Answering an Ignorant Stupid Bastard

And other news.

Ignorant stupid bastard:

You forgot the real argument: “If the vaccines work, why do you care if I take it? You’ll have taken yours and be immune.”

I’ve discussed this before and I will do so now again. Others should care if you get vaccinated because:

1. Even the best vaccines are not 100% effective. If the vaccinated person is one of the unlucky ones who do not develop immunity, they will still be vulnerable to your disease. This applies to vaccines that inhibit transmission; we do not yet know if this is the case for the covid-19 vaccines. However, the “argument” above refers to vaccines in general, so the point holds. When enough people are vaccinated, herd immunity will protect those individuals who are not immune.

2. There are people who for legitimate reasons cannot get vaccinated. Thus, similar to point #1, with its caveats, generating herd immunity through vaccination protects those who, for no fault of their own, are not protected via vaccination.

3. Again assuming inhibition of transmission, and particularly when dealing with a RNA virus, the longer the pandemic continues, the greater the chance of mutations, including those that can evade the vaccinations. Perhaps we should not be surprised that a particularly nasty strain erupted in Brazil, a nation with a Der Retard of Der Right style blowhard leader.

4. Even if the vaccine in question only prevents (serious) disease rather than inhibiting transmission, there are social costs for having large numbers of people getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, and dying because of the disease. Those who get vaccinated unfortunately have to live in the same society as anti-vaxx ignorant stupid bastards, and the moronic decisions of the anti-vaxxers affect the quality of life and standard of living for everyone, not just themselves. They are asocial sociopaths who free-ride on the vaccinations of others. They are the lowest form of filthy scum imaginable.

And as regards the right-wing retards gibbering about why there are so few flu cases this year:

Influenza doesn't spread as well as the coronavirus. The average number of people one person with the flu infects - a measure known as the reproductive number - is 1.28. Typically, someone sick with the coronavirus passes it onto between 2 and 2.5 people. In part, this difference is because the coronavirus can be airborne, remaining suspended in the air for hours. That's not true of the flu, though viruses can jump from person to person via respiratory droplets and contaminated surfaces.

The coronavirus' higher reproductive number "means it is more challenging to prevent transmission through non-pharmaceutical interventions than it is for influenza," Olsen said. 

What's more, existing immunity in the population - whether from previous infections or vaccinations - can also boost the effects of public-health measures like masking, resulting in a more dramatic reduction in transmission, Olsen said.

The flu vaccine has been around for more than 75 years. Vaccine manufacturers projected that they will supply the US with as many as 194 to 198 million doses of influenza vaccine for the 2020-2021 season, according to Olsen. 

"Contrast this against a novel coronavirus, to which nearly the entire population is susceptible," she said.

When it comes to anything that has the slightest connection to science, Der Right continues to be a tragicomic embarrassment. Case in point.

Der Liars of Der Right also claim that flu is lower this year despite less flu shots being given, which is a complete lie; see this about flu shots:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's tracking of flu vaccine distribution over the years shows that so far in the 2020-2021 flu season, 189.4 million flu vaccines have been distributed in the U.S., compared to 174 million in the 2019-2020 season.

Also see this.  

Der Right, Der Right, Der Right ALWAYS lies.

Some good critical thinking from a TOO commentator:

Franklin Ryckaertsays:

February 4, 2021 at 5:59 am

There is a logical contradiction in Belloc’s racial explanation for the Crusader’s ultimate defeat in the Middle East. If they lost due to racial admixture with the local population, then how could that very same local population win, while they had no (supposedly superior) Frankish blood at all?

It is difficult for us moderns to feel admiration for the Crusaders who needed the sudden “discovery of the Holy Lance” (an obvious fraud) to recuperate their valor in battle.

The Crusaders were not only utterly superstitious but also cruel, far more cruel than the Muslims of Saladin, whose chivalry was proverbial.

All in all, the Crusades were a foolish undertaking (think the Children’s Crusade) and a waste of energy. That energy would have been better used in liberating Spain from the Muslims, thus hastening the Reconquista by at least 3 centuries.

Belloc would I suppose answer that the natives were better adapted to the environment and that purebloods, even of “inferior stock,” are more stable than purebloods. Other commentators talk about “divided loyalties” and/or the larger numbers of inferior Near Easterners. But, still, the criticism is valid. Belloc’s argument, although possibly true, doesn’t have any strong evidence to support it as a definitive causative mechanism, and then adding more and more hand-waving “spin” to answer Ryckaert’s criticism doesn’t help.

Griffin is, to me, more honest than is Johnson about Trump.

In my view, Donald Trump was simply the material that was available that a rising tide of populism latched onto in the 2016 election. It wasn’t the man himself who brought all of those people into the GOP. It was the message that he ran on which struck a chord with disaffected voters in the middle. The Pew typology surveys clearly show that those people had been around for over thirty years.

No answers?  Well, ”Christian Zionism” is unlikely to flourish in soil from which Christianity has been eliminated. Crush the Infamy!

See this. If those data, and Griffin’s interpretations of the data, approximate reality, then what does this tell us? It tells us what a miserable failure Der Movement, and its pitiful “leadership,” is, not making progress with the potentialities at hand. It has been the Sallis Groupuscule that has been telling you that the freakishness of Der Movement, its bizarre and repulsive dogmas, and its rent-seeking and inept “leaders,” who been alienating the White American masses and have stymied progress. Only a New Movement with a merit-based leadership, instead of prancing affirmative action Quota Queens, can get the job done. If I am wrong, and if we assume the data reflect reality, then why does Der Movement ALWAYS fail?  Answer – I’m not wrong, and the Quota Queens, frightened of losing the personal egotistical stranglehold on pro-White activism, call me an “insane paranoid piece of crap” to deflect attention from their manifest failures.

See this comment. That's all true, but that gets back to the point of how the Far Left has achieved their position of power and security; further, when considering the corporate-Left alliance, described in The NY TImes, to "fortify" the election, one has to admire the long-term strategic acumen of the Left. You see, while Der Movement has spent time giggling over The Turner Diaries, masturbating over March of the Titans, and gibbering about Kali Yuga, the Left actually did the serious political work of infiltrating society and building a real power base.

Der Movement, Der Movement, Der Movement fails again.