Catag94 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

The problem with natural immunity is that you have to get infected and risk a potentially serious and fatal infection. Encouraging natural immunity is the same thing as doing absolutely nothing until people get sick, sometimes really sick. That's unconscionable when we have cheap, safe, and effective prevention

---

So we published hugest numbers of cases of infection and learned as a result that overall the survival rate is 99+%. We also have over 15 studies that indicate natural immunity is far superior. We also are steadily documenting case of infection in previously "vaxxed" patients daily ( and confirmed re-infections have been extremely rare). So, I think the risks are substantially lower than your argument would attempt to suggest. I think it's a bit early to confirm the safety of these "vaccines" and some would argue you're wrong in indicating the injection is "Safe". Further, its effectiveness is becoming more abs more doubtful daily.

---

I wasn't making an argument. Natural infection prevents zero deaths. Every person with natural immunity already caught covid and didn't die. None of the people that died of their COVID infection have natural immunity.

---

Agreed. My faith tells me death is not something to fear.

---

Why do you get to make that choice for others?

Dilettante said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

The problem with natural immunity is that you have to get infected and risk a potentially serious and fatal infection. Encouraging natural immunity is the same thing as doing absolutely nothing until people get sick, sometimes really sick. That's unconscionable when we have cheap, safe, and effective prevention

---

So we published hugest numbers of cases of infection and learned as a result that overall the survival rate is 99+%. We also have over 15 studies that indicate natural immunity is far superior. We also are steadily documenting case of infection in previously "vaxxed" patients daily ( and confirmed re-infections have been extremely rare). So, I think the risks are substantially lower than your argument would attempt to suggest. I think it's a bit early to confirm the safety of these "vaccines" and some would argue you're wrong in indicating the injection is "Safe". Further, its effectiveness is becoming more abs more doubtful daily.

---

I wasn't making an argument. Natural infection prevents zero deaths. Every person with natural immunity already caught covid and didn't die. None of the people that died of their COVID infection have natural immunity.

---

Agreed. My faith tells me death is not something to fear.

---

Why do you get to make that choice for others?

---

This seems ironic.

---

A virus doesn't give a **** what you believe or how careful you've been or how good a person you are. It will happily use your cells to replicate and then use you as a vector to spread. Not taking that seriously means not taking the lives of others very seriously.

Viruses get a bad rap. They don't mean to hurt nobody. They're just something cells do. They're as evil as a tornado, or a bullet.

RAB91 said:

---

Ramblin - Just to be clear....do you support mandates that force people with natural immunity to have to get the vaccine?

---

No. I think documented proof of antibodies or prior infection should be equivalent

The downside to considering prior infection equivalent to vaccination is that people like Catag will go get infected on purpose.

Catag94 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

The problem with natural immunity is that you have to get infected and risk a potentially serious and fatal infection. Encouraging natural immunity is the same thing as doing absolutely nothing until people get sick, sometimes really sick. That's unconscionable when we have cheap, safe, and effective prevention

---

And millions of Americans have already had covid and recovered. To force them to take an unneeded vaccine is anti-science and immoral.

---

It's not unneeded. Vaccination after infection provides the strongest protection available. And yes, reinfection is a distinct possibility.

---

6% is not "distinct"

---

Epidemiologically? Yes, it is. We have billion dollar medical enterprises dedicated to treating illnesses that impact far less of the population as a percentage.

And this is me not arguing over 6%. I don't know if that's the accurate rate of reinfection, but I suspect it will be much higher over the coming months.

Catag94 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Just clarify, mRNA is already in your body. The natural process is DNA -> mRNA -> protein. mRNA is incredibly fragile and lasts a very short time. Nearly all the engineering in the vaccines is getting the mRNA not to degrade in seconds.

Traditional vaccines are made with viral proteins. But viral proteins are very hard to make, and even more difficult to customize. So instead spending years and fortunes to make factories to specifically make each viral protein, we can just have your body do what it already does it make the protein itself. Your body then gets an immune response to the protein the exact same way it would with a traditional vaccine. The mRNA is broken down within hours and does not cause any immune response by itself.

It really is the same idea as prior vaccinations, just much easier. Proteins are the hardest things to manufacture. DNA and RNA are easy

---

All the same, I prefer (for me) to let the virus do that.

---

You should not be surprised that letting a potentially deadly virus run rampant is a terrible public health strategy

---

I'm not surprised, and not even advocating that. However, we live in a country founded on individual freedoms especially where individual faith is involved. So, a government mandate that seeks to force me to violate my faith ( and I mean that seriously) is not right in the US.

---

You should look up the idea of Civic Virtue and what the framers thought of its importance.

Don't you understand? I mean it is pretty clear. The best way to prime a person's immune system to prevent a serious/deadly outcome from a person getting infected without a primed immune system is to get infected while having an immune system that hasnt been primed to defend against the infection.

How can you argue with that

Catag94 said:

---

Dilettante said:

---

All employers. Let's say in this scenario that you live paycheck to paycheck and have a family, to up the pressure a bit.

---

If my employer (I live in Texas) we're to take this approach, I'll be terminated I suppose.
I won't be injected with this "vaccine". My family and I will maintain our faith and continue to follow Christ. I believe we will be okay.

How about we don't stand for this type of tyranny in this country.
By the way, in no way do I condemn those who chose to be vaccinated. And if it is so effective, how would I be a concern to them?

---

There are many, many people who either can't get the vaccine or are immunocompromised. You're making the choice that exposing them to the virus and allowing the virus to potential continue to mutate is okay. And vaccine requirements are not "tyranny." They've been used for centuries.

Vaccination often stops transmission.

All the things you think you know about the virus are wrong. You have an education issue.

Catag94 said:

---

Everyday, more and more cases of infection are reported in previously "vaxxed" people.

---

There's no 100% effective vaccine. The smallpox vaccine still had people catching smallpox. It was just less virulent and dangerous. Same as the Covid vaccines. The difference here is that the vaccine has been administered to hundreds of millions of people in the midst of an evolving global pandemic.

The data shows that vaccination protects against getting Covid, transmitting Covid, and (if you have a breakthrough infection) getting seriously ill with Covid.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.20.21262158v1

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2106757

Catag94 said:

---

When, in the 2+ cent Europe's of the United States of America, has the federal government forced individual citizens to be vaccinated regardless of their faith or against their will removing their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if they refuse? And, please explain how being "vaxxed" is helping those who can't or are immune compromised since it obviously does nothing to stop transmission.

Also, there are studies that have concluded that the vaxxed are more likely driving mutations.

---

You're not being personally required to vaccinate. But there are health and safety laws and rules the government can enforce, particularly with regards to who it does business with and who works for it. And again, look up Civic Virtue. Your individual rights don't extend to an unencumbered right to infect others with a virus during a pandemic. As for the vaccines, I'd love to see the studies you're claiming.

I don't understand the contempt people have for those who don't want to get the vaccine. It's still new so it's pretty natural for people to be skeptical of it. Mandating it just emboldens that skepticism.

I guess I'm sympathetic as I was hesitant at first as well. Eventually got it after I saw nobody became zombies.......at least not yet.

But to the original question, yes a church should not withhold charity because of a decision to not get a vaccine. Just like how a church shouldn't hold back charity against certain people who partake in the sins we don't approve of.

The contempt is for people who are aggressively stupid. From what I've seen, about 95% of vaccine hesitant people on this board are simultaneously very confident and have no idea how anything works.