No such thing as 'fully vaccinated'!!!

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Asmodeus3
And, like I said earlier, at the end of the day it is just her opinion.

So she is not on the same page as the mayo clinic, who cares?

Of course it is her opinion which could become the norm in the next year or so. There is clearly a difference between 'fully vaccinated' as understood by most of us and not been able to be fully vaccinated due to the nature of the virus. Of course this contradicts current understanding of what fully vaccinated means and according to the mayoclinic and all other major online sites on health and medicine.

I don't care about her personal opinion. But I don't want to see it making headlines in a few months from now or later on when it could be claimed that nobody can be fully vaccinated so here are your boosters every 3-4 months.

I know most people won't follow but I can never be sure about the future.

a reply to: Asmodeus3
Or not, which is why I said it is just handwrenching and pearl clutching on your part, especially since using one term instead of the another isn't going to change what is happening.

Covid jabs seem to be lined up to be pushed like the flu shots whether you like it or not.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Asmodeus3
Or not, which is why I said it is just handwrenching and pearl clutching on your part, especially since using one term instead of the another isn't going to change what is happening.

Covid jabs seem to be lined up to be pushed like the flu shots whether you like it or not.

I don't see the same promotion as in the case of the flu shots which are given only once a year and usually to the elderly.

The terms by the way are distinct. Her view is that one term cannot be used.
What will happen in the future is another matter but I don't think most will queue in the local health centres and clinics to get vaccinated every 3-4 months.

Furthermore terms and definitions cannot change politically or due to lobbying or personal views.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Her view is that one term cannot be used.

Furthermore terms and definitions cannot change politically or due to lobbying or personal views.

You refuted your main basis for this thread.

None of us can say what will happen in the future but whatever it is isn't going to be changed by choosing to use one term for it over another. It shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Her view is that one term cannot be used.

Furthermore terms and definitions cannot change politically or due to lobbying or personal views.

You refuted your main basis for this thread.



None of us can say what will happen in the future but whatever it is isn't going to be changed by choosing to use one term for it over another. It shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp.

Perhaps you need to have a look at the opening page to see that I am talking about a specific expert and her views.

But these views maybe well motivated and there could be others holding the same views that cound be pushed in the future. I don't think I was speaking about everyone else. I don't know how do you come to these conclusions.

The person refuted it's her as she is in contradiction with what constitutes 'fully vaccinated' individuals. Unless this changes in the future just as the definition of the vaccine has changed mysteriously.

If the UK introduced mandatory vaccination for all of the population then I'd move somewhere else.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: nonspecific
So no mandatory vaccines for COVID 19 then?

There was.....but not presently......but who knows what will be next?

If mandatory injections come again....are you going to get boosted?
Or will you move? Where will you move to and can you afford to move?

a reply to: nonspecific
Can you afford to move?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I don't know but as it's not going to happen i'll just say yes I can afford to move as both scenarios are fictional.

Don't ask where or when or how as you wont get an answer.

originally posted by: nonspecific
If the UK introduced mandatory vaccination for all of the population then I'd move somewhere else.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: nonspecific
So no mandatory vaccines for COVID 19 then?

There was.....but not presently......but who knows what will be next?

If mandatory injections come again....are you going to get boosted?
Or will you move? Where will you move to and can you afford to move?

Perhaps you can go to China.
The country of free speech & democracy. And plenty of communism too...

a reply to: nonspecific
So you admit that you would rather move than get another shot.

That speaks volumes.

That is not what I said at all is it.

You really do try to twist as much as you can out of any given situation don't you.

I object to the idea of mandatory vaccination not to the covid 19 vaccinations.

There's quite a difference.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: nonspecific
So you admit that you would rather move than get another shot.

That speaks volumes.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: nonspecific
So you admit that you would rather move than get another shot.

That speaks volumes.

I think this is what I got from the replies.
But I remember the reply about moving to another country if there are mandatory vaccinations at all.
Of course this will not happen but some form of pressure to the elderly and other parts of society can persist for very long as nobody is 'fully vaccinated' if this line goes ahead.

a reply to: Asmodeus3
I did look, that is why I have repeatedly said it is only one expert and only her opinion you are chicken littling about.

You can both be refuted and you did it to yourself, so I don't know what you think you are arguing against.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Asmodeus3
I did look, that is why I have repeatedly said it is only one expert and only her opinion you are chicken littling about.

You can both be refuted and you did it to yourself, so I don't know what you think you are arguing against.

I am afraid your argument doesn't add up.
It's her who has been contradicted and refuted not myself.

My argument was clear from the beginning.

And here is the title:

It's time to stop saying 'fully vaccinated' for Covid, experts say—here's why


Cindy Prins is an Infectious Disease Epidemiologist at the University of Florida

I see you are trying to go around this matter by claiming it doesn't matter which term is used, then you ask who cares, and now you invent something else. These are not good debating tactics and are easily spotted.


]

a reply to: Asmodeus3
The different things I pointed out are all flaws in your argument.

It doesn't matter which term is used, nobody (maybe except for you) cares what this one person thinks, and you contradicted yourself by saying:

Her view is that one term cannot be used.

and

Furthermore terms and definitions cannot change politically or due to lobbying or personal views.

Obviously they are easily spotted but you can't be honest enough to accept that they are flaws in your argument.

It's like the war on terror. It was never designed to be won, only sustained. Just like the pandemic.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Asmodeus3
The different things I pointed out are all flaws in your argument.

It doesn't matter which term is used, nobody (maybe except for you) cares what this one person thinks, and you contradicted yourself by saying:

Her view is that one term cannot be used.

and

Furthermore terms and definitions cannot change politically or due to lobbying or personal views.

Obviously they are easily spotted but you can't be honest enough to accept that they are flaws in your argument.

There are no flaws in my arguments.
That is an unsubstantiated opinion of yours.
The sentence you present doesn't contradict what I have said.

Definitions and terms cannot change because of someone's opinion generally speaking.

However you don't know who is being her and what kind of support she has when she argues that we should stop using one term and adopt another one.

Furthermore you should look at the definition of the vaccine which change magically due to politics and lobbying proving how things change magically...

Her view that there is could be no fully vaccinated person is contradicted by all definitions so far. The one I provided through the mayoclinic which is well known.

So as far as I know she isn't correct trying to apply politics into science but as science and medicine have been corrupted you never know what will happen in the future.

Now if you try to argue again about it then I will reply the same way.

a reply to: Asmodeus3
It isn't unsubstantiated.

It is based on logic. What difference does it make what they call it one thing or the other if/when they roll out yearly covid jabs?

Who here has given that one person's opinion any importance, other than you?

The two sentences I presented contradict each other.

I never said her view was not contradicted.

You seem to have a hard time parsing out what is actually being said.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Asmodeus3
It isn't unsubstantiated.

It is based on logic. What difference does it make what they call it one thing or the other if/when they roll out yearly covid jabs?

Who here has given that one person's opinion any importance, other than you?

The two sentences I presented contradict each other.

I never said her view was not contradicted.

You seem to have a hard time parsing out what is actually being said.

No. I am afraid you are wrong again about what I have said. There is nothing in the two sentences/paragraphs you have presented that contradict each other.

One think you got right though! That her argument is contradicted by basic definitions that most of us understand.

I am not the one who has hard time here.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

So is your issue with this that you see it that if no one can be "fully vaccinated" that there will always be more booster shots available?

Is that the thing that upsets you so much about the wording of it?