Jump to content

Seeker

Admin
  • Posts

    7,162
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    196

Everything posted by Seeker

  1. I know quite few who are not vaccinated and will not be if they can manage it. Their concerns (in no particular order); The slippery slope of government exerting control by mandating vaccines, passports and restricting the free movement within the country. Many feel that it's worth the fight against government over-reach irregardless of the "benefit" of the vaccine. The unknown possible long term side effects to the mRNA technology balanced against a perceived small benefit. The comparison to the little "yellow book" is a total red-herring. The vast majority (I would guess 98%) of those opposed to the Covid vaccine are fully vaccinated against all the standard threats (polio, measles, diptheria, etc). They are not "anti-vax", they are against the Covid vaccination specifically. They believe the threat from Covid is over-hyped. They believe the injuries and side-effects of the vaccine are under-reported. Most people against the Covid vaccination are very well researched, intelligent and informed. This is in contrast to how they are portrayed in the media - as a bunch of ignorant hillbillies. They believe that Covid is a threat for certain age groups and would even recommend vaccination for those groups but feel that the blanket "vaccinate everyone" protocol is akin to killing mosquitos with a sledge hammer. The above statements are not necessarily my POV - simply a summation from those I have spoken with.
  2. Yeah, or you could tell me. Of course, then you'd have to defend it. I'll admit it probably is easier to stand on the sidelines and make snarky comments.
  3. Because our society values personal choice and personal freedom. Some fat slob can eat MacDonalds every day and when he (predictably) shows up in the hospital with diabetes and heart disease we pay. Do you also think that's BS? Do you think we should take away his freedom to choose? What about the downhill skiers wasting all our precious medical dollars - also BS? Close all the ski hills? You're obviously convinced that people should 100% be forced to get vaccinated and too bad for their personal freedoms in order to meet the greater good. You realize this is a significant change to our society?
  4. I see. It's an editorial objection - you're bothered by the fact that the 0.1% in children isn't being given enough prominence or maybe it's the 2.4% under the age of 50?
  5. The material to support the "well established" claim is hot-linked in the document. Here it is for you, straight from the government website. That's acceptable to you? Data from a government website? Sorry, I don't have any CNN links to provide. https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/epidemiological-summary-covid-19-cases.html I asked you about the number of children in the hopes you would go find out on your own what I already know - the number of children that die from Covid is extremely low. Yes, every one is a tragedy, just as every grandparent who dies is a tragedy. It's not macabre to count the number of children affected any more than it is macabre to count the number of people over 80 who die. Or the number of women. If you don't count and classify according to demographics how can you understand what's going on? I don't know why you and FA@AC are so worked up about the "well established" statement? Isn't it well established? Here is a graph straight from the Government Canada. Please tell me how your interpretation would differ?
  6. Yeah, probably true. A vote for PPC allows the Liberals a win. The upside however, if the PPC gets 10% or more of the vote, is that it shows they have legs. The next vote, they get 15%, the one after they get 25%. In my riding it's virtually guaranteed that the libs win - might as well vote PPC just to add to their numbers.
  7. Well, I don't know. Every death is a tragedy to the family and loved ones of those involved - doesn't matter if it's a child or a great-grandparent. The F2F group is saying that Covid is mostly about older, co-morbid people. You 're saying, "what about the children?". I'm just asking about the relative impact of Covid on children. Your post seems to imply that you feel there is an adverse or inordinate effect on children. I'm just asking if you have done any research to back this up?
  8. I agree. Vote PPC! Let's turn this country around.
  9. How many children have died from Covid? I have no idea but you seem to think it's a large number. I don't have the time to do the research but would be curious to know how Covid deaths stack up against the traditional causes of motor vehicle accidents, drowning, etc.
  10. .....and nothing about microchips or becoming magnetic.
  11. Please don't do that. Don't try to discredit someone or some group by falsely attributing claims to them. Their platform is posted on the site - argue the facts, if you wish.
