AFL star’s anti-vax views cost him friendship

Remove this Banner Ad

Chief

Chugging Adrenochrome
Dec 1, 1999
102,916
82,096
Gates' Payroll
AFL Club
Carlton

In the peak fortnight of the outbreak to date (25 August to 7 September), the COVID-19 case rate among 2-dose vaccinated people was 49.5 per 100,000 while in unvaccinated people it was 561 per 100,000, a more than 10-fold difference. The rates of COVID-19 ICU admissions or deaths peaked in the fortnight 8 September to 21 September at 0.9 per 100,000 in 2-dose vaccinated people compared to 15.6 per 100,000 in unvaccinated people, a greater than 16-fold difference.
 
Last edited:

phantom13

Moderator
Sep 12, 2007
20,426
27,649
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
mRNA technology is still an emerging and evolving science. The vaccines are the groundbreaking research.

Your question doesn't even make sense.
For someone so well educated and smart your comprehension seems to be an issue.

You said "With science, one discovery can be groundbreaking. If you "believe in science", you believe in the ability of the method to move our understanding of reality".

The current advice is overwhelmingly vaccine=good, covid=bad, covid without vaccine=real bad.

So what one discovery (groundbreaking or not) would support people not being vaccinated? you are championing their cause so you must have a reason (and it shouldnt be "we dont know the side effects" cause if you cant quantify, measure and validate it then its not science).
 

Monkey King

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 31, 2007
27,310
15,486
In N Out
AFL Club
Carlton
Glorious.

Clearly, anyone saying they believe in science, is using the short-hand version of saying something akin to "I believe in listening to the qualified experts in relevant topic areas doing the relevant research with the best current information and evidence that humanity has available".
So long as you understand that listening to an expert is not believing in science. That's believing in listening to an expert.

Nah, you're making vague statements and I think you should be very clear.
So what you're saying is, you don't understand what I've written.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Monkey King

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 31, 2007
27,310
15,486
In N Out
AFL Club
Carlton
For someone so well educated and smart your comprehension seems to be an issue.
I'm not even going to bother with this. Your logic is flawed. Your recognition of that is not required.

If you're asking, is there a circumstance where medical research supports someone not needing vaccination for immunity, yes there is.
 

phantom13

Moderator
Sep 12, 2007
20,426
27,649
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
I'm not even going to bother with this. Your logic is flawed. Your recognition of that is not required.

If you're asking, is there a circumstance where medical research supports someone not needing vaccination for immunity, yes there is.
I think its pretty clear what im asking and its not your second point... Ive never ever argued against legitimate medical exemptions. Looks alot like your being evasive cause you cant answer the question, standard fare from you TBH.
 

Monkey King

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 31, 2007
27,310
15,486
In N Out
AFL Club
Carlton
It wasn’t?
It sure wasn't.

There is no link between vaccination status and genetic mutation. If the basis of your hope for others dying is evolutionary theory, then you would be hoping your family members get infected and live, not get infected and die. Potentially that could even be more advantageous than vaccination alone.
 

Taylor Moss

All Australian
Oct 1, 2021
633
842
AFL Club
GWS
It sure wasn't.

There is no link between vaccination status and genetic mutation. If the basis of your hope for others dying is evolutionary theory, then you would be hoping your family members get infected and live, not get infected and die. Potentially that could even be more advantageous than vaccination alone.
I’ve got a mate in Colorado that doesn’t agree with what you’re saying at all.
 

Monkey King

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 31, 2007
27,310
15,486
In N Out
AFL Club
Carlton
I think its pretty clear what im asking and its not your second point... Ive never ever argued against legitimate medical exemptions. Looks alot like your being evasive cause you cant answer the question, standard fare from you TBH.
Why do cars float?

Oh you're just being evasive.

Ask a real question.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

phantom13

Moderator
Sep 12, 2007
20,426
27,649
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
Why do cars float?

Oh you're just being evasive.

Ask a real question.
Ive asked it twice. How am i being evasive? Ill go a third time just so you can not answer it again.

What one (current) discovery (groundbreaking or not) would support people not being vaccinated?

Noting that we can only go off current info which shows almost no adverse side effects against overwhelmingly high benefits of being vaccinated.

