On 2021-11-02, William Unruh <
unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
On 2021-11-02, jak <nospam@please.ty> wrote:
Il 02/11/2021 15:39, The Natural Philosopher ha scritto:
On 02/11/2021 14:31, jak wrote:
Il 02/11/2021 09:26, The Natural Philosopher ha scritto:
On 01/11/2021 20:22, jak wrote:
Forgive my lack of knowledge of the English language but it is
precisely
on this point that our opinions differ: if, for example, you are
vaccinated and you touch the handle of an infected door then you will >>>>>> touch another handle that I will also touch, I will get infected
because
of you even if you are vaccinated.
Exactly.
The difference is that you who are
vaccinated will not get sick while I, who am not, will. When I was >>>>>> young, they gave me the measles vaccine and told me that by doing so I >>>>>> would most likely not get measles. Instead now they tell me that I have >>>>>> to vaccinate otherwise other people get sick? I am really confused >>>>>> because it is not necessary to be sick to pass the infection.
Exactly. BUT it reduces the spread. the virus on your vaccinated
hands will not multiply in your lungs and get coughed out into
someone unvaccinated persons face to cause them to wither and die.
Vaccination reduces the overall world virus load.
As well as 'protecting vulnerable people'
The whole anti-vax thing is simply another manifestation of the
ArtStudent™ mind that can only think in Boolean terms = protect/does >>>>> not protect, prevents infection/does not prevent infection.
It's a numbers game. Vaccination lowers infection rate, transmission >>>>> rate hospitalisation rate and death rate.
which certainly indicates that the side effects are less worse than
the disease.
It does however, *guarantee* nothing,
First of all I thank everyone (in this branch) for your answers and now >>>> I understand the reason for your reasoning. Here where I live (Italy)
the media have said and reiterated that this was not an airborne virus, >>>
Then they are probably guilty of fake news.
Wiki:
"COVID-19 transmits when people breathe in air contaminated by droplets
and small airborne particles containing the virus. The risk of breathing >>> these in is highest when people are in close proximity, but they can be
inhaled over longer distances, particularly indoors. Transmission can
also occur if splashed or sprayed with contaminated fluids in the eyes,
nose or mouth, and, rarely, via contaminated surfaces. People remain
contagious for up to 20 days, and can spread the virus even if they do
not develop symptoms"
for this reason I have a different way of looking at the related
problems. In any case, public administrations are very concerned with
the people who want to vaccinate and what they don't, but they forget to >>>> manage what they can't.
I think something got lost in translation there.???
...you are probably right :)
Following the media, they talk a lot about the vaccinated and also a lot
about those who refuse the vaccine. Unfortunately, they speak very
little about how to behave those who cannot be vaccinated. This problem
The problem is that those who "cannot" be vaccinated are a miniscule
part of the population. What makes it so they cannot be vaccinated? A
severe alergic reaction to some of the ingredents might be, but that is
very rare. If everyone but them were vaccinated, one would have no
worries. The virus would die out.
"What makes it so they cannot be vaccinated?" Certain heart
conditions, for one. A few weeks ago, an elderly man told me his
cardiologist had told him that the "vaccine" it _WOULD_ damage
his heart. [quotation marks mine, emphasis his and his doctor's]
--
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)