  12. 1). First of all, don't know why you're talking about .223 as it's not legal for hunting anywhere in Canada (maybe small game like rabbits) so that's hardly the comparison. 2). The Enfield .303 has an accuracy of somewhere between 2 and 6 MOA. That means a skilled person can hit (approx) a 2 inch to 6 inch circle at 100 yards. Sounds alright because the desired target area on a deer is bigger than 6 inches but there are several assumptions; perfect conditions, a rested and proficient shooter, etc. Take a cold, and tired hunter who's been sitting in a tree-stand for 4 hours or tramping through the bush since 5:00 AM and he might get 10 or 12 MOA. Add in a bit of wind and the MOA can jump to 14 or 16. If the distance is 200 yards the MOA doubles. So, the theoretical ability of the mighty Enfield to be able to make 4 inch circles at 100 yards can very easily become a hunting rifle that might put the bullet in a 2 foot circle in the field - that's a miss or a wounded animal. Neither desirable. Almost any modern rifle can shoot 1 MOA. Some advertise as being "Sub 1 MOA" which means they can virtually always put the shots in a circle less than 1 inch in diameter at 100 yards. So, if you, being the marksman you claim to be, want to hunt with a 100 year old rifle and you feel that you can compensate for the inherent problems with doing so - great. What's your advice for someone just getting into hunting - buy an old Enfield or get a new rifle? One way will result in some failed hunts with wasted time and money and the occasional wounded animal that runs away to die in a ditch even with your best effort at shooting and tracking while the other gives you the best possible chance to take the animal humanely and the ability to take a follow-up shot if needed. I often hear old-timers say what you said; "I only need one shot", "I don't need a scope", "I use an old bolt .303." Somehow the story about the time they took a shot and missed at 100 yards never gets told. The story about the time they saw a deer at 200 yards and didn't take the shot because they weren't confident never gets told. The story about the time they had to track a wounded animal for hours because they clipped it never gets told. Reminds me of people who will brag about their trip to the casino and how much they won - never hear about the 4 other trips where they lost money. My father used to walk 3 miles to school. Uphill both ways. I checked; less than a mile, flat ground (both ways). 3). Your idea that a bullet that goes "through and through" is superior or desirable is archaic. The number 1 goal is to hit the target in the target area. The number 2 goal is that all the energy of the bullet is transferred to the target. If the bullet exits the target (through and through) it represents a failure of the shooter - wrong ammo choice or wrong rifle. You seem to misunderstand - you want a shockwave with fatal internal damage to the organs. The idea is to kill the deer immediately, not for it to run away with a little .303" hole in it.
  13. I don't think that's the right way of looking at it. Do still drive an old car with a standard transmission or do you have a newer car with an automatic? Technology moves forward. True, you can successfully hunt with WW1 surplus Enfield but if you're going to make that argument why not just use a black powder musket? The new semi-auto rifles are finely tuned and very accurate and hold 4 rounds. I would guess most hunts still only take 1 shot. You might be surprised to hear but a lot of these are used for target shooting - therefore the semi-auto aspect is a significant benefit.
  14. This is a huge problem. I'm a gun owner. Sometimes, when the subject comes up, I'll ask about the person's understanding of the current laws. Surprise! Most know almost nothing and what little they do know comes from US media. "We should have background checks." We do. And they are incredibly thorough. 'We should ban automatic weapons." These have not been legal in Canada for 40 years. "We should make it illegal to carry handguns." Yup, already illegal. 'You should have to have a license to buy a gun." You do have to have a license to buy a gun. "We should make criminals and those with mental health issues ineligible from buying guns." We do. Don't even get me started on the whole nonsense of "assault rifles." What a load of cr@p.
  15. I went last night to vote at the advance poll so ain't nobody gonna change my mind. BTW, if you have solidly made your choice I recommend taking advantage of the advance poll - not a single person in sight at mine. Didn't even break my stride on the way through!
