All Things Kansas.
https://www.kansascrimson.com/boards/
The likelihood of having longterm effects from a virus are MUCH MUCH higher than from a vaccine.Walrus wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 3:49 pm We're never going to see eye to eye, so all I ask is that the vax remain voluntary. I've known several people who got covid and did not even realize it because it was so mild. I've known of a few older people who did die from it, all of which had some health issue prior. I would rather take my chances with the virus rather than with big phrama. Just my .02. Hopefully in the next couple of years we find out that there are no serious long term effects from the vaccine -- I hope. I just have concerns about it possibly damaging the natural immune system, which comes from some experts. They could be wrong, but we shall see. I don't like taking risks with my body.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/09/who-scr ... known.htmlWalrus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:33 am Pretty funny to see this. Back in June 2020, CNBC had this video that wasn't supposed to go live.
I can see why they took it down later, as they wanted people to keep their masks on and live in fear. Fortunately, you can watch it on another channel. They probably made this video because that was the time the protests/riots were happening and this is how they tried to justify it.
That was of course after they realized putting out the truth did not serve the narrative.twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:30 amhttps://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/09/who-scr ... known.htmlWalrus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:33 am Pretty funny to see this. Back in June 2020, CNBC had this video that wasn't supposed to go live.
I can see why they took it down later, as they wanted people to keep their masks on and live in fear. Fortunately, you can watch it on another channel. They probably made this video because that was the time the protests/riots were happening and this is how they tried to justify it.
"“Some estimates of around 40% of transmission may be due to asymptomatic, but those are from models, so I didn’t include that in my answer yesterday, but wanted to make sure that I covered that here,” Kerkhove said. "
Or it was to provide additional context to just what that that "truth" covered and didn't cover.Walrus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:22 amThat was of course after they realized putting out the truth did not serve the narrative.twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:30 amhttps://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/09/who-scr ... known.htmlWalrus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:33 am Pretty funny to see this. Back in June 2020, CNBC had this video that wasn't supposed to go live.
I can see why they took it down later, as they wanted people to keep their masks on and live in fear. Fortunately, you can watch it on another channel. They probably made this video because that was the time the protests/riots were happening and this is how they tried to justify it.
"“Some estimates of around 40% of transmission may be due to asymptomatic, but those are from models, so I didn’t include that in my answer yesterday, but wanted to make sure that I covered that here,” Kerkhove said. "
As a broad policy, requiring it is wrong. I don't ever see a city or state requiring it. But on a case by case basis, I understand certain employers requiring it. It depends on the job and the level of risk/exposure. Certain jobs already require drug screenings, others such as certain health care jobs would obviously have minimum vaccination requirements. There was a lot of conversation about this back in 2015 when the big measles outbreak hit Disneyland.Walrus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 2:06 pm Absolutely terrifying and wrong. They aren't even hiding their sick agenda.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/07/covid-v ... -shot.html