Red Mosquito

spike wrote:Where’s all the evidence that the vaccine is bad for you, Bi_3? Why spend anymore energy on this?

It's not that it's inherently bad, though Dr. Wen indicates cardiovascular issues are much more common than originally thought and EU data suggests 'excess death' rates need a thorough review, it's that it's no longer necessary for broader public health goals. Should you choose to read before you react, you'll see my posts are about mandates not the vaccine itself. The time for vaccine mandates is past as COVID is an order of magnitude less dangerous today then when we were all vaxxed last year. BUT, if you want to keep injecting your kids every 6 months (is it down to 3 yet?) have at it. Pfizer is gonna buy a big competitor next year and would love your support. Just don't pretend it's for the greater good anymore.


This post was made on 22.Dec.22 at 7:50am EST and it's opinions/conclusions are subject to change should new data arise.

Did Pfizer estimate that for every 1 hospitalization prevented for 18 year olds, 18-38 severe vaccine reactions in that same group would occur? If so, very difficult to justify the military vaccine mandate.

Bi_3 wrote:

spike wrote:Where’s all the evidence that the vaccine is bad for you, Bi_3? Why spend anymore energy on this?

It's not that it's inherently bad, though Dr. Wen indicates cardiovascular issues are much more common than originally thought and EU data suggests 'excess death' rates need a thorough review, it's that it's no longer necessary for broader public health goals. Should you choose to read before you react, you'll see my posts are about mandates not the vaccine itself. The time for vaccine mandates is past as COVID is an order of magnitude less dangerous today then when we were all vaxxed last year. BUT, if you want to keep injecting your kids every 6 months (is it down to 3 yet?) have at it. Pfizer is gonna buy a big competitor next year and would love your support. Just don't pretend it's for the greater good anymore.


This post was made on 22.Dec.22 at 7:50am EST and it's opinions/conclusions are subject to change should new data arise.

Mandates aren’t a big deal if you trust the science.

simple schoolboy wrote:Did Pfizer estimate that for every 1 hospitalization prevented for 18 year olds, 18-38 severe vaccine reactions in that same group would occur? If so, very difficult to justify the military vaccine mandate.

There's no way that's true.

B wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:Did Pfizer estimate that for every 1 hospitalization prevented for 18 year olds, 18-38 severe vaccine reactions in that same group would occur? If so, very difficult to justify the military vaccine mandate.

There's no way that's true.

I've seen it claimed and am trying to figure out what misinterpreted/ misrepresented tidbit they based this off of.

Edit: that number might be in the ballpark of what you'd get if you assumed all reported adverse reactions from Pfizer's safety surveillance report are properly attributed to the vaccine and ignored the placebo reaction rate. Hospitalization rate for 18 year olds from Covid has to be <0.6% or whatever the reaction rate is.

If phrased with so many qualifications as to be useless it might be directionally correct.

spike wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

spike wrote:Where’s all the evidence that the vaccine is bad for you, Bi_3? Why spend anymore energy on this?

It's not that it's inherently bad, though Dr. Wen indicates cardiovascular issues are much more common than originally thought and EU data suggests 'excess death' rates need a thorough review, it's that it's no longer necessary for broader public health goals. Should you choose to read before you react, you'll see my posts are about mandates not the vaccine itself. The time for vaccine mandates is past as COVID is an order of magnitude less dangerous today then when we were all vaxxed last year. BUT, if you want to keep injecting your kids every 6 months (is it down to 3 yet?) have at it. Pfizer is gonna buy a big competitor next year and would love your support. Just don't pretend it's for the greater good anymore.


This post was made on 22.Dec.22 at 7:50am EST and it's opinions/conclusions are subject to change should new data arise.

Mandates aren’t a big deal if you trust the science.

Science is the process of continually questioning and reevaluating what you think you know based on new evidence. The situation has evolved and our previous tools and methods are no longer applicable. We don't stick sick COVID patients into nursing homes anymore. We don't disinfect our mail or food. We don't wear cloth masks and plastic gloves every time we step outside. Why? Because re-evaluating the evidence showed us these do not produce the desired results. Same thing with mandates. All that did was get thousands of teachers and nurses fired and empower a previously niche anti-vax industry to destroy the credibility of public health officials in the eyes of half the country.

That’s certainly one way to look at it.

spike wrote:That’s certainly one way to look at it.

Okay, maybe not half the country, Spike. But you know what he means.

Science only makes sense when it fits nicely into your worldview. Otherwise, it’s just nerds in lab coats talking that crazy Marxist talk.

elliseamos wrote:

spike wrote:That’s certainly one way to look at it.

Okay, maybe not half the country, Spike. But you know what he means.