  16. I'm simply saying this; there are some people who experience serious medical episodes after getting the vaccine. My doctor says; "Yeah, well, when you vaccinate a bazillion people, statistically, you're gonna have people with medical events - doesn't mean it's connected." That's true, can't argue, but VAERS does have thousands of deaths reported. Other sources estimate that somewhere between 1 and 10 % of vaccination injury events are reported to VAERS. What's the truth? I sure don't know. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's a strong tendency to play up the stories such as, "Anti-vaxxer dies from Covid" while dismissing, hand-waving or downplaying any that run counter to the narrative. Here's a rather long-winded example, I'll try to write it so it makes sense; In both the Pfizer and Moderna Vaccine clinical trials, incidents of Bell’s Palsy were cited as medically attended adverse events (MAAE). Pfizer had 4 in the vaccine group, zero in the placebo. Moderna had 3 in vaccine group, 1 in placebo group. My co-worker's wife developed Bell's Palsy after vaccination. So, I'm talking to my doctor (maybe 4 months ago) about my vaccination concerns and I mention the co-worker/wife/Bell's Palsy situation. He totally dismisses it. Says, "Bell's Palsy is actually quite common. I could walk into any emergency room and find at least one person with it." This concerns me. Pfizer and Moderna themselves presented data showing it might be an issue and my doctor dismisses it - completely refuses to acknowledge any possible connection. Maybe I'm just hyper-sensitive but if this is his thinking - to dismiss anything that falls outside his clinical experience as irrelevant how can I trust his advice?
  17. Yes, that is interesting but you realize that only includes "Covid" cases, right. Someone get's the vaccine and then a week later has an MI or stroke - doesn't show on the list of Covid cases. I don't know how much of this there is - anecdotally there's - lots, officially there's - none. What's the truth? There's likely some - statistically significant? God knows.
  18. Yes, good story. Anti-vaxxer dies from the Covid. Gotta love the irony of that. What about the story of the pro-vaxxer who died from the vaccine? I make no claim about the relative numbers of "anti" vs "pro" dying from their choice. VAERS shows thousands of deaths after the vaccine and this number is widely thought to be a gross underrepresentation but, of course we'll never know the truth about whether these deaths were an adverse reaction to the vaccine or just co-incidence and I would certainly never make any claim. One thing is for sure, you won't see it being reported.
  19. Thank you UpperDeck; Your post shows the value of higher education.
  20. Come on. I expect better from you. Really, attack the source? With out doing a simple search? https://www.9news.com.au/national/coronavirus-victoria-update-september-3-new-cases-state-bracing-for-rise-in-hospitalisations-until-more-are-vaccinated/865d8469-e639-41a5-8858-060c2bdb567a https://au.news.yahoo.com/vic-cases-rise-delta-changes-173038752.html https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/unvaccinated-patrons-may-be-locked-out-of-hospitality-venues-when-nsw-reopens-report-c-3804801 https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/coronavirus/2021/09/03/vaccines-victoria-locked-out/ https://www.christianitydaily.com/articles/13199/20210908/australian-government-says-unvaccinated-people-will-be-locked-out-of-the-economy.htm
  21. I sure get a kick out of this: Fleury, 53, has also touted ivermectin, an anti-parasitic medicine commonly used for livestock, as an alternative COVID-19 treatment, and lambasted the mainstream media as liars for an "absolute all out disinformation campaign" over use of the medication. Yes, it is commonly used for livestock. It is also commonly used for humans and has been for 40 years. Whether you believe it's effective for Covid or not the constant media labeling of it as "de-worming medicine for horses" or "anti-parasitic medicine for livestock" without acknowledging that has been, and is, completely acceptable for human use (when prescribed and dosed by a doctor, of course) is dishonest. To be clear, I am not encouraging or suggesting it as a Covid treatment. I merely saying that the drug itself has human approval.
  22. One step at a time. First "cuts" are not bad, right? As long as we can find some mutually acceptable place to do them. Oil and gas? Businesses who soak up taxpayer dollars for little benefit? Of course. Let's do it. I'm just trying to get some acceptance of the idea that "cutting" is not necessarily a bad thing and may be essential to long term survival.
  23. Why do you see cutting spending as such a negative? There is a limited (although Trudeau doesn't think so) amount of money the government can spend. We (Canadians) just spend an incredible sum of money to deal with Covid. Maybe it was necessary but we still have to pay it. Everything doesn't have to go up and up forever - sometimes you need to pull back. Chretien and Martin cut a lot. It was necessary. I voted for Chretien 3 times because he was doing the right thing. You, obviously, don't think O'Toole is the right guy. That's fine but at least admit that the idea of cutting spending on it's own is not such a bad idea.
  24. You should have stopped at "they're all greasy". Surely you don't think Trudeau and his governence will put more money in your pocket? O'Toole might be hopeless but at least he says he's going to try to right the ship - Trudeau won't even admit we're sinking.
×
×
  • Create New...