VenusPrincess

So you're criticizing my prose rather than it's meaning? Seems pretty immature to me. Correct ideas need not be eloquent. Yes, indeed, special cases often require special treatment. Vaccinating fatties and geezers will do the trick for the most part. Immunocompromised people are special cases who may or may not be best served by getting vaccinated right now. These are complicated matters. ... Is that supposed to be an argument? Your family was vaccinated, and therefore what I said is nonsense... what? The word you're looking for is transmission, not infection. You don't even understand the basics.

stupid Special cases should be treated specially, did you expect me to enumerate all of them? Don't be obtuse. Being a fattie or a geezer are the most common risk factors.

This demonstrates a profound inability to understand the subject material. The problem is that leaky vaccines could allow more virulent versions of a virus to survive, not that nonsense you just spouted.

This is a prime example of being just smart enough to have an infantile grasp of a complex topic but not smart enough to truly understand it. Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens (plos.org) This chicken vaccine makes its virus more dangerous | PBS NewsHour

From Assessing the Age Specificity of Infection Fatality Rates for COVID-19: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Public Policy Implications From Certain Medical Conditions and Risk for Severe COVID-19 Illness | CDC

You are a victim of this as well.

What a shame that nobody actually read the article.

Completely unnecessary to get vaccinated if you aren't fat or an old geezer.

See below, emphasis mine. Do you believe those women would voluntarily bear the embarrassment of losing to teenage boys if they could have prevented it? Your grasp on reality is weak, arguably even pathological or indicative of mental illness. This is why some people will never vote liberal despite agreeing with many of their other policies. Such a shame that a party with many good ideas is sullied by mentally unwell people.

From FC Dallas under-15 boys squad beat the U.S. Women's National Team in a scrimmage - CBSSports.com in 2017:

If any of the sons has cataracts and the parents are healthy then the parents must be heterozygotes. Now if the twins are dizygotic the probability that both sons will have cataracts is 1/16, the probability that only one son will have cataracts is 3/8, and the probability that both sons will be healthy is 9/16. If however the twins are monozygotic then the probability that both sons will have cataracts is 1/4, the probability that only one son will have cataracts is 0, and the probability that both sons will be healthy is 3/4. Then P(monozygotic | both sons have cataracts) = P(both sons have cataracts | monozygotic) / P(both sons have cataracts) and by Bayes' theorem: P(monozygotic | both sons have cataracts) = 1/4 / (1/4 * P(monozygotic) + 1/16 * P(dizygotic)) and by pattern matching: P(dizygotic | both sons have cataracts) = 1/16 / (1/4 * P(monozygotic) + 1/16 * P(dizygotic)) so that it's 4 times more likely that they are monozygotic. I was able to do these deductions and calculations almost instantly despite not being an expert in genetics, so you should be able to figure it out if you have decent mathematical aptitude. Edit: Actually since it's located on the X chromosome and the mother is healthy the sons will always be healthy unless there are mutations... so the question makes no sense.

A warning point for not divulging sensitive personal details about the basis for my gender identity? Would you like to tell us the basis for your gender identity? Idiot. Ah, took a look at your profile... communications major. What's the matter, you weren't smart enough for physics? I work in a field that requires real aptitude and when communications majors apply I throw their resume in the trash.

If I answer your question you'll use the basis for my gender identity to claim that I don't believe any other basis is valid. So I won't answer. Is there any other point to your question than to trap me? I have zero faith in your ability to be intellectually honest so I won't even give you that ammunition.

I did. If a person's gender is dependent upon their belief then the basis for my own gender identity may not be the same as theirs, so your attempt to suss out a "simple and scientific" basis for my own identity is a waste of time as it would not necessarily concede a rejection of a more complicated basis for anyone else's identity if the basis truly is arbitrary. See how confusing things become when we let people define words however they'd like?

I said insurmountable and systematic. My example shows a systematic difference which is typical in athletics. Your examples are in fact the ones which are specific, anecdotal, and not observed at the highest levels of performance. Reality can be boring. While your fantasies may be more interesting, nature cannot be fooled.