What's the uptake on COVID vaccines for under 5 year olds? Less than 10 percent?

We knew these shots made no sense for kids more than a year before they were approved. MMR and other vaccines that make sense for kids are decreasing in uptake because the authorities blew it on this.

Are we concerned that COVID will become a required shot for preschoolers? Seems unlikely that we'll see many requirements for kids at all.

I'd expect that the only people you see required to get it going forward are people who already had flu shot requirements back in 2019.

Question about natural immunity, from a personal perspective, not public health ...

Wouldn't you rather get the vaccine and have no COVID or a mild case of COVID (that then gives you natural immunity), than have get a full-blown case of COVID?

Why would a person risk all that COVID has to give just to get natural immunity? What's the point of having natural immunity, if you have to bear the full brunt of COVID to get it?

B wrote:Question about natural immunity, from a personal perspective, not public health ...

Wouldn't you rather get the vaccine and have no COVID or a mild case of COVID (that then gives you natural immunity), than have get a full-blown case of COVID?

Why would a person risk all that COVID has to give just to get natural immunity? What's the point of having natural immunity, if you have to bear the full brunt of COVID to get it?

You’re being too logical. Cut it out. Oh, and merry Christmas

B wrote:Question about natural immunity, from a personal perspective, not public health ...

Wouldn't you rather get the vaccine and have no COVID or a mild case of COVID (that then gives you natural immunity), than have get a full-blown case of COVID?

Why would a person risk all that COVID has to give just to get natural immunity? What's the point of having natural immunity, if you have to bear the full brunt of COVID to get it?

This line of questioning really depends on age and risk factors.

The other side of questioning is how do the spike proteins interact with various tissues and where do they end up?

Do you get more spike proteins in areas you wouldn't initially expect with the vaccine or with the virus?

Lot of open questions here, but if there is an appreciable risk of adverse vaccine reaction, there is almost certainly a population where the vaccine is riskier than viral exposure. Impossible to define that group as it stands, but we can estimate.

Five year olds are almost certainly part of this group, and it's insane to push this vaccine on this group with effectively no demonstrated benefit.

For my personal risk? I just had some sort of bug, of which I almost always get once a year between Thanksgiving and New Years for my annual week of being sickly. Tested negative for COVID yet again, so if I have gotten it I've never noticed.

Some virologists thought it would be as infeasible to inoculate* against COVID as it is the common cold. They may still be proven correct.

*Lasting immunity, seems to be close enough to correct

Five year olds are almost certainly part of this group, and it's insane to push this vaccine on this group with effectively no demonstrated benefit.

That's not true at all. The risks of vaccination are less than disease for every age group. Even when the risk for healthy kids from COVID drops way down, there are stilll health emergencies and hospitalizations and the vaccine risks are headaches and rashes.

I get that parents may not be scared enough to bother, but vaccine is still demonstrably less risky than disease.

Not to mention, the default position of most parents of kids under 5 is to fear even the most mundane and unlikely dangers, so it'd be odd for them to be so brave about COVID.

The other side of questioning is how do the spike proteins interact with various tissues and where do they end up?

How is this relevant to a risk analysis? The vaccinated either get better outcomes or they don't. The average person doesn't have to do the microbiology to make this decision.

B wrote:

Five year olds are almost certainly part of this group, and it's insane to push this vaccine on this group with effectively no demonstrated benefit.

That's not true at all. The risks of vaccination are less than disease for every age group. Even when the risk for healthy kids from COVID drops way down, there are stilll health emergencies and hospitalizations and the vaccine risks are headaches and rashes.

I get that parents may not be scared enough to bother, but vaccine is still demonstrably less risky than disease.

<snip>

I think this is pre-Omnicron, 2021 thinking. The vaccine does not stop infection or transmission, so it's not vaccine vs infection, it's vaccine + infection vs infection. The reason for minors to take the vaccine is if it reduces net risk and I think the evidence we possess now puts that up for debate in a way it wasn't back 10-12 months ago.

Evidence continues to mount that the vaccine results in milder cases of Covid, which was the actual point of the vaccines from the start. But hey, if you want a potentially dangerous fever for a week instead of a mild cold, don’t get the jabs.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/26/covid-s ... study.html

spike wrote:Evidence continues to mount that the vaccine results in milder cases of Covid, which was the actual point of the vaccines from the start. But hey, if you want a potentially dangerous fever for a week instead of a mild cold, don’t get the jabs.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/26/covid-s ... study.html

Dude, that study is useless:

“The ZOE study did not account for which Covid variant caused the infections, how many infections were first-time Covid experiences, whether a user received booster doses, patient demographic information and the severity of people’s symptoms.”

Plenty of further studies out there on this. I’m sure they’re useless too.