Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Question for the Forum Democrats

How often do you get the seasonal flu vaccine?

When we look at the phase three trial for the emergency approvals the Covid vaccines are about as effective as the vaccine for the common flu.

The COVID white papers touted 95%; quite the deception. Influenza vaccines are thought to be 30-70% depending on the year, if I recall correctly. I used to get an annual influenza vaccine. I didn't this year because they admitted to missing the mark completely as flu season set in. Two years ago, a friend came down with Gillian Barre syndrome following his flu vaccine. He ended up in ICU, caught influenza when he was there, was intubated and unable to be liberated from the ventilator. He was later given a tracheostomy and a PEG tube and aspirated and died a few weeks later. It gives one pause when it hits that close to home.

Name some conservative "talking points" for us.

Wants to abolish the 2nd amendment.

Sorry to hear about your friend. That's the problem with dealing with diseases. There are no perfect solutions, some are just less bad than others. And what's the least bad for one person might not be the least bad for someone else.

The last numbers I saw had the efficacy of the COVID vaccines at about 43%, near the middle of the range you quoted above, of course that also depends of if we are discussing relative or absolute risk reduction, which is it's own topic.... and that's a big part of the problem with Covid, it's just so complex it doesn't lend itself to easy answer you can encapsulate in a 10 second sound bite.

I like this guy. He was on the front lines day one and put out video's other's wouldn't, and covered the literature in depth. Here he talks about the most current literature on the benefits of the various vaccines in both relative and absolute terms. Spoiler alert....about the same as the flu vaccine.

At what cost?
None of that is free.

It is a part of life. He was a good man that used to teach me many of the ropes of hunting when I was younger. I also have an acquaintance that contracted polio from receiving a polio vaccine; live virus was given due to a manufacturing error during the production of vaccines way back when.

I will try to give the video a watch when I get somewhere I can use sound later on tonight.

The 95% number was what both Pfizer and Moderna put out in 2020. Specifically, Moderna's December 2020 number which was constantly revised downward. I'd honestly be surprised if it was 43% reduction these days, but one must consider which strain.

And some of it isn't true.

Healthcare isn't better. If you look at mean survival times for serious diseases the US is better than most. Much better than the UK and Canada for example.

Schools are more variable in the US because they are locally controlled, but the US has many very good schools (although there are obviously ideological problems in many places.)

Lower rates of child mortality are hard to compare. Most European countries don't count any mortality before the first 30 days of life and that's when most babies die. The US counts any death after birth.

And so on.

rick have you ever listened to a rush show....dont play dense.....bob

FJB & all of his people

"Team Sports" mentality combined with a psychopathic tendency.

Really? It's not a matter of like or not like some wording - there is no explanation. I never try to read between the fuzzy lines with folks like that. Please cite exactly where he stated what "sends him over the top".

I'm not sure I relate to the "fairness" vector in conservatives being weaker than in liberals. I find most conservatives to have a VERY strong sense of right and wrong, another way to describe fairness.

It's my perception that liberals approach fairness, the violation of the sense of right and wrong if you will, differently than conservatives. I find the difference along the lines of the old proverb about giving the man a fish, vs. teaching a man to fish.

When a liberal sees injustice, his reaction is to give the poor fellow a fish, so he may eat. Preferably someone else's fish, but that's another discussion.

When a conservative sees injustice, he suggests the man learns to fish for himself, preferably by pulling himself up by his boot straps.

The difference, at it's core, is the liberal belief that justice is in the outcomes of life, where the conservative sees justice in the equality of opportunity. The liberal wants to distribute the goods in a fair and just way among everybody, whereas the conservative is content to simply have fair and just opportunity for everyone to obtain their own goods (equality and justice in the pursuit of happiness, if you will).

The psychology behind this difference must be interesting, and I strongly suspects it correlates nearly perfectly with the locus of control of the individuals: I suspect liberals will have a much more external locus of control than conservatives. They do not feel they can influence their lives outcome nearly as much as a conservative does.

Thanks, Dutch - thoughtful post.

Your reponse, Northman, is so full of absurdities and false assertions one hardly knows how to begin. However, it is a classic example, along with my following response of why we get nowhere.


This is not even close to true and a false assertion of the positions of the vast majority of Republicans. For the most part, conservatives want government out of most facets of our lives, that's it. The left calls that extreme right or, the ever popular "lets make up a new definition for a word that has negative connotations", facistic. Conservatives believe that government takeovers of things in which it has no business causes more harm than good. Historically speaking, modern day Republicans are more middle of the road or even left-leaning, than ever in history. You just see the gap created by Democrats moving further and further to the left.



The first half of the above statement is probably true and, we therefore feel it is worth saving rather than changing into something we don't want. The second half is, in my opinion, an absurdity. Things that really do, objectively speaking, need fixed, that require government to do so, usually have general agreement from liberals and conservatives. They just don't become evidence of bipartisan agreement. Unfortunately those things get lost in the morass of "government is the answer to everything".


I would agree that in certain areas in certain countries that may be true. However, conservatives believe that government "take over" causes way more problems than it solves. One can look at empirical data from the first 75% of the 20th century with respect to social issues and compare to now and see that is true. The more government got involved (trying to be like "other countries") the worse things became.



"A" country may be better than us an "AN ISSUE"; however, even as much as we conservatives complain about our government, it is interesting to note that, as you stated, we still think we have the greatest country in the world. However, you, and many like you, think we suck. There is a reason we are the number one destination of people leaving other countries and it's not because we are "worse at it" than they are.



First, the assertion that Republicans are refusing to pay taxes is flat out false and an example of how the Democrat and leftist control of the narrative makes people hate one another. However, taxes are an interesting issue. The vast majority of government spending on social programs is wasted on bureaucratic b.s. and graft. Government involvement in most social programs is worse than if there were no government involvement at all. However, many conservatives believe that we "should help those in true need". That ends up creating a perpetual system whereby government hand-outs become a way of life. Not for all but for many. Any time a Republican submits a means of streamlining and improving such systems, without negatively affecting what people truly in need would receive, those that control the narrative argue just as you did.



That's rich. To argue that corporations and big business are in league with Republicans just goes counter to everything we see on a day to day basis. The biggest corporations and businesses carry the water for the Democrat party and vice versa. To me, this comes down to idiotic economic policies which are implemented, once again, because of the control of the narrative. Irrespective of true intent, Democrat politicians lie about the "don't pay their fair share". I'm no apologist for this big corporations and the wealthy; however, that is probably the biggest lie in modern politics. I guess we could argue as to what is "subjectively" fair. However, under no metric could one objectively argue that our system of taxation is fair and that the rich don't pay their fair share. I know there is a point at which the argument fails. However, every single time our government has lowered tax rates, revenues to the government have gone up. What better way to fund "needed social programs" could possibly exist.

This crosses over to so many issues. However, arguing for lower tax rates to increase revenues to the government, incentivise more investment in business and products, thus creating more jobs for everybody, thus broadening the tax payer base and thus, again, increasing revenues to government coffers all the while not having corporations passing their increased tax costs onto the consumer simply becomes "tax cuts for the rich" and hating the little guy. It's simply absurd and devious. What I described has happened every time such tax cuts were implemented. Immensely more numbers of poor were helped by those tax cuts than were rich.

It is easier for those who control the narrative to assign evil motives and hate rather than to objectively discuss issues and remedies.

Well said Mr. Bigsky,

Unfortunately it will fall on deaf ears.

To simplify, we have two types of people for the most part. We have people that believe in the freedom and sovereignty of the individual and we have people that believe in the collective.

The collective is essentially Marxism. They are parasites looking for a free ride. You stop providing that for them and they will direct the government to destroy you, literally.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibly and that is essential for freedom.

Leftist manipulate people by appealing to their weakness, such as envy, envy is a wicked emotion. Selfishness, slothfulness, lazyness, victimhood etc... evil manipulations.

Marxism has failed every time it is tried 100%

Freedom succeeds every time it is tried.... it isn't easy.

The alternative promises easy, but soon it's discovered they lied, they do it for power and control and the "useful " idiots that fall for the lies will be the first to die under the new system.

Then they will force the slavery and misery on everyone. They will have to use force, as the productive people will stop producing if there is no reward and others benefit but they do not. Then the fun begins.

And the evil people that promised the free lunch will be entrenched and impossible to remove.

This is the history of civilization, until America was created by strong freedom loving wise men!!!

Our current student loan forgiveness fiasco is a classic example of where the parties/philosophies differ. We have a bunch of people who, of their own free will, entered into contracts to borrowed someone else's money while promising to pay it back. So far, so good. And then, they got an "education" or a "degree" that is worthless. Keep in mind that all other options were still available to them. Then, we have a political party that says "let's forgive that debt". For some odd reason, there are people, mostly conservative, who oppose that policy. In return, there can be no alternative other than to be labeled as hate mongers and racists and favoring the wealthy elite, most of whom are demonstrably leftist or at least left-leaning. These are the economic policies that divide us and rational discussion and empirical data are not allowed in this arena of ideas. The arguments have become insane.

It's to a point where white males are in fear of being in an automobile accident with "pick a minority or aggrieved individual" and being labeled as a racist or hate monger. It's nuts. It's nuts that I have to write this. What is the current political debate would have made a great comedic movie in years passed.

^^^^^

ALL of your assertions are according to whom?
And YOUR 'facist' comment is well totally priceless!
Is censorship not a major tenet of 'fascism'? Remind us all just who it is[which party] that wants all social media censored?