when push actually comes to shove, you're as reliant on the nanny state and nanny media, as the next person is.

I guess we will always have stupid people relying on the government to make personal risk assessments. I am ok with that.

That was my point.

You're as reliant on a nanny state as the next person is.

It's how the system works.

The big conspiracy, is just a distraction.....Always has been.

For the stupid people to get distracted while I personally exploit them? Sure. OK.

Rules are for suckers. PT Barnum knows.

It's almost like all people have self-serving interests. Imagine that. 

The real conspiracy is the idea that government doesn't care about holding on to power by any means necessary.

I'm sure there's a bunch of people that buy into that one.

I see. If I am sitting at home with nobody in my household infected, can you explain how I am contracting the virus? 

"A new CDC study provides strong evidence that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections in real-world conditions among health care personnel, first responders, and other essential workers. The study looked at the effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections among 3,950 study participants in six states over a 13-week period from December 14, 2020 to March 13, 2021. Results showed that following the second dose of vaccine (the recommended number of doses), risk of infection was reduced by 90 percent two or more weeks after vaccination. Following a single dose of either vaccine, the participants’ risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 was reduced by 80 percent two or more weeks after vaccination."

Can you show me the data you have where it says vaccines have no impact on contracting or spreading the virus? 

Though I agree with the connotations here - I disagree with how you argue it - an anecdotal example simply isn't effective in conveying your argument - attack his sources directly - they have the flaws in his reasoning, not rhetoric

In 2001, for every American that died in 9/11 there were 1,351 babies born, yet people still felt that was a crisis for big government response. Less than 3,000 people died. 550,000 Americans died from covid in a year, or 1,500 per day, but the response is well those people were not that healthy anyway. Yes, I understand a terrorist attack is much different from a virus, but the way people look at the value of people's lives seems much different even though you would think a life's value would be the same regardless of how they died. We are more cavalier about people's lives with the virus. I am willing to bet a lot of the people working in the World Trade Center had comorbidities, but nobody was saying "Rest in Peace Tommy but you were a smoker so chances are you would be sick soon regardless," or "Rest in peace Diana but you were 65 with asthma so statistically speaking you did not have much longer anyway."  From looking into all our personal data and eroding privacy, to changing TSA rules, laws, sending soldiers to war after war, we decided there was no cost too big or freedom too important to change the way our society operates in response to 9/11, but with this it is as if 550,000 American lives don't matter because many were old. 11,000 Americans that died from covid were under age 40. Our country only wants to respond with big action if there is money to be made in defense contracting, otherwise we will tell ourselves 11,000 people under 40 dying in a year is no big deal. I am not saying we should be making big, permanent moves like we did after 9/11, but at least people seemed to care about lives lost in 9/11, instead of brushing them off as just another tragedy. Again I know a terrorist attack is different, it comes with different risks, and there is someone specific to blame (kind of) but I see the way people don't care  much about vulnerable people dying from a virus.  After the Titanic sank there were new regulations, after many fires they made legislative changes, after some crimes they made us all give up our privacy and live under big surveillance, and we accept that all, but ask people to wear a mask, or limit capacity in places during a virus (we already have max people capacity for safety) and they think that is a bridge too far in eroding our freedoms. It is interesting how society looks at things. 

I don't have to attack his source, assuming you are talking about my post to 3RU7AL. I did not say he was wrong. I asked a question? If I am home, or if the majority of people are home (so as to not be anecdotal) then how is the virus spreading at the same rate with limited contact to others compared to if we were all in normal proximity to others? If he read the source then he should be able to explain how people can contract a virus at the same rate if they are sitting at home as when they are out and about. 

unless we have special knowledge, consensus in science is all we got. what science is not, however, is whatever makes you feel good and is convenient, as it appears is your approach. 

Since multiple people agree with 3RU7AL that lockdowns have no impact at all on the spread of covid, maybe one person would be willing to debate it and explain to me. 

Maybe it is all YOU have since you have absolutely no challenge to post #12.

It's a marginal benefit with a huge cost. What is the cost of a year of stupid kids many which are now permanently emotionally scarred due year of lockdown to protect them from a virus that killed ZERO KIDS?

Many teachers that were not at risk like myself were simply not allowed by an authoritarian government to teach in person for an entire year while we were forced to watch our children remotely degrade. Lockdowns were absolutely not worth the cost for them specifically. Now just think of the cost of other people that had little to no risk. A lockdown for at-risk people was the ONLY policy that could have possibly made sense, but even Cuomo, the jewel of the radical left, couldn't do that. The entire lockdown was the greatest tragedy of mankind in my lifetime, and that bill won't be paid in full for decades to come.

The problem is that you are assuming what he means by lock down, and assuming that everybody in lockdown did the same thing - the two are assumptions that cannot be granted

Why doesn't 3RU7AL have that same problem? Why can he make a blanket statement about lockdowns without clarifying what "lockdown" means?