Another study proving mRNA vaccines are safe.

[WapPride]

They were still able to spread it to teachers admin,and others. It's basically the same as other vaccines that they are required to have for school.

This has what's always baffled me about the vaccine talk. Sure, the kids are pretty resilient to COVID, but the parents/grandparents/family members/teachers/administrators who they live with and deal with daily are the ones most susceptible to a bad reaction to COVID.

The question becomes, does the benefit of social distancing and remote learning in schools outweigh the negative childhood development/depression/etc from these same policies? Furthermore, if it doesn't outweigh that, then what would the increased death toll look like had we not implemented remote learning and social distancing amongst those populations? Does child services have the bandwidth to support a massive influx of parentless/guardian-less children, and what are the impacts of a generation of kids being raised in foster/state sponsored homes?

Idk that took a bit of a spiral, but it's something i hope was weighed when deciding what to do during COVID.

 

[CUT93]

They were still able to spread it to teachers admin,and others. It's basically the same as other vaccines that they are required to have for school.

So you agree with making kids get a vaccine that could kill them(even in small percentages), for something that poses no serious threat to them? All other vaccines are for things that pose serious heath risks to the individual who takes the vaccine, this is not.
For that matter, covid has an extremely low risk of death for people without comorbidities. Why should the responsibility for risk not be on those who have the risk?

 

[dpic73]

So you agree with making kids get a vaccine that could kill them(even in small percentages), for something that poses no serious threat to them? All other vaccines are for things that pose serious heath risks to the individual who takes the vaccine, this is not.
For that matter, covid has an extremely low risk of death for people without comorbidities. Why should the responsibility for risk not be on those who have the risk?

*"Kill them" LMAO

 

[yoshi121374]

So you agree with making kids get a vaccine that could kill them(even in small percentages), for something that poses no serious threat to them? All other vaccines are for things that pose serious heath risks to the individual who takes the vaccine, this is not.
For that matter, covid has an extremely low risk of death for people without comorbidities. Why should the responsibility for risk not be on those who have the risk?

It didn't then. We know much more now.

Compare it to AIDS/HIV. Obviously not as serious, but at the beginning was a death sentence, now not at all. Many love normal lives with the disease.

 

[TigerGrowls]

This has what's always baffled me about the vaccine talk. Sure, the kids are pretty resilient to COVID, but the parents/grandparents/family members/teachers/administrators who they live with and deal with daily are the ones most susceptible to a bad reaction to COVID.

The question becomes, does the benefit of social distancing and remote learning in schools outweigh the negative childhood development/depression/etc from these same policies? Furthermore, if it doesn't outweigh that, then what would the increased death toll look like had we not implemented remote learning and social distancing amongst those populations? Does child services have the bandwidth to support a massive influx of parentless/guardian-less children, and what are the impacts of a generation of kids being raised in foster/state sponsored homes?

Idk that took a bit of a spiral, but it's something i hope was weighed when deciding what to do during COVID.

Im 60 unvaxed and unrepentant. How am I still here if you guys are right?

 

[yoshi121374]

Im 60 unvaxed and unrepentant. How am I still here if you guys are right?

We're all just lucky I guess?

 

[Allornothing]

My wife didn’t take my last name. Am I now deep state? Do I get to make decisions about what happens now? League of 300 and all that nonsense?

Your wife didn't take your last name because she didn't want to be burdened with your opinions going forward. She figured "plausible deniability" would get her off the hook.

You never thought about that did you?

"Am I now deep state?" If you had the money or power, you would not be on this website, and your wife would have taken your last name.

You can vote like the rest of us do to try and prevent these perversions of our country. Problem is, you would agree with any lying, cheating, and stealing as long as the person you wanted was elected.

 

[DW4_2016]

Your wife didn't take your last name because she didn't want to be burdened with your opinions going forward. She figured "plausible deniability" would get her off the hook.

You never thought about that did you?

"Am I now deep state?" If you had the money or power, you would not be on this website, and your wife would have taken your last name.

You can vote like the rest of us do to try and prevent these perversions of our country. Problem is, you would agree with any lying, cheating, and stealing as long as the person you wanted was elected.

I’m sure that’s it. You really nailed my relationship with my wife without knowing either of us. I’m just crushed now.

On to serious topics. My candidate will probably never win. I don’t vote for people that are openly liars or cheaters. I don’t vote for people I know to be liars or cheaters. Same can’t be said for you unfortunately. I vote for the person who best represents me. That’s only true for a small portion of the voters because your simp brain makes you feel like you need to be a winner rather than vote with your own best interest in mind. They plan for that, thus two parties. It’s the smallest number they can get away with and consolidate power. If you were slightly smarter you’d be able to figure out what I just said, rather than going ad hominem

 

[Allornothing]

I’m sure that’s it. You really nailed my relationship with my wife without knowing either of us. I’m just crushed now.

On to serious topics. My candidate will probably never win. I don’t vote for people that are openly liars or cheaters. I don’t vote for people I know to be liars or cheaters. Same can’t be said for you unfortunately. I vote for the person who best represents me. That’s only true for a small portion of the voters because your simp brain makes you feel like you need to be a winner rather than vote with your own best interest in mind. They plan for that, thus two parties. It’s the smallest number they can get away with and consolidate power. If you were slightly smarter you’d be able to figure out what I just said, rather than going ad hominem

So who is going to win other than Joe or Trump?

I can't help the fact you are stupid, but one of those people are going to win.

 

[DW4_2016]

So who is going to win other than Joe or Trump?

I can't help the fact you are stupid, but one of those people are going to win.

Pure gold. I said you wouldn't be smart enough to understand what I wrote and I also predicted you'd go ad hominem. I am a fvcking wizard.

Read it again and again until you understand what it says. You seem to be the type of guy who only wants to be on a winning 'team'. You don't actually agree with some of the policies the 'team' you're voting for wants to put in place. Winning is useless if you don't actually agree with the point of view of the candidate you voted for.