1. Let's see your evidence Fauci lied to Congress.

2. You fail to appreciate the aspect of contagion with regard to COVID. The individual does not have the right to infect the community.

3. Let's see your evidence that anyone has ever been forced into chemo because "some expert" believes that it will extend their life.

4. Informed consent pertains to the provision of factual information. Opposing opinions are irrelevant.

@LovinLarge

1. [vanityfair.com]
2. I understand the contagion far better than you understand vaccination/ immunity
3. No evidence, I was pointing out how now that the precedent of not requiring consent for medical treatment has occurred, that scenario is now possible.
4. Information is information. Factual information can be interpreted incorrectly if not all information is available to analyse. I and many others are quite capable of deciding for ourselves what information is. Don't need to wait for official approval from Big Brother.

"Opposing opinions are irrelevant" is an utterly arrogant and ignorant statement to make.

@puff 1. There's no evidence is your article that Fauci lied to Congress.

2. Prove it.

3. Let's see your evidence of "the precedent of not requiring consent for medical treatment".

4. Opposing opinions and opinion entirely are irrelevant to informed consent.

You dispute the truth with disinformation because the truth interferes with your mission to mislead people. The only people who will ever take you seriously are other cons who disregard the larger community.

@LovinLarge

1. Fauci said NIH nothing to do with GoF at Wuhan, NIH contradict that in writing
2. You do a good enough job for me
3. WTF do you think medical mandates do? Coercion means consent is not freely given. Mandates remove the need for consent FFS, have you really not worked that one out yet?.
4. OK, lets use the example of vaccinating under 12's for covid-19, including future boosters. Opposing opinions are irrelevant you say? Only one opinion should be heard by parents do you think and everyone go with that, the old'e "perfectly safe and effective" opinion? Sorry. Disagree.

@puff 1. That's not an accurate representation of the facts discussed in the article nor does the article give citations for all of its factual claims.

2. You made the factual claim that you understand contagion better than I understand vaccination/immunity but were unable to provide any supporting evidence. Your claim is therefore false.

3. There are no vaccination mandates being enforced against anyone's will. Those people are choosing to engage in the activity that mandates vaccination.

4. Informed consent involved being aware of the relevant facts prior to engagement. No opinions are relevant. Facts and opinions are not interchangeable.

You have demonstrated that you do not have the capacity to understand the complexities necessary to a pandemic. Your perpetuation of disinformation is unconscionable.

@LovinLarge OK lets go, we will do #2. I'll go first.
It is about understanding so when you reply about contagion, do it in your own words ie no plagiarism and no cut and pasting links.

Vaccination is a process where immunity is acquired through artificial means ie modern medicine. Immunity can also be acquired via a natural immunity developing after infection. You can't talk about conducting a vaccination program without talking about immunity. So vaccination is a process with the medicines used to carry this process out being called vaccines. Immunity means you are protected medically, the same as legally. Now if one person gains immunity and are protected, maths tells us that if you vaccinate 50% of a population, assuming a xx factor of xx which means (that's what you're going to tell me) you should gain what is termed a herd immunity and thus stop the whatever you are vaccinating against. To be safe, you aim for 60%. This assumes the medicine used provides meaningful immunity which means effective and long lasting. If not so effective, need more percent vaccinated (you again). Long lasting is at least long enough lasting that the 60% required can be reached at a particular moment in time, then a herd immunity may be attained.

Covid-19 vaccines last just months, are not effective in providing immunity, illustrated by the spread in vaccinated populations, and in no way could be used to attain a herd immunity for a population. The medicines used for the current vaccination program for covid-19 are not up to the job and should not be classed as vaccines imo and therefore, the vaccination program abandoned. Science reacts to new information, fact. This is not happening, it's not science.
PS Omicron is a viral upper respiratory disease for which no effective vaccine ie one that provides meaningful immunity (see above) has ever been developed................. yet.

@puff Your monologue references no medical evidence. What are your credentials that would support me using my time to read it?

@LovinLarge BA App Sc
Thought so you would chicken out doing your part.,
Do you want me to do more posts? Is that what "refences" means?

@puff You would have to speak on contagion in order to prove that you knew more about it than I do about vaccination/immunity, which is the claim you made. Regardless, you do not have an expertise that would allow you speak authoritatively with respect to any aspect of the pandemic. Most cons don't understand the significance of expertise because so few of them have any.

My point about contagion was that you cons are so self centered that you refuse to accept your responsibility to the larger community on this and every other issue, taxation for instance. You don't want the wealthy to pay their fair share and you don't want to play your part in stopping the spread of the pandemic by vaccinating, masking, etc. What you don't comprehend is that your approach will not serve humankind over the long-term.

Anyway, I've noticed that most members have taken to ignoring you. Perhaps I should do the same.

@LovinLarge Oh please do. You will miss out on your $0.01/ word though

@puff It's not I who only speaks to one issue (not religion), references Russian government television and has a limited use of English, Comrade.

@LovinLarge Just to finish off, contagion. We are talking about a virus which is transmitting between humans.
It seems to be airborne rather than needing a "ride" on droplets like exhaled breath, why it spread so fast. So can assume also transmitted via bodily fluids and lasts on surfaces for a period of time. This is how it is spread.
As a general rule for viral infections, the more easily spread, the less lethal. There are exceptions but they tend to kill the hosts too quick, thus suppressing their own spread.
They have devised a factor, R factor by memory which basically means if an infected infects one other then there is a R factor of 1. If every one infected infects 2 others then you will have a R factor of 2 etc.
If devising a vaccination program, you would aim for a 60% coverage with a R factor of 1. If the R factor increases, so will the % you aim to be vaccinated to attain herd immunity..
The vaccine? You really want 97% effective. You will never get 100% and have to accept there will be breakthrough infections, infections that occur as the vaccine did not work in certain individuals. This is normal, with 3% being acceptable ie why you want 97% effective. 3 out of 100 vaccinated catching and transmitting is an acceptable margin of error to attain herd immunity. Above that, then to have a successful vaccination program, the percent of population to be vaccinated has to also rise from an initial 60%. If you desire for a herd immunity to be attained.

Contagious is just how easily it spreads. The covid-19 medicines keep people out of hospital, which is great. But vaccinated are still contagious in practical terms, so when talking elimination via herd immunity via using these medicines available atm..........it is just not going to work, this is becoming more obvious as time passes.

Reality, we need to change when new information comes to light. That is how science works.
It is pointless insisting a percentage of a population be vaccinated, if the possibility of reaching a herd immunity via the vaccine being used is impossible. Tell the population to take it to protect themselves, with the understanding that protection is only good for months. Informed consent. Let people choose. Stop all this segregation bollocks going on.

@puff Yes, I suppose you get your pittance for typing it even though no one reads it.