Imprison anyone who refuses the vax!

[Pat]

Kiero is not on the side advocating for surgical masks stopping viruses.

Implying I am?

You're passed beyond idiot into Kieroland.

[Pat]

CDC <2020:
"vaccination" = "The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease"
"vaccine" = "A product that stimulates a person's immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose."
"immunity" = "Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected."

CDC >2021
"vaccine" = "A preparation that is used to stimulate the body's immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose."
"vaccination" = "The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease."

So, which of these sets 0f definitions is correct?  The definition of immunity that says "you can be exposed to it without becoming infected"? (Pro tip, both the previous and present definitions say that...)

With your complete lack of citations or references, I can't validate any of that or check context. Far as I know, it's something you wrote.

Compare that to what I did. I provided a cite, a page, and a specific edit for the definition I provided.

[Zelen]

Concerning.

[Kiero]

That shows that the jabs are working!

Just not the way they're supposed to...

[Shasarak]

Kiero is not on the side advocating for surgical masks stopping viruses.

Implying I am?

You're passed beyond idiot into Kieroland.

Sure Pat.  Just leave this to the experts, ok.

[Pat]

Kiero is not on the side advocating for surgical masks stopping viruses.

Implying I am?

You're passed beyond idiot into Kieroland.

Sure Pat.  Just leave this to the experts, ok.

We need a cute little name for the two of you. Kierorak? Shashiero?

[Shasarak]

Kiero is not on the side advocating for surgical masks stopping viruses.

Implying I am?

You're passed beyond idiot into Kieroland.

Sure Pat.  Just leave this to the experts, ok.

We need a cute little name for the two of you. Kierorak? Shashiero?

Pataholic?  Pautistic? You decide!

[Eirikrautha]

CDC <2020:
"vaccination" = "The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease"
"vaccine" = "A product that stimulates a person's immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose."
"immunity" = "Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected."

CDC >2021
"vaccine" = "A preparation that is used to stimulate the body's immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose."
"vaccination" = "The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease."

So, which of these sets 0f definitions is correct?  The definition of immunity that says "you can be exposed to it without becoming infected"? (Pro tip, both the previous and present definitions say that...)

With your complete lack of citations or references, I can't validate any of that or check context. Far as I know, it's something you wrote.

Compare that to what I did. I provided a cite, a page, and a specific edit for the definition I provided.

Bullshit.  You can't argue with the content, so now you're going to attack the form.  Well, here are the wayback machine links to the CDC pages:

August 26, 2021 https://t.co/yjdLysHgQk

September 2, 2021 https://t.co/dyoQ73SIRB

[Kiero]

Conspiracy theories from tin-foil hatters at MIT: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X

Highlights:
•mRNA vaccines promote sustained synthesis of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
•The spike protein is neurotoxic, and it impairs DNA repair mechanisms.
•Suppression of type I interferon responses results in impaired innate immunity.
•The mRNA vaccines potentially cause increased risk to infectious diseases and cancer.
•Codon optimization results in G-rich mRNA that has unpredictable complex effects.

The mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were brought to market in response to the public health crises of Covid-19. The utilization of mRNA vaccines in the context of infectious disease has no precedent. The many alterations in the vaccine mRNA hide the mRNA from cellular defenses and promote a longer biological half-life and high production of spike protein. However, the immune response to the vaccine is very different from that to a SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this paper, we present evidence that vaccination induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to human health. Immune cells that have taken up the vaccine nanoparticles release into circulation large numbers of exosomes containing spike protein along with critical microRNAs that induce a signaling response in recipient cells at distant sites. We also identify potential profound disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance. These disturbances potentially have a causal link to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell's palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, impaired DNA damage response and tumorigenesis. We show evidence from the VAERS database supporting our hypothesis. We believe a comprehensive risk/benefit assessment of the mRNA vaccines questions them as positive contributors to public health.

There's even a handy graphic of the mechanism by which mRNA jabs fuck you up:



If you've been Pfizer'd or Moderna'd (particularly if you've had them multiple times), good luck! You'll need it.

[Pat]

CDC <2020:
"vaccination" = "The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease"
"vaccine" = "A product that stimulates a person's immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose."
"immunity" = "Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected."

CDC >2021
"vaccine" = "A preparation that is used to stimulate the body's immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose."
"vaccination" = "The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease."

So, which of these sets 0f definitions is correct?  The definition of immunity that says "you can be exposed to it without becoming infected"? (Pro tip, both the previous and present definitions say that...)

With your complete lack of citations or references, I can't validate any of that or check context. Far as I know, it's something you wrote.

Compare that to what I did. I provided a cite, a page, and a specific edit for the definition I provided.

Bullshit.  You can't argue with the content, so now you're going to attack the form.  Well, here are the wayback machine links to the CDC pages:

August 26, 2021 https://t.co/yjdLysHgQk

September 2, 2021 https://t.co/dyoQ73SIRB

Fuck you. I presented coherent arguments, and just got snark and complete nonsense in reply. The only thing of any substance were your quotes, but they weren't anything I specifically addressed, I wasn't familiar with them, you provided no context, and there wasn't enough information for me to look them up, so I asked for a cite. But you have to be a miserable little shit, like nearly everyone else on this board.

Let's see, here are all the definitions from the relevant pages:

Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person's immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.

Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.

Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body's immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.

I highlighted the differences.

They're not great definitions. But both point out that "immunity" is just a form of protection, and "can" (rather than "will") prevent infection -- and I don't agree with their use of the word "infected". There's some completely pointless copyediting (also vs. some). The big change is from a specific disease to disease in general, which seems a bit off. But in both edits, even that segment makes it clear that immunity is about the immune response.

