4 ms·

> I can guarantee you you're not winning any sort of fight against Facebook and YouTube by not getting vaccinated. I believe that FB or YT is not a fighter but

> I can guarantee you you're not winning any sort of fight against Facebook and YouTube by not getting vaccinated. I believe that FB or YT is not a fighter but a fightee. They both have a long list of restrictions in their terms of service, but their censure cases is not their decision (but I do not want to develop this off-topic). > It doesn't say anything about getting banned And it doesn't have a "forbidden" word. Russian version is longer and has that word (but it doesn't say anything about ban, and about punishes, I have already realised I was a little misinformed). Here is the version, you can read it via translator if you want: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9803260?hl=ru https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9803260?hl=ru > Source? If you don't get infected you're not a mutation vector. My point is that I consider a good thing having as many mutation vectors in the world as possible, it makes future vaccines more powerful. >> a vac stops protecting from covid after half a year. >Source? 1. One Russian expert has written in 1990 that flu vaccines are working only 1 year https://medi.ru/info/6639/ https://medi.ru/info/6639/ (sorry for Russian language) 2. https://www.aier.org/article/who-deletes-naturally-acquired-immunity-from-its-website/ https://www.aier.org/article/who-deletes-naturally-acquired-... (not a proof but an indicator that something is wrong with 2019-nCoV study) 3. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08CG4DGTQ/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08CG4DGTQ/ have not read this book but I have read a blog of its Russian author and have a roughly understanding what this book is about. > Isn't that proof that they actually ask for proofs of vaccination safety and efficiency before authorizing them? One set of people has one criteria of efficiency, another set of people has another criteria. That does not look like scientific approach, but a religion one. I want these sets of people to make a consensus. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but all Stage III results of any vaccine is interim, which means that any person taken a vaccine is an object of experiment. Why to run in a front of a train? > You seem very focused on Russia, if you don't live there I'd recommend you to focus on something else. I live in Ukraine, we are hostile countries but we are speaking same language and I believe we share same culture and mentality.

lm28469 5y ago
Looks like you're arguing at the same time that: - vaccines are unsafe - vaccines are inefficient - vaccines are efficient but we shouldn't take them to let the virus mutate so that we can engineer better vaccines for future hypothetical viruses (but I guess you wouldn't take these anyways for the same reasons you already mentioned) > Why to run in a front of a train? Everything indicates that the vaccines are safer than covid on literally every single metric available. You don't want to be a "test subject" for the vaccine but you're OK being a test subject for the virus? Feel free to do so but again, the logic seems very weak
- eimrine 5y ago
  > - vaccines are unsafe Not my words and not my point of view > - vaccines are inefficient Not my words, but I have read a study that tells a vaccine is efficient for 1 year. If I live in village and almost do not have contacts with people and do not plan to travel anywhere outside my village in nearest 1 year, isn't it wise to live that 1 year without a vac and take it after 1 year? > but we shouldn't take them to let the virus mutate This is not a cause for not taking the vaccine. Just a little counter-argument to statement that not taking the vaccine leads to danger (for society) expressed in mutations. > Everything indicates that the vaccines are safer than covid on literally every single metric available. Not in every. Imagine the vaccine is 100 times safer than a covid and imagine my probability to catch a virus is 1/1000 due to very few contacts in my village. So, math tells us that not taking a vac for that one year is these conditions is 10 times safer for me.
- throwaway210222 5y ago
  > isn't it wise to live that 1 year without a vac and take it after 1 year? I guess it depends on how many wives and children depend on you.
  - eimrine 5y ago
    Zero wives, zero children, zero pets and dozen computers :) Of course if I was a doctor contacting sick people or a public person contacting hundreds of different people everyday, my choice would be to take a vaccine asap.

lm28469 5y ago

Looks like you're arguing at the same time that: - vaccines are unsafe - vaccines are inefficient - vaccines are efficient but we shouldn't take them to let the virus mutate so that we can engineer better vaccines for future hypothetical viruses (but I guess you wouldn't take these anyways for the same reasons you already mentioned) > Why to run in a front of a train? Everything indicates that the vaccines are safer than covid on literally every single metric available. You don't want to be a "test subject" for the vaccine but you're OK being a test subject for the virus? Feel free to do so but again, the logic seems very weak

eimrine 5y ago
> - vaccines are unsafe Not my words and not my point of view > - vaccines are inefficient Not my words, but I have read a study that tells a vaccine is efficient for 1 year. If I live in village and almost do not have contacts with people and do not plan to travel anywhere outside my village in nearest 1 year, isn't it wise to live that 1 year without a vac and take it after 1 year? > but we shouldn't take them to let the virus mutate This is not a cause for not taking the vaccine. Just a little counter-argument to statement that not taking the vaccine leads to danger (for society) expressed in mutations. > Everything indicates that the vaccines are safer than covid on literally every single metric available. Not in every. Imagine the vaccine is 100 times safer than a covid and imagine my probability to catch a virus is 1/1000 due to very few contacts in my village. So, math tells us that not taking a vac for that one year is these conditions is 10 times safer for me.
throwaway210222 5y ago
> isn't it wise to live that 1 year without a vac and take it after 1 year? I guess it depends on how many wives and children depend on you.
- eimrine 5y ago
  Zero wives, zero children, zero pets and dozen computers :) Of course if I was a doctor contacting sick people or a public person contacting hundreds of different people everyday, my choice would be to take a vaccine asap.