petergriffin999

petergriffin999 t1_iw7g8sb wrote

Patently untrue. The study I'm referring to showed of > 1000 households where 1 person had COVID (half vaxxed, half not) what was the effect on other family members that shared the household, and visitors, where there was also a good mix of vaxxed and not vaxxed.

Some acquired the virus, some didn't. But even those results were evenly distributed among vaxxed and non vaxxed.

−1

petergriffin999 t1_iw7ft7e wrote

Yep. Supposedly there is a benefit (to the vaccine) in terms of how hard it hits you, I'm seen conflicting studies on that so at this point I'm just giving it the benefit of the doubt as far as that goes.

But in terms of whether or not you acquire the virus, OR transmit it: vaccine has zero or negligible impact.

0

petergriffin999 t1_iw38byy wrote

The effect on transmission is zero, and the duration of transmissibility as it relates to peak viral load still had no impact on the case studies.

Check the lancet journal of medicine report from last October.

The data shows that for those at risk, it can help prevent more serious side effects. But that's it.

It has no measurable beneficial effect on either acquiring or transmitting the virus, in comparison to someone that is unvaccinated.

The data also shows now that the side effects re: heart problems, is due to the vaccine, not COVID-19. That doesn't mean it's evil or a plot or that the benefits might not outweigh the heart risk, for people who are at risk from severe problems due to COVID-19.

But as far as the people who said that it's a personal decision re: risk / reward, they were absolutely correct. Everyone who criticized them as "plague rats" were wrong.

−10

petergriffin999 t1_ivkp8ge wrote

Oh, I didn't know you were so against NH's current laws. And the laws of just about every single country in the world.

Supporting abortion at 8 months and 29 days is really, really gross and murdery. I hope you change your viewpoint.

−1

petergriffin999 t1_ivkoh94 wrote

You do know that New Hampshire's current policy has (scary capital letters mine) "NO EXCEPTION FOR RAPE VICTIMS", right?

That's because the current NH allows for abortion up to 24 weeks, and BANS it after that (some health concerns are an exception). If you were raped, you don't magically learn that after 24 weeks. That's why current NH law has "NO EXCEPTION FOR RAPE VICTIMS".

Liberals try to deceive, so they paint him as "supports a BAN on abortion, with NO EXCEPTION FOR RAPE VICTIMS", and you eat it up, thinking that he supports a ban on abortion 100% regardless how many days after sex, which simply is not true. He's also said over and over again that it is not a federal issue and would not support any federal involvement on the topic, it should be left up to the state.

−3

petergriffin999 t1_iuignaw wrote

Attempting to prevent, by breaking laws, whether successful or not... others from hearing the opposing viewpoint, is unacceptable.

You can have your opinion. You can organize your own public speaking event at the school to express your viewpoint. You can stand to the side and not impede others from entering the building, just like the anti abortionists are required to, and shout till your heart is content, without breaking any laws, and be free from persecution by the govt.

If you glue yourself to the doors, pull fire alarms, call in threats, or, like many loony liberals do: assault, throw concrete milkshakes, etc -- you should be arrested and prosecuted.

1

petergriffin999 t1_iuieaaj wrote

Just FYI protesting peacefully without breaking any laws sounds great.

Demanding that others not hear the message of the opposing viewpoint isn't protesting.

The 1st amendment entitles you to be free of persecution from the govt for holding and expressing your opinion.

It doesn't allow you to block traffic, entrance to buildings, pull fire alarms.

When you think that others shouldn't be able to simply hear a viewpoint, then you should check yourself.

1