The numbers don't add up and there is no valid reason for these illegal mandates: The deaths from the shots, should be counted with the deaths from C***d for v******ted people.

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

The deaths from the shots, should be counted with the deaths from C***d for v******ted people. Especially when compared with the deaths of the unv******ted NOW, and not through the live of he p******c.

The deaths of those should then be compared to the unv******ted, on a sliding scale of when the v*****e was available, and the range that they use of protected as two weeks after the second shot.

Then they need to factor away from the unv******ted, those that have natural immunity from a previous infection.

Only then can they come up with verifiable numbers for comparison to the need for the v*****e against the risks of not getting v******ted.

But the government is using all of the deaths from before the v*****e was even developed, to compare to the few deaths of the v******ted today, and excluding the deaths from the v*****e itself. And they are basing the need for mandates on these false numbers. The ratio of v******ted deaths today with the deaths from the shots are not of a large enough difference with the non immune deaths today.

If those numbers were 100 to 1, the government might start having a valid argument. But the numbers are probably way less then 5 to 1 and not worthy of a mandate. The people have that right to set that risk themselves along with religious beliefs and physical issues of concern like allergies.

The v******ted also show a large decreasing slide from being immune to not being immune. This would require a possible continuing need for more shots into eternity. These will also include the continuous risk of deaths from the shots themselves.

The mandates have no logical basis as a necessity for the safety of Americans.

The v******ted also have a large capacity to carry C***d and infect others, just as the unv******ted. Therefore any rule that forces requiring the unv******ted, including the immune from a prervious infection, to test more then the v******ted, is totally invalid and absurd.

These are the facts and logically arrived at. Any dispute just shows your inability to understand facts and logic.

Logically Right

Liberty Tree

LogicallyRight wrote:

The deaths from the shots, should be counted with ... (show quote)

The numbers we have been fed have never been accurate.

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

Liberty Tree wrote:

The numbers we have been fed have never been accurate.

Agreed. And they are using them for mandates

skyrider

LogicallyRight wrote:

The deaths from the shots, should be counted with the deaths from C***d for v******ted people. Especially when compared with the deaths of the unv******ted NOW, and not through the live of he p******c.

The deaths of those should then be compared to the unv******ted, on a sliding scale of when the v*****e was available, and the range that they use of protected as two weeks after the second shot.

Then they need to factor away from the unv******ted, those that have natural immunity from a previous infection.

Only then can they come up with verifiable numbers for comparison to the need for the v*****e against the risks of not getting v******ted.

But the government is using all of the deaths from before the v*****e was even developed, to compare to the few deaths of the v******ted today, and excluding the deaths from the v*****e itself. And they are basing the need for mandates on these false numbers. The ratio of v******ted deaths today with the deaths from the shots are not of a large enough difference with the non immune deaths today.

If those numbers were 100 to 1, the government might start having a valid argument. But the numbers are probably way less then 5 to 1 and not worthy of a mandate. The people have that right to set that risk themselves along with religious beliefs and physical issues of concern like allergies.

The v******ted also show a large decreasing slide from being immune to not being immune. This would require a possible continuing need for more shots into eternity. These will also include the continuous risk of deaths from the shots themselves.

The mandates have no logical basis as a necessity for the safety of Americans.

The v******ted also have a large capacity to carry C***d and infect others, just as the unv******ted. Therefore any rule that forces requiring the unv******ted, including the immune from a prervious infection, to test more then the v******ted, is totally invalid and absurd.

These are the facts and logically arrived at. Any dispute just shows your inability to understand facts and logic.

Logically Right

The deaths from the shots, should be counted with ... (show quote)

There you go again using logic. Apparently you don't know that like the Constitution, Logic is an evolving concept
and must adapt to the whims of the Lefty new enlightened majority. Sheez, get with the program, LogicallyRight.

Liberty Tree

LogicallyRight wrote:

Agreed. And they are using them for mandates

All about control

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

LogicallyRight wrote:

The deaths from the shots, should be counted with the deaths from C***d for v******ted people. Especially when compared with the deaths of the unv******ted NOW, and not through the live of he p******c.

The deaths of those should then be compared to the unv******ted, on a sliding scale of when the v*****e was available, and the range that they use of protected as two weeks after the second shot.

Then they need to factor away from the unv******ted, those that have natural immunity from a previous infection.

Only then can they come up with verifiable numbers for comparison to the need for the v*****e against the risks of not getting v******ted.

But the government is using all of the deaths from before the v*****e was even developed, to compare to the few deaths of the v******ted today, and excluding the deaths from the v*****e itself. And they are basing the need for mandates on these false numbers. The ratio of v******ted deaths today with the deaths from the shots are not of a large enough difference with the non immune deaths today.

If those numbers were 100 to 1, the government might start having a valid argument. But the numbers are probably way less then 5 to 1 and not worthy of a mandate. The people have that right to set that risk themselves along with religious beliefs and physical issues of concern like allergies.

The v******ted also show a large decreasing slide from being immune to not being immune. This would require a possible continuing need for more shots into eternity. These will also include the continuous risk of deaths from the shots themselves.

The mandates have no logical basis as a necessity for the safety of Americans.

The v******ted also have a large capacity to carry C***d and infect others, just as the unv******ted. Therefore any rule that forces requiring the unv******ted, including the immune from a prervious infection, to test more then the v******ted, is totally invalid and absurd.

These are the facts and logically arrived at. Any dispute just shows your inability to understand facts and logic.

Logically Right

The deaths from the shots, should be counted with ... (show quote)

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

lpnmajor wrote:

As usual. the comment of a simpleton without substance or logic or common sense

Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX

LogicallyRight wrote:

The deaths from the shots, should be counted with the deaths from C***d for v******ted people. Especially when compared with the deaths of the unv******ted NOW, and not through the live of he p******c.

The deaths of those should then be compared to the unv******ted, on a sliding scale of when the v*****e was available, and the range that they use of protected as two weeks after the second shot.

Then they need to factor away from the unv******ted, those that have natural immunity from a previous infection.

Only then can they come up with verifiable numbers for comparison to the need for the v*****e against the risks of not getting v******ted.

But the government is using all of the deaths from before the v*****e was even developed, to compare to the few deaths of the v******ted today, and excluding the deaths from the v*****e itself. And they are basing the need for mandates on these false numbers. The ratio of v******ted deaths today with the deaths from the shots are not of a large enough difference with the non immune deaths today.

If those numbers were 100 to 1, the government might start having a valid argument. But the numbers are probably way less then 5 to 1 and not worthy of a mandate. The people have that right to set that risk themselves along with religious beliefs and physical issues of concern like allergies.

The v******ted also show a large decreasing slide from being immune to not being immune. This would require a possible continuing need for more shots into eternity. These will also include the continuous risk of deaths from the shots themselves.

The mandates have no logical basis as a necessity for the safety of Americans.

The v******ted also have a large capacity to carry C***d and infect others, just as the unv******ted. Therefore any rule that forces requiring the unv******ted, including the immune from a prervious infection, to test more then the v******ted, is totally invalid and absurd.

These are the facts and logically arrived at. Any dispute just shows your inability to understand facts and logic.

Logically Right

The deaths from the shots, should be counted with ... (show quote)

Our government went bankrupt in 2017. Everything since then has been illegal and a movie. Trump and our military are using it to drain the swamp while still following our constitution and military law. That move bypasses the DOJ, FBI, CIA, and the swamp monsters. Visit the American Mint website and you can purchase a 14K solid gold coin for 29.00. It's only 5 grams, but it still a good deal. Only one per order.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

LogicallyRight wrote:

The deaths from the shots, should be counted with the deaths from C***d for v******ted people. Especially when compared with the deaths of the unv******ted NOW, and not through the live of he p******c.

The deaths of those should then be compared to the unv******ted, on a sliding scale of when the v*****e was available, and the range that they use of protected as two weeks after the second shot.

Then they need to factor away from the unv******ted, those that have natural immunity from a previous infection.

Only then can they come up with verifiable numbers for comparison to the need for the v*****e against the risks of not getting v******ted.

But the government is using all of the deaths from before the v*****e was even developed, to compare to the few deaths of the v******ted today, and excluding the deaths from the v*****e itself. And they are basing the need for mandates on these false numbers. The ratio of v******ted deaths today with the deaths from the shots are not of a large enough difference with the non immune deaths today.

If those numbers were 100 to 1, the government might start having a valid argument. But the numbers are probably way less then 5 to 1 and not worthy of a mandate. The people have that right to set that risk themselves along with religious beliefs and physical issues of concern like allergies.

The v******ted also show a large decreasing slide from being immune to not being immune. This would require a possible continuing need for more shots into eternity. These will also include the continuous risk of deaths from the shots themselves.

The mandates have no logical basis as a necessity for the safety of Americans.

The v******ted also have a large capacity to carry C***d and infect others, just as the unv******ted. Therefore any rule that forces requiring the unv******ted, including the immune from a prervious infection, to test more then the v******ted, is totally invalid and absurd.

These are the facts and logically arrived at. Any dispute just shows your inability to understand facts and logic.

Logically Right

The deaths from the shots, should be counted with ... (show quote)

What doesn’t add up is why all this BS going on is still declared a p******c !!!
Then again, considering the SCOTUS only acknowledges “ extraordinary measures allowed during a p******c perhaps therein lies your answer!!!

A p******c is an epidemic of an infectious disease that has spread across a large region, for instance multiple continents or worldwide, affecting a substantial number of individuals. A widespread endemic disease with a stable number of infected individuals is not a p******c. Widespread endemic diseases with a stable number of infected individuals such as recurrences of seasonal influenza are generally excluded as they occur simultaneously in large regions of the globe rather than being spread worldwide. Throughout human history, there have been a number of p******cs of diseases such as smallpox. The most fatal p******c in recorded history was the Black Death, which k**led an estimated 75–200 million people in the 14th century. The term was not used yet but was for later p******cs including the 1918 influenza p******c. Recent p******cs include tuberculosis, Russian flu, Spanish flu, Asian flu, cholera, Hong Kong flu, HIV/AIDS, SARS and C****-**.Wikipedia

The Ms.

lindajoy wrote:

What doesn’t add up is why all this BS going on is... (show quote)

Just the insanity of our Leftest buddies ….. like calling a birthday party a funeral….

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

The Ms. wrote:

Just the insanity of our Leftest buddies ….. like calling a birthday party a funeral….

Their actions are “ intended” not “ just anything like, blah, blah, blah~~~.” We all need to be demanding the closure of this supposed p******c..They will just keep it going…

Our l*****t progressive socialist are “no buddy to any of us” and have made that quite clear~~~

The Ms.

lindajoy wrote:

Their actions are “ intended” not “ just anything like, blah, blah, blah~~~.” We all need to be demanding the closure of this supposed p******c..They will just keep it going…

Our l*****t progressive socialist are “no buddy to any of us” and have made that quite clear~~~

Linda,
I was trying to be kind because it was you I was responding to😁Definitely no one’s buddies and did stupid as usual… a nothing burger p******c…..they can’t even invent a p******c that’s believable …. Dems are the poster wackos for Narcissistic Personality Disorder….Doomed to fail from inception! Good job lefties. Just some thoughts. Hope all is well.
D**gon Blessings 🐲🐲🐲

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

The Ms. wrote:

Linda,
I was trying to be kind because it was you I was responding to😁Definitely no one’s buddies and did stupid as usual… a nothing burger p******c…..they can’t even invent a p******c that’s believable …. Dems are the poster wackos for Narcissistic Personality Disorder….Doomed to fail from inception! Good job lefties. Just some thoughts. Hope all is well.
D**gon Blessings 🐲🐲🐲

Oh my sweet dear friend… I am truly sorry if my post came across as anything to offend or hurt you… I would never intentionally do any such thing…

I was just replying with my feelings about it all. I’m beyond disgusted with them and what they are doing to our country. And this sums it up rather nicely~~~

“Dems are the “poster wackos for Narcissistic Personality Disorder”….Doomed to fail from inception”…👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