So what's the fuss? It looks like they were trying to clarify that immunity means priming the body's natural immune response, but they didn't do a very good job because the two edits ended up being semantically equivalent.

If all you care about is "infection", then an implied meaning from a source that's not explicitly defining the word is rather indirect. Here are two fairly authoritative sources that directly define the word, and use it the way I do:
https://www.medicinenet.com/infection/definition.htm
https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/infection

[GeekyBugle]

Pfizer knew their "vaccines" would kill.

https://twitter.com/rubengluengas/status/1518987853207846913

Pray for me.

[oggsmash]

CDC <2020:
"vaccination" = "The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease"
"vaccine" = "A product that stimulates a person's immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose."
"immunity" = "Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected."

CDC >2021
"vaccine" = "A preparation that is used to stimulate the body's immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose."
"vaccination" = "The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease."

So, which of these sets 0f definitions is correct?  The definition of immunity that says "you can be exposed to it without becoming infected"? (Pro tip, both the previous and present definitions say that...)

With your complete lack of citations or references, I can't validate any of that or check context. Far as I know, it's something you wrote.

Compare that to what I did. I provided a cite, a page, and a specific edit for the definition I provided.

Bullshit.  You can't argue with the content, so now you're going to attack the form.  Well, here are the wayback machine links to the CDC pages:

August 26, 2021 https://t.co/yjdLysHgQk

September 2, 2021 https://t.co/dyoQ73SIRB

Fuck you. I presented coherent arguments, and just got snark and complete nonsense in reply. The only thing of any substance were your quotes, but they weren't anything I specifically addressed, I wasn't familiar with them, you provided no context, and there wasn't enough information for me to look them up, so I asked for a cite. But you have to be a miserable little shit, like nearly everyone else on this board.

Let's see, here are all the definitions from the relevant pages:

Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person's immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.

Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.

Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body's immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.

I highlighted the differences.

They're not great definitions. But both point out that "immunity" is just a form of protection, and "can" (rather than "will") prevent infection -- and I don't agree with their use of the word "infected". There's some completely pointless copyediting (also vs. some). The big change is from a specific disease to disease in general, which seems a bit off. But in both edits, even that segment makes it clear that immunity is about the immune response.

So what's the fuss? It looks like they were trying to clarify that immunity means priming the body's natural immune response, but they didn't do a very good job because the two edits ended up being semantically equivalent.

If all you care about is "infection", then an implied meaning from a source that's not explicitly defining the word is rather indirect. Here are two fairly authoritative sources that directly define the word, and use it the way I do:
https://www.medicinenet.com/infection/definition.htm
https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/infection

  Personal question, and no judgement (I know many people of all political bent who got it), did you get the vaccine?  My position has always been if you want it get it.  I also understand the textbook definition of a vaccine, but there is also a publicly acknowledged understanding of what a vaccine does (with regards to actual efficacy) that the CDC felt a HUGE need to "clarify" when massive pharma corps decided to roll something out that was not functioning as the publicly understood standard for a vaccine on a large scale.  I ask because you seem to be semantically defending a term in a way that seems you have an investment in doing so.  Again, get the shot, dont get the shot I think people can make the best decisions for their own health and bodies and situations.   I know you like to argue and get into the details, but it seems you are reaching into the clinical full well knowing the publicly acknowledged understanding of a vaccine function is NOT what the vaccine for captain tripps has been.

[Battlemaster]

"Imprison anyone who refusrs the vax'?

Meh, for decades in 'murca the system imprisoned people for refusing to just say no to marijuana. Probably a couple million people were imprisoned for smoking a farly benign drug because the rightards linked it to minorities.

So hell, if it was ok to lock up a few million people and hang felony convictions on them for life over a pretty mild drug no worse and maybe not as bad as alcohol, why not the some rightards in prison for refusing to "just oveu the law"?

And anyway, fuck the right.

[Ghostmaker]

"Imprison anyone who refusrs the vax'?

Meh, for decades in 'murca the system imprisoned people for refusing to just say no to marijuana. Probably a couple million people were imprisoned for smoking a farly benign drug because the rightards linked it to minorities.

So hell, if it was ok to lock up a few million people and hang felony convictions on them for life over a pretty mild drug no worse and maybe not as bad as alcohol, why not the some rightards in prison for refusing to "just oveu the law"?

And anyway, fuck the right.

Man, you'd be more effective if you weren't a butthurt little bitch.

See, a funny thing happened on the way to the current year: there's a number of conservative-libertarian types who've been pointing out that all the 'war on some recreational substances' has done is erode constitutional protections (fourth and fifth in particular) as well as contribute to the increasing militarization of police. And they don't like that shit one bit.

But hey, keep your brain mired in that quagmire of shitty emotional thinking. The pendulum is starting to move.

[GeekyBugle]

"Imprison anyone who refusrs the vax'?

Meh, for decades in 'murca the system imprisoned people for refusing to just say no to marijuana. Probably a couple million people were imprisoned for smoking a farly benign drug because the rightards linked it to minorities.

So hell, if it was ok to lock up a few million people and hang felony convictions on them for life over a pretty mild drug no worse and maybe not as bad as alcohol, why not the some rightards in prison for refusing to "just oveu the law"?

And anyway, fuck the right.

Like I said, he's your garden variety fascist.

Like all leftards he thinks that if it's not forbidden it's mandatory, and since it's not forbidden to take a vax you should be made to take whatever experimental drug the megabucks corporations decide to roll out.

That's why, in his addled brain, not consuming X (which breaks no laws) can be compared with consuming Y (which breaks laws).

And in the process he alienates all the rightwingers, libertarians who are against the "war on drugs".

Leftards aren't liberals, never were and never will be.