I have one of those obsessed, "highly educated", paranoid family members who constantly posts CV19 BS. I don't have the time to go through what she just posted, "30 bad arguments about CV19 vaccines" but I figure for those who have the time, I ask to please have at it with your rebuttal(s). Pick a "bad argument", add your sources, post to this thread, and away we go. Thanks everyone.
The article is too big to fully cut and paste, but here is the URL:
Got you on the first five:
To be clear, though, they are not swayed by logical arguments. Their arguments get peppered with statistics (flawed at that) but only to bolster an emotional argument.
Based on deliberately flawed tracking. The CDC itself admitted that it's number is about 20x overinflated. To now start injecting experimental shots into the entire population based on that premise is NOT SCIENTIFIC.
This is an error in understanding the magnitude of the population. 5.5 million people are said to have died "from" covid, but that equates to 0.007% of the world population. Heart disease and cancer alone kill almost 30 million people every year. 5.5 million is only a large number without context. That is NOT SCIENTIFIC.
Yes it does. People WITHOUT co-morbidities are at a significantly lower risk of dying from COVID. Ignoring that and making them inject experimental shots just because you want them to get vaxed is NOT SCIENTIFIC.
For the vast majority of people who contract it, it is no worse than the flu. This is ESPECIALLY true for children. Only 1-5% of people have severe symptoms. Around 15% have mild symptoms. Around 80% have NO symptoms. This is information that the public should be aware of so they can decide for themselves if the jab is for them or not. Also, Flu deaths have been (un)surprisingly flat for the last couple of years, while covid killed 5.5 million. We know that covid deaths are inflated by the CDC's own admission. One way they did this was by calling every respiratory illness "COVID" without a positive test (or any test). To most people it really is no worse than the flu, but since we can't trust your numbers I have to reject the premise of your argument.
Previously "millions" was the huge number, now it's "thousands." The risk to young healthy people is miniscule. And if they catch it and spread it to people at higher risk? When you can guarantee that the vaccine will 99.9% prevent infectoin, then maybe that's a good argument. But it doesn't and you can't quantify BY HOW MUCH the jab prevents infection and spread. To add to that, if the higher risk people are vaccinated, they should be protected, right? So either you know the vaccine doesn't work and you're evil, or you have blind faith in the vaccine and you're stupid.