You support people doing their own research (even against their doctor and other doctors and virologists advice) so what evidence is there that would support someone just straight up choosing not to be vaxxed (not for any legitimate medical reason)?
 

SBD Gonzalez

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 5, 2012
18,556
29,248
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Kidding, right?
Not everyone's knowledge comes from the internet. Shocking for you I know.

It's known as Planck's Principle. He said funeral. I was just going by memory, but it's the same principle.

There you go. You learned something today. It's a good day for you.
And you learned something too, not that you’d acknowledge it.

Heard back from the Kirby Institute yet?
 

owen87

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 23, 2016
17,134
21,735
AFL Club
Essendon
So long as you understand that listening to an expert is not believing in science. That's believing in listening to an expert.
Everyone should believe in listening to experts in their relevant fields. No one person can be an expert in anything. Believing in Science is believing in listening to experts in their relevant fields, talk about their findings, research and recommendations.

As much as you seem to have this bizarre position that it's otherwise.

If the best argument you've got, is some pedantic wordplay, you're well out of your depth in this thread.

So what you're saying is, you don't understand what I've written.
As usual, either you've conveyed your point poorly, or it's a poor point.

When the problem is consistently that other people are telling you that, it's not a 'them' problem, it's a 'you' problem.

For someone who claims to be a highly experienced and knowledgable medical person, your posting does a very good job at convincing people you're anything but.
 

phantom13

Moderator
Sep 12, 2007
20,426
27,649
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
Sure did. You rely on the internet for your knowledge and can't use a search engine very well.

It's pretty bleak.
Lol, what?

A google of Plancks principle says it is

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Its often MISQUOTED or paraphrased as

"Science progresses one funeral at a time".

So all youve done is misquote a misquote.

Well done.
 

SBD Gonzalez

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 5, 2012
18,556
29,248
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Kidding, right?
Sure did. You rely on the internet for your knowledge and can't use a search engine very well.

It's pretty bleak.
Fine, I’ll cogitate on that. (Will just remind you, I already said that Google ngram surveys the incidence of phrases in BOOKS, not in the internet. Of course they haven’t yet surveyed every book every written, but they have surveyed an awful lot.)

Now, heard back from the Kirby Institute yet?
 
Last edited:

BF Tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 5, 2007
8,384
19,502
9th
AFL Club
Richmond
Like all the pretend "science" believers, once people start talking science, you sink to the bottom.

If you genuinely have an interest in evolutionary theory, Richard Dawkins has some very readable material you might like.
So long as you understand that listening to Richard Dawkins is not believing in science. That's believing in listening to Richard Dawkins.

You’re all over the shop.
 

Jeremias

Moderator
Sep 26, 2004
40,717
47,691
AFL Club
Carlton
So long as you understand that listening to Richard Dawkins is not believing in science. That's believing in listening to Richard Dawkins.

You’re all over the shop.
On the plus side, listening to Richard Dawkins is a step in the right direction when compared to listening to old mate in Colorado.

Progress!
 

Monkey King

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 31, 2007
27,310
15,486
In N Out
AFL Club
Carlton
Lol, what?

A google of Plancks principle says it is

So all youve done is misquote a misquote.

Well done.
Hahaha. You're like a dog shamefully trying to bury a turd in the carpet.

I'm glad now you were given the exact search terms you were able to connect with some knowlege.

I am sorry you were not aware of this very common saying. If you have an issue with "coffin" over "funeral", well that's just pathetic.
 

Monkey King

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 31, 2007
27,310
15,486
In N Out
AFL Club
Carlton
So long as you understand that listening to Richard Dawkins is not believing in science. That's believing in listening to Richard Dawkins.
Reading.

But absolutely. Reading Richard Dawkins will only point you to the science. Just follow the citations.

Wow! You seem to be learning. I am impressed.
 

phantom13

Moderator
Sep 12, 2007
20,426
27,649
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
Hahaha. You're like a dog shamefully trying to bury a turd in the carpet.

I'm glad now you were given the exact search terms you were able to connect with some knowlege.

I am sorry you were not aware of this very common saying. If you have an issue with "coffin" over "funeral", well that's just pathetic.
Mate, he (Max Planck, the guy whos quote you are butchering) doesnt say coffin OR funeral. He says...

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

You said coffin and people who misquote it say funeral. He said neither.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad